Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Presidential Address
A complex array of socio-historical, demogi-aphic. and organizational factors have combined in recent years to threaten both the current
status of and future prospects for the discipline of rural sociology, and for
the Rural Sociological Society (RSS). This papei' examines the somewhat
problematic recent trajectories of the RSS as a professional organization and
of rural sociology more generally and notes a degree of disciplinary and
organizational inertia that have limited the pursuit of new directions. It also
presents a discussion of selected factors that have contiibuted to these
concerns, including both "external" factors that are largely beyond the
organizational reach of RSS and "internal" factors that aie more directly
linked to organizational characteristics and actions. Drawing upon the
distinctions between "red ocean" and "blue ocean" strategies outlined by
market strategists Kim and Mauborgne, the discussion then shifts to a focus
on action alternatives that, if pursued, could help to create an expanded set
of opportunities and a brighter futtire for niral sociology, and for the Rural
Sociological Society.
ABSTRACT
Rural Sociological Society. At the same time, portions of the paper are
unabashedly opinionated, and iinapologetically prescriptive. The
challenges that confront rural sociology are substantial, and they
require immediate attention. For that reason, this paper is as much as
anything else a call to action.
The discussion that follows is focused initially on the current status
and somewhat problematic trajectories of RSS as a professional
organization and of rural sociology more generally. Attention is then
directed to an analysis of selected factors that have contributed to the
challenges and vttlnerabilities that now confront us. The paper ends
with a discussion of strategies that might be pursued by the Rural
Sociological Society to enhance the future prospects of both the
organization and the discipline.
Where We AreAnd How We Got There
After several decades of what Bill Ftinn (1982) referred to 25 years ago
as "self-flagellation" and Bill Friedland (1982) called "continuous
...and relende.ss introspection," both the discipline of rtiral sociology
and the Rural Sociological Society (RSS) appear to have made only
Hmited progress in adapting to changing circumstances that affect both
the institutional contexts in which most of tis are employed and the
rural people, communities, and societies that are the focal points of our
work. As an organization, RSS has been slow to change and reluctant to
pursue the kind of extended and intensive strategic planning needed to
establish new directions. These circutnstances have brought the field of
rural sociology and the RSS to a critical crossroads. While I do not want
to be alarmist, I have no douht that "business as usual" cannot
continue any longerthe time to act is upon us. Our decisions about
future directions and about strategies for accomplishing organizational
change will determine whether rural sociology and the Rtiral
Sociological Society will be sustained, or whether our discipline and
our professional organization will continue to lose ground and
gradttally fade into relative obscurity.
Membership numbers represent one key indicator of organizational
health, vitality, and capacity to exert infltience and effect change.
Unfortunately, a review of trends in RSS membership over the past
decade provides very litde in the way of good news. Between 1988 and
1997 the organization's total membership exhibited short-term spurts
of both growth and decline, ranging from a low of 893 members in 1993
to a high of 1101 members in 1997. However, over the past decade the
trend has been more uniformly one of membership stagnation and
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Figure 2.
10
11
meeting venues where their identities are more clearly reinforced and
have fueled the emergence of new organizations and new journals that
compete with RSS for visibility, impact, and the allegiance of members.
(3) A largely failed attempt to build stronger bridges between RSS
and the American Sociological Association, and between rural sociology
and the broader sociological discipline. Over the past 10 to 15 years, few
debates within RSS have been as heated or as extended as that involving
the decision in the mid-1990s to hold future RSS meetings during
overlapping time periods and in the same or proximate locations as the
annual meeting of the American Sociological Association on an
alternate-year schedule. Some RSS members welcomed the opportunity
to more easily attend the meetings of both organizations, and
promoted the potential for rural sociology to btiild a closer affiliation
to the broader discipline. Some members opposing the policy decried
both the costs of meeting attendance in large-city convention venues
and the symbolic implications of holding "loiral" sociology meetings in
stich settings. Others expressed concerns about a potential blurring of
the distinct rural sociological identity if RSS and its members were to
become more closely connected lo atid influenced by ASA.
For the most part, neither the anticipated positive consequences or
the anticipated negative consequences of meeting coordination with
ASA have occurred, simply because efforts to schedtile coincident
meeting times and venues have been generally unsuccessful. Several
times during the past decade ASA has shifted its annual meeting to an
entirely different city and region in response to unresolved contractual
issties between hotel worker labor unions and convention hotels.
