Social norms and cultural factors highly influence the creation of policy. But how can policies consider this influence effectively? In our online workshop on Cultural Demography on April 30, 2025, we address this question by bringing together leading demographers and researchers from the humanities. We discuss how different concepts of migration, diversity, family, or health shape policy decisions and demographic research.
Vanessa di Lego, Professor of Demography at the Faculty of Economics at Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais speaks at this event and kindly answers some of the most central questions in advance.
Why do we need a critical reflection on the culturally informed assumptions in demography and related policies?
First, we need this kind of critical reflection because all assumptions are dated; even though we would like them to be neutral and objective – they are not. They are embedded in a historical time and social space and we must critically review them from time to time. Second, knowledge advancement in various areas of demography is lagging behind and facing serious limits because we are not critically assessing overdue assumptions and asking foundational questions. Our current approach is limited to slow, incremental empirical knowledge, with little room for important breakthroughs in the field. Lastly, societies are growing ever more complex with different sources of inequality and various emerging issues, demanding a revision of concepts and assumptions to move forward in policy making.
What are the most important drivers of changing societal norms and assumptions related to health and mortality?
One important aspect is that the facets of inequality are changing. We have traditionally used socioeconomic status as a key parameter to evaluate inequality, but more complex indicators are appearing, such as stress-related (“weathering effect” – increased mortality risk and health issues among vulnerable population subgroups) and climate change (unequal distribution of resources globally and disproportionate effects on the health of population groups who are faced with vulnerability due to the impacts of climate change).
"What it means to age is changing."
Another key issue is the role of ageing and the definition of age per se which is impacted by how societies view and perceive ageing. Chronological age, despite being an important indicator for measuring ageing and indexing different social security and retirement benefits, is losing its explanatory power and its correlation to various health and mortality indicators. What it means to age is changing, so we should question the most established demographic variable there is.
How does this affect, for instance, public health policy?
This deeply impacts public health policy firstly because we need more comprehensive metrics that account for factors such as weathering and climate change. This will allow for making WHO’s definition of health operational: “health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (WHO). Well-being and not merely the absence of disease needs to be accounted for when discussing health.
The US is a case in point, where the expenditure on health is one of the highest in the world, and yet they are among the high-income countries with the lowest life expectancy. That is because the US mainly invest in technology and curative strategies, instead of improving overall wellbeing and basic health care. It is clear that it is not only a matter of expenditure. Our definition and understanding of health needs to change desperately.
"We forget that health is a broader concept that includes the whole of a person’s livelihood."
Overall, when we think about health it either comes to our minds the image of a hospital or that of an athletic person. Amidst these extremes, we forget that health is a broader concept, that includes the whole of a person’s livelihood, their neighborhood, their family life, their aspirations, their mental flourishing, and their work life. All of these factors are integrated and directly impact public health policy.
Additionally, we need to revise what we consider to be “old” and “young” and question whether those categories still make sense to measure health. A thorough debate is needed on the concept of age and its impact on research agendas and policy.
What challenges do you see in bringing the debate on cultural demography to the domain of policy?
The main challenge is that there is a bit of stigma toward cultural demography and its ability to directly contribute to the policy debate. This is mainly because policymakers often ask for objective, pragmatic solutions and fear that including a more holistic, humanist viewpoint will hinder decision-making processes. But nothing could be farther from the truth. So, the first challenge is to overcome the idea that cultural demography is uniquely relevant for research purposes but with no direct applicability.
"We need to overcome some disciplinary boundaries within demography."
Second, we need to overcome some disciplinary boundaries within demography itself. We have long separated knowledge in an artificial manner where we place scholars that are more “technical” on one side and those who are more “substantive” on the other. This is due to the historical process of specialization of disciplinary fields. Demography, despite its proclaimed interdisciplinarity, did not escape this trend, and we often see a lack of intersection between areas.
For example, research that focuses on devising health metrics often misses the discussion on the definition of health and whether it varies across different cultures. Let us recall that foundational demographers and exponents of formal and mathematical demography like James W. Vaupel and indirect techniques like William Brass were always worried about how their formal results aligned in practice with policymaking and how they were susceptible to cultural issues. Over time, we lost this ability to have research that could bridge technicality with policy and cultural demography.
"It is long overdue that we unite efforts to promote more effective policy and address critical population inequalities."
Building this bridge takes a lot of effort, but we can no longer afford to avoid this. It is long overdue that we unite efforts to promote more effective policy and address critical population inequalities. By creating initiatives where we put together different scholars and policymakers, very much like the workshop on Cultural Demography, we can overcome the resistance and instead of the artificial divide between academics on one side and policymakers on the other, we can unite interests in name of tackling important societal challenges of the 21st Century.
How can policymakers benefit from a humanities perspective in practice?
It is important to clarify what it means to take on a “humanities perspective”. Adopting the humanities viewpoint essentially means not taking ingrained concepts for granted. Humanities bring in a critical perspective at the foundation, leaving no corner untouched. They ask big questions while at the same time being meticulous with the conceptual framework.
This is important for policymakers because there is no single, simple solution to the complex plethora of human issues and we have for too long taken for granted ingrained concepts that are preventing us from moving forward. For example, the challenges associated with ageing societies still rely on chronological age as the main metric for ageing. One of the most “objective” and solid variables in demographic knowledge is clearly becoming a less robust indicator of what it means to age.
"Creative strategies often come from the intersection of science and humanities."
Moreover, alternative and creative strategies often come from the intersection of science and humanities. Let us recall that throughout history, some of the greatest innovations in science were intertwined with humanities; after all, Charles Darwin used Renaissance art for inspiration and Albert Einstein found in music some of the routes to his problem solving. Humanities bring a sensibility to our result-oriented mindset and remind us that at the very core of these issues and goals of policymaking are precisely human beings.