CLOSING S E S S I O N

C U L T U R E A N D S O C I E T Y I N THE C O U N T R Y S I D E OF T H E F U T U R E

Report of a Panel Discussion

Tbr members of tbe Pawl ware: E. W. Hofstee, tbr Netberlana!r(Cbairmm); G. St. Siegm, FAO; T. Wahb, Ireland; H . E. Bracry, United Kingdom; M. C@&, Frame; and H. K i t h , Fe&d Rtpnblir of Germany.

The Cbuimm opened the discussion by raising the question of whether it still made sense to talk about the subject which had been announced. Various s p a k e n and dis- cussants during the Congress had expressed so m y doubts concerning the existence of a countryside, and whether there should be a separate discipline named rural sociology.

It was true, the Chairman said. that the quation was often r a i d since the changes in our world were of such a nature that the differences between rural and urban life were constantly diminishing. But, we should not be misled by false logic. As in other sciences. the tendency in sociology was to distinguish h e c n two types of differences: differences of an absolute character, dichotomies, and diBerences of degrce, by the allocation of places on a continuum. We should not forget, however, that concepts were only used in order to be able to formulate clearly observations which were made in the social reality. If we were unable to formulate a social reality by means of a concept, this did not mean that the reality did not exist. One could agree with Dr. Pahl concerning the non-existence of the rural-urban continuum without, however. denying that there were rural-urban differences.

The question of the definition of the countryside was not new. Even at the beginning of this century, before there was any talk of rural sociology, literature existed in which an awareness was shown that there was no single definition of the countryside which held true in all circumstances. This meant that city and countryside never fitted the two ends of a unidimensional continuum. But again, we should not fall victims to our own theo- retical thinking: reality showed that there were still important differences between the Countryside and cities. One phenomenon was very significant in relation to chis, namely the fact that rural-urban and urban-rural migration could be regarded as distinct from a c h other. This indicated that there was something in urban society which, for certain reasons, attracted a certain category of the rural population, while on the other hand, as bccame clear everywhere in the Western world, certain categories of city people felt attracted to the countryside. If one suggested that city people were attracted by the natural conditions in the countryside, the commcnt could be made that the countryside was no longer natural, and that the city and the countryside were once the same; they had become different because of different social conditions. In conclusion, the Chairman thought that it would be possible to start from the as-

sumption that there s~ a countryside in contradistinction to the city.

DiscusJon 395 Further, one should be clear what was meant by culture and by society. Without suggesting that the audience should accept one definition dictated from the Chair, it should be agreed that there were two different concepts of culture. The hnt was culture as the highest expression of the human mind, the arts and sciences; culture in this sense found the best dimate for its development in the cities. The second was culture as the tod i ty of beliefs, attitudes, ideals, values. norms. etc. of a certain human group. In this la t ta sense. the countryside had a culture as well as the city. As to society, there was less danger of misunderstanding, although definitions might differ. For a fruitful discussion the Chairman would prefer to define society as the t od i ty of relations between individuals and groups.

The first question for discussion by the Panel followed directly from this introduction: I . If we accept a definition of culture in the s e w of the totality of beliefs. attitudes,

values, norms, etc., did the Panel think that differences of importance would exist between the city and the countryside in the future? How did they think culture in the countryside would develop, and why did they think it would develop in the way they apccted?

Prof. Ci@& assumed that the culture of the future would be different from that of the praent, because the components of society would not be those of present-day societies, nor even those which resulted from contemporary trends which would l a d to impossible situations. There would not simply be one urban culture; there would be urban groups of many diversified cultural types. The countryside would contain purely agricultural areas, technical deserts, with few inhabitants. but these would be relatively rare. T h e greatest part of the countryside would contain many types of mixed societies. Present-day urban fringe areas might provide a picture of the future.

Dr. St. Sicgnu recognised a difficulty in finding clear definitions of rural and urban culture because we were so bound by tradition. ‘Rural’ usually meant small commuffltics; a city implied concentration and accumulation. It was necessary to think less of the different activities in the urban and rural environments and to give more attention to behavioral differences. Changes in attitudes should be studied more. We knew, for example, that land had become less important for social prestige, other possusions more so. Some rccognird trends might l a d to absurd situations, but there might be other vends which had not yet bcen recognised. Rural sociological resenrch should provide more insights into the mechanisms of change and its nature. and aim to find a yardstick for mcuuring progrcss.