Unfortunately, those decisions occurred after RSS had established
contractual obligations for a meeting ventte that could not be
abandoned without incurring substantial financial penalties. As a
result, an tinintended consequence of this policy has been the location
of several recent RSS meetings in less-than-ideal locationssites that
undoubtedly would not have been selected in the absence of efforts to
coordinate with ASA meeting plans.
These circumstances have without question contributed to reduced
attendance at RSS meetings over the past decade. Some members,
confronted with an inability to participate in two temporally proximate
btit geographically distant conferences, have chosen instead to attend
ASA meetings. Others have bypassed RSS meetings held in what they
considered to be inconvenient, unattractive, or overly expensive
locatiotis. Reduced meeting attendatice contributes in ttxrn to reduced
effectiveness at both new member recruitment and member retention,
and to further erosion of the "rural sociology" identity.
12
13
based input and open dialogue about the issues and choices that
confront RSS. This is one of the strengths of our organization, and
certainly one that merits protection. At the same time, it is important to
recognize that the choices before us are difficult, and that consensus is
not likely to emerge. At some point it is necessary to move beyond
introspection and dialogue into actionand that has proven to be a
difficult step for RSS to take.
So Where Do We Go From Here?
Although "rural society" is less extensive and certainly very different
than has been the case historically, it is important to keep in mind that
one in five U.S. residents still lives in a nonmetropolitan setting, and
that in 2007 just slightly imder one-half of the world's population is
rural (see Wimberly, Morris, and Fulkerson 2007). Rural places and
populations remain at the center of an international agricultural
industry that has evolved into a complex, hierarchical world food
system that has important implications for the health and security of
rural and urban people across the globe (see Buttel, Larson, and
Gillespie 1990; Friedland 1982). Community-based natural resource
management provides a context within which the pursuit of ecological
as well as social well-being are intricately intertwined in rural
communities across both developed and developing societies (see
Baker and Kusel 2003; Wilkinson 1991). Spatially differentiated and
persistent patterns of poverty, inequality, and injustice continue to
plague rural people throughout the world and continue to call for
resolution (Lobao 2004). At the same time, deeply rooted societal
ideals about "rurality" and the attractions associated with rural
landscapes continue to influence public opinion, recreation and
tourism patterns, migration behaviors, and political decisions in the
United States and other advanced industrial societies. Even where
"rural society" has waned, rural remains an important "category of
thought" (Mormont 1990:41, as cited in Bell 2007)a social
construction that is deeply embedded in cultural and political discourse
(see Bell 2007).
While many additional topics and themes could be listed, it seems
obvious that the work of rural sociologists remains relevant and
important even though "rural society" has morphed into something
decidedly different in the 21" century. Indeed, as Don Dillman (2007)
has recently observed, rural social science may now be more important
than ever, largely because of major shifts that continue to alter the
social, economic, and biophysical landscapes of the rural countryside.
15
16
17
this will
18
19
The theme of the 2007 RSS annual meeting, "Social Change and
Restructuring in Rural Societies: Opportunities and Vulnerabilities,"
was designed to focus attention on both the vulnerabilities and the
opportunities that accompany social change and restructuring in rural
societies. Similarly, the forces of change confronting the discipline of
rural .sociology and the Rural Sociological Society present us with bolh
vulnerabilities and opportunities. We undoubtedly have the capacity to
adapt to changing circumstances, to chart a different course, and to
reconfigure RSS into an organization that will remain strong and vital
into the distant future. The question is, do we have the will to do so?
Are we prepared to take action?
In his seminal work on community, Kenneth Wilkinson (1991) wrote
about five key elements of well-being that should be kept in mind as we
venture forward. Central to Wilkinson's discussion of well-being is
collectiveflc/io^"peopleworking together in pursuit of their common
interests" (1991:74). Clearly, members ofthe Rural Sociological Society
need to engage in collective action to address the challenges confronting
our professional field and our association. In doing so we will "promote
and enrich the collective life" (p. 74) experienced through social
interactions that comprise the foundation of this organization.
However, our attempts at action will undoubtedly fall short if we fail
to recognize and nurture the other four elements of well-being that
Wilkinson identified. We must endorse the importance of distrilmtive
justicemeaning equit)' and justice as principles of interaction as we
engage in frank conversation and difficult decision-making about the
future of RSS. We musl foster open communicationboth through
creation of efficient channels for dialogue among members and
through adherence to the principles of "honesty, completeness, and
authenticity" (p. 73) in the communication process. As, was noted
earlier, we cannot allow differing perspectives to block decision making
and action, yet at the same time we must expect and promote tolerance
of differing viewpoints, and respect the right of others to disagree.
20
21