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.