Dr. Wufrb saw himself as a layman, which gave him the freedom to speculate upon a number of things, but to his astonishment professional sociologists also appeared to indulge in speculations. As long as it was not known what runl culture was, what its values were, what rural people wanted, we were in a dangerous situation when we set gals for planning. We were looking for a better life, and therefore the way of life must change. But how? Culture was not only a thing of the city. Everything had begun in the country- side, to be fo rma l id and crystallised later in the towns.

Prof. K6ttcr could not answer the question with a direct yes or no. A number of differ- ences which had becn of importance would disappear. there would develop joint basic values. there would be one predominant social organisation binding all. But t h a e would be no uniformity; it would not be one amorphous ‘porridge’. Different sectors of the economy and d i k e n t areas would react in different ways to certain changes. The m d y of such differences alone justified the eristcncc of rural sociology. Further, the ina-hg contact between rural and urban people caused differences: what was the townarnn

3 96 Closing session looking for in the countryside? Was he looking for the real countryside or was he urban- ising the countryside with his non-rural garden?

Dr. Bruq maintained that differences betareen town and country would exist in the future because we wanted them to remain. In the United Kingdom t h m was currently a deliberate attempt to prescrve differences through conservation. The conservation of the countryside had given rise to various organisations and committees concerned with work, play and cultural activities. The most recent development was the setting-up of the Countryside Commission, which had grown out of the National Parks Commission.

The Cbuirarua concluded that all the speakers agreed that urban-null differences would continue in the future, although both spheres might be completely different from what we knew now. The urban people who went to the countryside did not cherish rural values; they wanted something which was different from the city. For example, the ability to be near to one another, in contrast to the isolation in the city, might be important. Personally, the Chairman had no conservationist feelings with regard to the countryside. He was in favour of the integration of rural and urban developments in the areas of land reclamation in the Netherlands. A mixed society would come into existence, but the differences would remain. There was no point in mixing elements if the elements were not different.

The second question for discussion was : 2. Many values held by rural people will change in the future. Did the Panel think that

p-t social organisations in the countryside were inadequate in relation to the changes in values which we might expect? Arising from this, what kinds of changcs in the social organisations might be necessary, and how would they be likely to come about?

Prof. Ci@& thought that in the future situations which we must imagine a combination of urban and null values would exist. In order to achieve that position rural values would have to change. Thm would be a conflict between those who wanted a classless society and those who wanted a hierarchical society.

Dr. St. Sitgem anticipated that the mixing of the different cultures would have an im- pormnt influence on socinl organisations, lssociations and institutions. The question was, which of the present forms would survive? Studies by PAO indicated that new forms of cooperation between farmers were alrady coming into existence, not restricted as in the past to serving individual farm enterprises but forming new types of joint enterprise. Typical of these new forms was that they were more informal (smaller groups) than the older co-operativcs. This was in line with the general theory that the more advanced a society. the less formal it became. Many fvmers would not be able to keep pace with these developments. In particular, the growing differentiation within the rural population might create problems. What would be the effect of run1 industrialisation? This largely depended on how it was planned. Who wanted what? Who should do the planning? The population should actively participate in that.

Dr. Wdsb, continuing this latter point, expressed his concern about the differences in value-orientation between the government and the rural people. Agricultural production should change, farmers should have a better life, there was general agreement upon that. But it was not c l a r by what degree of protection, cooperation or integration this aim should be achieved. New forms of co-operation were necessary. but who should plan them? The rural population with its own organisations must come into the picture. There were two sides to planning: the interests of the government and those of the people, and these might diverge. Economic development, arising from economic changes and changes

Discurion 3 97 in aspirations, needed institutional adjustments. We should not have a mechanistic society, but an organic one.

Prof. KOttw waa convinced that the social organisation of the countryside, as an instru- ment for realising social values, should change. This would go along with the growth of the mixed village. The more traditional sectors of the society would become integrated into a modem rural society. Farmers should share the values of the global society. There would be a demand for the most capable farmen (cf. Dr. Kuhnen’s paper), and conse- quently a higher value would be placed upon achievement than upon ascription. Dr. Brag agreed. There were too many organisations drifting along based on the

principles of a century ago. In particular, the motor-car made changes inevitable. Due to specialisation. the self-contained rural community could no longer continue on its own. Becaw people were more mobile they would go where they wanted to get what they required; this might be to the town or to the next village. Specialisation, of a c o m d a l and social kind, was to be seen most durly in the urbvl fringe areas. New forms of social life, new organisations and new forms of leadership arose there.

