Rural Sociology: Some Inter-American Aspects Author(s): Lowry Nelson Reviewed work(s): Source: Journal of Inter-American Studies, Vol.

9, No. 3 (Jul., 1967), pp. 323-338 Published by: Center for Latin American Studies at the University of Miami Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/164794 . Accessed: 24/09/2012 03:26
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 of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

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

RURALSOCIOLOGY: ASPECTS SOMEINTER-AMERICAN

I
ORIGIN OF RURAL SOCIOLOGY

URAL SOCIOLOGY had its origin and growthas an academicdisci-

pline 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 inverseprocess of diffusiondeservesa brief explanation.Why did Rural Sociologynot originatein Europe?And, conversely,why did it take root in the United States?To answerthe first questionwe may cite the followingfactors: 1. Duringthe latterpart of the nineteenthcenturywhen the social conditionsof ruralpeople in the United Stateswere critical,Europewas relativelystable. The peasant revolts of the earliercenturieshad faded into history;feudalism,in its worstfeaturesat least, was no more. There were still agrarianproblems, of course, includingland fragmentation, unrest.Moreover, but they were not seriousenoughto cause widespread the restless ones were free to migrateto the New World. Europe, in short,was in the happy conditionof being able to export its "problem" mainly to the United States. 323

324

JOURNAL OF INTER-AMERICAN STUDIES

2. As E. W. Hofstee has noted, Europeansociology was "highly theoreticaland often even philosophicalin character" and "the kind of rural sociology which has been developedin America did not fit into the dominating conceptof Sociologyin Europebefore 1940."1He also emphasizedthat duringthe period between the two World Wars, communicationwith Americawas restricted,and social scientistsin Europe were not given encouragement duringthose years. And those were the the discipline achieved its maturity in the years-1920-1940-when United States. Why did the science originatein America?Here are some of the reasons;perhapsthere are others. 1. The post-CivilWar period was one of serious social disorganization, particularlycritical for farm people. The former Confederate Stateswere economically prostrateand in politicalchaos;and they were The North and West were experiencingthe settlelargely agricultural. ment of the virginlands by the hordesof immigrants from Europe and the BritishIsles. The very rapidityof settlementcould only bring chaos. 2. The ethnic diversityof the settlers made communicationand difficult. Language differencesand religious seccommunity-building tarianismmade the creation of the social institutions of education, religion and governmentextremely difficult. 3. The pattern of scattered settlement,with each family homesteadingor purchasing160 acres, created physical isolation, and also delayedand made difficultthe developmentof communitylife. To this and other factors must be added the absence of rapid communication. The pioneerroads were passableonly in good weather.There were, of course, no telephones, and mail service was often infrequent and unreliable. Here was, in short, a vast populationin 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 churchesof their several denominationsin those rural neighborhoods membersfor even one. In otherareas wheretherewere seldomsufficient were amongthe therewere no churchesat all. Some leadingchurchmen first to sense the "ruralproblem,"and wrote articlesand books about the decline of the countryside.Many of the pioneerswere leaving the
I E. W. Hofstee, "Rural Sociology in Europe," Rural Sociology, 28 (December 1961), 329-341.

RURAL SOCIOLOGY: SOME INTER-AMERICAN ASPECTS

325

land, and there was much talk about the "ruralexodus."Other leaders in the churchesbegan to search for facts about rural conditions.They made surveys of social conditions, and used the facts to reorient the programsof the churches.These surveys were one expressionof the empiricismof rural sociology, a tendency which has distinguishedit from both Europeanand Latin AmericanSociology.2 Among the North American sociologists, it is necessary to give three of his studentsto credit to FranklinH. Giddingsfor encouraging make field studiesof communities for their Ph.D. theses, even thoughhe himself must be classified as an "armchair" sociologist.3 It is impossibleto assign a date or a year when Rural Sociology began. The first course in what might be called the subject matter,but listed as "SocialConditionsin AmericanRural Life" was offeredat the Universityof Chicago for the School Year 1894-1895. The instructor was ProfessorCharlesRichmondHenderson(1848-1915). He was primarilyinterestedin social work ratherthan in rural sociology. The first man to bear the title "Instructor in Rural Sociology"was Kenyon L. Butterfield(1868-1935). He was appointedin 1902 at the University of Michigan.4 The Agricultural Collegeswere slow to acceptruralsociology as an academic disciplineeither for teaching or research,but especially the of the Universityof Wisconsinwas the latter.The Collegeof Agriculture first to sponsorresearch.In 1911, Henry C. Taylor,who was in charge of agricultural economics,employedCharlesJosiahGalpin (1864-1947) on half-timeto teach a course in what was called Rural Life. He was also encouragedto make some field studies. From these studies came a number of publications,the most importantof which was his now classic study of the rural community.5
2 In reality, general sociology in the United States as represented by its foundersFranklin 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).

