º: -
. . .”
AGo press
y
*
*
RFIE
or CHIC
TE
! 3
%
universi
!.
TH
t .
A.
șºg
· • •*.*:-******
… +**5.º-º, y;*
∞
ſaec ºże
ſae:

~~ ~~~~ ~~ ！= --！→· · ·|--, -|< ‘————————
·• !º ,|-*� ; ·-·- «* ,•*|-· · · · ·----· · · · · · · · -
--- ’’|-•--W·:«|-* *|-• .., ' ' ， .·*
-· * . . . . . '·%•|-·*- ----|-·-…»-* »- - . 'i º,
|-· -4 •|- •• ·/* -w«.• ---
--… •v.-•”· -· · *..”-• *-. . . ~ .-T · -•----- -
· · · ）.' ， ）.|-… ''· §• ！ ' |-N . . .- →· · · ·r. -· ?†· · ·------· · ·
` ſ . . . . ，... • !.-,-- ）· · ·! ,º T+ •--* \,-* : «` ~'' ~-
· · · -- -v • • •+•,|- -- ----
--~ ·#-• • • •; ~v.-----· ,.*
· ,· -·- - -!· ·→ · -•-- |-
{•· · -•}|- -•*-- -----
* „. “ ’ ”|-� +-·· |-},|-~ -- * ，
~s■-|-- ->
- |-�;*· --
-·-+-- -- -t -• . . . . "
[IIIIIIIIIIIIII|[[[[[[[{]
!!!!！!!!!!!!!!!!!!!！!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!！!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!！!!!!!!！!!!!!!!!!!！!!!!}}„~~-
-()-·- --
#* |-
±~…’|-
i E.-+}，
№ ---•:
0 ，;~ ~
w №|-
ſ 4-
， ，-
-· E
~º £-
|-№.∞ √- -
§##-|-
: riſèſ! €|-··
}}''.##·-
·w №.*-
ſ 3--，
Œ œ
№
Ë• |-*
ſ ;-）·
C ~~~）;|-
0 £-|-*-
ſ º•- |-|-
0 •• ’
№ ſº|-
! E+-
[ ***
w E|-
2 -
0 -•-
º :-）…
0 ••--
! E-< ‘
9. №
0 ：»·
t :-|-• • |-·
© 2S*|-
}#{-~~ «.
0 -
! E
U №.
0 £
[]E-*
U , ！
o £
! ±|-
2，97 ±##-|-|-
·■ ■ ■ ■??Fºrſ√≠√∞fr√¶R√¶R√∞ f√¶r√∞fr√¶R√∞ARRÆR，%%~ſº º*№.©©• • • •Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ∞##|-
ſiiſījiſſiiliſiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſ



























Reprinted from The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. X, No. 5, March, 1905
THE SOCIAL PROBLEMS OF AMERICAN
FARMERS
==
KENYON Lº BUTTERFIELD
PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
THE SOCIAL PROBLEMS OF AMERICAN FARMERS:
The title of this paper indicates that, for the present purpose,
the words “the rural community” have been interpreted to apply
chiefly to farmers. Eight millions of our people are classed by
the census as “semi-urban.” The village problem is an interest-
ing and important field for social investigation, but we shall dis-
cuss only the conditions and needs of farmers. -
(In America the farm problem has not been adequately stud-
ied. So stupendous has been the development of our manufactur-
ing industries, SO marvelous the growth of our urban population,
so pressing the questions raised by modern city life, that the social
and economic interests of the American farmer have, as a rule,
received minor consideration.) We are impressed with the rise of
cities like Chicago, forgetting for the moment that half of the
American people still live under rural conditions. We are per-
plexed by the labor wars that are waged about us, for the time
unmindful that one-third of the workers of this country make
their living immediately from the soil. We are astounded, and
perhaps alarmed, at the great centralization of capital, possibly
not realizing that the capital invested in agriculture in the United
States nearly equals the combined capital invested in the manu-
facturing and railway industries. But if we pause to consider the
scope and nature of the economic and social interests involved,
we cannot avoid the conclusion that the farm problem is worthy
of serious thought from students of our national welfare.