C O M M E N T S F R O M T H E A U D I E N C E A N D R E P L I E S

Dr. Newmmr, Ireland, agreed with the positions taken, but wished to emphasize more explicitly the necessity to study the chamct&stia of rural society. There was something in rural society which had, perhaps. a value which should be retained. The speaker quoted a study on the behaviour of American soldiers in combat which showed that those soldiers with a rural background behaved less individualistically than those from cities. The between-nus in the relationships of people could create a different social atmosphere which might be valuable. Therefore. in the process of development, we should w the best of the cit ia whilst retaining the best of the countryside. Dr. Boblm, USA, considered as debatable the value, quoted by the previous speaker,

from the military study. Evidence could be obtained from the same study to show that soldiers with a rural background defected more often than those with urban backgrounds.

Mr. Houttyn Pirprr, the Netherlands, remarked that an attempt should be made to make a distinction between rural change as a process which arises naturally and cannot be influenced, and rural change as something which might give a form to an ideal, an aim for planning. A hope now existed that we could, through change, give form to OUT i d d s more than in the past. The quation was whether the rural situation would allow the possibilitia ncccssary for creating a society which had adiffennt character from that of the city. The differences would arise from the diffcmces in the density of population. which had an influence on the quality of human relations.

Prof. wa BlmrcAabrrrg, Fed. Rep. of Germany, w-as surprised that ‘M~UZC’ had been mentioned so little in the discussion. Some people preferred to work in agriculture and/or to live in the countryside because they wished to be in contact with nature. Others did not a r c about this. This variable should not be over-rated, but neither should it be forgotten.

Mr. Keenun, Ireland, was not too worried about how sociology allocated ‘rural’ and ‘non-rural’. We should be concerned with the problems which arose in trying to improve rural well-being. One of the problems was that too many farmers did not seem to undcr- stand how important professional training was for their own occupation. They understood that education was necessary for other occupations; why not for their own? What could we do to understand this?

Dr. PlmrrA, Fed. Rep. of Germany, thought that the quation of who should plan our society had been r a i d all too often during the Congress. It should not be forgotten that

398 Closing session

society also change3 of itself, and that the ideas of some individuals wen of importance when they had been &en over by the society. We knew, for example, that some change3 in the agriculture of Westem Germany hpd been brought about without planned inter- vention and at a futcr rate than the scientists had predicted. Much could be achieved when planning was carried out by councils formed by the local and regional population itself, expressing the people’s wishes, assisted by professional plannus. The people should take their own decisions and the plannus should help, where they could, to avoid mistakes.

Prof. Kiff tr disagreed with this. The examples of Germany and the USA had clearly shown that much can go wrong if individuals are free to make their own decisions; the resulting pockets of poverty were good examples. The Cbaiman also defended the need for planning in our society. Society was changing

more rapidly than in the past, and therefore planning was cssentid. To oppose planning was to oppose the future. We wanted freedom, but freedom was only assured if we controUed each other, if we contxolled the future which we have to share with others. In answer to Mr. Kcenan it could be said that d people should have a good general

education (up to 16 years of age), followed by professional training. Too many boys did not choose their agricultural profession, but just blundered into it. If they chose, they were likely to be better farmers.

Dr. Jubfik. USA, fared that too many tasks were being assigned to runl sociology as a discipline. Rural sociologists could not be planners, social philosophers, weltkc workers, etc.. dl at the same time. They should have a narrower responsibility. Runl sociologists in the USA today saw their specific responsibility as dealing with problems posed in the form of ‘ r d b l e questions’, such as: What are the causes and consequences of po- verty? What are the r o l s and functions of rural institutions? What are the values and attitudes of people? In this way it became easier to conceptualise the role and function of

Mr. MrNabb, Ireland. was also convinced that planning was necessary in modern society, but often planners did not take the people’s aspirations into account. They had precon- ceived idas of what was good for the countryside and failed to recognise the existence of certain trends which could not be influenced, which had to be accepted, such ps new ways of agricultural production (finulccd from the city) and the continuing run1 aodus.

Prof. CiW observed chat one reason why farmers wen relucant to send their children to agricultural schools was that these schools did not provide suAicicnt general education. They r e s t r i d thanselves too much to giving recipes for agriculture.

Dr. Sf. Sitgnu added that, in the countryside, there was often a wrong approach to eduation. Poorer teachers and teaching equipment in rural schools, d i n g materials not adapted to the needs of country people and the fact that town dwellers were told little about run1 conditions and ways of living. produced wrong images. Few educated people wished to live and work in the countryside.

Prof. K i t h stated again that it was the welfare of the population which really mattered; the institutions were only instruments for achieving this welfue. The situation in the countryside was often serious, but it certainly was not hopeless.

the discipline.