The Sociology of Agriculture: Toward a New Rural Sociology

Author(s): Howard Newby

Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 9 (1983), pp. 67-81
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2946057 .
Accessed: 09/12/2014 03:24

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.

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of
Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 03:24:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ann.Rev. Sociol. 1983. 9:67-81
Copyright( 1983 byAnnualReviewsInc. All rightsreserved

THE SOCIOLOGY OF
AGRICULTURE: Toward a New
Rural Sociology

HowardNewby
ofSociology,
Department ofEssex,Colchester,
University Essex,England

Abstract
Ruralsociologyhas recently developeda newresearchagendafocussing on
the sociologyof agriculture. of a fieldof
This has led to a revitalization
researchthathad lostitswaysincethedeclineoftherural-urban continuum
in the 1960s. The crisisthatoccurredin ruralsociologyin the 1970s is
discussedin relationbothto thistheoreticalvacuumand to the failureto
achievea policyimpact.It is arguedthatthesociologyofagriculture offers
a potentiallysuccessfulmeansof overcomingthiscrisis,but some of the
in utilizingthisapproachare also discussed.Observationsare
difficulties
made on the institutionalsettingof ruralsociologyand on whetherit is
compatiblewiththe development of a criticalsociologyof agriculture.

INTRODUCTION
Rural sociology1is nota branchofthedisciplinethatis notedforitslively
theoreticaldebateand intellectualinnovation.In the UnitedStatesit has
'Here"ruralsociology"refers tothesociologyofgeographicalareaswhosepopulation density
is low.However, thisconceptual definition
failsto conveythefactthatruralsociology also
referstoa setofinstitutions-university
departments, journals,societies,
textbooks, research
teams, teaching
activities,
etc.In thelatter
sense"ruralsociology" doesnotinclude suchareas
as thesociologyofdevelopment, peasantstudies,etc,whichareincluded in theconceptual
definition.
Suchexclusion is conceptually butin thisreview-for
indefensible, reasonsof
expediency duetoconstraints on space-I havefollowed convention,applying "ruralsociol-
ogy"toadvanced industrial
societyonly.HereI review ruralsociologyintheUnitedStates
only.Elsewhere, inEurope,
especially ruralsociologyemerged from verydifferentintellectual
concerns andmanifests a verydifferent structure
institutional (see Newby1980,1982a).
67
0360-0572/83/081
5-0067$02.00

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 03:24:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
68 NEWBY

traditionallybeenawardedlow statuswithinthesociologicalprofession and

assigneda somewhatperipheralrole.This has beenreinforced bythesepa-
rateinstitutional development ofruralsociologyand itsuneasyand uncer-
tainrelationship with'general'sociology.At some timesruralsociologists
have assertedthe distinctive and unique featuresof theirfield,while at
otherstheyhaveacknowledged thattheseparationis entirely arbitrary and
intellectuallyirrelevant. In eithercase littlehas been achievedto alterthe
prevailingimageof ruralsociologyas a quietbackwatercharacterizedby
shallowempiricism and theoretical conservatism. It maytherefore comeas
a surpriseto somethatruralsociologyis currently undergoing a consider-
able revitalization, havingovercomea numberof difficulties overthepast
decade.
Thereare now signsthatruralsociologyhas setitselfa researchagenda
forthe 1980s that is theoretically fruitful,substantively innovativeand,
above all, relevantforthe social problemscurrently facingruralsociety.
This is a considerablecontrastwiththepositionof,say,tenyearsago (see,
forexample,Copp 1972).Thisnewresearchagendais centeredaround"the
sociologyof agriculture," sometimesreferred to as the "new ruralsociol-
ogy" (Sevilla-Guzman1981).This represents merelya branchofoccu-
not
pational sociology,but a new approach to rural sociology,one more
theoretically informed, holistic,critical,and radicalthantheconventional
ruralsociologythatprecededit. In thisreviewI concentrate on theorigins
and development of "the of
sociology agriculture" and do not, therefore,
attemptto be comprehensive. It should be emphasized that the sociology
is
of agriculture certainly not coterminous with rural sociology and that,
despitetherapid increase in interest in thesociology ofagriculture in recent
yearsin theUnited States,it is doubtful whether a majority of rural sociolo-
gistswouldsubscribeto thisapproach.Nevertheless as a potentially excit-
ing development it is worthyof widerattention.ElsewhereI have offered
broaderreviewsof thefieldwhichmaybe regardedas complementary to
thisone (Newby 1980, 1982a,b).

ORIGINS
The sociologyof agriculturebeginsfromthe premisethatthe causes of
muchofthesocialchangein ruralAmericalie in thestructural transforma-
tionsoccurringin agriculture. To thoseoutsideruralsociologythismay
seem unexceptionable, but ruralsociologistshave traditionallypaid little
attentionto agriculturalproduction(withone majorexception,the diffu-
sion of technologicalinnovations,consideredbelow),preferring insteadto
charttheconsumption-related aspectsof ruralsocietyand its institutions.
The reasonsforthislie partlyin how ruralsociologistshave definedtheir