We are aware that agriculture does not hold the same relative
rank among our industries that it did in former years, and that
our city population has increased far more rapidly than has our
rural population. We do not ignore the fact that urban industries
are developing more rapidly than is agriculture, nor deny the
seriousness of the actual depletion of rural population, and even
of community decadence, in some portions of the Union. But
* Read at the Congress of Arts and Science, St. Louis, before the section of
“The Rural Community.”
606
SOCIAL PROBLEMS OF AMERICAN FARMERS 607
these facts merely add to the importance of the farm question.
And it should not be forgotten that there has been a large and
constant growth both of our agricultural wealth and of our rural
population. During the last half-century there was a gain of
500 per cent. in the value of farm property, while the non-urban
population increased 250 per cent. Agriculture has been one of
the chief elements of America’s industrial greatness, it is still our
dominant economic interest, and it will long remain at least a
leading industry. The people of the farm have furnished a
sturdy citizenship and have been the primary source of much of
our best leadership in political, business, and professional life.
For an indefinite future, a large proportion of the American peo-
ple will continue to live in a rural environment.)
In a thorough discussion of the “social problems of American
farmers” it would be desirable first of all to analyze with some
detail the general question which we have called the farm prob-
lem. Only thus can we understand the social difficulties of the
rural community, the significance of the social agencies designed
to meet those difficulties, and the real ambitions and needs of
the farming class. But time will permit merely a concise, and
necessarily a somewhat dogmatic, statement of what the writer
believes to be the ultimate farm problem in America. We may
perhaps most quickly arrive at the conclusion by the process of
elimination. -
Current agricultural discussion would lead us to think that
the farm problem is largely one of technique. (The possibilities
of the agricultural industry, in the light of applied science,
emphasize the need of the farmer for more complete knowledge
of soil and plant and animal, and for increased proficiency in
utilizing this knowledge to secure greater production at less cost.)
This is a fundamental need. It lies at the basis of success in
farming. But it is not the farm problem.
( Business skill must be added, business methods enforced. The
farmer must be not only a more skilful produce-grower, but also
a keener produce-seller. But the moment we enter the realm of
the market we step outside the individualistic aspect of the problem
as embodied in the current doctrine of technical agricultural
---, ºn ºs -- ſº tº gº
# , ºr “j : * * ,
: A jº ... '" ** . ." . . .**
a , ~~~~ : - . *
* * > t.
6O8 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
teaching, and are forced to consider the Social aspect as empha-
sized, first of all, in the economic category of price. Here we
find many factors—transportation cost, general market condi-
tions at home and abroad, the status of other industries, and even
legislative activities. The farm problem becomes an industrial
question, not merely one of technical and business skill. More-
Over, the problem is one of a successful industry as a whole, not
merely the personal successes of even a respectable number of
individual farmers. The farming class must progress as a unit.,
But have we yet reached the heart of the question? Is the
farm problem one of technique, plus business skill, plus these
broad economic considerations? Is it not perfectly possible that
agriculture as an industry may remain in a fairly satisfactory
condition, and yet the farming class fail to maintain its status in
the general Social order? Is it not, for instance, quite within
the bounds of probability to imagine a good degree of economic
strength in the agricultural industry existing side by side with
either a peasant régime or a landlord-and-tenant system? Yet
would we expect from either system the same social fruitage that
has been harvested from our American yeomanry P
We conclude, then, that the farm problem consists in main-
taining upon our farms a class of people who have succeeded in
procuring for themselves the highest possible class status, not
only in the industrial, but in the political and the social order—
a relative status, moreover, that is measured by the demands of
American ideals. The farm problem thus connects itself with the
whole question of democratic civilization. This is not mere plati-
tude. For we cannot properly judge the significance and the
relation of the different industrial activities of our farmers, and
especially the value of the various social agencies for rural better-
ment, except by the standard of class status. It is here that we
seem to find the only satisfactory philosophy of rural progress.