326

JOURNAL OF INTER-AMERICAN

STUDIES

From these feeble beginningsrural sociology gained gradual acceptance. After World War I, expansion was rapid, especially after 1925 and the passageby Congressof the PurnellAct. This Act allotted Stationsin each State, $60,000 annuallyto the Agricultural Experiment with the proviso that such funds could be used for research in agriculturaleconomics, rural sociology and home economics.6
II
INITIAL STUDIES IN LATIN AMERICA BY NORTH AMERICANS

The first North Americanrural sociologist to make a study in a Latin Americancountrywas Carle C. Zimmerman, who was a member of the Commissionon CubanAffairsof the ForeignPolicy Association. The field work was done duringthe summerof 1934.7 The Commission was composedof eleven members,each a specialist,and each assigned to the field of his specialty. Zimmermanreportedon "familyorganization, the standardof living, and rural life." He reportedthe 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 wealthycolono." These families classify into three groups: under $600 (41); $601-$1,000 (25); and $1,001-$9,090 (47). The first group he refersto as "masses,"the second "comfortable class," and the third the "well-to-do."He discussed standardof living, range of incomes, diet (includingthe prices of food items comparedwith prices in the United States), seasonal employment,unemployment, and presenteda budget analysis of the 113 families. A decade after Zimmerman's historic study in Cuba, five rural sociologistswere engagedby the Departmentof State and the Department of Agriculture to make "studiesof rurallife" in five Latin American countries: Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina, Cuba and Mexico. The decision to do this was promptedby the exigenciesof World War II. Many criticalitems, like rubber,jute, and quinine, could no longer be obtainedoutside the hemisphere.Rubber and quinine were indigenous but requiredimmenselabor to obtain. North Americansknew little of the backlandsfrom which many critical items were to come, if at all. It was time to find out somethingabout our neighborsto 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).

SOCIOLOGY: SOMEINTER-AMERICAN RURAL ASPECTS

327

who lived outside the capital cities. So it was argued, anyway, and the decision was made. T. LYNNSMITHdrew the assignment for Brazil. He spent the year from February 1942 to February 1943 gatheringdata in Brazil. The materialshe broughtback with him, supplementedby those available in the United Stateswere workedover thoroughlyand becamethe basis
for his book, Brazil: People and Institutions (Baton Rouge: Louisiana

StateUniversityPress, 1946). Two revisionsof this workhave appeared, visits to Brazil. in 1954 and in 1963, both the resultof severaladditional The book is arrangedin seven sections as follows: Part I, Introduction;PartII, Cultural Diversity;PartIII, The People;Part IV, Levels and Standardsof 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 successfulone, to provide a "national"sociology of Brazil. Especiallyvaluable features are (a) the detailed population analysis; (b) the relation of the people to the land includingnot only land tenurebut 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

Portugueselanguage. Smithis the only one of the five authorsof book-lengthstudies in this wartimeserieswho has continuedhis observations and studieswhich made possible the up-datingof his book in the two revised editions. In additionto his classic study, he has publishedmany other articles and was joint author of another book on Brazil.8 Before discussingthe works of the other four wartime studies, it is appropriate to extend this brief exposition of Smith'swork. For he has by no means limitedhimself to Brazil, but ratherhas paid detailed attentionto severalother countries.This is especiallytrue of Colombia. With the collaborationof two membersof the staff of the Ministryof NationalEconomy,he made the first study in Latin Americaof a rural town-country community.9The 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).

