The Hinterland Reconsidered

Abstract

SENSE of the need for refinement and respecification of a concept found to be unwieldy as an analytical tool is not an uncommon experience of the sociologist. The concept is one of those whose usefulness would be enhanced by some refinement. Re-examination of the work of human ecologists and rural sociologists may permit description of population dispersion in such a way as to contribute to more precise specification of the concept rural and to make some progress toward the development of a more useful rural conceptual scheme. This paper proposes to approach a more specific definition of rurality by considering and the ecological concept hinterland together. The basic hyphothesis of this paper is that the moral order in the raw-materials-producing areas of high land-to-man ratios is dynamic and not static but it continues to be a distinctive order. Logical argument and empirical evidence in support of this hypothesis will seek to establish a three-way classification of population: Metropolitan areas, Urban Hinterland, and Rural Hinterland. These concepts, if adequately defined, would serve as replacement for the commonly used rural-urban dichotomy which has limited usefulness in the analysis of population differences. Effort will be made to avoid two points of view that appear to be sources of difficulty in arriving at useful conceptualization. One of these may be termed intellectual urbanism, or the thinking about areas beyond the city in terms of the city. A current thought convention is that which identifies people, institutions, and economicsocial organization with a locality center rather than as being located in space. From this point of view emphasis is placed upon the influence of the center to the extent that there is the conclusion that areas about the center are taking on the characteristics of the center. The other point of view is that in which a point is selected on the historical continuum and used as a measure by which to assess the behavior patterns of people, institutions, and economic-social organization of a different time period. Selection is made of a general period on the historical continuum, and a rural area is proved to be different now from what it was then. The basis of argument of the present paper is that there are both changes beyond the city influenced by the city and striking contrast between rural areas in one period and in another, but a basic difference remains between urban and in both historic periods. Some modifications of the rural-urban dichotomy are suggested by rural sociologists in discussions of different aspects of diversity in what is termed rural. One measure of diversity is in terms of which have characteristic population concentrations. The only empirical work on this concept is that of Brunner and Kolb,' which extends in sociological terms description of economic zones after the manner of their delineation in rural Germany as described by Max Weber and von Thunen. Another consideration of diversity is that of Carl C. Taylor and associates 2 who advance hypotheses about crop type areas as universes and present impressionistic descriptions of traditions, attitudes, and values of people as related to economic organization required in the production of different types of crops. Another approach to the diversity in rural life is the cultural, which conceives of social structure and social organization as having been influenced by the culture of the people rather than viceversa. Kolb and Brunner 3 describe the settlement of rural areas by people who did not rest until their ideals and values had been embodied in institutions essential to