Rural Sociology: Some Inter-American Aspects

Rural Sociology: Some Inter-American AspectsAuthor(s): Lowry NelsonSource: Journal of Inter-American Studies, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Jul., 1967), pp. 323-338Published by: Center for Latin American Studies at the University of MiamiStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/164794 .

Accessed: 09/05/2014 18:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Center for Latin American Studies at the University of Miami is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to Journal of Inter-American Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.138 on Fri, 9 May 2014 18:25:13 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=miami

http://www.jstor.org/stable/164794?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


LOWRY NELSON Center for Advanced International Studies University of Miami Coral Gables, Florida

RURAL SOCIOLOGY: SOME INTER-AMERICAN ASPECTS

I ORIGIN OF RURAL SOCIOLOGY

R URAL SOCIOLOGY had its origin and growth as an academic discipline in the United States. The other social sciences-including general sociology, economics, political science, anthropology

and historiography-were mainly imported from Europe and the British Isles. Rural Sociology, however, was a United States "export" both to Europe and to Latin America.

This inverse process of diffusion deserves a brief explanation. Why did Rural Sociology not originate in Europe? And, conversely, why did it take root in the United States? To answer the first question we may cite the following factors:

1. During the latter part of the nineteenth century when the social conditions of rural people in the United States were critical, Europe was relatively stable. The peasant revolts of the earlier centuries had faded into history; feudalism, in its worst features at least, was no more. There were still agrarian problems, of course, including land fragmentation, but they were not serious enough to cause widespread unrest. Moreover, the restless ones were free to migrate to the New World. Europe, in short, was in the happy condition of being able to export its "problem" mainly to the United States.

323



JOURNAL OF INTER-AMERICAN STUDIES

2. As E. W. Hofstee has noted, European sociology was "highly theoretical and often even philosophical in character" and "the kind of rural sociology which has been developed in America did not fit into the dominating concept of Sociology in Europe before 1940."1 He also emphasized that during the period between the two World Wars, communication with America was restricted, and social scientists in Europe were not given encouragement during those years. And those were the years-1920-1940-when the discipline achieved its maturity in the United States.

Why did the science originate in America? Here are some of the reasons; perhaps there are others.

1. The post-Civil War period was one of serious social disorgani- zation, particularly critical for farm people. The former Confederate States were economically prostrate and in political chaos; and they were largely agricultural. The North and West were experiencing the settlement of the virgin lands by the hordes of immigrants from Europe and the British Isles. The very rapidity of settlement could only bring chaos.

2. The ethnic diversity of the settlers made communication and community-building difficult. Language differences and religious sec- tarianism made the creation of the social institutions of education, religion and government extremely difficult.

3. The pattern of scattered settlement, with each family home- steading or purchasing 160 acres, created physical isolation, and also delayed and made difficult the development of community life. To this and other factors must be added the absence of rapid communication. The pioneer roads were passable only in good weather. There were, of course, no telephones, and mail service was often infrequent and unreliable.

Here was, in short, a vast population in trouble. The people cried out for help to the States and to the Federal Government. The Protestant Churches had been competing with each other to provide mission churches of their several denominations in those rural neighborhoods where there were seldom sufficient members for even one. In other areas there were no churches at all. Some leading churchmen were among the first to sense the "rural problem," and wrote articles and books about the decline of the countryside. Many of the pioneers were leaving the

I E. W. Hofstee, "Rural Sociology in Europe," Rural Sociology, 28 (December 1961), 329-341.

324




land, and there was much talk about the "rural exodus." Other leaders in the churches began to search for facts about rural conditions. They made surveys of social conditions, and used the facts to reorient the programs of the churches. These surveys were one expression of the empiricism of rural sociology, a tendency which has distinguished it from both European and Latin American Sociology.2

Among the North American sociologists, it is necessary to give credit to Franklin H. Giddings for encouraging three of his students to make field studies of communities for their Ph.D. theses, even though he himself must be classified as an "armchair" sociologist.3

It is impossible to assign a date or a year when Rural Sociology began. The first course in what might be called the subject matter, but listed as "Social Conditions in American Rural Life" was offered at the University of Chicago for the School Year 1894-1895. The instructor was Professor Charles Richmond Henderson (1848-1915). He was pri- marily interested in social work rather than in rural sociology. The first man to bear the title "Instructor in Rural Sociology" was Kenyon L. Butterfield (1868-1935). He was appointed in 1902 at the University of Michigan.4

