Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
REVIEWS Further
Quick links to online content
THE SOCIOLOGY OF
AGRICULTURE: Toward a New
Rural Sociology
Access provided by Laurentian University on 11/24/14. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:67-81. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Howard Newby
Abstract
Rural sociology has recently developed a new research agenda focussing on
the sociology of agriculture. This has led to a revitalization of a field of
research that had lost its way since the decline of the rural-urban continuum
in the 1960s. The crisis that occurred 'in rural sociology in the 1970s is
discussed in relation both to this theoretical vacuum and to the failure to
achieve a policy impact. It is argued that the sociology of agriculture offers
a potentially successful means of overcoming this crisis, but some of the
difficulties in utilizing this approach .are also discussed. Observations are
made on the institutional setting of rural sociology and on whether it is
compatible with the development of a critical sociology of agriculture.
INTRODUCTION
Rural sociology! is not a branch of the discipline that is noted for its lively
theoretical debate and intellectual innovation. In the United States it has
tHere "rural sociology" refers to the sociology of geographical areas whose population density
is low. However, this conceptual definition fails to convey the fact that rural sociology also
refers to a set of institutions-university departments, journals, societies, textbooks, research
teams, teaching activities, etc. In the latter sense "rural sociology" does not include such areas
as the sociology of development, peasant studies, etc, which are included in the conceptual
definition. Such exclusion is conceptually indefensible, but in this review-for reasons of
expediency due to constraints on space--I have followed convention, applying "rural sociol
ogy" to advanced industrial society only. Here I review rural sociology in the United States
only. Elsewhere, especially in Europe, rural sociology emerged from very different intellectual
concerns and manifests a very different institutional structure (see Newby 1980, 1982a).
67
0360-0572/83/0815-0067$02.00
68 NEWBY
traditionally been awarded low status within the sociological profession and
assigned a somewhat peripheral role. This has been reinforced by the sepa
rate institutional development of rural sociology and its uneasy and uncer
tain relationship with 'general' sociology. At some times rural sociologists
have asserted the distinctive and unique features of their field, while at
others they have acknowledged that the separation is entirely arbitrary and
intellectually irrelevant. In either case little has been achieved to alter the
prevailing image of rural sociology as a quiet backwater characterized by
shallow empiricism and theoretical conservatism. It may therefore come as
a surprise to some that rural sociology is currently undergoing a consider
able revitalization, having overcome a number of difficulties over the past
Access provided by Laurentian University on 11/24/14. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:67-81. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
decade.
There are now signs that rural sociology has set itself a research agenda
for the 1980s that is theoretically fruitful, substantively innovative and,
above all, relevant for the social problems currently facing rural society.
This is a considerable contrast with the position of, say, ten years ago (see,
for example, Copp 1972). This new research agenda is centered around "the
sociology of agriculture," sometimes referred to as the "new rural sociol
ogy" (Sevilla-Guzman 1981). This represents not merely a branch of occu
pational sociology, but a new approach to rural sociology, one more
theoretically informed, holistic, critical, and radical than the conventional
rural sociology that preceded it. In this review I concentrate on the origins
and development of "the sociology of agriculture" and do not, therefore,
attempt to be comprehensive. It should be emphasized that the sociology
of agriculture is certainly not coterminous with rural sociology and that,
despite the rapid increase in interest in the sociology of agriculture in recent
years in the United States, it is doubtful whether a majority of rural sociolo
gists would subscribe to this approach. Nevertheless as a potentially excit
ing development it is worthy of wider attention. Elsewhere I have offered
broader reviews of the field which may be regarded as complementary to
this one (Newby 1980, 1982a,b).
ORIGINS
The sociology of agriculture begins from the premise that the causes of
much of the social change in rural America lie in the structural transforma
tions occurring in agriculture. To those outside rural sociology this may
seem unexceptionable, but rural sociologists have traditionally paid little
attention to agricultural production (with one major exception, the diffu
sion of technological innovations, considered below), preferring instead to
chart the consumption-related aspects of rural society and its institutions.
The reasons for this lie partly in how rural sociologists have defined their
RURAL SOCIOLOGY 69
tualized? The reverse migration of urban dwellers into rural areas, which
gathered pace during the 1960s, meant that the rural and urban populations
could no longer be easily defined, socially or culturally. The traditional
economic activities of rural areas-agriculture, forestry, extractive indus
tries-no longer supported most of the rural population. What was "rural"
in sociological terms, and what was the proper subject matter of rural
sociology (see Kaufman 1963; Wakeley 1967)? The widespread discussion
of definitional issues did not interfere unduly with continuing research in
the field. Rather it was an irritant-a factor that contributed to the continu
ing lack of confidence in the scientific status of rural sociology, but which
was firmly contained within the 'private troubles' of the field.
