Paradigms,Theories, and Methods in Contemporary Rural Sociology: A Critical Reaction to Critical Questions

Abstract The content analysis by Falk and Zhao (1989) of theoretical orientations shown in Rural Sociology articles during the span 1976–1985 is critically evaluated as to its methodological adequacy and substantive conclusions. The former is shown as suspect and, therefore, the latter become moot. Discussion is particularly focused on the elaboration by Falk and Zhao on the wisdom of the metatheoretical underpinnings of the field in the decade explored. While they are less critical in judgment of rural sociology's performance than was the earlier study being “replicated” (Picou et al. 1978a), the assertion made by Falk and Zhao is still fundamentally misdirected. Until rural sociology faces the issue of data quality, its improvements in “theory” activity will not be substantial.     

Review Essay:Rural Sociology,Migration, and Community Change

Research in Rural Sociology and Development: Focus on Migration, edited by Harry K. Schwarzweller and Brendan P. Mullan. Population Change in the Rural West: 1975–1990, edited by John M. Wardwell and James H. Copp. Lanham, MD Community of Strangers: Change, Turnover, Turbulence and the Transformation of a Midwestern Country Town, by Joseph A. Amato and John Radzilowski.     

ANOMIE, SOLIDARITY, AND CONFLICT: French Sociology and the Limits of Dialogue

What explains the splintering of the sociological imagination? Why do so many rival schools contend for influence? Is there a chance for consensus? Donald N. Levine seeks to answer these questions in his intriguing recent study of the sociological tradition. He contends that sociology has been divided from the start along national lines, yet continues to progress towards harmony thanks to the “dialogical’ commitments of the various national traditions. I argue that Levine misjudges the character and depth of past and present rifts, and that he overestimates the likelihood of future disciplinary unity.     

Sociology and game theory: Contemporary and historical perspectives

Theory and Society -     

Charisma: From Weber to Contemporary Sociology1

This paper critically examines sociological treatments of the concept of charisma. It demonstrates that the existence of diverse and conflicting views on charisma is due partly to sociologists' selection accentuations of the different types of charisma (magical, prophetic, and routinized) in Weber's writings. Reconsidering charisma as an expression of alienation, the paper also suggests a synthetic approach that may alleviate the conceptual anarchy surrounding it.     

Reinventing Rural Sociology: Processes and Substance1

Abstract Major shifts in the terms of the social contract between society and land grant universities have implications for the research, teaching, and extension agenda of rural sociology. By tracing the legislative, academic, and social context of these changes, one can understand the evolving process, the forces of change, and the necessity for new organizational strategies to respond to society's needs. Better networking with constituencies and use of advisory councils would tie the discipline closer to these needs. The identification of substantive needs are a product of such interaction and reflect new opportunities for rural sociology to provide leadership for human and community development programs.     

Rediscovering Families and Households: Restructuring Rural Society and Rural Sociology1

Abstract The debate on rural restructuring is extended by redefining families and households and their study; by considering the contributions of family scholarship to rural sociological issues; by assessing the methodological implications and challenges of integrating a family focus in rural sociology; and by reengaging rural sociology around important policy issues. The structure and dynamics of family and household shape explanations of rural experiences. By integrating and building on family studies, rural sociology can enrich its knowledge base and further its relevance and power of explanation.     

A Sociology of the Periphery Versus a Peripheral Sociology: Rural Sociology and the Dimension of Space1

Abstract Rural sociology is intrinsically concerned with the spatial dimensions of social life. However, this underlying research tradition, particularly the use of space as a research strategy, has been insufficiently addressed and its contributions to general sociology are little recognized. I outline how concern with space, uneven development, and the social relationships of peripheral settings have provided substantive boundary and conceptual meaning to rural sociology, propelled its evolution, and left it with a legacy of strengths, weaknesses, and challenges. A willingness to tackle the dimension of space and the thorny problems it raises often sets rural sociologists apart from other sociologists. This research tradition contrasted with general sociology's concern with developing generalization, aspatial covering laws, and proto-typical relationships of modern or Fordist development settings. Conceptual openings have left sociologists questioning their past agenda. Coupled with the “creative marginality” inherent in the questions and contexts addressed by rural sociologists, this makes the subfield central to contemporary sociology.     

Contemporary Sociology: A Quarter Century of Book Reviews

Sociological Forum -     

Sex,Lies, and Statistics: Can Rural Sociology Survive Restructuring? (or) What Is Right with Rural Sociology and How Can We Fix It1

Abstract Rural Sociology faces increasing threats of marginalization from social and economic restructuring of academia and of the larger society in which it is embedded. Contrary to some recent analyses, the problem lies more in the inadequacies of data conceptualization, production, and collection than in the theoretical vitality of the discipline. The failure to match theoretical and conceptual advances with appropriate data leaves sociologists grappling with “modern data to study a postmodern world.” Research on the impact of restructuring on social and spatial divisions of labor and the contributions of feminist theory and research to the conceptualization of work and household illustrate the theoretical advances and the empirical deficiencies faced by the discipline. Disciplinary survival and development depend on meeting the challenge of matching theoretical progress with an appropriate empirical base.     