We would not for a moment discredit the fundamental impor-
tance of movements that have for their purpose the improved
technical skill of our farmers, better business management of the
ğrm, and wiser study and control of market conditions. Indeed,
we would call attention to the fact that social institutions are
l
SOCIAL PROBLEMS OF AMERICAN FARMERS 609
absolutely necessary means of securing these essential factors of
industrial success. In the solution of the farm problem we must
deliberately invoke the influence of quickened means of communi-
cation, of co-operation among farmers, of various means of edu-
cation, and possibly even of religious institutions, to stimulate
and direct industrial activity. What needs present emphasis is
the fact that there is a definite, real, social end to be held in view
as the goal of rural endeavor. The highest possible social status
for the farming class is that end.
We may now, as briefly as possible, describe some of the
difficulties that lie in the path of the farmers in their ambition
to attain greater class efficiency and larger class influence, and
some of the means at hand for minimizing the difficulties. A
complete discussion of the farm problem should, of course,
include thorough consideration of the technical, the business, and
the economic questions implied by the struggle for industrial suc-
cess; for industrial success is prerequisite to the achievement of
the greatest social power of the farming class. But we shall con-
sider only the social aspects of the problem.
RURAL ISOLATION
- Perhaps the one great underlying social difficulty among
American farmers is their comparatively isolated mode of life.
The farmer's family is isolated from other families. A small
city of perhaps twenty thousand population will contain from
four hundred to six hundred families per square mile, whereas
a typical agricultural community in a prosperous agricultural
state will hardly average more than ten families per square mile.
The farming class is isolated from other classes. Farmers, of
course, mingle considerably in a business and political way with
the men of their trading town and county seat; but, broadly speak-
ing, farmers do not associate freely with people living under
urban conditions and possessing other than the rural point of
view. It would be venturesome to suggest very definite generali-
zations with respect to the precise influence of these conditions,
because, so far as the writer is aware, the psychology of isolation
has not been worked out. But two or three conclusions seem to
be admissible, and for that matter rather generally accepted.

6 Io THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
The well-known conservatism of the farming class is doubt-
less largely due to class isolation. Habits, ideas, traditions, and
ideals have long life in the rural community. Changes come
slowly. There is a tendency to tread the well-worn paths. The
farmer does not easily keep in touch with rapid modern develop-
ment, unless the movements or methods directly affect him.
Physical agencies which improve social conditions, such as elec-
tric lights, telephones, and pavements, come to the city first. The
atmosphere of the country speaks peace and quiet. Nature's
routine of sunshine and storm, of summer and winter, encourages
routine and repetition in the man who works with her.
A complement of this rural conservatism, which cºº
thought seems a paradox, but which probably grows out of ulese
same conditions of isolation, is the intense radi lism of a rural
community when once it breaks away from its moorings. Many
farmers are unduly suspicious of others' motives; yet the same
people often succumb to the wiles of the charlatan, whether medi-
cal or political. Farmers are usually conservative in politics and
intensely loyal to party; but the Populist movement indicates the
tendency to extremes when the old allegiance is left behind.
Old methods of farming may be found alongside ill-considered
attempts to raise new crops or to ºtilize untried machines.
Other effects of rural isolation are seen in a class provincialism
that is hard to eradicate, and in the development of minds less
alert to seize business advantages and less far-sighted than are
developed by the intense industrial life of the town. There ,
time to brood over wrongs, real and imaginary. Personal preju-
dices often grow to be rank and arse-fibered. Neighborhoc
feuds are not uncommon and are often virulent. Leadership is
made difficult and sometimes impossible. It is easy to fall into
personal habits that may mark off the farmer from other classes
of similar intelligence, and that bar him from his rightful social
place.
It would, however, be distinctly unfair to e farm community
if we did not emphasize some tº : ** . * grow out
of the rural mode of life. Fa h: - to * , and the
typical American farmer is a man who thou, ... ºch and
--- -
-
--- - -
- - - -

SOCIAL PROBLEMS OF AMERICAN FARMERS 6 II
often deeply. A spirit of sturdy independence is generated, and
freedom of will and of action is encouraged. Family life is
nowhere so educative as in the country. The whole family co-
operates for common ends, and in its individual members are
bred the qualities of industry, patience, and perseverance. The
manual work of the schools is but a makeshift for the old-
fashioned training of the country-grown boy. Country life is an
admirable preparation for the modern industrial and professional
Career.
