United States
Early Beginnings and Connection with Regular Sociology
Rural sociology has been described as a "truly American invention," [2] as it is a field of study given that its origins are intertwined with specific U.S. historical events and policy interventions. [3] Unlike the more philosophical and theoretical orientation of early general sociology in Europe, American rural sociology emerged with a distinctly applied, social-problems approach. Its primary aim was an applied one of "improving the life and well-being of rural people." [4]
However, if rural sociology is defined as a "spatially oriented" sociology, as it is by many scholars, [3] its intellectual lineage is closely connected to the foundational concerns of the broader discipline, since early European sociologists were preoccupied with the spatial and social transformations brought on by industrialization and urbanization. The intellectual frameworks they developed to understand the shift from traditional to modern life were later relied on by some early American rural sociologists.
One such framework was Ferdinand Tönnies' Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. Tonnies distinguished between Gemeinschaft (community), characterized by intimate, private, and enduring social ties based on kinship and neighborhood, and Gesellschaft (society), marked by impersonal, mechanical, and fleeting relationships typical of urban capitalism. [5] This dichotomy provided a lens for analyzing what was seen as the "great change" occurring in American rural communities as they became more integrated into the national economy and culture. [6] Émile Durkheim's analysis of the division of labor in "complex" societies offered another theoretical perspective for understanding the transformation of rural America, [7] as did Georg Simmel's exploration of the psychological adaptations required by urban life, contrasting the rational, detached, and blase attitude of the city dweller with the emotion-based relationships of rural existence. [8]
As American rural sociology developed, it reversed some of the normative assessments of these European thinkers. While theorists like Simmel were concerned with the problems of urbanity, American scholars, influenced by events like the Country Life Commission, [9] began to focus on the deficiencies and "problems" of rural life that were seen as distinct from those of the city.
Furthermore, some of the most rigorous pioneering empirical work in American sociology was conducted in rural areas by W.E.B. Du Bois. Long before the field was formally institutionalized, Du Bois undertook detailed, data-driven studies of rural Black communities. His 1898 study of Farmville, Virginia, for example, involved in-person surveys and statistical analysis of family structures, economics, education, and group life. [10] Similarly, his research on the "Black Belt" regions systematically documented the socioeconomic conditions of rural African Americans, interpreting findings on land tenure, the tenant system, and social organization within the specific context of Southern rurality. [11]
Land Grant Universities, Agricultural Experiment Stations, Colleges of Agriculture
While European sociological thought provided a conceptual groundwork, American rural sociology's institutional base was forged through a series of landmark federal acts aimed at transforming American agriculture and rural life, starting with the Morrill Act of 1862. [12] Signed by President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and enacted decades before what is largely regarded the “birth” of American rural sociology, the Morrill Act established the public university infrastructure for the study of "agriculture and the mechanical arts". [3] The act granted federal land to each state to build public colleges, extending higher education beyond the elite private institutions of the time. This provided the institutional home where rural sociology would later take root.
However, the common narrative of the Morrill Act providing "free land" for education obscures a more complex and troubling history. As recent scholarship has detailed, the act initiated a massive wealth transfer by converting nearly 11 million of land expropriated from indigenous nations into seed money for these colleges. This land was acquired from almost 250 distinct tribes and communities through "over 160 violence-backed land cessions." [13]
Following the Morrill Act, a series of other federal laws expanded the mission and resources of the land-grant system, further solidifying the institutional environment for rural sociology. In 1887, the Hatch Act [14] established Agricultural Experiment Stations in each state, which created a formal research infrastructure and opened federal funding pipelines for agricultural science. This emphasis on research provided a model and, eventually, resources for rural sociological inquiry. Later, influenced by the recommendation of the Country Life Commission, the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 [15] institutionalized public outreach by creating the Cooperative Extension Service. [16] This mandate to bring university research directly to the public cemented the applied focus of the land-grant mission and provided a natural avenue for the dissemination of rural sociological findings.
