1.

3 definitions of Rural Sociology

 Rural sociology is a field of sociology traditionally associated with

the study of social structure and conflict in rural areas although
topical areas such as food and agriculture or natural resource
access transcend traditional rural spatial boundaries (Sociology
Guide 2011).
 Sanderson says that "Rural sociology is the sociology of rural life
in the rural environment".
 Bertand says that in its broadest sense, "Rural sociology is that
study of human relationships in rural environment".

2. The importance of studying Rural Sociology

The importance of rural sociology can be evaluated properly when it

realizes the importance of rural society. Rural society presents a
scientific picture of rural life. Villages are important because they are
the springs to feed urban areas. The importance of rural sociology can
be put under following heads.

Man has an urge to know human relationship and this can be satisfied
through rural sociology.

a) Rural Population is in a Majority:

In almost all the Countries of the world majority or the world resides in
villages in villages. It is truer that over 80% population of India
resides in villages.
b) It Gives Complete Knowledge of Village Life:
Rural sociology gives us complete knowledge of village life. Village is
the first unit of development in country. It is a centre of culture of any
country.
c) Rural Reformation:
Rural reformation is the primary aim of rural sociology. In this context
it helps in following works.
i) Organization:
Village unit which are dis-organized and can be organized through
rural sociology. It improved in the co-ordination of various units and
helps in bringing an improvement in economic, social and health
conditions.
 ii) Economic Betterment:
Through detailed study of village problems and observation rural
sociology gives stress on the importance of increasing the quantity and
quality of production. This results in to raising the standard of living.
iii) Provide Technology and Systematic Knowledge and reforms
in Farm Production:
Main occupation of 80% population of village is agriculture. In order to
improving this main occupation of rural people. The earlier researches
in rural sociology was made in agricultural college.
iv) Solutions of Pathological Social Problems:
Rural sociology examines the social pathological problems and it
suggests ways for the improving these problem.
v) Education:
The improvement t, the development of any community depends on its
education. Rural sociology lays stress on education in rural problems.
vi) Planning for Development:
Rural sociology encourages the development of various plans for any
rural development program. The work must be carried out according to
these plans for the progress in rural society.
d) Rural Sociology Development Relationships of Village with
Industry.
e) Rural Sociology is Most Important in Agricultural Countries:
About 90% of world progress is based on agriculture. It is only in
agricultural countries that people realize the importance of rural
sociology. India is mainly agricultural country. For its all sided
development the development of rural sociology is very important.

3. How can Rural Sociology help in the development of communities?

It is clear from the above mentioned definitions that rural sociology

studies the social interactions, institutions and activities and social
changes that take place in the rural society. It studies the rural social
organizations, structure and set up. It provides us that knowledge
about rural social phenomena.

4. The institutional and intellectual origins of Rural Sociology.

Rural sociology has fallen into a chronic state of crisis, distraught, in turns,
by the discipline’s theoretical paucity, its institutional isolation, its
estrangement from the more general discipline of sociology, and, at base, its
seeming irrelevance to modern urban society. From within and without, rural
sociology has been criticized for its scientific irrelevance—i.e., shortsighted
focus on the methodologically rigorous analysis of trivialities (Picou, Wells et
al. 1978)—and ideological misdirection—i.e., its cozy relationship with the
land grant complex and corporate agribusiness interests (Hightower 1972)
and lack of a critical perspective (Falk and Gilbert 1985). And rural sociology
has long suffered an uneasy relationship with general sociology. Friedland
(1982) and Falk and Pinhey (1978) outline rural sociology’s estranged
relationship from the broader discipline, pointing to its institutional insulation
and isolation. In an informal survey of ASA members conducted during his
presidency in 1967, Loomis
(1981:59) found that “35 percent of those responding believed the field of
sociology would be better off without the Rural Sociological Society and that
it should be abolished” and that “sizeable proportions of American non-rural
sociologists would not accept a rural sociologist in such status-roles as 1)
office mate, 2) co-author of a book or monograph and 3) chairman or head
of your department or unit.” But certainly the most sustained criticism levied
at rural sociology has been its simple irrelevance in light of declining rural
and farm populations. Half a century ago, Hoffsommer (1960) and Nelson
(1969) argued that these demographic changes left rural sociology without
an object of study, concluding that the discipline no longer had a justification
for its independent existence. This debate was rekindled in the 1980s with a
contingent calling for a reorientation of the discipline to focus not on
supposedly obsolete questions of rural life but instead on agriculture as
industrial production (Newby 1980, Buttel 1988, Hainard 1983). Such
criticisms assume that true scientific knowledge naturally corresponds to
reality: rurality, as an object of study, must really exist in the world, and
rural sociology develops naturally from general sociology in order to
encompass the rural dimension. An alternative set of assumptions underlies
criticisms based on rural sociology’s institutional position—i.e., that
institutional position shapes research priorities and the division of labor in
science. Disciplinary divisions arise not because science maps itself to
reality, but because science is divided among various institutional bases of
support. Neither assumption is adequate to explain the origins of rural
sociology: the discipline was neither necessitated by the structure of reality
nor the inevitable product of institutional arrangements. Rather, rural
sociology reflects intellectual divisions that emerged decades before the
Rural Sociological Society was founded: rural sociology adopted a synchronic
view of the rural/urban divide that was fundamentally opposed to the
diachronic view adopted by general sociology. Though the two disciplines
briefly converged, their ontologies were incompatible, conditioning their
institutional split in 1937.