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.