328

JOURNAL OF INTER-AMERICAN STUDIES

both town and country,theirinterrelationships, levels of living, etc. The used in the study was publishedas an appendixand was questionnaire the inspirationfor at least one Latin American student to make a similar study in another area.10In addition to this pioneer study in Colombia,Smithhas recentlycompletedthe first volume of a projected three-volumework on Colombia. Smith capitalizedon the census of the Americas made at midcentury. By means of an award from the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation,he toured the various countries,obtainedadvancereports of the census results and prepareda summarywhich was publishedin 1961.11Meantimehe had other irons in the fire. Monographs,journal articles,and books on phases of Latin America appearin a stream.'2 It is fair to say that Smith has been more influentialin Latin Americathan any other rural sociologistin the United States. In addition to his numerouspublications,he has made many visits to various countries,has attendednumerousinternationalmeetings and national conferences,and many studentsfrom Latin Americahave come to study with him. was in Argentinafrom March, 1942 to April, CARL C. TAYLOR with Smith'sstay in Brazil.The methods a almost identical 1943, period two similar. of the men were They dependedon readingavailablebooks on the country, the study of public documents,personal observation the countries,and numerouspersonalinterwhile travellingthroughout views with individualsin all ranks and classes of life and in all parts of the countries.As Taylor puts it in the Preface to his book: "The authortravelledabout 20,000 miles and visited all the majortype-farmmore than 120 ing areas of the Argentine.In additionto interviewing all levels of the farm population, farmfamiliesand personsrepresenting he talked with local newspapereditors, leaders of farm organizations, businessmen,school teachers,ministers,provincialand federal government officialswho 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 American 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 University 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.

RURAL SOCIOLOGY: SOME INTER-AMERICAN ASPECTS

329

includes 17 chapterswith the followingtitles: Scenes in Various TypeFarmingAreas in Argentina(two chapters); The People of Argentina; and Their Influence;ArgentineFarmersand Farm People; Immigrants History and Evolution of ArgentinaAgricultureand Rural Life; The of the and Distribution Settlingand Peoplingof the Country;Ownership Land; Agriculturaland Cultural Regions; Rural Isolation and ComRural LocalityGroupsand Communities; Levels and Stanmunication; dardsof Living;The Farm Home and Family;Progressof Colonization and Resettlement;Enlightenment and Reform; Farmer'sOrganizations and Farmers' Publicsin Argentine; and The Farmers'Place in Argentine Culture.
NATHANL. WHETTENwas assigned to Mexico where he was

attachedto the United States Embassyfrom 1942 to 1945. He enjoyed two advantages over the othersof this groupin that he was able to spend three years instead of only one, and as one born and rearedin Mexico had a ready commandof the Spanishlanguage.His reporton the threeyear study appearedin 1948, the same year as Taylor's Argentina.'4 Except for a short conclusion,the book consists of four principalparts as follows: I, The People of Mexico and their GeographicalEnvironand Levels ment; II, The Relationof People to the Land;III, Standards of Living; IV, Social Institutions.This carefully documentedand well writtenbook will long remain an indispensablereferenceon Mexico. While he was making his study of Mexico, Whetten obtained permissionto spend five monthsin 1944 in the neighboringcountryof Guatemala. Foundation Later,by meansof a grantfromthe Guggenheim he spent the summersof 1952 and 1955 in the country. In addition there were several brief visits, and meantime a continuouscorrespondence was maintainedwith his Guatemalancontacts. The outcome of this work was a book-lengthreport.15The organizationof the subject matterfollows essentiallythat of Rural Mexico. His methodwas similar to that of Taylor and Smith.
OLENE. LEONARD spent two years in Bolivia in the 1940's. He had

two responsibilities,one as administratorof cooperative agricultural programsand the other as an investigatorof the sociology of Bolivia.
14 NathanL. Whetten,RuralMexico (Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress, 1948). 15 Nathan L. Whetten,Guatemala(New Haven: Yale UniversityPress, 1961).