Nevertheless, rural isolation is a real evil. Present-day living
is so distinctively social, progress is so dependent upon social
g is, social development is so rapid, that if the farmer
is tº keep his status he must be fully in step with the rest of the
army. He muºsecure the social view-point. The disadvantages
of rural isolation are largely in the realm of the social relations, its
advantages mostly on the individual and moral side. Farm life
makes a strong individual; it is a serious menace to the achieve-
ment of class power.
A cure for isolation sometimes suggested is the gathering of
the farmers into villages. This remedy, however, is of doubtful
value. In the first place, the scheme is not immediately practi-
cable. About three and one-half billions of dollars are now
invested in farm buildings, and it will require some motive more
powerful than that inspired by academic logic to transfer, even
gradually, this investment to village groups. Moreover, it is
ºpossible to dispute the desirability of the remedy. The farm
village at best must be a mere hamlet. It can secure for the
armer very few of the urbºn advantages he may want, except
that of permitting closer daily intercourse between families. And
it is questionable if the petty society of such a village can com-
pensate for the freedom and purity of rural family life now exist-
ing. It may even be asserted with some degree of positiveness
that the small villag on the moral and intellectual sides, is dis-
tinctly inferior to he isolated farm home.
At the tº a ſim- ºut º' -ation in America is being over-
come by devº, ºlt ºtter means of communication
among rººs w all live on their farms. So successful are
6I 2 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
these means of communication proving that we cannot avoid the
conclusion that herein lies the remedy. Improved wagon roads,
the rural free mail delivery, the farm telephone, trolley lines
through country districts, are bringing about a positive revolu-
tion in country living. They are curing the evils of isolation,
without in the slightest degree robbing the farm of its manifest
advantages for family life. The farmers are being welded into
a more compact society. They are being nurtured to greater
alertness of mind, to greater keenness of observation, and the
foundations are being laid for vastly enlarged social activities.
The problem now is to extend these advantages to every rural
community—in itself a task of huge proportions. If this can
be done and isolation can be reduced to a minimum, the solution
of all the other rural social problems will become vastly easier.
FARMERS ORGANIZATION
Organization is one of the pressing Social problems that
American farmers have to face. The importance of the question
is intrinsic, because of the general Social necessity for co-operation
which characterizes modern life. Society is becoming consciously
self-directive. The immediate phase of this growing self-
direction lies in the attempts of various Social groups to organize
their powers for group advantage. And if, as seems probable,
this group activity is to remain a dominant feature of Social prog-
ress, even in a fairly coherent society, it is manifest that there will
result more or less of competition among groups.
The farming class, if at all ambitious for group influence, can
hardly avoid this tendency to organization. Farmers, indeed
more than any other class, need to organize. Their isolation
makes thorough organization especially imperative. And the
argument for co-operation gains force from the fact that rela-
tively the agricultural population is declining. In the old days
farmers ruled because of mere mass. That is no longer possible.
The naïve statement that “farmers must organize because other
classes are organizing” is really good Social philosophy.
In the group competition just referred to there is a tendency
for class interests to be put above general social welfare. This
Social PROBLEMS OF AMERICAN FARMERS. 613
is a danger to be avoided in Organization, not an argument
against it. So the farmers' organization should be guarded, at
this point, by adherence to the principle that organization must
not only develop class power, but must be so-directed as to permit
the farmers to lend the full strength of their class to general social
progress.
- Organization thus becomes a test of class efficiency, and con-
sequently a prerequisite for solving the farm problem. Can the
farming class secure and maintain a fairly complete organization?
Can it develop efficient leaders? Can it announce, in sound terms,
its proposed group policy? Can it lend the group influence to
genuine social progress? If so, the organization of farmers
becomes a movement of pre-eminent importance.
- Organization, moreover, is a powerful educational force. It
arouses discussion of fundamental questions, diffuses knowledge,
º gives practice in public affairs, trains individuals in executive
work, and, in fine, stimulates, as nothing else can, a class which
is in special need of social incentive.