The Agricultural Colleges were slow to accept rural sociology as an academic discipline either for teaching or research, but especially the latter. The College of Agriculture of the University of Wisconsin was the first to sponsor research. In 1911, Henry C. Taylor, who was in charge of agricultural economics, employed Charles Josiah Galpin (1864-1947) on half-time to teach a course in what was called Rural Life. He was also encouraged to make some field studies. From these studies came a number of publications, the most important of which was his now classic study of the rural community.5

2 In reality, general sociology in the United States as represented by its founders- Franklin H. Giddings, William Graham Summer, Albion W. Small, E. A. Ross, F. W. Blackmar-was not empirically inclined. These men were more philosophically oriented.

3 James M. Williams (1876-) An American Town: A Sociological Study (New York: James Dempster Printing Co., 1906); Warren H. Wilson (1867-1937) Quaker Hill (Brooklyn, New York: W. H. Wilson, 1907, private printing); Newell L. Sims (1878-1965), A Hoosier Village (New York: Columbia University, 1912).

4 Butterfield held this position only one year until he became a College president. Although he spent his career in administrative work, he gave his continuous support to the promotion of rural sociology and agricultural economics in the Agricultural Colleges of the country.

5 C. J. Galpin, The Social Anatomy of an Agricultural Community (Madison, Wis.: The Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Wisconsin, Research Bulletin 34, 1915).

325




From these feeble beginnings rural sociology gained gradual acceptance. After World War I, expansion was rapid, especially after 1925 and the passage by Congress of the Purnell Act. This Act allotted $60,000 annually to the Agricultural Experiment Stations in each State, with the proviso that such funds could be used for research in agricultural economics, rural sociology and home economics.6

II

INITIAL STUDIES IN LATIN AMERICA BY NORTH AMERICANS

The first North American rural sociologist to make a study in a Latin American country was Carle C. Zimmerman, who was a member of the Commission on Cuban Affairs of the Foreign Policy Association. The field work was done during the summer of 1934.7 The Commission was composed of eleven members, each a specialist, and each assigned to the field of his specialty. Zimmerman reported on "family organization, the standard of living, and rural life." He reported the income and family size of 113 families "selected to represent the layers of Cuban life from that of the cane worker through that of the fairly wealthy colono." These families classify into three groups: under $600 (41); $601-$1,000 (25); and $1,001-$9,090 (47). The first group he refers to as "masses," the second "comfortable class," and the third "well-to-do." He discussed the standard of living, range of incomes, diet (including the prices of food items compared with prices in the United States), seasonal employment, unemployment, and presented a budget analysis of the 113 families.

A decade after Zimmerman's historic study in Cuba, five rural sociologists were engaged by the Department of State and the Depart- ment of Agriculture to make "studies of rural life" in five Latin Ameri- can countries: Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina, Cuba and Mexico. The decision to do this was prompted by the exigencies of World War II. Many critical items, like rubber, jute, and quinine, could no longer be obtained outside the hemisphere. Rubber and quinine were indigenous but required immense labor to obtain. North Americans knew little of the backlands from which many critical items were to come, if at all. It was time to find out something about our neighbors to the South

6 Space does not allow further historical treatment here. Those interested in the subject are advised that the author has prepared a volume Rural Sociology. Its Rise and Growth in the United States (in process of publication), University of Minnesota Press.

7 Raymond Leslie Buell (ed) Problems of the New Cuba (New York: The Foreign Policy Association, 1935).

326




who lived outside the capital cities. So it was argued, anyway, and the decision was made.

T. LYNN SMITH drew the assignment for Brazil. He spent the year from February 1942 to February 1943 gathering data in Brazil. The materials he brought back with him, supplemented by those available in the United States were worked over thoroughly and became the basis for his book, Brazil: People and Institutions (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1946). Two revisions of this work have appeared, in 1954 and in 1963, both the result of several additional visits to Brazil.