The final act to institutionalize American Rural Sociology was the Purnell Act of 1925. Considered a major turning point for the discipline, it formally recognized rural sociology as a distinct field of study and, for the first time, provided dedicated federal funds specifically for rural sociological research and teaching within the land-grant colleges. [4] The Purnell Act led to a significant increase in both the quantity and quality of rural sociological studies, marking the transition of the field into a new, more professionalized era. [4] It also established agricultural economics as a parallel field, leading to an academic division of labor where economists focused on the farm economy, and rural sociologists studied community, family, and social organization. [3]
The Country Life Commission
Purpose
The "birth" of rural sociology as a formal area of inquiry in the United States is largely attributed to the work of the Commission on Country Life, appointed by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1908. This event emerged from a complex political and economic climate and fundamentally shaped the direction of the new discipline.
The late 19th century was a period of hardship for American farmers, who faced a contracting money supply and increasing economic domination by railroad, finance, and industrial trusts. This distress fueled the Populist movement, which identified the farmers' problems as primarily economic and sought structural reforms to curb the power of monopolies. [16] However, President Theodore Roosevelt viewed the challenges facing rural America as social and moral, not just economic. His goal was to "preserve the goodness of country life at a moral level while making agriculture efficient and constructing social institutions to prepare farmers for a modern life in which monopoly capitalism was a given." [16]
This perspective drove the creation of the Country Life Commission. Roosevelt's charge was to investigate the "deficiencies" of country life and recommend measures for its betterment, with a focus on improving "human interests" and making rural living more dignified and satisfying. [17]
Methods and Findings
The Country Life Commission was Chaired by Liberty Hyde Bailey, the Dean of the New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell University. To assess the rural condition, they distributed over 500,000 questionnaires and received more than 115,000 responses from rural people across the country. The Commission also conducted 30 public hearings in 29 states, gathering direct testimony on the state of country life. [9]
The final report, submitted in 1909, identified several key "deficiencies" in country life. While there were some technical concerns addressed, like the widespread practice of "exploitational" farming that mined the soil's fertility, most of the problems identified were social. For example, rural schools were found to be in a "state of arrested development," failing to prepare children for farm life, while churches were often unable to serve as effective community leaders. Other problems included inadequate roads; the isolation, monotony, and excessive labor that characterized the lives of many women on farms; the need for better organization among farmers for both economic and social purposes; and poor sanitation and a lack of access to healthcare in the open country. [9]
Recommendations and Impact
The Commission's report made several key recommendations that had a lasting impact on both federal policy and the development of rural sociology. Among these were a nationalized cooperative extension service to bring the knowledge of the agricultural colleges directly to farmers and surveys of rural conditions to create a detailed inventory of the nation's agricultural resources and social conditions.
These recommendations directly influenced the passage of the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, [15] which created the Cooperative Extension Service, and the Purnell Act of 1925, which provided federal funding for rural sociological research. [16] The report's call for local surveys also inspired thousands of "rural social surveys" conducted by church groups and nascent university departments. Much of the early dissertation research in the field, such as the community studies at Columbia University, followed the survey model advocated by the commission. [4] In this sense, the commission's work truly laid the foundation for rural sociology as an applied, research-based discipline.
Critiques
Despite its influence, the Country Life Commission has been subject to criticism. First, the commission itself included no working farmers, tenants, or women, but it offered extensive advice and analysis of the problems faced by these very groups. [16] [18] It has also been argued that many farmers resented the "uplift" tone of the commission, arguing that their problems were economic, not moral. They felt the commission was condescending, focusing on supposed "social deficits" like inadequate schools and a lack of "ideals," rather than on the structural economic issues of prices, credit, and corporate power that the Populists had highlighted. [16] [17] One spokesman for the National Grange retorted that what farmers needed was not "betterment" but a "square deal." [16] The commission's report is also notable for its failure to address the unique conditions of African American farmers in the South. This omission is particularly striking given that the commission's chairman, Liberty Hyde Bailey, had corresponded with W.E.B. Du Bois, who was already conducting pioneering studies of rural Black communities. Du Bois later expressed his disappointment to Bailey that the commission had overlooked the issue of race. [19]
Key Works and Practitioners in Early American Sociology
The period following the 1908 Country Life Commission was marked by a rise in research activity and the emergence of early prominent figures in American rural sociology. Because a constant theme of the Commission was the need for thorough study of rural conditions, its report inspired a wave of "rural social surveys" [16] conducted by early rural sociologists.