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 03:24:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 RURAL SOCIOLOGY 69

field,partlyin the institutional settingwithinwhich rural sociologyis

conducted.
For severaldecadespriorto the mid-1960sruralsociologiststendedto
definetheirfieldbymeansofconceptsessentially spatialin derivation. For
example,mostof thefindings of ruralsociologistswereinterpreted within
theframework oftherural-urban continuumcodifiedbySorokinand Zim-
mermanin the1920s(withantecedents in themuchearlierworkofTonnies
and Simmel).At one leveltherural-urban continuumwas merelya set of
empiricalgeneralizations aboutthecharacteristics of theruralpopulation.
It fitted
in wellwiththeefforts ofruralsociologiststo catalogvarioussocial
and demographicaspectsof rural society(see Bealer 1975). At another
level,however,the rural-urban continuumwas also a theory:It was in-
tendedto explainthe natureof social relationships by reference to settle-
mentpatterns.Not untilthemid-1960swas it generallyacceptedthatthis
intention was futile,
althoughoccasionalattempts perpetuate thisapproach.
A seriesof community studiesduringthe 1950s and 1960s had demon-
stratedempiricallywhat Gans (1970) and Pahl (1966) were to establish
theoretically-namely that "rural" is an empiricaldescriptivecategory
withoutexplanatory significance. This leftbehinda theoretical vacuumand
a professionalidentity crisisin ruralsociologythattookmorethana decade
fullyto resolve.
The institutionalsettingofruralsociologydid nothelp.The institutional
basis ofruralsociologyin theUnitedStatesconsistsmainlyoftheagricul-
turalcollegesoftheland-grant universities.This settinghas notalwaysbeen
conduciveto intellectualcreativityand imaginativesociologicaldebate.
(For extendedcommentson thissee Hightower1973; Newby1982b,parts
of whichthisparagraphsummarizes.)First,in theland-grant universities
ruralsociologyhas beenexpectedto be "policy-relevant" or "applied"-i.e.
influentialupon the thinkingof minorbureaucrats("policymakers")in
ruralaffairs.Ruralsociologists foundthisroleconduciveto self-esteem, but
itjeopardizedtheadvanceofthefieldin waysaboutwhichSewelllongago
warned(Sewell 1950:121-22). Second,theadministrators oftheland-grant
colleges,principally appliedscientistsfromtheproductionend of agricul-
ture,have conceivedof ruralsociologistsprimarily as researchers charged
with the task of overcomingthe "social problems"that interfere with
cost-efficiencyin agriculture. Theyhave tendedto be impatientwith"use-
less" sociologicalresearchthathas no directapplication.Finally,theagri-
culturaleconomists, oftendepartmental colleagues,confident, quantitative
and "applied,"havesharedthegoal ofcost-efficiency and haveall too often
beenenviedby ruralsociologistsfortheirpolicyinfluence and "scientific"
superiority.Rural sociologistshave concernedthemselveswiththe orga-
nizationof agricultural production,while the economistshave not both-

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 03:24:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
70 NEWBY

ered with,in effect, the errorfactorsin theirregressionequations.It is

essentialto recognizethatthisinstitutional settinggovernedtheproduction
of knowledgein ruralsociologywhiletheconceptof the rural-urban con-
tinuumheld swayand affected ruralsociology'sresponseto thatconcept's
downfall.
The initialresponsesweretheproclamationof a "crisis"in ruralsociol-
ogyand a further roundof agonizedintrospection aboutthenatureof the
field,thelattersymptomatic oftheself-doubt to whichruralsociologyhas
always been prone (see Sewell 1965; Ftn. 3; Bealer 1975; Newby 1980,
1982b).How were"rural"and "ruralsociology"to be definedand concep-
tualized?The reversemigrationof urbandwellersintoruralareas,which
gatheredpace duringthe1960s,meantthattheruraland urbanpopulations
could no longerbe easilydefined,sociallyor culturally.The traditional
economicactivitiesof ruralareas-agriculture,forestry, extractiveindus-
tries-no longersupportedmostoftheruralpopulation.Whatwas "rural"
in sociologicalterms,and what was the propersubjectmatterof rural
sociology(see Kaufman1963; Wakeley1967)?The widespreaddiscussion
of definitionalissuesdid not interfere undulywithcontinuingresearchin
thefield.Ratheritwas an irritant-afactorthatcontributed to thecontinu-
inglack of confidence in thescientific statusof ruralsociology,but which
was firmly containedwithinthe 'privatetroubles'of the field.
A morepervasiveresponseto thedeclineoftheconceptofa rural-urban
continuumappearedat firstto be muchmoreconstructive. In theabsence
of any generaltheoryof ruralsociety,ruralsociologistsattemptedto in-
creasethescientificcharacterof theirfieldby emphasizingmethodological
rigor.Theorycouldbe reconstituted piecemeal,it was believed,on thebasis
of rigorousscientific enquiryallied, for the most part,to sophisticated
quantitativedataanalysis.In manyrespectsthiswas a necessarystep.Rural
sociologyhad notbeennotedforitsmethodological sophisticationand there
was plentyofroomforimprovement (Sewell 1950,1965).The achievements
in thisregardwereimpressive.From the 1960s onwardsruralsociology
conformed muchmorecloselyin its researchstyleto generalsociologyin
theUnitedStates,and an all-aroundincreasein methodological expertise
was noticeable(Stokes& Miller1975).Unfortunately, however,researchers
tendedto become intoxicatedby this success. A certainmethodological
approach-positivist,inductive,quantitative-becamean end in itself
ratherthan merelya tool of analysis.Here, undoubtedly,the informal
pressuresexertedbyruralsociology'sinstitutional settingplayedtheirpart,
as did the tendenciesin generalsociology(Newby 1982b). By the early
1970s,however,therealizationwas growingthatmethodological rigorwas
notan end in itself,stillless a factorthatwouldlead to thereconstruction
ofa theoryof ruralsocietyex nihilo(see Copp 1972; Ford 1973; Nolan &
Galliher 1973; Nolan & Hagan 1975; Lowry 1977; Picou et al 1978).

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 03:24:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 RURAL SOCIOLOGY 71

By themid-1970s,then,a seriesofintellectual difficulties

in ruralsociol-
ogyhad converged.The rural-urban continuumhad notbeensatisfactorily
replacedas a generallyacceptedframeof reference forthefield.Problems
of definitioncontinuedto gnaw at the self-confidence of rural sociolo-
gists.2The emphasison methodological rigor,whileprovidinga dramatic
increasein the qualityof rural sociologicalresearch,was not in itselfa
meanswherebythesedifficulties could be overcome.Overlying theseinter-
nal problems,however,was an externalfactorthatwas evenmoreeffective
in provokingchange.This was the 'farmcrisis'of thelate 1970s,to which
theCarteradministration paid so muchattention.Whileruralsociologists
had beencontemplating theirown difficulties,
ruralsocietyhad movedon.
Consequently thepolicyagendaofthelate 1970swas one to which,embar-
rassingly,ruralsociologistshad littleto offer.