The book is arranged in seven sections as follows: Part I, Intro- duction; Part II, Cultural Diversity; Part III, The People; Part IV, Levels and Standards of Living; Part V, Relation of the People to the Land; Part VI, Social Institutions; Part VII, Conclusions. The book represents a first attempt, and a successful one, to provide a "national" sociology of Brazil. Especially valuable features are (a) the detailed population analysis; (b) the relation of the people to the land including not only land tenure but the ways in which the land was divided and described; and (c) the extensive use of Brazilian documents and historical works. The latter represents an enormous amount of reading, much of it in the Portuguese language.

Smith is the only one of the five authors of book-length studies in this wartime series who has continued his observations and studies which made possible the up-dating of his book in the two revised editions. In addition to his classic study, he has published many other articles and was joint author of another book on Brazil.8

Before discussing the works of the other four wartime studies, it is appropriate to extend this brief exposition of Smith's work. For he has by no means limited himself to Brazil, but rather has paid detailed attention to several other countries. This is especially true of Colombia. With the collaboration of two members of the staff of the Ministry of National Economy, he made the first study in Latin America of a rural town-country community.9 The method followed was that typically used in the United States to show the characteristics of the families,

8 T. Lynn Smith and Alexander Marchant, Brazil: Portrait of Half a Continent (New York: The Dryden Press, 1951). His textbook, The Sociology of Rural Life has been translated into both Portuguese and Spanish.

9 T. Lynn Smith, Justo Diaz Rodriguez and Luis Roberto Garcia, Tabio: Estudio de la Organizacitn Social Rural (Bogota: Ministerio de la Economia Nacional, 1944). The English version, Tabio: A Study in Rural Social Organization (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Foreign Agricultural Relations, 1945).

327




both town and country, their interrelationships, levels of living, etc. The questionnaire used in the study was published as an appendix and was the inspiration for at least one Latin American student to make a similar study in another area.10 In addition to this pioneer study in Colombia, Smith has recently completed the first volume of a projected three-volume work on Colombia.

Smith capitalized on the census of the Americas made at mid- century. By means of an award from the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, he toured the various countries, obtained advance reports of the census results and prepared a summary which was published in 1961.11 Meantime he had other irons in the fire. Monographs, journal articles, and books on phases of Latin America appear in a stream.'2

It is fair to say that Smith has been more influential in Latin America than any other rural sociologist in the United States. In addition to his numerous publications, he has made many visits to various countries, has attended numerous international meetings and national conferences, and many students from Latin America have come to study with him.

CARL C. TAYLOR was in Argentina from March, 1942 to April, 1943, a period almost identical with Smith's stay in Brazil. The methods of the two men were similar. They depended on reading available books on the country, the study of public documents, personal observation while travelling throughout the countries, and numerous personal inter- views with individuals in all ranks and classes of life and in all parts of the countries. As Taylor puts it in the Preface to his book: "The author travelled about 20,000 miles and visited all the major type-farming areas of the Argentine. In addition to interviewing more than 120 farm families and persons representing all levels of the farm population, he talked with local newspaper editors, leaders of farm organizations, businessmen, school teachers, ministers, provincial and federal government officials who lived and worked in rural areas ...."13 The book

10 Orlando Fals-Borda used the instrument with appropriate modifications for interviewing 71 families, the results of which formed the body of his Peasant Society in the Colombian Andes (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1955).

11 Latin American Population Studies (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1961).

12 Examples: Current Social Trends and Problems in Latin America, Latin Amer- ican Monographs 1 (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1957); Agrarian Reform in Latin America (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965).

13 Carl C. Taylor, Rural Life in Argentina (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State Univer- sity Press, 1948). Taylor has described the work of these five studies in his article "Early Rural Sociological Research in Latin America," Rural Sociology, 25 (March 1960), 1-8.

328




includes 17 chapters with the following titles: Scenes in Various Type- Farming Areas in Argentina (two chapters); The People of Argentina; Immigrants and Their Influence; Argentine Farmers and Farm People; History and Evolution of Argentina Agriculture and Rural Life; The Settling and Peopling of the Country; Ownership and Distribution of the Land; Agricultural and Cultural Regions; Rural Isolation and Com- munication; Rural Locality Groups and Communities; Levels and Stan- dards of Living; The Farm Home and Family; Progress of Colonization and Resettlement; Enlightenment and Reform; Farmer's Organizations and Farmers' Publics in Argentine; and The Farmers' Place in Argentine Culture.