Among the first research during this period were three doctoral dissertations from Columbia University, which were completed under the guidance of Professor Franklin H. Giddings, who encouraged empirical work. These intensive community studies were noted for their scientific sophistication for the era, when most sociological research was still theoretical. [4] These included An American Town by James Michel Williams, [20] Quaker Hill by Warren H. Wilson, [21] and Hoosier Village by Newell Sims. [22]
Additionally, due to the Commission's both governmental and non-governmental recommendations, early rural sociologists often played in a role in multiple professional spheres, holding positions in land-grant universities, the federal government, and the ASA. One example of an early rural sociologist with multiple roles is Charles Galpin. In 1915, Galpin published The Social Anatomy of An Agricultural Community, which introduced methods for defining and mapping the boundaries of a "rurban" community by tracing the trade and social areas of town centers. This technique became a standard in the field. [4] [16] In his analysis, Galpin also translated the abstract European concepts that provide a foundation for rural sociology like Tönnies' Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft into a practical, American context, though this hasn't been discussed much. [4] In 1919, he was appointed to head the USDA's new Division of Farm Population and Rural Life. From this position, he stimulated research nationwide by providing small but important grants to scholars at various colleges. [3] [4]
Carl C. Taylor is another rural sociologist whose career shows the interconnectedness of early rural sociology's institutional homes. After Galpin, he served as head of the USDA's Division of Farm Population and Rural Life and was elected president of both the RSS in 1939 and the ASA in 1946. [3] Taylor was also a committed advocate for social justice, focusing on the plight of farm laborers and other marginalized groups. His activism had personal consequences; after challenging segregationist policies, his position at North Carolina State was eliminated by the university's board of trustees. [3]
Re-organization
By the mid-1930s, rural sociology had grown into a large and distinct field of study. This culminated in 1937, when the Rural Section of the American Sociological Association (ASA) voted to form its own separate professional organization, the Rural Sociological Society (RSS). [3]
Although rural sociology has been challenged for being less theoretical than the parent discipline it split from, rural sociology had carved out its own intellectual framework long before. [23] While it borrowed core concepts from early American sociology, the subfield was defined by its highly applied nature. Its primary purpose was not simply to study rural life, but to actively solve what was widely termed the "farm problem." [16]
This problem-solving orientation was heavily shaped by the legacy of the Country Life Commission [9] and the field's main funding sources, the USDA and Protestant churches. This framework tended to define the "farm problem" as a result of deficiencies in individual personalities and local social institutions like schools and churches. [16] [23] The focus was on correcting these perceived social deficits through education and community uplift, which created an applied paradigm that increasingly set rural sociology apart from the more theoretical concerns of general sociology. [23]
Still, the discipline did not remain static after its formation. By the 1970s, rural sociology faced what some called a crisis. Due to demographic changes, the "rural-urban continuum" model many rural sociologists relied on had lost its explanatory power, and critics like Jim Hightower argued that the land-grant complex, including rural sociology, had become too aligned with corporate agribusiness and neglected the family farmers and rural communities it was created to serve. In response, a "new rural sociology" emerged, which recentered the discipline on a critical sociology of agriculture. [24] This new approach moved away from a focus on community deficits and instead began to analyze the structural transformations in agriculture, the political economy of the food system, and the social consequences of agricultural change, much like the Populists encouraged during the years of the Country Life Commission. [3] [24]
This pattern of adaptation and reorganization continues today. As the structure of agriculture and rural life has evolved, so too have the university departments that house rural sociology. In many foundational land-grant universities, the freestanding "Department of Rural Sociology" has been renamed or merged to reflect new intellectual currents and institutional priorities. These changes often signal a broadening of scope from a sole focus on U.S. agriculture to include community and environmental issues, international development, and a more integrated approach with other social sciences.
Examples of this ongoing restructuring include:
- University of Wisconsin–Madison: The Department of Rural Sociology was renamed the Department of Community & Environmental Sociology. [25]
- Cornell University: The department was first renamed Development Sociology [26] and later reorganized into the broader Department of Global Development. [27]
- University of Kentucky: Rural Sociology was combined with other programs to form the Department of Community & Leadership Development. [28]
- University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign: Rural sociology faculty were merged into a new Department of Human and Community Development. [29]
- The Ohio State University: Rural Sociology faculty were merged into the School of Environment and Natural Resources, where the field is now often framed as Environmental & Natural Resources Sociology. [30]
- University of Missouri: The department was reorganized, and rural sociology faculty now sit within the Division of Applied Social Sciences. [31]
Europe
History of European Rural Sociology
Though Europe included more agricultural land than the United States at the turn of the twentieth century, European rural sociology did not develop as an academic field until after World War II. [32] This is partially explained by the highly philosophical nature of pre-war European sociology: the field's focus on broad scale generalizations largely erased rural-urban difference. European sociology in the early 1900s was also almost entirely siloed within European academia, with little cross Atlantic pollination. Practical applications and research methods employed by Land Grant Colleges, [33] the Country Life Commission, [34] and early American rural sociologists like W.B. Du Bois [35] were also well beyond the strictly academic sphere in which European sociologists resided. [36] The concerns of rural people, farmers, and agriculture were simply outside the attention of most European sociologists at that time.