Sociology after Humanism: A Lesson from Contemporary Science Studies

The field of science studies is the site of an explicit reflection on the ontological premises of sociology, with rival approaches defined by distinctive ways of specifying the basic constituents of reality. This article takes advantage of this debate to compare three types of ontological schemes in terms of their internal coherence and their consequences for sociology. Sociological humanism —represented by proponents of the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK)—distinguishes between an immanent domain of social relations, a transcendent and meaningless material reality, and an intermediate, socially constructed level of knowledge, meaning, and culture. Symmetrical humanism —as found in the recent writings of Andrew Pickering—insists that society too should be placed among the constructions, thereby disqualifying it as a source of explanations for human agency and leaving a detached and self-moving human agent. The relational ontology —exemplified by the "actor-network" approach of Bruno Latour and others—makes no a priori distinctions between humans and others, or between transcendent reality and construction, treating these properties as outcomes. The two humanist approaches are found to be incoherent as ontological schemes and also, contrary to the assumptions of the current debate, inimical to sociological explanation. And contrary to the antisociological stance of the actor-network approach, it is found that the relational ontology provides a consistent basis for sociological explanations of human practices.     

The French Tradition of Sociology of International Relations: An Overview

International Relations (IR) is an Anglo-American discipline. It was founded in 1919 at Aberystwyth University. Immediately after the Second World War it found a particularly fertile ground for its development in the United States. Even if the discipline remained marked by its Anglo-American origins, a sociological school of international relations emerged in France in the 1960s, with two main authors Raymond Aron and Marcel Merle. This French sociology of international relations already dated back to the eighteenth century with Montesquieu and Tocqueville. In the context of the First and Second World Wars, Emile Durkheim and Marcel Mauss, produced an embryonic sociology of international relations. After the Second World War, Aron’s sociology of international relations marked a break with the French school. His sociology was influenced by Max Weber and Carl von Clausewitz. He produced a comprehensive and historical tradition of international relations sociology and his analyses had a strong influence in IR specialists during the entire period of the Cold War. Today, his thought continues to exert influence on French and foreign internationalists as an essential reference point of the discipline. Marcel Merle, for his part, influenced by the work of Durkheim and Mauss, created an explanatory, positive school studying transnational relations which exerted influence on French and foreign internationalists as well. This contribution offers an historical overview of the development of this French tradition of sociology of international relations from the eighteenth century to the present time.     

Sociology of Gender in the French Caribbean: a Slow and Fragile Process

The issue of gender emerged quite recently in French Caribbean sociology. For decades, it has been tackled, and often hidden, within other disciplines - mainly Anthropology, but also Demography, Public Policy, Historical Demography, the history of slavery, and Women’s history – and other fields or labels, like family structures, fertility, the status of women, sexuality. However, a specific field of sociological research on gender issues started really to develop since the end of the last century through the works of the Research Group «Gender and Society in the French Antilles » (setting in the Centre de recherche sur les pouvoirs locaux dans la Caraïbe).Through surveys on French Caribbean familial structures, domestic violence, cultural studies, the GESA questions gendered stereotypes and socialization, under the prism of a colonial legacy, strongly rooted in these French non independent territories.     

Breaking Walls,Building Bridges: Expanding the Presence and Relevance of Rural Sociology*

Abstract Rural areas continue to face a series of challenges; many are likely to have profound impacts on the vitality of these places over the long term. Of central concern is whether the rural sociological enterprise, a potentially vital source of information and guidance on such diverse issues, will be able to effectively respond to such challenges. The author argues that in order to strengthen its relevance and viability in coming years, the rural sociological profession must embrace three important shifts. First, it must modify the manner in which it engages in the production of new knowledge by pursuing a more balanced portfolio of investments in disciplinary and transdisciplinary research. Second, it must take a bold step to build bridges to new entities whose missions, goals, and values closely align with those of the Rural Sociological Society. And third, it must take a more proactive role in generating quality, scientifically sound information that is aligned with the needs of federal and state policy communities, particularly information that can better articulate how policies are likely to impact rural people and places.     

Shelves and Bins: Varieties of Qualitative Sociology in Rural Studies*

It did not take us long to discover that the “field” of qualitative research is far from a unified set of principles promulgated by networked groups of scholars. In fact, we have discovered that the field of qualitative research is defined primarily by a series of essential tensions, contradictions, and hesitations. These tensions work back and forth among competing definitions and conceptions of the field. Further, these tensions exist in a less‐than‐unified arena. We discovered that the issues and concerns of qualitative researchers in nursing are decidedly different from those of researchers in cultural anthropology. Symbolic interactionist sociologists deal with questions that are different from those of interest to critical theorists in educational research. Nor do the disciplinary networks of qualitative researchers necessarily cross each other, speak to each other, or read each other. (Denzin and Lincoln 1994:ix It is an interesting time to be leaning over the fences of American farms. There are discussions, even arguments, in the land about whether farmers ought to change the way they farm …There have been arguments like this heard before …[T]he basic question about farming splits into many smaller ones. The answers multiply and become contradictory. Hence this effort to sort the questions onto different shelves, the answers into different bins …There is only one new idea developed here: there are really no new ideas in arguments about agriculture. (Wojcik 1989:ix, x, xii)