NATHAN L. WHETTEN was assigned to Mexico where he was attached to the United States Embassy from 1942 to 1945. He enjoyed two advantages over the others of this group in that he was able to spend three years instead of only one, and as one born and reared in Mexico had a ready command of the Spanish language. His report on the three- year study appeared in 1948, the same year as Taylor's Argentina.'4 Except for a short conclusion, the book consists of four principal parts as follows: I, The People of Mexico and their Geographical Environ- ment; II, The Relation of People to the Land; III, Standards and Levels of Living; IV, Social Institutions. This carefully documented and well written book will long remain an indispensable reference on Mexico.

While he was making his study of Mexico, Whetten obtained permission to spend five months in 1944 in the neighboring country of Guatemala. Later, by means of a grant from the Guggenheim Foundation he spent the summers of 1952 and 1955 in the country. In addition there were several brief visits, and meantime a continuous correspon- dence was maintained with his Guatemalan contacts. The outcome of this work was a book-length report.15 The organization of the subject matter follows essentially that of Rural Mexico. His method was similar to that of Taylor and Smith.

OLEN E. LEONARD spent two years in Bolivia in the 1940's. He had two responsibilities, one as administrator of cooperative agricultural programs and the other as an investigator of the sociology of Bolivia.

14 Nathan L. Whetten, Rural Mexico (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948). 15 Nathan L. Whetten, Guatemala (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961).

329




The latter work resulted in a book-length report.16 In the book, he covers such subjects as regional diversity, population distribution and composition, fertility and mortality, immigration and internal migration, man-land relations, social institutions, and levels and standards of living.

The writer drew the assignment to "study rural life in the Carib- bean" and spent the year from September 1945 to September 1946 in the area. It is doubtful if anyone in the Office of Foreign Agricultural Relations had any clear idea of the complexity and impossibility of the assignment; certainly the writer did not. It was only after he arrived in Cuba and began his preliminary examination of his charge that he realized his own incompetence to fulfill it. He decided to concentrate on Cuba. He enjoyed at least one major advantage over his colleagues in the other countries: the availability of reliable and recent census data. The results of the 1943 Census had just become available, and there had been four previous censuses in 1899, 1907, 1919, and 1931. The first two were made under the direction of the U.S. Bureau of the Census, and the third, with its active cooperation.

However, the major undertaking was the schedule survey of 742 families in 11 local areas representing types-of-farming and to some extent, land tenure patterns. Also, the Cuban government in 1946 took an agricultural census under the capable direction of Ing. Casto Ferragut, who had also assisted with the survey of peasant families. The preliminary results of the agricultural census were forwarded to me so that I had them for use in the preparation of the book.17

Extra space has been devoted to these five studies because they were pioneer efforts on the part of rural sociologists and were designed as comprehensive studies of the countries involved. Other rural sociologists have made numerous studies in restricted localities. Charles P. Loomis, although involved with administrative duties in the Office of Foreign Agricultural Relations in Washington during the war period,

16 Olen E. Leonard, Bolivia: Land, People and Institutions (Washington, D.C.: The Scarecrow Press, 1952). Previous to the publication of the book, Leonard had made a number of local studies in Bolivia as follows: Canton Chullpas: A Socioeconomic Study in the Cochabamba Valley of Bolivia (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agriculture Report No. 27, 1947-also published in Spanish in La Paz by the Ministry of Agriculture); Santa Cruz: A Socioeconomic Study of an Area in Bolivia, publication as above. Also during his stay in Bolivia he was permitted to visit and make a sociological study in Ecuador. See his Pichilingue: A Study of Rural Life in Coastal Ecuador (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agriculture Report No. 17, 1947).

17 Lowry Nelson, Rural Cuba (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1950). See also the author's "Cuban Paradoxes," in A. Curtis Wilgus (ed.) The Caribbean at Mid-Century (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1951).

