Neighborhoods and Communities

Abstract

The purpose of this article lies in tracing historically the development of the rural community research in U.S.A. from its origin to the present. At first, discussions are focussed upon the ideas of the pioneers in rural sociology. Galpin's work, in 1915, was the first to see the real nature of rural community and to develop the method of delimiting its boundaries. After this pioneering work, two types of studies followed the one was that of neighborhoods and the other, that of town-country relationships. Kold led the way of the neighborhood study. He defined the neighborhood as the rural primary group and emphasized its importance in rural areas. Other neighborhood studies also came to the same conclusion as this. On the other hand, Sanderson explained well-definitely Galpin's rurban community through the detailed analysis of modern rural life as well as the older forms of group living, and predicted the absorption of smaller centers into larger ones. Zimmerman, in contrast with Sanderson's explanation based on the gesellschaftlich principle, took into consideration the gemeinschaftlich characters of smaller centers and insisted the persistence of them. Secondly, discussions concern with criticisms posed against the above stated pioneer's works and new types of community study in connection with changes occurring in the country. As for the neighborhood, the first question raises against the fixed conception on the existence of the neighborhood and the method of identifying it by local name alone, with weakening and losing importance of neighborhoods. Through this criticism, Mayoproposes the field reconnaissance survey, and Slocum, the cognitive research. The second question is made on the problem that by what group the function of the neighborhood in local programs should be performed. Loomis emphasizes the importance of the informal group in action programs, and Ryan, the special interest group. While the rural community enhances its solidarity, it becomes complex and loses its self-suffiency. In the series of “Rural Organization Study” many writers doubting the validity of the classification between community and neighborhood, use the conception of the locality group including both and give ratings on services and group identification in eachlocality group. The interdependence among centers asserts itself, along with the loss of self-sufficiency in the rural community. In this process, the dominance of larger centers such as countyseat tow ns becomes more and more conspicious. Brunner, however, points out through the analysis of village population that smaller centers persist even under these circumstances. Kolb recognizes the interrelatedness and interdependency among centers through the repetitive researches in Walworth county and concludes that each locality group must be wayed out and have the flexibility to adjust to the changing situation. In concluding the report, a great deal of data on the rural community have been accumulated, indeed, but there has been, as Smith puts it, no throughgoing analysis of the evolution and present status of neighborhood and community. It seem safe to say that only the series of “Rural Organization Study” and “Culture of Contemporary Rural Community Study” intend to make generalization and comparative study of these locality groups.