6 - The Intensification Debate after Boserup

Summary

In this chapter I hope to put some real-world flesh on the bare theoretical bones of Malthus and Boserup, especially the latter. Although Malthus and Boserup both drew upon empirical evidence in their writings, neither did the sort of long-term fieldwork on traditional farming that would satisfy a modern-day anthropologist. I have no wish or warrant to disparage their efforts at theoretical modeling – but the comparison of model to reality is also important, not only to test the model for possible rejection but to suggest ways in which it might be improved or extended. It is worth emphasizing, however, that there is nothing to be gained by attempting to make any model perfectly realistic, even if that were possible, for to do so would be to make it too complicated to understand and would destroy its generalizability. Even as we complicate our model, we should still seek simplicity and generality: we still want the model to be a model. If complications are to be added, they should be important complications – things that significantly increase our understanding, not just things that improve the fit of the model ex post facto to a particular set of field observations or that merely satisfy an esthetic preference for holism or complexity.