330




was able to make some early studies in Latin America. In 1944 he was appointed chairman of the department of sociology and anthropology at Michigan State University. In this position he was able to follow more intensively his interest in Latin America.'8

Perhaps the most important work which Loomis did in and for rural sociology in Latin America was derived from the relationship which he established with the Inter-American Institute for Agricultural Sciences located in Costa Rica. Through this cooperation Latin Ameri- can students and staff attended and taught at Michigan State, while students and staff from Michigan State worked and taught at Turrialba. Turrialba became an experimental laboratory in which advanced meth- odology in sociometrics was utilized in the theoretical framework of the social system.'9

In the late 1950's Loomis and colleagues at Michigan State University undertook a major study of the population and associated problems of the United States-Mexican border. Loomis was director of the project which was supported by grants from the Carnegie Corpor- ation and the United States Public Health Service. The area covered included six Mexican States adjacent to the International boundary and five southwestern states of the United States for which data on Spanish surnames were available.20

George W. Hill in the early 1950's took leave of his position in the Department of Rural Sociology at the University of Wisconsin to become a consultant to the government of Venezuela. Although it was

18 A partial bibliography of his works: "Extension work in Tingo Maria, Peru," Applied Anthropology, 3 (December 1943), 18-34; (with Wilson Longmore) "Health Needs and Potential Colonization Areas of Peru," Inter-American Economic Affairs, 3 (Summer 1949), 71-93; "Trial Use of Public Opinion Survey Procedures in Determining Immigration and Colonization Policies for Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru," Social Forces, 26 (October 1947), 30-35; (with Reed M. Powell) "Class status in rural Costa Rica," in Theo R. Crevenna, Materiales para el-estudio de la clase media en la America Latina (Washington: Pan American Union, Vol. V, 1951).

19 The results of much of the research are reported in the volume Turrialba: Social Systems and the Introduction of Change, edited by Loomis, Julio O. Morales, Roy A. Clifford, and Olen Leonard (Glencoe: Free Press, 1953). Loomis also rendered an important service, assisted by Olen Leonard, in editing and publishing Readings in Latin American Social Organization and Institutions (East Lansing: Michigan State College Press, 1953).

20 The population characteristics, constituting one phase of this extensive study is reported in J. Allan Beegle, Harold F. Goldsmith, and Charles P. Loomis, "Demo- graphic Characteristics of the United States-Mexican Border," Rural Sociology, 25 (March 1960), 105-162. A further report on this project appeared in June of the same year. See Charles C. Cumberland, The United States-Mexican Border: A Selective Guide to the Literature of the Region, Supplement to Rural Sociology, Vol. 25, No. 2 (June 1960), pp. x, 236.

331




intended to be a temporary appointment, it continued until 1962. During that period Hill organized and conducted rural studies in which he involved local individuals who received training in research methods. He also assisted in getting a department of sociology established in the University of Caracas.21

There is hardly a country in Latin America in which North Ameri- can rural sociologists have not made one or more studies. Space does not permit discussion of all of them, but the work of Thomas Ford in Peru and John V. D. Saunders in Brazil deserve mention for their book-length studies;22 and others for localized research utilizing methods recently developed in the United States.

Frederick C. Fliegel of Pennsylvania State University spent a year at the University of Rio Grande do Sul at Porto Alegre. He collabor- ated with Brazilian colleagues in studies of communication among farmers in a county near Porto Alegre.23

Earlier in the same State of Rio Grande do Sul, Thomas Lucien Blair, of Michigan State University, also made a study of communication as related to class structure. The study included 20 agricultural laborers, 20 workers in rice processing plants, and 10 factory office workers. Three sources of information were compared as to effectiveness in the different occupational groups: mass media, social visiting, and contact with persons from outside the area.24

Bert Ellenbogen of the University of Minnesota, formerly at Cornell University, has done work in Venezuela and in Brazil. His major research in Brazil had to do with The Changing Role of Woman in Brazil: Its Implications for Development. A preliminary report "Rural

21 Among the individual papers published by Hill and his Venezuelan associates are the following: George W. Hill and Gregorio Beltran, "Land Settlement in Venezuela with Special Reference to the Turen Project," Rural Sociology, 17 (September 1952), 229-236; with Gregorio Beltran and Cristmo Marino, "Social Welfare and Land Tenure in the Agrarian Reform Program of Venezuela," Land Economics, 28 (February 1952), 17-29. Anibal Buitron, Exodo rural en Venezuela (Washington: Pan American Union, 1955). The two most important works of Hill in Venezuela are El campesino venezolano (1959) and El Estado Sucre: sus recursos humanos (Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela).

22 Thomas Ford, Man and Land in Peru (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1955), John V. D. Saunders, Differential Fertility in Brazil (University of Florida Press, 1958).

