If once the “rural” and “urban” landscapes were sharply separated geographically, economically and culturally, with the intensification of the industrialization process and expansion of urban centers (and, obviously, with the dissemination of an urban culture from the point of view of material needs) there was an interposition of these two universes.
Consequently, there was also a mischaracterization of the ideal type of rural life and society. Thus, considering General Sociology as the science that is dedicated to the understanding of social phenomena resulting from relationships human beings – among men and of these with the environment – erected in a given society and that Rural Sociology would lean over the social phenomena intrinsic to the field, such as the latter, as a sociological perspective, would have survived the changes in its object of study? In other words, would Rural Sociology have disappeared in the face of the fading of the specificity of the rural world?
Rural Sociology, like General Sociology, was born out of a moment of crisis, with the concern of having as a sociological problem the social phenomena of the field and, more precisely, social problems, such as rural exodus, changes in labor relations, and the spread of a city, urban culture. The character of these changes is indisputable, and is at the heart of the events that founded the resurgence of the capitalist production process.
Between a strictly theoretical production with the concern of just producing and accumulating knowledge, and another one, guided by a engagement, as applied research for effective actions, it is possible to affirm that the latter prevailed in the genesis of sociology Rural. Knowing the precarious conditions of the countryman's life and, in a certain way, all the other influences of the cultural point of view of this individual, was what seems to have motivated works such as that of Antonio Candido, in Rio Bonito's partners, and so many others. Thus, Rural Sociology would have been born out of necessity and thus would incorporate a character utilitarian, in the sense of apology for social reform to improve the living conditions of the man of the field. However, Aldo Solari (1979) states that such a claim would be wrong, and Sociology is only responsible for interpretation of the facts, assuming a possible character as a support point for public policies in the scope of the rural. Despite its commendable concern to promote improvements, Rural Sociology (like General Sociology) should have the “[...] object of observing facts, discovering laws, interpreting their causes, explaining them; it deals with what the facts are, and not what they should be” (SOLARI, 1979, p. 4).
If, as a science, Rural Sociology emerged at a time of change with the transformations occurred in the countryside, this means that its genesis lies in the imbrication of these two universes, rural and of the urban. However, according to Solari (1979), more than a dichotomy between rural and urban, what would exist would be a “continuous”, a gradual scale, given the differences pointed out between such categories (rural and urban) are not permanently valid, and may change from one society to other. In other words, those “fundamental differences between the rural and urban world”, pointed out by other authors such as Sorokin, Zimerman and Galpin (1981), would not work account of explaining possible transitional bands, since these would not present in their entirety neither exclusively rural nor exclusively urban areas. It would be necessary to consider the degree of development of urban centers to think about the rural, which could be more or less urbanized.
Thus, the moment of crisis in the field refers to the beginning of this overlap between urban and rural and, therefore, considering that these transformations did not occur (and do not occur) homogeneously, different degrees of this same overlap appear, sometimes more accentuated, sometimes more superficial.
The modernization of the countryside is a process with no return in Brazil and in the world, and in this way, considering the movements of rural exodus; the urbanization of the countryside due to the arrival of an infrastructure characteristic of cities; the expansion of agribusiness with the implementation of high technology and expansion of the production scale; the agglutination of small properties by large companies that own large estates and the incorporation of a culture (in sense of material needs) in the city by the family of the countryside, would be the peculiar characteristics of the countryside doomed to the disappearance? And, more fundamentally, what would be left to Rural Sociology as an object of study, since the rural man becomes more and more similar to the man in the city? Thus, such questions suggest the creation of a great paradox. If Rural Sociology would have been born from a moment of crisis in the countryside, in view of the urbanization process of cities and the modernization of the means of production, the resurgence of this process it would be condemning it to a situation of extreme incapacity as a social science, given the gradual “disappearance” of its object of study: the rural environment itself, the field. In other words, the process (of urbanization, modernization) that created conditions for its existence would now be suffocating it due to the considerable transformation that the countryside had undergone.