A more pervasive response to the decline of the concept of a rural-urban
continuum appeared at first to be much more constructive. In the absence
of any general theory of rural society, rural sociologists attempted to in
crease the scientific character of their field by emphasizing methodological
rigor. Theory could be reconstituted piecemeal, it was believed, on the basis
of rigorous scientific enquiry allied, for the most part, to sophisticated
quantitative data analysis. In many respects this was a necessary step. Rural
sociology had not been noted for its methodological sophistication and there
was plenty of room for improvement (Sewell 1950, 1965). The achievements
in this regard were impressive. From the 1960s onwards rural sociology
conformed much more closely in its research style to general sociology in
the United States, and an all-around increase in methodological expertise
was noticeable (Stokes & Miller 1975). Unfortunately, however, researchers
tended to become intoxicated by this success. A certain methodological
approach-positivist, inductive, quantitative-became an end in itself
rather than merely a tool of analysis. Here, undoubtedly, the informal
pressures exerted by rural sociology's institutional setting played their part,
as did the tendencies in general sociology (Newby 1982b). By the early
1970s, however, the realization Was growing that methodological rigor was
not an end in itself, still less a factor that would lead to the reconstruction
of a theory of rural society ex nihilo (see Copp 1972; Ford 1973; Nolan &
Galliher 1973; Nolan & Hagan 1975; Lowry 1977; Picou et al 1978).
.RURAL SOCIOLOGY 71
had been contemplating their own difficulties, rural society had moved on.
Consequently the policy agenda of the late 1970s was one to which, embar
rassingly, rural sociologists had little to offer.
The farm crisis of the late-1970s was not marked by radical changes in
the structure of agriculture or rural society. The developments that con
tributed to it were for the most part incremental and had been subsumed
under the euphemism of 'farm adjustment.' For many years a research issue
familiar to agricultural economists, this involved the long-standing ten
dency of American agriculture to grow in scale, to become more concen
trated in its production, to shed labor, and to become more capital
intensive. American agriculture was also integrating further with both agro
input and food-processing industries, referred to collectively as 'agribusi
ness.' These trends had been followed persistently since the end of the
Second World War and had indeed been encouraged by federal agricultural
policy. But by the late 1970s a stagflating American economy had shut off
the conventional safety valve for the rural distress created by these trends:
the availability of plentiful employment in nonagricultural and urban-based
occupations. Alarm also became widespread at the rate of decrease in the
number of family farms. Traditional Jeffersonian concerns were reiterated
concerning the trends towards concentration of production, vertical inte
gration with agribusiness, the plight of small farms, inadequate service
provision in rural areas, and declining rural communities in agriculturally
dependent regions.. For the first time since the 1940s the desired structure
of American agriculture, and the relationship between agricultural change
and rural social change, became matters of major policy concern (USDA
1979, 1981).
2 Urban sociology, similarly afHicted by the decline of the concept of a rural-urban continuum,
has been much more successful in overcoming this difficulty. However, these debates within
urban sociology-principally the work of Harvey (1973) and CasteJls (1976)-have received
scant attention from rural sociologists.
72 NEWBY
institutional setting. But it was also narrow in its empirical focus. Rural
sociologists had approached the problem via the investigation of the social
psychology of individual innovators. They hardly considered structural
inhibition on innovation, nor did they systematically investigate the social
consequences of technological change beyond the bland assumption that
everyone would benefit. The farm crisis forced a reinterpretation. By the
late 1970s it was becoming apparent that rural sociologists had naively
abetted the widespread deterioration of the social conditions of a significant
sector of the rural popUlation-principally the poor and underprivileged
whom they had believed they had been helping. Moreover, when structural
issues became a matter of public-policy concern, rural sociologists were
ill-equipped to handle them. American rural sociology was caught napping:
Its data base showed some alarming gaps. The issue of structure had not
been granted much attention.