THE FARM CRISIS AND RURAL SOCIOLOGY

The farmcrisisof thelate-1970swas not markedby radicalchangesin
the structure of agricultureor ruralsociety.The developments thatcon-
tributedto it wereforthemostpartincremental and had been subsumed
undertheeuphemism of'farmadjustment.' For manyyearsa researchissue
familiarto agriculturaleconomists,this involvedthe long-standing ten-
dencyof Americanagriculture to growin scale, to becomemoreconcen-
tratedin its production,to shed labor, and to become more capital-
intensive.
Americanagriculture was also integratingfurther withbothagro-
inputand food-processing industries,referred to collectivelyas 'agribusi-
ness.' These trendshad been followedpersistently since the end of the
SecondWorldWar and had indeedbeenencouragedbyfederalagricultural
policy.But by thelate 1970sa stagflating Americaneconomyhad shutoff
theconventional safetyvalvefortheruraldistresscreatedby thesetrends:
theavailabilityofplentifulemployment in nonagricultural and urban-based
occupations.Alarmalso becamewidespreadat therateof decreasein the
numberof familyfarms.TraditionalJeffersonian concernswerereiterated
concerningthe trendstowardsconcentration of production,verticalinte-
grationwith agribusiness, the plightof small farms,inadequateservice
provisionin ruralareas,and decliningruralcommunities in agriculturally
dependentregions.For thefirsttimesincethe 1940sthedesiredstructure
ofAmericanagriculture, and therelationship betweenagricultural change
and ruralsocial change,becamemattersof majorpolicyconcern(USDA
1979, 1981).
2Urbansociology,
similarly bythedecline
afflicted oftheconcept
ofa rural-urban
continuum,
hasbeenmuchmoresuccessful inovercoming
thisdifficulty.
However, thesedebateswithin
urbansociology-principally
theworkofHarvey(1973)andCastells(1976)-havereceived
fromruralsociologists.
scantattention

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 03:24:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
72 NEWBY

To a large extentthese concernscaught rural sociologistsunawares.

During the 1950s and 1960s rural sociologistshad sharedthe generally
acceptedview thattechnologicalchangein agriculturecaused benign,or
evenpositive,social effects. Indeed,ruralsociologistshad helpedto lubri-
cate themechanisms ofstructural changein Americanagriculture bytheir
workon the diffusion of innovations-frequently regarded as a singular
successstoryfor'scientific' ruralsociology(see Rogers& Shoemaker1971).
This workillustrated boththestrengths and weaknessesofruralsociology
duringthe period.It was methodologically rigorousand even,in its way,
innovative. It obtainedforruralsociologyconsiderablelegitimacy withinits
institutional setting.But it was also narrow in its empirical focus. Rural
sociologistshad approachedtheproblem via the investigationof the social
psychologyof individualinnovators.They hardly considered structural
inhibition on innovation, nordid theysystematically investigatethesocial
consequencesof technologicalchangebeyond the bland assumption that
everyonewould benefit.The farmcrisisforceda reinterpretation. By the
late 1970s it was becomingapparent that rural sociologists had naively
abettedthewidespreaddeterioration ofthesocialconditionsofa significant
sectorof the ruralpopulation-principallythe poor and underprivileged
whomtheyhad believedtheyhad beenhelping.Moreover,whenstructural
issues became a matterof public-policyconcern,rural sociologistswere
ill-equippedto handlethem.Americanruralsociologywas caughtnapping:
Its data base showedsome alarminggaps. The issue of structure had not
been granted much attention.
This lack of attentionwas partlydue to the factthatruralsociologists
had largelyignoredtheeconomicactivity ofthecountryside, whichseemed,
afterall, theprovinceof agricultural economists.Sociologistshad devoted
mostof theirefforts to chartingpatternsof ruralsociability, kinship,cus-
toms,traditions, and community changebuthad paid littleattention to the
raisond'etre of rural areas, namelywork. For example,because rural
sociologistshad failedto developa sociologyofagriculture, theytendedto
considerthe systemof agriculturalproductionto be an exogenousfactor
thatimpingedoccasionallyupon the values,culture,and folkwaysof the
ruralpopulation.Consequently,witha fewexceptions,ruralsociologists
showedlittleinterestin, or understanding of,the economicfactorstrans-
forming the characterof ruralAmerica;Once morethe farmcrisisof the
late 1970s forceda reinterpretation.
It is to thecreditofruralsociologyin theUnitedStatesthatthisreinter-
pretationhas beentakenseriously.Arguablythereasonsforthislie less in
thenatureoftheintellectual debateamongruralsociologists(althoughthis
cannotbe completelydiscounted)thanin a commonvalue-orientation re-
gardedconventionally as a major drawbackto the pursuitof 'scientific'