23 Frederick C. Fliegel, "Literacy and Exposure to Instrumental Information among Farmers in Southern Brazil," Rural Sociology, 31 (March 1966), 15-28; with Fernando C. Oliveira Receptividade a ideias novas e exodo rural numa area colonial (Porto Alegre: Universidade do Rio Grande do Sul, Estudos e Trabalhos no. 14, 1963).

24 Thomas Lucien Blair, "Social Structure and Information Exposure in Rural Brazil," Rural Sociology, 25 (March 1960), 65-75.

332




Development in Brazil: Perspectives and Paradoxes," was published in Cornell International Agricultural Series, Ithaca, New York, No. 9, 1965. He is editor of a book, Change and Development in the Highland Areas of Latin America, due for release by Cornell University Press early in 1968.

III

RURAL SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH BY LATIN AMERICAN SCHOLARS

Several Brazilian students were attracted to the field of rural sociology through the influence of T. Lynn Smith's work while at Louisiana State University soon after the publication of his book and then at Vanderbilt University when he became director of the Brazilian Institute, and finally at the University of Florida. Also, John H. Kolb of the University of Wisconsin, who taught courses at the Rural University near Rio, influenced several students to undertake graduate study in rural sociology under his guidance. Among these are Joao Gontalves de Sousa, Mario Paes de Barros, Edgard Vasconcellos de Barros, and Fernando C. Oliveiro. Gongalves de Sousa and Paes de Barros have both been involved mainly in administrative work both in Brazil and in the Pan American Union. Oliveiro is engaged in research in rural sociology at the University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre (see footnote 23). Vasconcellos de Barros is connected with the Rural University in Minas Gerais.25

The students of Smith have been somewhat more productive in the field of research. Two of the older ones are J. V. Freitas Marcondes and Josd Artur Rios. Both have published works individually and in collaboration with others.26 Both reflect their teacher's interest and technical competence in population analysis.

In passing, mention must be made of a brief history of the development of rural sociology in Brazil by Rodolpho Stavenhage.27 Stavenhage,

25 The influence of his Wisconsin training is clearly manifest in his brief research note, "Defining the Boundaries of a Brazilian Rural Community," Rural Sociology, 22 (September 1957), 270.

26 See J. V. Freitas Marcondes, "Mutirao or Mutual Aid," Rural Sociology, 13 (December 1948), 374-384; with Paul H. Price, "A Demographic Analysis of the Popu- lation of Sio Paulo," Social Forces, 27 (May 1949), 381-389; with T. Lynn Smith, "The Caipira of the Paraitinga Valley, Brazil," Social Forces, 31 (October 1952), 47-53; Jose Artur Rios, "Assimilation of Emigrants from the Old South in Brazil," Social Forces 26 (December 1947), 145-152; Clase e Familia no Brasil," Digest Economico, Sao Paulo; "The Cities of Brazil," in T. Lynn Smith and Alexander Marchant, Brazil: Por- trait of Half a Continent.

27 "Rural Sociological Research in Brazil," Rural Sociology, 29 (June 1964), 231- 236.

333




who is general secretary of the Latin American Center for Research in the Social Sciences, Rio de Janeiro, actually deals almost entirely with research by anthropologists. Important as their work is, it does not represent work by professional rural sociologists, which is the subject of this article. One must readily admit that anthropologists have accomplished more detailed local studies of communities than have rural sociologists. Also, most of the studies cited by Stavenhage are those done by North Americans. In connection with the history of rural sociology in Brazil it is important to note also the report of Ray E. Wakeley, of Iowa State University, for the Food and Agriculture Organization.28

Wakeley found practically no interest in rural sociology in the institutions of higher learning. Only some of the government agencies expressed interest. However, since 1952 the teaching of rural sociology has been introduced in some of the higher institutions although progress is slow due to the inelasticity of the curriculum, particularly in the field of agriculture. The fact that general sociology is enjoying growing recognition may contribute as well to the spread of rural sociology in the college curricula.29

An interesting application of the experimental method in the study of social problems in Latin America was made by Sakari Sariola. Although the study was made in Bolivia, Sariola is associated with the Centro Interamericano de Educaci6n Rural in Rubin, Venezuela. His study involved a comparison of attitudes between an "experimental" group of peasants who had had experience in a new colony in Santa Cruz and a "control" and matched group from the same area in Cochabamba Valley who had had no such experience.30

Manuel Alers-Montalvo is a product of the Michigan State Uni- versity-Inter-American Institute of Agricultural Sciences cooperation. Subsequent to receiving his Ph.D. degree he elected to remain in the United States and is Professor of Sociology at Colorado State Univer- sity. Reflecting the theory of the social systems approach of which Charles P. Loomis is the leading exponent among rural sociologists,

28 Ray E. Wakeley, "Rural Sociology: Teaching and Research in Brazil," Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization, 1952 (mimeo).