This lack of attention was partly due to the fact that rural sociologists
had largely ignored the economic activity of the countryside, which seemed,
after all, the province of agricultural economists. Sociologists had devoted
most of their efforts to charting patterns of rural sociability, kinship, cus
toms, traditions, and community change but had paid little attention to the
raison d'elre of rural areas, namely work. For example, because rural
sociologists had failed to develop a sociology of agriculture, they tended to
consider the system of agricultural production to be an exogenous factor
that impinged occasionally upon the values, culture, and folkways of the
rural population. Consequently, with a few exceptions, rural sociologists
showed little interest in, or understanding of, the economic factors trans
forming the character of rural America: Once more the farm crisis of the
late 1970s forced a reinterpretation.
It is to the credit of rural sociology in the United States that this reinter
pretation has been taken seriously. Arguably the reasons for this lie less in
the nature of the intellectual debate among rural sociologists (although this
cannot be completely discounted) than in a common value-orientation re
garded conventionally as a major drawback to the pursuit of 'scientific'
RURAL SOCIOLOGY 73
rural sociology-i.e. the Romantic idealism and political populism that has
long influenced American rural sociology (see Schmitt 1969). The farm
crisis of the 1970s therefore prompted a deep personal concern over the
plight of the small farmer, the fate of agriculturally dependent rural com
munities, and the threats to the rural ecology presaged by contemporary
technological trends. This made the publication of Hard Tomatoes, Hard
Times (1973), Hightower's critique of the "land-grant complex" of agricul
tural research, particularly timely. Hightower's attacks may have been
strident and at times overstated, but their relevance could hardly be ig
nored. Hightower's criticisms of rural sociology were mostly a by-product
Access provided by Laurentian University on 11/24/14. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:67-81. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
have been monitored (Buttel & Larson1979; Larson & Buttel1980; Gilles
1980; Heaton & Brown 1982) and the social consequences of technological
innovation at the level of the work situation are receiving attention (Fried
land et aI1981). These concerns combine in an innovative research agenda
for rural sociology in the 1980s.
CONCLUSIONS
about the concept of political economy and the relationship between econ
omy and society. Thus although the sociology of agriculture offers no
startling new theory to resolve the problems confronting sociology (includ
ing rural sociology) today, it does address important substantive and theo
retical issues. It has also imparted a renewed sense of purpose and direction
from which the whole of rural sociology should benefit (Flinn 1982).
Literature Cited
cal outline. In The Rural Sociology of Mooney, P. 1982. Labor time, production time
the Advanced Societies; Critical Perspec and capitalist development in agriculture:
tives, ed. F. H. Buttel, H. Newby. a reconsideration of the Mann-Dickinson
Montclair, NJ: Allenheld Osmun thesis. Sociol. Rur. In press
Harvey, D. 1973. Social Justice and the City. Mottura, G., Pugliese, E. 1980. Capitalism in
London: Edward Arnold agriculture and capitalistic agriculture:
Havens, A. E., Newby, H, 1983. Agriculture the Italian case. In The Rural SOCiology
and the state: an analytical approach. In of the Advanced Societies, ed. F. H. But
State and Agriculture, ed. P. Ehrensoft, tel, H. Newby. Montclair, NJ: Allen
W. H. Friedland, F. H. Butte!. Am. held Osmun
Univ. Press Muckton, C. F., Rochin, R. I., Gwynn, D.
Heaton, T. B., Brown, D. L. 1982. Farm 1982. Farm size and community wel
structure and energy intensity: another fare: an interdisciplinary approach.
look. Rur. Sociol. 47:17-31 Rur. Social 47:32-46
Access provided by Laurentian University on 11/24/14. For personal use only.
Heffernan, W. D., Green, G., Lasley, P., No Nelson, E. 1982. Lenin and the development
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:67-81. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
lan, M. F. 1982. Small farms: a hetero of American agri culture. Rur. Social.
geneous category. The Rur. Sociol. 2: 2:150-53
62-71 Newby, H. 1980. Rural sociology-a trend
Hightower, J. 1973. Hard Tomatoes, Hard report. C urro Social. 28(1):1-141
Times. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Newby, H. 1982a. Rural sociology and its
Hill, F. 1981. Farm women: challenge to relevance to the agricultural economist:
scholarship. The Rur. Sociol 1:370-82 a review. J. Agric. Beon. 33(2):125-65
Hussain, A., Tribe, K. 1981a. Marxism and Newby, H. 1982b. Rural sociology in these
the Agrarian Question, Vol. 1, German times. Am. Sociol 17(2):60-70
Social Democracy and the Peasantry, Newby, H., Butte!, F. H. 1980. Towards a
1890-1907. London: Macmillan critical rural sociology. In The Rural
Hussain, A., Tribe, K. 1981b. Marxism and Sociology of the Advanced Societies:
the Agrarian Question, Vol. 2, Russian Critical Perspectives, ed. F. H. Buttel,
Marxism and the Peasantry, 1861-1930. H. Newby. Montclair, NJ: Allenheid
London: Macmillan Osmun
Kaufman, H. F. 1963. A perspective for rural Nolan, M. F., Galliher, J. F. 1973. Rural
sociology. Rur. Sociol. 28:1-17 sociological research and social policy:
Kenney, M., Buttel, F. H., Cowan, J. T., hard data, hard times. Rur. Sociol.