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 03:24:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 RURAL SOCIOLOGY 73

ruralsociology-i.e. theRomanticidealismand politicalpopulismthathas

long influencedAmericanrural sociology(see Schmitt1969). The farm
crisisof the 1970s thereforeprompteda deep personalconcernover the
plightof thesmallfarmer, thefateof agriculturally dependentruralcom-
munities,and the threatsto the ruralecologypresagedby contemporary
technologicaltrends.This made the publicationof Hard Tomatoes,Hard
Times(1973), Hightower's critiqueofthe"land-grant complex"ofagricul-
tural research,particularlytimely.Hightower'sattacksmay have been
stridentand at timesoverstated,but theirrelevancecould hardlybe ig-
nored.Hightower'scriticisms of ruralsociologyweremostlya by-product
ofthosehe directedat agricultural economics,buthe struckan uncomfort-
ablyresponsivechordin themindsofthosewho had assumedruralsocio-
logical researchto be in thebest interestsof the ruralpopulation:
Landgrantcollegeresearch forruralpeopleandplacesis a sham.Despiteoccasional
expressionsofconcern fromlandgrantspokesmen, a lookat thebudgetsandresearch
reportsmakesclearthatthereisnointentionofdoinganything abouttheravagesofthe
Thefocuswillcontinue
revolution.
agricultural tobeoncorporate andtechno-
efficiency
Whilethevastmajority
logicalgadgetry. ofruralAmericans-independent family
farms,
farm workers,smalltownbusinessmenandother belefttogetalong
ruralresidents-will
as besttheycan,evenifitmeansgoingalongtothecity.IftheystayinruralAmerica,
willcomearoundevery
a ruralsociologist nowandthentopokeat themwitha survey.
(Hightower, 1973,p. 57)

universities
Hightower'sanalysisof theland-grant as thequiescentclients
whilebyno meansoriginal,receivedundueatten-
ofcorporateagribusiness,
tionbecause it coincidedwithboth the onsetof the farmcrisisand the
difficulties
theoreticaland methodological converging withinruralsociol-
ogy.

TOWARDS A SOCIOLOGY OF AGRICULTURE

Hightower'sindictmentof the land-grantuniversitieswas essentiallya
populistcritique-a defenseofthesmallfarmer, theindependence ofrural
communities, and therightsof ruralcitizensagainsttheirresponsibleand
unaccountable plutocracy.As suchit was echoedin a number
agribusiness
ofearlyaccountsof thedeleteriouseffects of currentagriculturaltransfor-
mations,particularly thosein whichecologicalconsiderations were sub-
stantial.The clearestmonument to thistrendwas a collectionofacademic
and journalisticreadings(Rodefeldet al 1978) documenting some of the
majorsocial consequencesof the structuraltransformations occurringin
Americanagriculture. As a sourcebookand teachingresourcethisvolume
washighlysuccessful, butitdid notpretendto offera sustainedand system-
aticanalysisofthesociologyofagriculture. It was neverthelessan effective

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 03:24:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
74 NEWBY

curtainraiserto thedevelopment ofa morecoherent"new" ruralsociology.

Merrill(1976) editeda parallelattemptwhichemphasizedthe ecological
aspectsof the problem.Perelman(1977) coveredsomethingof the same
groundfroman avowedlyMarxiststandpoint.
While thesepopulistcritiques(especiallythosein Rodefeldet al 1978)
dealt withconventional ruralsociologicalconcerns-the familyfarm,the
vitalityof rural communities, populationchange,etc-the approach to
theseissueswas beginning to change.Empiricalobservationhad led these
populistcriticsto tracemuchofthedeploredsocialchangeinruralAmerica
to thestructural transformations occurringin agriculture. Thus despitethe
dangerofslighting thenonagricultural aspects of rural society,the"sociol-
ogyofagriculture" becamevirtually synonymous with new,morecritical
a
approachto ruralsociology.Furthermore, thescale ofthestructural trans-
formations in Americanagriculture led to a moreholistic approach to rural
sociology.However,ruralsociologystilllackeda theorythatcould account
forthe data beinggathered.
In August,1978 the Sociologyof Agriculturegroupwithinthe Rural
SociologicalSocietymetforthefirsttime.It has sincebecomean essential
featureofRSS meetings. The "new" ruralsociologyhas provedparticularly
(but not exclusively)attractive to youngerfacultyand graduatestudents.
In manywaysthefieldis notnewbutis merelya returnto theissuesand
approachesthatcharacterized ruralsociologyin the 1930sand 1940s,when
the structureofagriculture a majorresearcharea. Then,largelyunder
was
theaegis ofCarl Taylorat theBureauofAgricultural Economics,thesocial
consequencesof the changingstructureof Americanagriculture received
considerableresearchattention. Amid recriminations, however,thiseffort
collapsed,apparently aftera reassertionof the realitiesof politicalpower
withinthe USDA and the land-grantcomplex(see Kirkendall1966). A
furthercause ceMbrearosein thelate 1940swhena younganthropologist,
WalterGoldschmidt,conducteda studyof two Californiacommunities,
Arvin and Dinuba, in orderto assess the social impact of a proposed
irrigationscheme.Goldschmidt'sfindings-thatagribusinessdomination
was associatedwitha lowerqualityofcommunity life-caused a local furor,
and Goldschmidtbeat a hastyretreatto the less controversialfieldof
Africankinshipsystems.RecentlyGoldschmidt'smonograph,reprinted
(1979) witha newintroduction in whichtheauthorreflects on theseignoble
events,has becomea rediscovered classicin thesociologyofagriculture (see
also the reviewof subsequentresearchby Mucktonet al 1982).
Some ruralsociologistsregardthesehistoricalepisodesas ominouspor-
tents.Researchin thisarea has a tendency, resultingfromempiricalobser-
vation ratherthan a criticaltheoreticalapproach, to create political
controversy and lead to politicallyuncomfortable policyrecommendations.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 03:24:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 RURAL SOCIOLOGY 75

In the1940sthistendencyabruptlycurtailedthedevelopment ofa sociology

settingof ruralsociologyin the
How well theinstitutional
of agriculture.
1980s can accommodatethisdevelopmentremainsto be seen.