Post war, European academic institutions began to understand that "there was something useful in the activities of those queer people who called themselves rural sociologists." [37] Stronger relationships between American and European sociologists developed in the late 1940s, which was reflected in the Marshall Plan of 1948. [38] The Plan formalized the United States as a source of information and economic guidance for postwar Europe and allocated the equivalent of 100B in 2023 dollars to help Europe rebuild, especially its food systems and machinery needed to expand agricultural production. [39] With this aid came an infusion of empirical rural research designed to promote rural growth and agricultural success.
The United States' influence was reflected in pedagogical changes to include rural sociological methods pioneered by American rural sociologists, particularly statistics. Education met increased government demand for sociological expertise brought by European reconstruction and a growing understanding of the importance of sociological understanding to policy making. [40]
While the mid 20th century saw rural sociological research in most European nations driven by government need, rural sociology as an academic discipline was rare in general universities. [41] This was due in part to the lack of university agricultural programs but also a general resistance to applied sciences. [42] Where rural sociology classes did exist, an emerging divergence from the American model presented itself in European's treatment of culture as an independent variable in rural sociological research. [43] E.W. Hofstree, by all accounts the grandfather of European rural sociology, observed why cultural difference was of particular importance in Europe:
"In Europe, not only between the different nations but also between an infinite number of regional and even local groups within every country, there are differences in culture, which influence the behaviour of those groups considerably.... it will take a long time before Europe will show the same basic culture everywhere, and I must say that, from a personal point of view, I hope that it will take a very long time." [44]
This departure from America's more homogenous treatment of rural culture [45] grounded the field in methods that require community-level planning before technical change or community development can occur. [46] These differences somewhat receded the 1950s and 60s, when European rural sociology shifted away from sociocultural study and towards the facilitation of modern agricultural practices. [47] This shift was driven by government interest in policy change as well as the perception that "backward [European] farmers [are] backward not only socially and culturally, but also economically and technically." [48]
After relatively united beginnings, European rural sociology faced internal disagreements about pedagogy, focus, and direction in the 1970s. [49] Many felt the field had strayed too far from its sociocultural roots, become too empirical, and overly aligned with government. [43] Critics were particularly concerned by the field's seeming disregard for consideration of social interaction and culture, and encouraged a return to earlier modes of rural sociology that centered community structure. Ultimately, the field regained it balance between empiricism and sociocultural and institutional study in the 1980s. [47] Considerations of European rural sociologists have since expanded to include food systems, rural-urban interface, urban poverty, and sustainable development. [43]
Outside formal academic programs, rural sociology organizations and journals were founded in the 1950s, including Sociologia Ruralis—which still publishes today— and the European Society for Rural Sociology (ESRS). Founded in 1957 by E.W. Hofstee, the ESRS welcomes international membership, including professional rural sociologists as well as those interested in their work and holds regular congresses that promote cross boundary collaboration and the growth of rural sociology research. [44] Its liberal internationalism and inclusivity makes it a unique interdisciplinary organization that stands somewhat apart from academia and splits its focus between theory and applied research. [50] For example, in 2023, the ESRS's congress included working groups on diverse topics, including rural migration, population change, place making, mental health, and the role of arts and culture in sustaining rural spaces. [51]
Rural spaces in Europe
The relevance of Rural Sociology to the European continent is undeniable. 44% of the EU's total land is considered "rural," with the Union's newest countries including even higher percentages (upwards of 50%). More than half the population of several member states, including Slovenia, Romania, and Ireland, live in rural spaces. [52]