29 The most important center for the study of the social sciences, notably anthropology, sociology, and political science, is the Escola de Sociologia e Politica, in Sao Paulo; many field studies have been made under its sponsorship, mostly by anthropologists. It also publishes Sociologia, since 1939.

30 Sakari Sariola, "A Colonization Experiment in Bolivia," Rural Sociology, 25 (March 1960), 76-90.

334




Alers-Montalvo made a study in Peru in which he applied the "system analysis." Earlier, he also made a study of a Costa Rican village following the same theoretical framework. In both these studies the emphasis was placed on the problem of "directed change." He was head of the social science work at the Institute at Turrialba. He also is author of a textbook in rural sociology in the Spanish language which was used at the Institute, and elsewhere in Latin America.31

Considerable interest in rural sociology has been evident in Uru- guay. Two textbooks appeared in the 1950's, one of which by Aldo E. Solari was very much influenced by the work of P. A. Sorokin and Carle C. Zimmerman, Principles of Rural-Urban Sociology (1929) and by T. Lynn Smith, The Sociology of Rural Life. Solari used Uruguayan materials as far as possible. Since one of the serious needs in Latin America is for rural sociology textbooks based on local research rather than that of the United States, this book is especially important. Two years after Solari published his book another appeared in 1955 by Daniel D. Vidart, of the Ministry of Agriculture. Less scientifically oriented than Solari, it is popularly written.32

A third book is worth mention, although it does not carry the word "rural" in the title. However, it is dedicated to the development of a "national" sociology for Uruguay, and contains a chapter on rural sociology as well as on the other branches of sociology.33

In Mexico, Lucio Mendieta y Nuiez, director of the Institute for Social Investigations, of the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, has conducted field studies and has sought to promote teaching and research in the rural field. One of his significant field studies had to do with comparative success of three communities on land reform projects in Mexico.34 This study, among others, is part of the program of the Instituto, which was founded in 1930, but reorganized under Mendieta y Nufiez in 1939. One of the areas in which he then proposed to do

31 Manuel Alers-Montalvo, "Social Systems Analysis of Supervised Agricultural Credit in an Andean Community," Rural Sociology, 25 (March 1960), 51-64; "Cultural Change in a Costa Rican Village," Human Organization, 15 (Winter 1957), 2-7.

32 Aldo E. Solari, Sociologia rural nacional (Montevideo: Universidad de Mon- tevideo, 1953); Daniel D. Vidart, La vida rural uruguaya (Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, Departmento de Sociologia Rural, Publicaci6n 1, 1955).

33 Carlos M. Rama, Ensayo de sociologia uruguaya (Montevideo: Editorial Me- dina, 1957). As a textbook in general sociology it should be an important influence in the development of the field.

34 Lucio Mendieta y Nfifiez et al. Efectos de la reforma agraria en tres comunidades de la Republica Mexicana (Mexico: Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de MExico, 1960).

335




research was in regard to the ejidos. In his report published in 1951, the Director said:

It is proposed to investigate the social and economic character of the ejido throughout the entire territory of the country, looking for the conditions of diverse types of ejidos: irrigated lands, seasonal (dry) land, livestock, forestry; by individual operations, collectives. .. 35

Among his other services to sociology and to rural sociology was the founding and editing of the Revista Mexicana de Sociologia in 1939; and as the sponsor and publisher of the proceedings of the Sixth National Congress of Sociology which was devoted to the theme: Rural Sociology.36 At this congress he delivered two papers entitled "Impor- tancia de la sociologia rural", and ",Que es la sociologia rural?".