TOWARD A THEORY OF RURAL SOCIETY

The sociologyof agriculturehas advanced along two frontsto become
establishedwithinAmericanruralsociology.First,the foci of empirical
investigation have changed.Formerlyrural sociologystudiedprimarily
rural-urban differencesand disparities,theadoptionand diffusion of agri-
culturaltechnology, the qualityof lifeand social indicators,community
development, demography, and theeducationaland occupationalachieve-
mentprocessesamongruralyouth.Now, however,thedisciplinehas slowly
begun to analyze the structureof agriculture,state agriculturalpolicy,
agriculturallabor,regionalinequality,and agricultural ecology(see Newby
& Buttel1980:15; Flinn1982).This has createda newresearchagendafor
the 1980s,and an important bodyofworkshouldappearoverthenextfew
years.
Second,the sociologyof agriculture as it has recentlyreemergedis not
onlymoreholisticin approach,it is also moretheoretical.The declineof
theconceptofa rural-urban continuumand thegeneralrejectionofspatial
determinism leftrural sociologywithouta coherentexplanatoryframe-
work.There was an awareness,howeverill-defined, thatthe searchfora
distinctive"ruraltheory"would be fruitless. A viabletheorywould have
to locate the ruralwithinthe overallspatial divisionof labor in society,
explainingtheroleoftheruralsectorwithingeneralsocial development. A
generaltheoryofsocietywas requiredthatlinkedthesocialwiththespatial.
Moreover,in orderto be sociological,such a theorymustemphasizethe
social,as thenotionof a rural-urban continuumhad not done. From the
late 1960sonwards,urbansociology,afflicted had
by thesame difficulties,
succeededin reorienting itselfalong these lines (Saunders 1981). Rural
sociology'sinfluences were,however,somewhatdifferent (see Buttel1981,
1982).
The first
temptation was to raidtheclassicsforcluesto an understanding
of agriculturaldevelopmentin capitalistsocieties.Extensivewritingson
development
agricultural by Marx,Weber,Kautsky,and Lenin havebeen
rediscovered and reevaluated(e.g. see Goss et al 1980; Hussain & Tribe
1981a,b;Nelson 1982).This exercisehas beenneitheran uncriticalone nor
a mereessay in sociologicalantiquarianism.Indeed, forall the insights
obtained,perhapsthemostilluminating serviceof thisendeavorhas been
to emphasizethe limitationsof the classical sociologicaltheoriesabout
Nineteenth-century
affairs.
agricultural theorists workedpredominantly on

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 03:24:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
76 NEWBY

theoriesofindustrialsociety,withinwhichagriculture playedonlya resid-

ual role.Althoughtheydid notignoreagriculture, theyconsideredit only
as a backgroundfactor,as part of the preindustrial, precapitalist, tradi-
tional,and residualsocietythat had been transformed by industrialism.
This,forexample,was Marx's perspective in Capital as wellas Weber'sin
his analysisof the backward-sloping supplycurve of labor among the
Silesianpeasants.AlthoughMarx was laterto revisehis viewsofthepeas-
antry,his assessmentoftheirbackwardness and historicalinconsequenceis
well-known(Duggett 1974). Marx also regardedthe English case of
agrariancapitalistdevelopmentas prototypical, whereassubsequentre-
searchhas shownit to be unique.Thus whilethe sociologyof agriculture
has acceptedmuch of Marx's methodology(i.e. class analysis),a literal
applicationof Marx's writings to modernagriculturehas been foundun-
helpful.
Attentionhas thereforeturned to Marxist revisionists-especially
Kautsky and Lenin. Kautsky'swritingson agrariandevelopmentwere
probablyunknownin theUnitedStatesfiveyearsago. In partthisis due
to the factthathis mostrelevantwork,The AgrarianQuestion(1899), is
unavailablein English,althougha summaryof selectedpartsby Banaji
(1976) has beenpublished.Kautskydealtwithan issuedirectlyrelevantto
thestructure ofagriculture today:theretention of a formally independent
class offamilyfarmers whoare nevertheless integratedintoan agribusiness
complexof agro-inputand food-production corporations.Kautsky also
arguedtheneed fora distincttheoryof capitalistdevelopment in agricul-
ture,a theorythatcould not be derivedfromindustrialcapitalism.The
importanceof land as a factorof productionwas regardedby Kautskyas
primarily responsibleforthisdistinction. In recentworkthisnotionhas led
to a renewedinterestin therelationship betweenlandholdingand thesocial
structure in ruralareas (e.g. see Goss et al 1980; Geisler& Popper 1981;
Massey & Catalano 1978).
Lenin'swork,particularly TheDevelopment ofCapitalismin Russia and
Theoryof theAgrarianQuestion,also concernsthe distinctive qualitiesof
capitalistdevelopment in agriculture (Nelson 1982). Leninalso attempts to
understand theobjectivebasisofthesurvivalofthepeasantry.For contem-
porarysociologists,however,his workis vitiatedby teleologicalassump-
tionsabout the eventualdisappearanceof the peasantryand by flirtation
withtechnologicaldeterminism. Nevertheless, Lenin indicatedone highly
relevantaspectofcapitalistdevelopment in agriculture:thatitproceedsnot
via rapidconcentration and centralization ofproduction butbythedifferen-
tiationofthepeasanthousehold-i.e. theemergenceofworker-peasants or,
in the Americanidiom,part-timefarmers.This has helpedto providea
deepertheoretical understanding oftwoimportant areas ofruralsociologi-