330

JOURNAL OF INTER-AMERICAN

STUDIES

The latter work resulted in a book-lengthreport.16In the book, he covers such subjects as regional diversity,population distributionand and internalmigration, composition,fertilityand mortality,immigration man-landrelations,social institutions, and levels and standards of living. The writerdrew the assignmentto "studyrural life in the Caribbean" and spent the year from September1945 to September1946 in the area. It is doubtfulif anyone in the Office of Foreign Agricultural of the Relationshad any clear idea of the complexityand impossibility certainlythe writerdid not. It was only after he arrivedin assignment; Cuba and began his preliminaryexaminationof his charge that he on to fulfillit. He decidedto concentrate realizedhis own incompetence Cuba. He enjoyed at least one major advantageover his colleaguesin the other countries:the availabilityof reliable and recent census data. The resultsof the 1943 Censushad just become available,and therehad been four previouscensuses in 1899, 1907, 1919, and 1931. The first two were made under the directionof the U.S. Bureau of the Census, and the third, with its active cooperation. was the schedule survey of 742 However, the major undertaking and to some families in 11 local areas representingtypes-of-farming in 1946 took extent, land tenurepatterns.Also, the Cubangovernment censusunderthe capabledirectionof Ing. CastoFerragut, an agricultural who had also assistedwith the surveyof peasantfamilies. The prelimicensus were forwardedto me so that I nary results of the agricultural had them for use in the preparationof the book.17 Extra space has been devoted to these five studies because they were pioneer effortson the part of ruralsociologistsand were designed studiesof the countriesinvolved.Otherruralsocioloas comprehensive gists have made numerous studies in restrictedlocalities. Charles P. duties in the Office of Loomis, althoughinvolved with administrative Foreign AgriculturalRelations in Washingtonduring 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).

RURAL SOCIOLOGY: SOME INTER-AMERICAN ASPECTS

331

was able to make some early studies in Latin America. In 1944 he of the department was appointed chairman of sociologyand anthropology at Michigan State University. In this position he was able to follow more intensivelyhis interestin Latin America.'8 Perhaps the most importantwork which Loomis did in and for rural sociology in Latin America was derived from the relationship which he establishedwith the Inter-American Institutefor Agricultural Scienceslocated in Costa Rica. Throughthis cooperationLatin American students and staff attended and taught at Michigan State, while studentsand staff from MichiganState worked and taught at Turrialba. became an experimental Turrialba laboratoryin which advancedmethwas utilizedin the theoreticalframeworkof the odology in sociometrics social system.'9 In the late 1950's Loomis and colleagues at Michigan State Universityundertook a major study of the population and associated border.Loomis was directorof problemsof the United States-Mexican the projectwhich was supportedby grantsfrom the CarnegieCorporation and the United States Public Health Service. The area covered includedsix MexicanStates adjacentto the International boundaryand states of the United States for which data on Spanish five southwestern surnameswere available.20 GeorgeW. Hill in the early 1950's took leave of his positionin the of RuralSociologyat the Universityof Wisconsinto become Department 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, "Demographic 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.

332

JOURNAL OF INTER-AMERICAN

STUDIES

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 American 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;22and 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 collaborated 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.

SOMEINTER-AMERICAN RURAL SOCIOLOGY: ASPECTS

333

Developmentin Brazil: Perspectivesand Paradoxes,"was publishedin Cornell InternationalAgriculturalSeries, Ithaca, New York, No. 9, 1965. He is editorof a book, Changeand Developmentin the Highland Areas of Latin America, due for release by Cornell UniversityPress early in 1968. III
RURAL SOCIOLOGICALRESEARCH 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 LouisianaState Universitysoon after the publicationof his book and then at VanderbiltUniversitywhen he became directorof the Brazilian Institute,and finally at the Universityof Florida. Also, John H. Kolb of the University of Wisconsin, who taught courses at the Rural Universitynear Rio, influencedseveral students to undertakegraduate 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 work both in Barroshave both been involved mainly in administrative Brazil and in the Pan AmericanUnion. Oliveirois engagedin research in ruralsociologyat the Universityof Rio Grandedo Sul, Porto Alegre (see footnote 23). Vasconcellosde Barros is connectedwith the Rural Universityin Minas Gerais.25 The studentsof Smithhave been somewhatmore productivein the field of research.Two of the older ones are J. V. FreitasMarcondesand Josd Artur Rios. Both have published works individually and in collaborationwith others.26Both reflect their teacher's interest and technicalcompetencein populationanalysis. In passing,mentionmustbe made of a brief historyof the development of ruralsociologyin Brazilby RodolphoStavenhage.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 Population 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: Portrait of Half a Continent. 27 "Rural Sociological Research in Brazil," Rural Sociology, 29 (June 1964), 231236.