Organization is, however, difficult of accomplishment. While
it would take us too far afield to discuss the history of farmers’
organizations in America, we may briefly suggest some of the
difficulties involved. For forty years the question has been a
prominent one among the farmers, and these years have seen the
rise and decline of several large associations. There have been
apparently two great factors contributing to the downfall of these
organizations. The first was a misapprehension, on the part of
the farmers, of the feasibility of organizing themselves as a
political phalanx; the second, a sentimental belief in the possibili-
ties of business co-operation among farmers, more especially in
lines outside their vocation. There is no place for class politics in
America. There are some things legislation cannot cure. There
are serious limitations to co-operative endeavor. It took ‘many
hard experiences for our farmers to learn these truths. But back
of all lie some inherent difficulties, as, for instance, the number of
people involved, their isolation, sectional interests, ingrained
habits of independent action, of individual initiative, of suspicion
of others’ motives. There is often lack of perspective, and unwill-

614 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
--
ingness to invest in a procedure that does not promise immediate
returns. The mere fact of failure has discredited the organization
idea. There is lack of leadership; for the farm industry, while it
often produces men of strong mind, keen perception, resolute will,
does not, as a rule, develop executive capacity for large enter-
prises.
It is frequently asserted that farmers are the only class that
has not organized. This is not strictly true. The difficulties
enumerated are real difficulties and have seriously retarded farm
organization. But if the progress made is not satisfactory, it is
at least encouraging. On the purely business side, over five
thousand co-operative societies among American farmers have
been reported. In co-operative buying of supplies, co-operative
selling of products, and co-operative insurance the volume of
transactions reaches large figures. A host of societies of a purely
educational nature exists among stock-breeders, fruit-growers,
dairymen. It is true that no one general organization of farmers,
embracing a large proportion of the class, has as yet been per-
fected. The nearest approach to it is the Grange, which, contrary
to a popular notion, is in a prosperous condition, with a really
large influence upon the social, financial, educational, and legisla-
tive interests of the farming class. It has had a steady growth
during the past ten years, and is a quiet but powerful factor in
rural progress. The Grange is perhaps too conservative in its
administrative policy. It has not at least succeeded in converting
to its fold the farmers of the great Mississippi Valley. But it
has workable machinery, it disavows partisan politics and selfish
class interests, and it subordinates financial benefits, while empha-
sizing educational and broadly political advantages. It seems fair
to interpret the principles of the Grange as wholly in line with
the premise of this paper, that the farmers need to preserve their
status, politically, industrially, and socially, and that organization
is one of the fundamental methods they must use. The Grange,
therefore, deserves to succeed, and indeed is, succ eeding.
The field of agricultural organization is an extensive one.
But if the farm problem is to be satisfactorily solved, the Ameri-
can farmers must first secure reasonably co plete or zation.

SOCIAL PROBLEMS OF AMERICAN FARMERS 615
RURAL EDUCATION
It is hardly necessary to assert that the education of that por-
tion of the American people who live upon the land involves a
question of the greatest significance. The subject naturally
divides itself into two phases, one of which may be designated as
rural education proper, the other as agricultural education. Rural
education has to do with the education of people, more especially
of the young, who live under rural conditions; agricultural educa-
tion aims to prepare men and women for the specific vocation of
agriculture. The rural school typifies the first; the agricultural
school, the second. Rural education is but a section of the general
school question; agricultural education is a branch of technical
training. These two phases of the education of the farm popula-
tion meet at many points, they must work in harmony, and
together they form a distinct educational problem.
The serious difficulties in the rural school question are perhaps
three: first, to secure a modern school, in efficiency somewhat
comparable to the town school, without unduly increasing the
school tax; second, so to enrich the curriculum and so to expand
the functions of the school that the school shall become a vital
and coherent part of the community life, on the one hand translat-
ing the rural environment into terms of character and mental
efficiency, and on the other hand serving perfectly as a stepping-
stone to the city schools and to urban careers; third, to provide
adequate high-school facilities in the rural community.