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 03:24:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 RURAL SOCIOLOGY 77

cal research-theroleofwomenin agriculture (see Wilkening & Bharadwaj

1968; Sawer 1973;Pearson 1978; Sweet 1972; Hill 1981) and thatof part-
timefarmers(Buttel& Larson 1982; Buttelet al 1982; Cavazzani 1979;
Coughenour& Wimberley1981; Heffernan et al 1982).
In general,therefore,theclassicson capitalistdevelopment in agriculture
have providedsome freshinsightsand a provocativeset of researchques-
tions.Theirvalue,however,liesnotin providing easyanswersto contempo-
raryquestionsof substantive sociologicalanalysisbut in theircombining
holistictheorywithempiricalresearch.
The sociologyof agriculture has been affected by a secondset of influ-
encesfromoutsidethefieldas conventionally defined-fromthesociology
ofdevelopment, especiallytheburgeoning literature on peasants.Extensive
debateson simplecommodity production, articulation ofmodesofproduc-
tion,and the "worldeconomy"perspectivehave becomerelevantforthe
sociologyof agriculture. Some of theseconceptshave been appliedto the
analysisofagrariansocietiesin NorthAmericaand WesternEurope.Fried-
mann(1978, 1980),forexample,has used theoretical insightsdevelopedin
the fieldof peasantstudiesto illuminatethe historicaldevelopmentand
contemporary persistenceof thefamilyproprietorship formof productive
organizationin NorthAmericanagriculture.Like Kautsky,Lenin, and
others(see above), Friedmannseeksto distinguish capitalistdevelopment
in agriculture fromthatin othersectorsoftheeconomy.Thus ruralsociolo-
gistscontinueto exploreissuesraisedbythe"agrarianquestion"intheearly
yearsofthiscentury (see Hussain& Tribe198la, b), examining thedifficul-
ties of accountingforthe observedtendenciesof agrariandevelopment
withina Marxistframework. Among the factorsisolatedforparticular
attention havebeenthedisjunction betweenlabortimeand productiontime
in agriculture (Mann & Dickinson1978; Mooney 1982),thecompatibility
offamilyproprietorship in farming withlarge-scalecorporateinvolvement
infoodprocessing, distribution, and retailing(Goss etal 1980;Pfeffer 1982);
and thesponsorshipof familyfarmsby thestate(Friedmann1978; Mann
& Dickinson1980; Mottura& Pugliese 1980; Havens & Newby 1983).
This growingcross-fertilization betweenthe sociologiesof agriculture
and developmenthas been facilitatedby the growingawarenessof the
interrelationshipbetweentheagricultural sectorsoftheadvanced-industrial
and theless-developed countries.This interrelationship is maintainedboth
by the prevailingpatternof international tradein food commoditiesand
throughmulti-national corporatecontrolof agriculture, food processing,
and distribution throughout the ThirdWorld (George 1976, 1979). Such
corporatecontrolhas givena new meaningto the phrase"the changing
structureof agriculture," whichis now used to describenot onlychanges
in thescale and concentration of productionbut also thechangingrole of

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 03:24:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
78 NEWBY

farmingin the agribusiness complex.Agribusinessis global in scope and

stretches alongthefoodproductionchainfromseedproductionto fast-food
franchising. The examinationof thisfoodproductioncomplextakesrural
sociologistsfarbeyondtheanalysisofwhatis customarily regardedas rural.
For example,attention has beendrawnto theroleofresearchand develop-
mentin bothpublicand privateinstitutions, undertaken withtheprimary
purposeofdevelopingnewagricultural technologies(in thebroadestsense)
whoseeventualinfluence on thestructureofruralsocietycan be consider-
able (e.g. see Hightower1973; Busch & Lacey 1982; Kenneyet al 1982).
Similarly,the ecologicalimpactsof this emergentagribusinessstructure
havebeenmonitored(Buttel& Larson 1979; Larson& Buttel1980;Gilles
1980;Heaton& Brown1982) and thesocial consequencesoftechnological
innovationat theleveloftheworksituationare receivingattention(Fried-
land et al 1981).These concernscombinein an innovativeresearchagenda
forruralsociologyin the 1980s.

CONCLUSIONS
Here I have treatedthe sociologyof agricultureas the most significant
recentdevelopment in the fieldof ruralsociology,locatingits emergence
withintherecenthistory ofruralsociology,indicating someofitsdistinctive
qualities,and drawing attention to ongoing research in thisarea. How long
of
thesociology agriculture will continue to gain adherents remainsto be
seen. For at
thetimebeing, least, it has become an area oflivelytheoretical
and empiricaldebate.If successful, it maybroadenitsarea ofenquiryfrom
itsspecificorigins(incorporating, forexample,thenonagricultural aspects
oftheruraleconomyand society)and eventually mergeintothemainstream
ofrural-sociologicalenquiry.Much willdependon whethertheinstitutional
contextofruralsociologywillaccommodatesuchdevelopments (Friedland
1979).
to stressthatthesociologyofagriculture
It is important is by no means
monolithic. Withinthefielda divergence oftheoretical and methodological
approachesassuresthatimportant questionsare notignored.For example,
opinionpresently divergesoverwhetherruralsociologycan be reducedto
a sociologyofagriculture or whetherthelatteris merelya usefulheuristic
devicewithwhichto beginreconstructing ruralsociology.Devoteesofthe
formerview argue that "rural sociology"is a meaninglessnotionthat
shouldbe replacedby analysesof the labor processesand social relations
ofproductionacrossa widevarietyofagricultural commodities (Friedland
1981; Friedlandet al 1981). Otherssee dangersof economicreductionism
in thisapproachand prefera broaderdefinition ofruralsociology(Newby
1982a,b). Thesepositionsobviouslyderivefrommoregeneralassumptions