334

JOURNAL OF INTER-AMERICAN

STUDIES

who is general secretaryof the Latin American Center for Research in the Social Sciences, Rio de Janeiro, actually deals almost entirely with research by anthropologists. Importantas their work is, it does not represent work by professional rural sociologists, which is the have subjectof this article.One must readilyadmit that anthropologists more detailedlocal studiesof communities than have rural accomplished sociologists. Also, most of the studies cited by Stavenhageare those done by North Americans. In connection with the history of rural sociology in Brazil it is importantto note also the report of Ray E. Wakeley, of Iowa State University, for the Food and Agriculture
Organization.28

Wakeley found practicallyno interest in rural sociology in the institutionsof higher learning.Only some of the governmentagencies expressedinterest.However,since 1952 the teachingof rural sociology has been introduced in some of the higherinstitutionsalthoughprogress in the field is slow due to the inelasticityof the curriculum, particularly of agriculture.The fact that general sociology is enjoying growing recognitionmay contributeas well to the spread of rural sociology in the college curricula.29 methodin the study An interesting applicationof the experimental of social problems in Latin America was made by Sakari Sariola. Althoughthe study was made in Bolivia, Sariolais associatedwith the de Educaci6n Rural in Rubin, Venezuela. His Centro Interamericano study involved a comparisonof attitudesbetween an "experimental" group of peasants who had had experiencein a new colony in Santa Cruz and a "control" and matched group from the same area in CochabambaValley who had had no such experience.30 Manuel Alers-Montalvois a product of the MichiganState UniInstitute of AgriculturalSciences cooperation. versity-Inter-American Subsequentto receivinghis Ph.D. degree he elected to remain in the United States and is Professorof Sociology at ColoradoState University. 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.

RURAL SOCIOLOGY: SOME INTER-AMERICAN ASPECTS

335

Alers-Montalvo made a study in Peru in which he appliedthe "system analysis."Earlier,he also made a study of a Costa Rican villagefollowing the same theoreticalframework.In both these studies the emphasis was placed on the problemof "directedchange."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 Spanishlanguagewhich was used at the Institute, and elsewhere in Latin America.31 Considerable interestin rural sociology has been evident in UruTwo textbooks guay. appearedin the 1950's, one of which by Aldo E. Solari was very much influencedby 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

materialsas far as possible. Since one of the serious needs in Latin Americais for rural sociologytextbooksbased on local researchrather 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 orientedthan Solari, it is popularlywritten.32 A thirdbook is worthmention,althoughit does not carrythe word "rural"in the title. However, it is dedicatedto the developmentof 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 Mendietay Nuiez, directorof the Institutefor NacionalAutonomade Mexico, SocialInvestigations, of the Universidad has conducted field studies and has sought to promote teaching and researchin the ruralfield. One of his significant field studies had to do with comparative success of three communitieson land reformprojects in Mexico.34This study, among others, is part of the programof the under Mendieta Instituto,which was founded in 1930, but reorganized of Nufiez in 1939. One the areas in which he then y 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 Montevideo, 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 Medina, 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).

336

JOURNAL OF INTER-AMERICAN

STUDIES

researchwas in regardto the ejidos. In his report publishedin 1951, the Director said:
It is proposedto investigatethe social and economic character of the ejido throughoutthe entire territoryof 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 servicesto sociology and to rural sociology was the foundingand editingof the RevistaMexicanade Sociologiain 1939; and as the sponsor and publisher of the proceedings of the Sixth NationalCongressof Sociologywhich was devotedto the theme: Rural At this congresshe deliveredtwo papers entitled "ImporSociology.36 tancia de la sociologia rural",and ",Que es la sociologia rural?". An outstandingdevelopment,not alone in rural sociology but sociology in general,has taken place in Colombiaunder the able and energetic leadership of Orlando Fals-Borda. When he came to the Universityof Minnesotato begin his graduatework, he broughtwith him a bundle of schedulescontaininginformation on 71 familiesliving in a neighborhood near the place wherehe was employedby a construction companywhich was buildinga reservoirdam. Entirelyon 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 developedby T. Lynn Smith et al. in the study of Tabio.) The data when analyzed constituted the basis for his M.A. thesis. he went to the Universityof Florida where he worked Subsequently, with T. Lynn Smith. With aid from a GuggenheimAward, he made a study of man-landrelationsin anotherarea of Colombiawhich became for the Ph.D. degree.37 the basis for his dissertation 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 of technicalaffairsin the Ministryof Agriculture.While administrator he was in this position, he successfullyundertook an experimentin communitydevelopmentamongthe peasantsof 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.

RURAL SOCIOLOGY: SOMEINTER-AMERICAN ASPECTS

337

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 American 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.

338

STUDIES JOURNAL OF INTER-AMERICAN

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 Nifunezin 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.