SOCIO 51 – Rural Sociology

1. 3 definitions of Rural Sociology

 Rural sociology is a field of sociology traditionally associated with

the study of social structure and conflict in rural areas although
topical areas such as food and agriculture or natural resource
access transcend traditional rural spatial boundaries (Sociology
Guide 2011).
 Sanderson says that "Rural sociology is the sociology of rural life in
the rural environment".
 Bertand says that in its broadest sense, "Rural sociology is that
study of human relationships in rural environment".

2. The importance of studying Rural Sociology

The importance of rural sociology can be evaluated properly when it

realizes the importance of rural society. Rural society presents a
scientific picture of rural life. Villages are important because they are the
springs to feed urban areas. The importance of rural sociology can be put
under following heads.

Man has an urge to know human relationship and this can be satisfied
through rural sociology.

a) Rural Population is in a Majority:

In almost all the Countries of the world majority or the world resides in
villages in villages. It is truer that over 80% population of India resides in
villages.
b) It Gives Complete Knowledge of Village Life:
Rural sociology gives us complete knowledge of village life. Village is the
first unit of development in country. It is a centre of culture of any
country.
c) Rural Reformation:
Rural reformation is the primary aim of rural sociology. In this context it
helps in following works.
i) Organization:
Village unit which are dis-organized and can be organized through rural
sociology. It improved in the co-ordination of various units and helps in
bringing an improvement in economic, social and health conditions.
 ii) Economic Betterment:
Through detailed study of village problems and observation rural
sociology gives stress on the importance of increasing the quantity and
quality of production. This results in to raising the standard of living.
iii) Provide Technology and Systematic Knowledge and reforms in
Farm Production:
Main occupation of 80% population of village is agriculture. In order to
improving this main occupation of rural people. The earlier researches in
rural sociology was made in agricultural college.
iv) Solutions of Pathological Social Problems:
Rural sociology examines the social pathological problems and it
suggests ways for the improving these problem.
v) Education:
The improvement t, the development of any community depends on its
education. Rural sociology lays stress on education in rural problems.
vi) Planning for Development:
Rural sociology encourages the development of various plans for any
rural development program. The work must be carried out according to
these plans for the progress in rural society.
d) Rural Sociology Development Relationships of Village with
Industry.
e) Rural Sociology is Most Important in Agricultural Countries:
About 90% of world progress is based on agriculture. It is only in
agricultural countries that people realize the importance of rural
sociology. India is mainly agricultural country. For its all sided
development the development of rural sociology is very important.

3. How can Rural Sociology help in the development of communities?

It is clear from the above mentioned definitions that rural sociology

studies the social interactions, institutions and activities and social
changes that take place in the rural society. It studies the rural social
organizations, structure and set up. It provides us that knowledge about
rural social phenomena.

4. The institutional and intellectual origins of Rural Sociology.

Rural sociology has fallen into a chronic state of crisis, distraught, in turns, by
the discipline’s theoretical paucity, its institutional isolation, its estrangement
from the more general discipline of sociology, and, at base, its seeming
irrelevance to modern urban society. From within and without, rural sociology
has been criticized for its scientific irrelevance—i.e., shortsighted focus on the
methodologically rigorous analysis of trivialities (Picou, Wells et al. 1978)—and
ideological misdirection—i.e., its cozy relationship with the land grant complex
and corporate agribusiness interests (Hightower 1972) and lack of a critical
perspective (Falk and Gilbert 1985). And rural sociology has long suffered an
uneasy relationship with general sociology. Friedland (1982) and Falk and
Pinhey (1978) outline rural sociology’s estranged relationship from the broader
discipline, pointing to its institutional insulation and isolation. In an informal
survey of ASA members conducted during his presidency in 1967, Loomis
(1981:59) found that “35 percent of those responding believed the field of
sociology would be better off without the Rural Sociological Society and that it
should be abolished” and that “sizeable proportions of American non-rural
sociologists would not accept a rural sociologist in such status-roles as 1) office
mate, 2) co-author of a book or monograph and 3) chairman or head of your
department or unit.” But certainly the most sustained criticism levied at rural
sociology has been its simple irrelevance in light of declining rural and farm
populations. Half a century ago, Hoffsommer (1960) and Nelson (1969) argued
that these demographic changes left rural sociology without an object of study,
concluding that the discipline no longer had a justification for its independent
existence. This debate was rekindled in the 1980s with a contingent calling for
a reorientation of the discipline to focus not on supposedly obsolete questions
of rural life but instead on agriculture as industrial production (Newby 1980,
Buttel 1988, Hainard 1983). Such criticisms assume that true scientific
knowledge naturally corresponds to reality: rurality, as an object of study,
must really exist in the world, and rural sociology develops naturally from
general sociology in order to encompass the rural dimension. An alternative set
of assumptions underlies criticisms based on rural sociology’s institutional
position—i.e., that institutional position shapes research priorities and the
division of labor in science. Disciplinary divisions arise not because science
maps itself to reality, but because science is divided among various
institutional bases of support. Neither assumption is adequate to explain the
origins of rural sociology: the discipline was neither necessitated by the
structure of reality nor the inevitable product of institutional arrangements.
Rather, rural sociology reflects intellectual divisions that emerged decades
before the Rural Sociological Society was founded: rural sociology adopted a
synchronic view of the rural/urban divide that was fundamentally opposed to
the diachronic view adopted by general sociology. Though the two disciplines
briefly converged, their ontologies were incompatible, conditioning their
institutional split in 1937.