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 03:24:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

abouttheconceptofpoliticaleconomyand therelationship
omy and society.Thus althoughthe sociologyof agricultureoffersno
startlingnewtheoryto resolvetheproblemsconfronting
ingruralsociology)today,it does addressimportant substantive
reticalissues.It has also imparteda renewedsenseofpurposeand direction
fromwhichthe wholeof ruralsociologyshouldbenefit(Flinn 1982).
LiteratureCited
Banaji,J. 1976.Summaryofselectedpartsof
Kautsky's Agrarian Question. Econ.
Soc. 5:2-49
Bealer,R. C. 1975.Theoryand ruralsociol-
ogy. Rur. Sociol. 40(4):455-77
Busch,L., Lacey W. B. 1982. Science,Agri-
cultureand the Politicsof Research.
Boulder,CO: WestviewPress
Buttel,F. H. 1981.Americanagriculture and
rural america:challengesfor progres-
sive politics.CornellRur. Sociol. Bull.
No. 120. Cornell University,Ithaca,
NY
Buttel,F. H. 1982.The politicaleconomyof
agriculture in advancedindustrialsoci-
eties:some observations on theoryand
method.In CurrentPerspectives in So-
cial Theory,ed. S. G. McNall, G. N.
Howe. Greenwich,CT: JAI Press
Buttel,F. H., Larson,0. W. 1979.Farmsize,
structure, and energyintensity: an eco-
logicalanalysisofU.S. agriculture. Rur.
Sociol. 44:471-88
Buttel,F. H., Larson,0. W. 1982. Political
implicationsof multiplejobholdingin
U.S. agriculture: an exploratory
analy-
sis. Rur. Sociol. 47:272-94
Buttel,F. H., Larson,0. W., Harris,C. K.,
Powers,S. 1982.Class and agrarianpo-
liticalideology:thedeterminants ofpo-
litical attitudesamong full-and part-
time farmers.Soc. Forces. 60: Forth-
coming
Buttel,F. H., Newby,H., eds. 1980. TheRu-
ral Sociologyof theAdvancedSocieties:
CriticalPerspectives. Montclair,NJ:Al-
lenheldOsmun
Castells,M. 1976. The UrbanQuestion.Lon-
don: Edward Arnold
Cavazzani,A. 1979.Part-time farming in ad-
vanced industrialsocieties: role and
characteristicsin the United States.
CornellRur.Sociol.Bull. No. 106. Cor-
nell University, Ithaca, NY
Copp, J. H. 1972.Rural sociologyand rural
development. Rur. Sociol. 37:515-33
Coughenour,C. M., Wimberley, R. C. 1981.
Small and part-time farmers.In Rural
Society:Issuesforthe1980's, ed. D. A.
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 03:24:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RURAL SOCIOLOGY 79
betweenecon-
sociology(includ-
and theo-
Dillman, D. J. Hobbs. Boulder, CO:
WestviewPress
Duggett,M. 1974.Marxon peasants.J.Peas-
ant Stud. 2:159-82
Flinn,W. L. 1982.Ruralsociology:prospects
and dilemmasin the1980's.Rur.Sociol.
47:1-16
Ford,T. R. 1973.Towardsmeetingthesocial
responsibilitiesof ruralsociology.Rur.
Sociol. 38:372-99
Friedland,W. H. 1979. Who Killed Rural
Sociology?Paperpresented to theRural
Sociological Society Annual Confer-
ence, Burlington, VT
Friedland,W. H. 1981. The End of Rural
Societyand theFutureofRural Sociol-
ogy. Paper presentedto the Rural So-
ciological SocietyAnnual Conference,
Guelph,Ontario
Friedland,W. H., Barton,A. E., Thomas,R.
J. 1981. ManufacturingGreen Gold.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press
Friedmann,H. 1978. World market,state
and family farm: social bases of
householdproductionin an era ofwage
labor.Comp.Stud.Soc. Hist. 20:545-86
Friedmann,H. 1980. Householdproduction
and thenationaleconomy:conceptsfor
the analysisof agrarianformation.J.
Peasant Stud. 7:158-84
Gans, H. 1970. Urbanismand suburbanism
as ways of life.In Readingsin Urban
Sociology,ed. R. E. Pahl. Oxford:Per-
gamon
Geisler,C. C., Popper,F. J.,eds. 1981.Land
Reform,American Style. Montclair,
NJ: AllenheldOsmun
George,S. 1976. How the OtherHalf Dies.
Harmondsworth: PenguinBooks
George,S. 1979. FeedingtheFew. Washing-
ton DC: Inst. Pol. Stud.
Gilles, J. 1980. Farm size, farmstructure,
energyand climate:an alternative eco-
logicalanalysisofUnitedStatesagricul-
ture.Rur. Sociol. 45:332-39
Goldschmidt,W. 1979. As You Sow. Mont-
clair,NJ: AllenheldOsmun
Goss, K. F., Rodefeld,R. D., Buttel,F. H.
1980. The political economyof class
structure in U.S. agriculture:
a theoreti-
80 NEWBY
cal outline.In The Rural Sociologyof
theAdvancedSocieties:CriticalPerspec-
tives, ed. F. H. Buttel, H. Newby.
Montclair,NJ: AllenheldOsmun
Harvey,D. 1973.Social Justiceand theCity.
London: Edward Arnold
Havens,A. E., Newby,H. 1983.Agriculture
and thestate:an analyticalapproach.In
Stateand Agriculture, ed. P. Ehrensoft,
W. H. Friedland,F. H. Buttel.Am.
Univ. Press
Heaton, T. B., Brown,D. L. 1982. Farm
structureand energyintensity: another
look. Rur. Sociol. 47:17-31
W.
Heffernan, D., Green,G., Lasley,P., No-
lan, M. F. 1982. Smallfarms:a hetero-
geneouscategory.The Rur. Sociol. 2:
62-71
Hightower,J. 1973. Hard Tomatoes,Hard
Times.Cambridge,MA: Schenkman
Hill, F. 1981. Farm women: challengeto
scholarship.TheRur. Sociol. 1:370-82
Hussain,A., Tribe,K. 1981a. Marxismand
theAgrarianQuestion,Vol. 1, German
Social Democracyand the Peasantry,
1890-1907 London: Macmillan
Hussain,A., Tribe,K. 1981b.Marxismand
theAgrarianQuestion,Vol.2, Russian
Marxismand thePeasantry, 1861-1930.
London: Macmillan
Kaufman,H. F. 1963.A perspective forrural
sociology.Rur. Sociol. 28:1-17
Kenney,M., Buttel,F. H., Cowan, J. T.,
Kloppenburg,J. 1982. Genetic engi-
neeringand agriculture:exploringthe
impactsof biotechnology on industrial
structure,industry-university relation-
shipsand thesocialorganization ofU.S.
agriculture.CornellRur. Sociol. Bull,
No. 125. Cornell University,Ithaca,
NY
Kirkendall,R. 1966. Social Scientistsand
Farm Politicsin theAge of Roosevelt.
Columbia,MO: Univ. MissouriPress
Larson,0. W., Buttel,F. H. 1980.Farmsize,
farmstructure, climateand energy:a
reconsideration. Rur.Sociol. 45:340-48
Lowry,S. 1977.Ruralsociologyat thecross-
roads. Rur. Sociol. 42:461-75
Mann, S. A., Dickinson,J. A. 1978. Obsta-
cles to thedevelopment ofcapitalistag-
riculture.J. PeasantStud. 5:466-87
Mann,S. A., Dickinson,J.A. 1980.Stateand
agriculture in twoerasofAmericanag-
riculture.In TheRural Sociologyof the
Advanced Societies: Critical Perspec-
tives, ed. F. H. Buttel, H. Newby.
Montclair,NJ: AllenheldOsmun
Massey,D., Catalano,A. 1978. Capitaland
Land. London: Edward Arnold
Merrill,R., ed. 1976. Radical Agriculture.
NY: Harper
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 03:24:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mooney,P. 1982.Labortime,production time
andcapitalistdevelopment inagriculture:
a reconsiderationoftheMann-Dickinson
thesis.Sociol. Rur. In press
Mottura,G., Pugliese,E. 1980.Capitalismin
agricultureand capitalisticagriculture:
theItaliancase. In TheRural Sociology
oftheAdvancedSocieties,ed. F. H. But-
tel, H. Newby. Montclair,NJ: Allen-
held Osmun
Muckton,C. F., Rochin,R. I., Gwynn,D.
1982. Farm size and communitywel-
fare: an interdisciplinary approach.
Rur. Sociol. 47:32-46
Nelson,E. 1982.Leninand thedevelopment
of Americanagriculture.Rur. Sociol.
2:150-53
Newby,H. 1980. Rural sociology-a trend
report.Curr.Sociol. 28(1):1-141
Newby,H. 1982a. Rural sociologyand its
relevanceto theagricultural economist:
a review.J. Agric.Econ. 33(2):125-65
Newby,H. 1982b. Rural sociologyin these
times.Am. Sociol. 17(2):60-70
Newby,H., Buttel,F. H. 1980. Towards a
criticalrural sociology.In The Rural
Sociology of the Advanced Societies:
CriticalPerspectives, ed. F. H. Buttel,
H. Newby. Montclair,NJ: Allenheld
Osmun
Nolan, M. F., Galliher,J. F. 1973. Rural
sociologicalresearchand social policy:
hard data, hard times. Rur. Sociol.
38:491-99
Nolan, M. F., Hagan, R. A. 1975. Rural so-
ciologicalresearch,1966-1974:implica-
tions for social policy. Rur. Sociol.
40:435-54
Pahl, R. E. 1966. The rural-urbancon-
tinuum.Sociol. Rur. 6:299-327
Pearson,J. 1979. Note on femalefarmers.
Rur. Sociol. 44:189-200
Perelman,M. 1977. Farmingfor Profitin a
HungryWorld.Montclair,NJ: Allen-
held Osmun
Pfeffer,M. J. 1982. The labor processand
capitalistdevelopmentin agriculture.
Rur. Sociol. 2:72-80
Picou, J. S., Wells, R. H., Nyberg,K. L.
1978.Paradigms,theories, and methods
in contemporary ruralsociology.Rur.
Sociol. 43(4):559-83
Rodefeld, R. D., Flora, J., Voth, D.,
Fijimoto, I., Converse,J., eds. 1978.
Changein RuralAmerica:Causes,Con-
sequencesand Alternatives. St. Louis: C.
V. Mosby
Rogers,E., Shoemaker,F., 1971. Communi-
cationof Innovations: A Cross-Cultural
Approach.Glencoe,IL: Free Press
Saunders,P. 1981.Social Theoryand theUr-
ban Question.London: Hutchinson

