This paper examines conversion from animism to Christianity or Islam in Borneo and from Lutheranism to other denominations in South Australia in an attempt to discern the implications for identity among Kadazan and among Australians of German origin. Taking an historical as well as a micro-anthropological perspective allows us to examine the effect of external hegemony on local religious discourse and the negotiation of religious conversion by individuals-attitudes which are affected by external processes. Belief often has tenuous links to the assumed ‘universal’ doctrines of a faith and it is misleading to expect them to be stronger. Some believers may indeed depend on ‘orthodox’ content and boundaries, while others find doctrinal details interfere with religion as social identity. Conversion for the latter may be more a matter of changing friends and food than of changing ideology. Conversion discourses couched in religious terms may thus be a way of talking about quite different issues, which may be political, economic, or personal in nature. Tension arises from the linkages between the individual, the local group and the state with regard to religious identity. A comparative approach to this process requires an examination of the parameters of the society and state within which the person acts, as well as the actual parameters of the particular belief.
This statement on ‘Sociology and Demography’ is introduced by some personal remarks on how, for some time in his early academic career, the author felt that he was in a no-man’s-land between sociology and demography. Next, it is asked how the relationship between sociology and demography can be described and interpreted. It seems that a few demographers still regard sociology as a somewhat dubious enterprise, which lacks, for instance, the precision which mathematical demographic models claim to possess and precise definitions of its central variables. On the other hand, there are (also only a few) sociologists who do not consider demography to be a real science, but rather a kind of accountancy: population bookkeeping. In the view of these sociologists, demography is neither a social science nor any kind of science at all, because it does not have explanatory theories. One might even maintain that demography is, in fact, ultimately unable to explain population processes, nor prognosticate such processes, beyond solely empirically-based extrapolations. However, an open-minded sociologist cannot overlook the fact that demography has many virtues which will also be referred to in detail here. This statement concludes with a presentation of the results of a quantitative content analysis of articles that appeared in four demographic journals between 1997 and 1999. This content analysis has been carried out in order to give an empirically-based answer to the question regarding the relationship between sociology and demography.