However, according to important references in the study of Rural Sociology, perhaps the apparent paradox pointed out regarding the effects of the superposition of the urban by the rural cannot be sustained. As the transition from rural to urban is a fact, on the other hand there is the invasion of the countryside by the city, called by Aldo Solari (1979) the urbanization of the rural environment. The intensity of such phenomena would lead to a structural crisis in society and to the resurgence of Rural Sociology, as new problems arise that do not they would be detached from rurality because they are consequences of modernization in its urban sense, since the locus of its operation would be the field. Thus, this situation of constant approximation between the urban and the rural would not necessarily mean the extinction of the countryside and, consequently, of the Sociology that deals with it. On the contrary, it would only further reinforce the character of the importance of the dialogue between “rural and urban” that has already been stated here. More than that, what cannot be lost sight of is the fact that within this “continuous” existing on a scale in which at one end there would be the rural and the on the other, the urban, two facts are evident: first, both one extreme and the other would be ideal types – pure categories – that would not be found in the reality; secondly, given the difference in the intensity with which modernization processes take place in the most diverse rural areas of the globe, this scale would allow for an infinite number of classifications. That said, it is clear that such a dialogue would always be present, although varying in degree, in intensity, but never allowing the total overlap of one (whether rural or urban) over the other.
The contrast between metropolitan life and life in villages or farms will not disappear any time soon [...], as rural life is something broader than the 'sociology of agricultural occupation', this field is unlikely to be absorbed by sociology industrial. Furthermore, since all aspects of group life are characterized by generic features of rural life, other specialties (such as demography or family) will continue to receive contributions from sociology rural. (ANDERSON, 1981, p. 184)
Regarding the role of Rural Sociology, perhaps more than the concern with its extinction or disappearance, it would be interesting to suggest a discussion about its readjustment to deal with the range of new social phenomena or new clothing of those that were already present once. Furthermore, given the level of complexity of the capitalist system of production, which presupposes a center-periphery relationship between countries, in which agricultural production, agriculture and land exploration, in general, generate inputs for the most diverse industrial sectors, the rural urban proximity becomes even more patent. Thus, concepts, categories and terminology that take account of these new realities are needed. The economic, political and social changes experienced by the countryside led to a direct concern with the relocation of the purpose of the land and of human activity.
As an example, the concern with the issue of multifunctionality and pluriactivity thus arises. Such concepts are examples of the transformations in the methodological apparatus of Rural Sociology to deal with the reality of the countryside. Multifunctionality would be associated with the sense of creating means (by the government) for the development and promotion of land, territory. It would not be sectoral development, that is, the rural producer or the family farmer, but a concept that encompasses planning issues to ensure the local development as public policies, towards food security, the social fabric, environmental heritage, among others essential to development territorial.
As for pluriactivity, this would be linked to the new behavior of rural people in the face of social transformations that have taken place, which would have added functions other than just that of farmer. From rural tourism to the production of food products, characteristic of the countryside, on a large scale (commonly by through cooperatives and small family businesses), would be the new functions of the pluriactive individual of the field. In this way, in the words of Aldo Solari (1979), the country man is increasingly becoming an entrepreneur, managing an economic organization, through which he must obtain a Yield. Thus, such concepts and categories would, in fact, result from the efforts of Rural Sociology in the face of these new challenges. The creation of classification and reading mechanisms for these spaces is extremely important for the formulation of public policies in all spheres (municipal, state and federal).
Although sociology has its pre-determined field of study – namely, the social phenomena erected from rural life –, perhaps it is It is possible to say that it could not do without the constitutive elements of strictly urban phenomena, but, on the contrary, it should to engage in a dialogue with them, given that what has been called an overlapping here is nothing more than this dialogue itself between the rural and urban. If there is a rurality in the city, there is also an urbanity in the countryside. Even in the face of the complexity of social analyzes in times of constant change, it is up to Sociology to adapt from a methodological and epistemological point of view. More than the concern with its extinction as an arm of General Sociology, what matters is to achieve to overcome the challenge of continuing to point out alternatives and readings about rural issues in a way relevant. The rural is transforming, which does not mean that it is ending. Likewise, this is true for Rural Sociology.
Paulo Silvino Ribeiro
Brazil School Collaborator
Bachelor in Social Sciences from UNICAMP - State University of Campinas
Master in Sociology from UNESP - São Paulo State University "Júlio de Mesquita Filho"
Doctoral Student in Sociology at UNICAMP - State University of Campinas
Source: Brazil School - https://brasilescola.uol.com.br/sociologia/das-transformacoes-no-campo-as-sociologia-rural.htm