Kloppenburg, J. 1982. Genetic engi 38:491-99
neering and agriculture: exploring the Nolan, M. F., Hagan, R. A. 1975. Rural so
impacts of biotechnology on industrial ciological research, 1966-1974: implica
structure, industry-university relation tions for social policy. Rur. Sociol.
ships and the social organization of U.S. 40:435-54
agriculture. Cornell Rur. Social. Bull., Pahl, R. E. 1966. The rural-urban con
No. 125. Cornell University, Ithaca, tinuum. Socio!. Rur. 6:299-327
NY Pearson, J. 1979. Note on female farmers.
Kirkendall, R. 1966. Social Scientists and Rur. Social. 44:189-200
Farm Politics in the Age of Roosevelt. Perelman, M. 1977. Farming for Profit in a
Columbia, MO: Univ. Missouri Press Hungry World. Montclair, NJ: Allen
Larson, O. W., Butte1, F. H. 1980. Farm size, held Osmun
farm structure, climate and energy: a Pfeffer, M. J. 1982. The labor process and
reconsideration. Rur. SocioL 45:340-48 capitalist development in agriculture.
Lowry, S. 1977. Rural sociology at the cross- Rur. Sociol. 2:72-80
roads. Rur. Sociol. 42:461-75 Picou, J. S., Wells, R. H., Nyberg, K. L.
Mann, S. A., Dickinson, J. A. 1978. Obsta 1978. Paradigms, theories, and methods
cles to the development of capitalist ag in contemporary rural sociology. Rur.
riculture. J. Peasant Stud. 5:466-87 Sociol. 43(4):559-83
Mann, S. A., Dickinson, J. A. 1980. State and Rodefeld, R. D., Flora, J., Voth, D.,
agriculture in two eras of American ag Fijimoto, I., Converse, J., eds. 1978.
riculture. In The Rural Sociology of the Change in Rural America: Causes, Con
Advanced Societies; Critical Perspec sequences and Alternatives. St. Louis: C.
tives, ed. F. H. Buttel, H. Newby. V. Mosby
Montclair, NJ: Allenheld Osmun Rogers, E., Shoemaker, F., 1971. Communi
Massey, D., Catalano, A. 1978. Capital and cation of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural
Land. London: Edward Arnold Approach. Glencoe, IL: Free Press
Merrill, R., ed. 1976. Radical Agriculture. Saunders, P. 1981. Social Theory and the Ur
NY: Harper ban Question. London: Hutchinson
RURAL SOCIOLOGY 81
Sawer, B. J. 1973. Predictors of farm wife's ological review of research since 1965.
involvement in general management Rur. Sociol 40:411-34
and adoption decisions. Rur. Sociol Sweet, J. A. 1972. The employment of rural
38:412-26 farm wives. Rur. Socio!. 37:553-77
Schmitt, P. J. 1969. Back to n ature: the Ar US Department of Agriculture. 1979. Struc
cadian myth in rural America. NY: Ox ture Issues in American Agriculture.
ford Univ. Press Washington DC: USDA
Sevilla-Guzman, E. 1981. La Tradicion Soci US Department of Agriculture. 1981. A Time
ologica de la Vida Rural' Una Laga to Choose. Washington DC: USDA
Morcha Hacia el Funcionalismo. Cor Wakeley, R. E. 1967. Definitions and rela
doba, Spain: Inst. Sociol. Peasant Stud. tionships of rural sociology. Rur. Sociol.
Sewell, W. H., 1950. Needed research in rural 32:195-98
sociology. Rur. Sociol 15:115-30 Wilkenin(l, E. A., Bharadwaj, L. K. 1968.
Sewell, W. H., 1965. Rural sociological re Aspirations and task involvement as re
search, 1936-1965. Rur. Sociol 30: lated to decision-making among farm
Access provided by Laurentian University on 11/24/14. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:67-81. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org