While the definition of rurality in Europe has traditionally included all "non-urban" spaces academia's definition of the term is in flux as more residents move to liminal spaces (sub-urban, peri-urban, ex-urban). [43] Unlike the United States, [53] European populations in urban areas are shrinking, with a noted uptick in migration back to rural and intermediary spaces over the last two decades, and especially since the end of COVID-19 lockdowns. [52] These increasingly populated rural spaces are being met with greater economic development and tourism in the last two decades. [54] As of 2020, 44% of Europe's population was categorized as "intermediate", and only 12% reside in urban space. [52]
Despite these changes, focus on rural issues has been largely siloed within rural sociology programs. Between 2010 and 2019, the Council for European Studies hosted only one panel on Rural issues (Farm, Form, Family: Agriculture in Europe). [55] There are signs this may be changing. Europe Now, a widely distributed mainstream academic journal, recently devoting an entire article to the intersection of European and rural studies, including articles challenging the continued applicability of the urban-rural dichotomy, land access, food, resource use disparity, and culture. This move towards interdisciplinarity reflects the human and topographical geography of Europe writ large, and foreshadows possible integration of rural sociology into mainstream academic discourse. [56]
Australia and New Zealand
Rural sociology in Australia and New Zealand had a much slower start than its American and European counterparts. This is due to the lack of land grant universities which heavily invested in the discipline in the United States and a lack of interest in studying the "peasant problem" as was the case in Europe. [57] The earliest cases of studying rural life in Australia were conducted by anthropologists and social psychologists [58] in the 1950s, with sociologists taking on the subject beginning in the 1990s. [59] [60] [61]
Attempts were made between 1935–1957 to bring an American style rural sociology to New Zealand. The New Zealand department of Agriculture, funded by the Carnegie Foundation, tasked Otago Universities economist W.T. Doig with surveying living standards in rural New Zealand in 1935. [62] The creation and funding of such a report mirrors America's Commission on Country Life. Additional Carnegie funds were granted to the Shelly Group who conducted the countries first major sociological community study and endorsed the creation of land grant institutions in New Zealand. Ultimately, these attempts to institutionalize rural sociology in New Zealand failed due to the departments lack of organization and failure to publish impactful survey results. [62]
Early studies of rural sociology in the region focused on the influence of transnational agribusiness, technological changes effects on rural communities, the restructuring of rural environments, and social causes of environmental degradation. [57] By the mid-2000s researchers focus had shifted towards broader sociological questions and variables such as the construction and framing of gender among Australian and New Zealand farmers, [63] governmental policies impacts on rural spaces and studies, [64] and rural safety and crime. [65] Scholars have additionally focused on rural residents, particularly farmers, opinions of environmentalism and environmental policies in recent years. [66] Such a focus is particularly salient in New Zealand where livestock farming has historically been a major national source of income and environmental policies have become increasingly strict in recent years.
Though early scholars of rural sociology in Australasia tout it for its critical lens, publications in the 2010s and 2020s have accused the discipline of omitting the experiences of indigenous peoples, [67] failing to account for class based differences, [68] discounting the importance of race and ethnicity, [69] and only recently incorporating in studies of women in rural places. [70] [71] Work on rural women in the region has often incorporated white feminism and used a colonial lens. As a response, scholars, particularly in New Zealand (Aotearoa), have begun to focus on the experiences of the Māori in rural areas, [72] [73] [74] while likewise shifting from solving issues of farmers to rural residents. A few scholars in Australia have likewise begun to incorporate the experiences of Aboriginal peoples into their scholarship, some of whom are indigenous scholars themselves. [75] [76] [67] In particular, Chelsea Joanne Ruth Watego, [77] and Aileen Moreton-Robinson [78] have risen to prominence in recent years, though the later two identify more as indigenous feminist scholars then rural sociology scholars.
Today many prominent scholars do not belong to a department of rural sociology, but rather related disciplines such as geography in the case of Ruth Liepins, Indigenous Studies in the case of Sandy O'Sullivan, [79] or Arts, Education, and Law in the case of Barbara Pini. [80] Today courses in the discipline can be studied at a small number of institutions: University of Western Sydney (Hawkesbury), Central Queensland University, Charles Sturt University, and the Department of Agriculture at the University of Queensland. Additionally, academics who publish in the discipline, such as Ann Pomeroy, Barbara Pini, Laura Rodriguez Castro, and Ruth Liepins, can be found at University of Otago, Griffith University, and Deakin University.