The centralization of district schools and the transportation
of pupils will probably prove to be more nearly a solution of all
these difficulties than will any other one scheme. The plan per-
mits the payment of higher wages for teachers and ought to
secure better instruction; it permits the employment of special
teachers, as for nature-study or agriculture; it increases the effici-
ency of superintendence; it costs but little, if any, more than
the district system; it leaves the school amid rural surroundings,
while introducióg into the schoolroom itself a larger volume, so
to speal, of wºrld atmosphere; it contains possibilities for com-
munity sº vice; it an easily be expanded into a high school of
reputah' rade.
6 I6 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
*
There are two dangers, both somewhat grave, likely to arise
from an urgent campaign for centralization. Even if the move-
ment makes as great progress as could reasonably be expected,
for a generation to come a large share, if not a major portion, of
rural pupils will still be taught in the small, isolated, district
school; there is danger that this district school may be neglected.
Moreover, increased school machinery always invites undue reli-
ance upon machine-like methods. Centralization permits, but
does not guarantee, greater efficiency. A system like this one
must be vitalized by constant and close touch with the life and
needs and aspirations of the rural community itself.
Wherever centralization is not adopted, the consolidation of
two or three schools—a modified form of centralization—may
prove helpful. Where the district school still persists, there are
one or two imperative requirements. Teachers must have con-
siderably higher wages and longer tenure. There must be more
efficient supervision. The state must assist in supporting the
school, although only in part. The Small Schools must be corre-
lated with some form of high School. The last point is of great
importance because of the comparative absence in country com-
munities of opportunity near at hand for good high-school
training.
Agricultural education is distinctively technical, not in the
restricted sense of mere technique, or even of applied Science, but
in the sense that it must be frankly vocational. It has to do with
the preparation of men and women for the business of farming
and for life in the rural community.
Agricultural education should begin in the primary School.
In this school the point of view, however, should be broadly peda-
gogical rather than immediately vocational. Fortunately, the
wise teaching of nature-study, the training of pupils to know and
to love nature, the constant illustrations from the rural environ-
ment, the continual appeal to personal Observation and experi-
ence, absolute loyalty to the farm point of view, are not only
sound pedagogy, but form the best possible background for future
vocational study. Whether we call this early work “nature-
study” or call it “agriculture” matters less than that the funda-
SOCIAL PROBLEMS OF AMERICAN FARMERS 617
mental principle be recognized. It must first of all educate. The
greatest difficulty in introducing such work into the primary
school is to secure properly equipped teachers.
Perhaps the most stupendous undertaking in agricultural edu-
cation is the adequate development of secondary education in
agriculture. The overwhelming majority of young people who
secure any agricultural schooling whatever must get it in institu-
tions that academically are of secondary grade. This is a huge
task. If developed to supply existing needs, it will call for an
enormous expenditure of money and for the most careful plan-
ning. From the teaching view-point it is a difficult problem.
Modern agriculture is based upon the sciences; it will not do,
therefore, to establish schools in the mere art of farming. But
these agricultural high schools must deal with pupils who are
comparatively immature, and who almost invariably have had no
preparation in science. Nor should the courses at these Schools
be ultra-technical. They are to prepare men and women for life
on the farm — men and women who are to lead in rural develop-
ment, and who must get some inkling at least of the real farm
question and its solution. The agricultural school, therefore,
presents a problem of great difficulty.
A perennial question in agricultural education is: What is
the function of the agricultural college? We have not time to
trace the history of these colleges, nor to elaborate the various
views relative to their mission. But let us for a moment discuss
their proper function in the light of the proposition that the pres-
ervation of the farmers' status is the real farm problem; for the
college can be justified only as it finds its place among the social
agencies helpful in the solution of the farm question.
In so far as the agricultural college, through its experiment
station or otherwise, is an organ of research, it should carry its
investigations into the economic and sociological fields, as well as
pursue experiments in soil fertility and animal nutrition.
In the teaching of students, the agricultural college will
continue the important work of training men for agricultural
research, agricultural teaching, and expert Supervision of various
agricultural enterprises. But the college should put renewed
6I 8 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
emphasis upon its ability to send well-trained men to the farms,
there to live their lives, there to find their careers, and there to
lead in the movements for rural progress. A decade ago it was
not easy to find colleges which believed that this could be done,
and some agricultural educators have even disavowed such a
purpose as a proper object of the colleges. But the strongest
agricultural colleges today have pride in just such a purpose.
