Persistence and Change in Rural Communities: A 50-Year Follow-up to Six Classic Studies (review)

A twentieth-century landmark project, stimulated by societal urbanization, industrialization, and agricultural transformations was The Culture of Contemporary Rural Community, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics (BAE). These same trends also motivated the classic community theorizing of Tönnies. The BAE studies produced descriptions of regional and culturally distinctive places, focusing on the resiliency of farmers and communities. Of the original six 1940s BAE community series, none had great theoretical impact nor were the distinctive community cultures in any of them made transparent. Together, however, the classic set provides a comparative snapshot of U.S. rural life centered on farming systems undergoing rapid restructuring as the nation emerged from the Great Depression and faced World War II. The communities were selected to represent points on a continuum from stability (Pennsylvania Amish) to instability ("Dust Bowl" Kansas). The other four communities represented locations between these extreme social and economic stability cases. Since the BAE project the industry of American agriculture has undergone further mechanization and concentration and is heavily supported by government subsidies; many, especially women, must work off the farm to survive.

Although follow-up community studies are rare, it is an ideal way to capture change. This book by rural sociologists revisits the original BAE communities to learn what characteristics have persisted and whether predicted changes took place. The comparative framework provides snapshots before, 50 years after, and in several cases points in between, to present a window on rural community change and the evolution of research methodologies. The theoretical framework leans heavily on the work of R.L. Warren (The Community in America, 3d ed. Rand McNally) and K.P. Wilkinson (The Community in Rural America. Greenwood Press, 1991). A final chapter considers trends in community organization and capacity building in the context of theory and rural development policies since the BAE studies. Overall, the communities did not evolve as expected, a testimony to the unpredictability of societies, technology, and the economy.

Sublette, Kansas, restudied by L. Bloomquist, D. Williams, and J.C. Bridger, was unexpectedly resilient. Adoption of irrigation (using the Ogallala aquifer), along with the introduction of large cattle-feeder lots and meat-packing plants in neighboring counties, caused population growth and diversification. Irwin, Iowa, restudied by E.O. Hoiberg, evokes the richest sense of community from his spending considerable time doing the restudy. Considered a stable BAE community, Irwin's voices today detail struggles with declining population and economic marginalization. Harmony, Georgia, in the southern Black Belt was restudied by G.P. Green in a well-done chapter. Race and class still matter. What was the community is mostly covered by a man-made lake that has increased both tourism and social stratification. El Cerrito, New Mexico, restudied by R.S. Krannich and C. Eastman, faces challenges similar to those of the 1940s — isolation and marginal natural resources but the strong Hispanic culture still enhances a sense of community. The Amish of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, restudied by A.E. Luloff, J.C. Bridger, and L.A. Ploch, endure the challenges of growth, development, and regulation. They show remarkable creativity by adapting yet maintaining their cultural and religious integrity. Finally, Landaff, New Hampshire, restudied by F. Schmidt, E. Skinner, L.A. Ploch, and R.S. Krannich, is being changed economically, physically, demographically, and socially by urbanites who find its rurality and scenic ambiance attractive.

Agrarian field studies of short duration, the original BAE work was not thorough; women and children, for example, were largely absent. Stylistically, patterns were distilled, but few methodological details were provided about how conclusions were arrived at. Unfortunately, most of these follow-up studies suffer from similar problems. A methodological appendix that included comparative demographic data and time spent in the communities would have made the book more rigorous and provided a context for change. The rural sociologist authors are respected for...