Latin America
The beginnings of rural sociology's development in Latin America began in 1934 under the research of Commission of Cuban Affairs of the Foreign Policy Association member Carle C. Zimmerman. [81] As a North American rural sociologist, he conducted a study in Cuba comparing the wealth and conditions of cane workers to that of colonizers. The results of this work ultimately resulting in a demand of rural life studies expanding to Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico largely for the sake of materials to fuel the quality of the United States' performance in World War II.
In the midst of the war, other rural sociologists were exploring the rural life of other countries. Dr. Olen Leonard assisted in the establishment of Tingo Maria's Agricultural Extension program, the study of which was published in 1943. [82] While in Ecuador, Leonard attempted to establish a similar program in the Hacienda Pichalinqui region by identifying how locals gathered, the value and meaning of possessions, and the attitudes of those in the area. His work in Guatemala consisted of assisting public officials develop a long-term plan for agricultural education; in Nicaragua he participated in the development of a general and agricultural population census. Glen Taggert (El Salvador), Dr. Carl Taylor (Argentina), and T. Lynn Smith (Colombia, El Salvador) all also took part in advancing Agricultural Extension programs in Latin America. Taylor's work in particular inspired the Argentinian Institute of Agriculture to create the Institute of Rural life.
The Caracas Regional Seminar on Education in Latin America of 1948 established fundamental education as a system that would be "specifically attending to native groups in such a way as to promote their all-around development in accordance with their best cultural traditions, economic needs, and social idiosyncrasies". [83] This establishment catapulted a pilot project that would be explicitly tailored to the education of adults in rural communities. By the Fourth Inter-American Agricultural Conference in 1950 Montevideo, the United Nations departments of Food and Agriculture Organization and the International Labour Organization were given the responsibility of becoming more involved in those activities that would benefit rural welfare. As a combined force, they were also tasked with requesting that studies be performed on conditions of social, economic, and spiritual nature as they pertain to the well-being of rural communities.
There are five ways in which Latin American rural communities are differentiated from North American rural communities in 1958: [84]
- Village Community: Rural communities in Latin America are much more likely to be established around village communities. This type of community showed the highest prevalence in Mexico, Guatemala, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. This is due to these countries having stronger aboriginal elements where the villagers own the land.
- Church and State: At this point in time, Latin American countries were reported as having a government with stronger ties to religion, ideals and decision-making processes falling in line exactly with the church parish. In this same vein, municipalities are drawn almost exclusively to account for the social and economic factors of the region in an attempt to create a more natural social environment.
- Social Organization: The rural experience of Latin America is much more closely knit. Rather than being familiar or having some sort of affiliation with the entirety of the area in an "everyone knows everyone" manner, the social organization here reflects a more contained approach to relationships. Social circles extend strictly to those with which they have daily interactions, hardly straying outside. This approach means that if these few relationships do not produce a particular set of goods, then the group must go without.
- Trade and Commerce: Keeping in line with the established relationship between church and state, the portions of a rural area that would be considered the trade center in North America are referred to as "ceremonial" or "church" centers. Bartering was the dominating form of economics among Latin American countries.
- Stable Environment: Latin American rural communities did not face much in the way of threats against the sustainability of their lifestyles. Hardly any boundaries—administrative, legal, judicial, fiscal, or otherwise—obstructed the ability to maintain natural rural areas and the lives of the residents settled in them.
Mobilized peasants of the 1960s and 1970 attracted scholars to perform more in-depth studies on Latin American rural life. [85] Conflict struck between the Marxist lean of social science and neoclassical domination of economics. Rural class structure, agrarian reform, and capitalist modes of production were all topics of discussion as the peasantry navigated their revolutionary status. The turn of the 21st century introduced the concept of "new rurality". The shaping of Latin America's rural economy had finally become entrenched in the newfound neoliberalism and globalization of the 1980s and 90s. Researchers claim that this has been expressed through embracing non-farm activities, feminization of rural work, growing rural-urban relations, and migration and remittances. Though some argue that no change has occurred because social ills (e.g., poverty, social injustice) prevail.