An outstanding development, not alone in rural sociology but sociology in general, has taken place in Colombia under the able and energetic leadership of Orlando Fals-Borda. When he came to the University of Minnesota to begin his graduate work, he brought with him a bundle of schedules containing information on 71 families living in a neighborhood near the place where he was employed by a construc- tion company which was building a reservoir dam. Entirely on his own initiative he visited each family, some of them several times. (As already noted-footnote 10-he used a schedule with modifications which was developed by T. Lynn Smith et al. in the study of Tabio.) The data when analyzed constituted the basis for his M.A. thesis. Subsequently, he went to the University of Florida where he worked with T. Lynn Smith. With aid from a Guggenheim Award, he made a study of man-land relations in another area of Colombia which became the basis for his dissertation for the Ph.D. degree.37

It would not be possible here to give in detail the excellent work he has accomplished. He began his career in his own country as administrator of technical affairs in the Ministry of Agriculture. While he was in this position, he successfully undertook an experiment in community development among the peasants of Saucio, the community

35 Lucio Mendieta y Ndfiez, Memoria del Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales de la Universidad Nacional de Mixico 1939-1951 (M6xico: Imprenta Universitaria, 1952), p. 12.

36 Congreso Nacional de Sociologia, VI, 1955 (M6xico: Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de M6xico, 1956).

37 Orlando Fals-Borda, El hombre y la tierra en Boyacd: bases sociol6gicas e hist6ricas para una reforma agraria (Bogota: Ediciones Documentos Colombianos, 1957), 259 pp.

336




which he had studied earlier.38 Following his service in the Ministry of Agriculture, he was invited to the University at Bogota to organize the department of sociology. Later the growth of the work was such that it was made a School of Sociology in the University, with Fals-Borda as the Dean. He very early established a publication program in the form of a monograph series. In short, Bogota has become one of the important centers in the development of sociology in Latin America.

IV

CONCLUSION

It is more than half a century since the discipline of rural sociology was planted and took root in the United States. It is a quarter of a century since the "invasion" of Latin America by the first five rural sociologists who wrote book-length reports on rural life in the countries to which they were assigned. Numerous additional studies have been made in Latin America since the War by sociologists from the United States. A considerable number of Latin American students have come to North American universities to study rural sociology and some have been able to return to their countries and do some research on their own account. The fact is, however, that the development has been slow. Very few of the higher institutions of learning have allowed rural sociologists to gain a foothold in the tradition-bound curricula.

No doubt part of the explanation of the differential between the acceptance of rural sociology in the United States and Latin America is found in their different social science traditions, especially that of sociology. Latin American sociology has been predominantly philosophical while that in the United States has been empirically oriented. In the former, social investigation is down-graded, while in the latter, it is the central approach.39 Gino Germani notes the influence in Latin America of the German philosophical school of thinkers but is optimistic that "investigation" of the social reality is going to be more widely accepted. He notes that Brazil is an exception among the Latin Ameri- can countries. This is true to a degree. We noted above the importance of the Escola de Sociologia e Politica in Sao Paulo. Yet the rural

38 The full account of this experiment is told in Orlando Fals-Borda (with the collaboration of Nina Chaves and Ismael Mirquez), Accidn comunal en una vereda colombiana (Bogota: Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Departamento de Sociologia, monografias sociologicas, 4, 1960).

39 In this regard, see Gino Germani, "Una decada de discusiones metodologicas", Ciencias Sociales, Vol. II, Nos. 11 and 12 (October-December 1951) Pan American Union, Washington, D.C.

337



338 JOURNAL OF INTER-AMERICAN STUDIES

universities of Brazil, where it would seem logical to accept rural sociology as a discipline, are reluctant to do so. Part of the trouble lies in the rigidity of the curricula made so by legal enactment.

Still, there are some examples to indicate that sociology, as an

empirical science, is becoming more widely accepted. And it must be

emphasized that unless general sociology is accepted, rural sociology is unlikely to develop by itself. The two fields are no longer to be regarded as separate; they are one and the same. The work of Fals-Borda in Colombia, of Gino Germani in Argentina, Lucio Mendieta y Nifunez in Mexico; along with the Escola in Sao Paulo, all seem well established. Lately at the University of Rio Grande do Sul, the work in sociology has been expanded under the leadership of Laudelino T. Medeiros, and at Recife under Heraldo Pessoa Souto Maior. These together with those

previously mentioned and perhaps others, who have not come to the attention of the writer, provide some grounds for an optimistic outlook.



Documents

Rural Sociology: Some Inter-American Aspects