And why not? We not only need men thus trained as leaders in
every rural community, but if the farming business cannot be
made to offer a career to a reasonable number of college-trained
men, it is a sure sign that only by the most herculean efforts can
the farmers maintain their status as a class. If agriculture must
be turned over wholly to the untrained and to the half-trained,
if it cannot satisfy the ambition of strong, well-educated men and
women, its future, from the social point of view, is indeed gloomy.
The present-day course of study in the agricultural college
does not, however, fully meet this demand for rural leadership.
The farm problem has been regarded as a technical question, and
a technical training has been offered the student. The agricul-
tural college, therefore, needs “socializing.” Agricultural eco-
nomics and rural sociology should occupy a large place in the
curriculum. The men who go from the college to the farm
should appreciate the significance of the agricultural question, and
should be trained to organize their forces for genuine rural
progress. The college should, as far as possible, become the
leader in the whole movement for solving the farm problem.
The farm home has not come in for its share of attention in
existing schemes of agricultural education. The kitchen and the
dining-room have as much to gain from Science as have the dairy
and the orchard. The inspiration of vocational knowledge must
be the possession of her who is the entrepreneur of the family,
the home-maker. The agricultural colleges through their depart-
ments of domestic science—better, of “home-making”—should
inaugurate a comprehensive movement for carrying to the farm
home a larger measure of the advantages which modern Science
is showering upon humanity. .
The agricultural college must also lead in a more adequate
SOCIAL PROBLEMS OF AMERICAN FARMERS 6 IQ
development of extension teaching. Magnificent work has al-
ready been done through farmers’ institutes, reading courses,
Co-Operative experiments, demonstrations, and correspondence.
But the field is so immense, the number of people involved so
enormous, the difficulties of reaching them so many, that it offers
a genuine problem, and one of peculiar significance, not only
because of the generally recognized need of adult education, but
also because of the isolation of the farmers.
It should be said that in no line of rural betterment has so
much progress been made in America as in agricultural education:
Merely to describe the work that is being done through nature-
study and agriculture in the public schools, through agricultural
Schools, through our magnificent agricultural colleges, through
farmers’ institutes, and especially through the experiment stations
and the federal Department of Agriculture in agricultural re-
search and in the distribution of the best agricultural information
—merely to inventory these movements properly would take the
time available for this discussion. What has been said relative
to agricultural education is less in way of criticism of existing
methods than in way of suggestion as to fundamental needs.
THE ETHICAL AND RELIGIOUS PROBLEM
Wide generalizations as to the exact moral situation in the
rural community are impossible. Conditions have not been ade-
quately studied. It is probably safe to say that the country
environment is extremely favorable for pure family life, for tem-
perance, and for bodily and mental health. To picture the country
a paradise is, however, mere silliness. There are in the country,
as elsewhere, evidences of vulgarity in language, of coarseness
in thought, of social impurity, of dishonesty in business. There
is room in the country for all the ethical teaching that can be
given. -
Nor is it easy to discuss the country church question. Condi-
tions vary in different parts of the Union, and no careful study
has been made of the problem. As a general proposition, it may be
said that there are too many churches in the country, and that
these are illy supported. Consequently, they have in many cases
62O THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
inferior ministers. Sectarianism is probably more divisive than
in the city, not only because of the natural conservatism of the
people and a natural disinclination to change their views, but
because sectarian quarrels are perhaps more easily fomented and
less easily harmonized than anywhere else. Moreover, in the city
a person can usually find a denomination to his liking. In the
country, even with the present overchurched condition, this is
difficult. \
The ideal solution of the country church problem is to have in
each rural community One strong church adequately supported,
properly equipped, ministered to by an able man—a church
which leads in community service. The path to the realization
of such an ideal is rough and thorny. Church federation, how-
ever, promises large results in this direction and should be espe-
cially encouraged.