Asia
Early studies of rural sociology in Asia appear to first occur and be written about in the mid 19th and early 20th century, though the records of ancient thought on the matter of agriculturalists and peasants in rural spaces appear much earlier. [86] [87] India was a focus of many sociological studies in rural areas, with Henry S. Maine writing Ancient Law (1861), which studied some elements of Indian rural society. [88] [89] [86] Similar texts from around that time were written by those with connections to the East India Company. [86] [88] Holt Mackenzie and Charles Metcalf both wrote about village communities and village life in India, and the East India Company published general reports on Indian territories like, for example, the Punjab territories from the mid 19th and early 20th century. [90] [91] [92] [93]
India, however, was not the only focus of early sociological literature on rural life in Asia. A Systematic Source Book in Rural Sociology by Pitirim A. Sorokin was published in 1930 and focused on European, Asiatic, and American literature and thought on rural sociology . [87] Sorokin outlines 'Ancient Oriental Sources' from Assyro-Babylonia, China, Egypt, India, Japan, Palestine, and Persia. [87] He argues that caste is important for understanding agriculture in ancient India, and that the government and its structure can be used to explain the importance of agriculture and rural life in China. [87] Sorokin makes these conclusions by drawing on records from these countries, which indicate study and thought about the sociology of early agriculturalists and those in rural areas. The excerpts and records used "give the ancient evaluation of agriculture as being a means of group subsistence as compared with other occupations; they reflect the society's view as to the relative rank of the cultivators in the social order; they depict ancient opinions concerning agriculture as an economic basis for the moral and social well-being of a society, as well as sever similar points. In addition, they depict in detail various laws concerning agriculture, much of the technique of ancient agriculture, the forms of ownership and possession of land, and, finally, the numerous rites and ceremonies connected with agriculture". [94]
It was not until later, often in the mid to late 20th century, that rural sociology as a systematic branch of academia and study appeared in Asia (for example, see Ralph B. Brown's work).
India
In India, the rise of rural sociology was, in part, due to the country's gaining of their independence in 1947. [95] [96] The government needed rural sociology to aid in its understanding of "the problems of extreme poverty of the people, overpopulation and general under-development of the economy". [97] Studies focused on the changing nature of the role of towns, rural-urban actions since independence, rural change and what might be driving it, demographic research, rural development, and rural economies. [95] In 1953, A. R. Desai published the first edition of Rural Sociology in India. [98] The foreword of the book underlines the importance of understanding each aspect of society so that the Indian government could create "a uniform line of action for building a better social milieu". [98] Due to the popularity of Desai's work and the expansion of the study of rural sociology in India, second and third editions of Rural Sociology in India were published in 1959 and 1961 to better represent new study foci and methodologies in this emerging field. [98] Other popular researchers during the mid-20th century include S. C. Dube, M. N. Srinivas, and D. N. Majumdar. [99] In India, rural sociological research and policies continued to be connected into the 21st century. [99]
China
Before 1949, China's rural sociological studies focused primarily on the rural class and power structures. [100] Community studies by prominent sociologists like Fei Xiatong (Fei Hsiao-tung) were influenced by American rural sociology and were also popular in mid and early 20th century China. [101] All sociology programs in China were terminated in 1952 by Mao Zedong. [102] It was not until 1979, when the Chinese Sociological Association was reestablished, that sociological studies in China began again. [102] Influences from American sociologists were welcomed during this time and continued to impact Chinese rural sociological studies into the 21st century. [102] However, there have been pushes from contemporary Chinese rural sociologists like Yang Min and Xu Yong to reconsider this western lens. [103]
Japan
Though rural sociology is thought to have an earlier origin in Japan than in the United States, it was not until the end of the 1930s that sociologists in the country were introduced to the methods and viewpoints of American rural sociologists. [104] This introduction was primarily made by Eitarō Suzuki, who is considered one of the pioneers of Japanese rural and urban sociology. [104] [105] Other prominent Japanese rural sociological researchers of this time include Kitano Seiichi, Kizaemon Ariga, and Yozo Yamamoto. [104] [106] [107] The rapid decrease in farming populations in Japan in 1955 shifted the focus of rural sociological studies in the mid 20th century to second jobs among farmers, farming cooperative associations, and the impact of community development policies on villages. Hiroyuki Torigoe of Kwansai Gakuin University was the leader of the Asian Rural Sociology working group, which was established in 1992 and later led to the development of the Asian Rural Sociological Society. [108]