Sawer,B. J. 1973. Predictorsof farmwife's
involvementin general management
and adoption decisions. Rur. Sociol.
38:412-26
Schmitt,P. J. 1969. Back to nature:theAr-
cadian mythin ruralAmerica.NY: Ox-
fordUniv. Press
Sevilla-Guzman, E. 1981.La TradicionSoci-
ologica de la Vida Rural.-Una Laga
Morcha Hacia el Funcionalismo.Cor-
doba, Spain: Inst.Sociol. PeasantStud.
Sewell,W. H., 1950.Neededresearchinrural
sociology.Rur. Sociol. 15:115-30
Sewell,W. H., 1965. Rural sociologicalre-
search, 1936-1965. Rur. Sociol. 30:
428-51
Stokes,C. S., Miller,M. K. 1975.A method-
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 03:24:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RURAL SOCIOLOGY 81
ological reviewof researchsince 1965.
Rur. Sociol. 40:411-34
Sweet,J. A. 1972. The employment of rural
farmwives.Rur. Sociol. 37:553-77
US Departmentof Agriculture.1979.Struc-
ture Issues in AmericanAgriculture.
WashingtonDC: USDA
US DepartmentofAgriculture. 1981.A Time
to Choose.WashingtonDC: USDA
Wakeley,R. E. 1967. Definitionsand rela-
tionships ofruralsociology.Rur.Sociol.
32:195-98
Wilkening,E. A., Bharadwaj,L. K. 1968.
Aspirationsand taskinvolvement as re-
lated to decision-making among farm
husbands and wives. Rur. Sociol.
33:30-45