Whatever outward form the solution of the country church
question may take, there seem to be several general principles
involved in a satisfactory attempt to meet the issue. In the first
place, the country church offers a problem by itself, socially con-
sidered. Methods successful in the city may not succeed in the
country. The country church question must then be studied
thoroughly and on the ground. -
Again, the same principle of financial aid to be utilized in the
case of the schools must be invoked here. The wealth of the
whole church must contribute to the support of the church every-
where. The strong must help the weak. The city must help the
country. But this aid must be given by co-operation, not by
condescension. The demand cannot be met by home missionary
effort nor by church-building contributions; the principle goes
far deeper than that. Some device must be secured which binds
together the whole church, along denominational lines if must be,
for a full development of church work in every community in the
land.
Furthermore, there is supreme necessity for adding dignity
to the country parish. Too often at present the rural parish is
regarded either as a convenient laboratory for the clerical novice,
or as an asylum for the decrepit or inefficient. The country
SOCIAL PROBLEMS OF AMERICAN FARMERS 62 I
parish must be a parish for our ablest and strongest. The min-
istry of the most christlike must be to the hill-towns of Galilee as
well as to Jerusalem.
There is still another truth that the country church cannot
afford to ignore. The rural church question is peculiarly inter-
woven with the industrial and social problems of the farm. A
declining agriculture cannot foster a growing church. An active
church can render especially strong service to a farm community,
in its influence upon the religious life, the home life, the educa-
tional life, the social life, and even upon the industrial life. No-
where else are these various phases of society’s activities so fully
members one of another as in the country. The country church
should co-operate with other rural social agencies. This means
that the country pastor should assume a certain leadership in
movements for rural progress. He is splendidly fitted, by the
nature of his work and by his position in the community, to
co-operate with earnest farmers for the social and economic, as
well as the moral and spiritual, upbuilding of the farm community.
But he must know the farm problem. Here is an opportunity for
theological seminaries: let them make rural sociology a required
subject. And, better, here is a magnificent field of labor for the
right kind of young men. The country pastorate may thus prove
to be, as it ought to be, a place of honor and rare privilege. In any
event, the country church, to render its proper service, not alone
must minister to the individual soul, but must throw itself into the
struggle for rural betterment, must help solve the farm problem.
FEDERATION OF FORCES
The suggestion that the country church should ally itself
with other agencies of rural progress may be carried a step far-
ther. Rural social forces should be federated. The object of such
federation is to emphasize the real nature of the farm problem,
to interest many people in its solution, and to secure the co-
operation of the various rural Social agencies, each of which has
its sphere, but also its limitations. The method of federation is to
bring together, for conference and for active work, farmers—
especially representatives of farmers' organizations, agricultural
: • *- : * ~ *
º
tº a • * * e T
• Q •,• ,
622 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
educators, rural school-teachers and supervisors, country clergy-
men, country editors; in fact, all who have a genuine interest in
the farm problem. Thus will come clearer views of the questions
at issue, broader plans for reform, greater incentive to action, and
more rapid progress. -
CON CLUSION
In this brief analysis of the social problems of American
farmers it has been possible merely to outline those aspects of the
subject that seem to be fundamental. It is hoped that the impor-
tance of each problem has been duly emphasized, that the wisest
methods of progress have been indicated, and that the relation of
the various Social agencies to the main question has been clearly
brought out. Let us leave the subject by emphasizing once more
the character of the ultimate farm problem. This problem may
be stated more concretely, if not more accurately, than was done
at the opening of the paper, by saying that the ideal of rural
betterment is to preserve upon our farms the typical American,
farmer. The American farmer has been essentially a middle-class
man. It is this type we must maintain. Agriculture must be
made to yield returns in wealth, in opportunity, in contentment,
in social position, sufficient to attract and to hold to it a class of
intelligent, educated American citizens. This is an end vital to
the preservation of American democratic ideals. It is a result
that will not achieve itself; social agencies must be invoked
for its accomplishment. It demands the intelligent and earnest
co-operation of all who love the soil and who seek America’s
permanent welfare.
KENYON L. BUTTERFIELD.
KINGSTON, R. I.
#3, #49. In LIBRARY,
MAY 191913
§ ...“*>.
NVQIHOIW 30 AIIS83AINſ)
||||
* - - -***
ſ- ,
！ ~~~~ ~~******
***...
Ķ！










***
;&&å