Community studies 2003-04: Lecture 4
Rural community
Earlier we discussed the concepts of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft: as ideal types of social
organisation. These terms have come to be
associated with the terms ‘traditional’ and
‘modern’ in relation to societies or communities, and also with ‘rural’ and ‘urban’.
A modernising society is one then where social
relationships are seen to be moving away
from simple, undifferentiated, face-to-face
relationships based on ascription and kinship. There is a perceived move towards relationships based on individualism and
achievement: complex but more shallow.
It is not surprising that within this dichotomy (sometimes also expressed as the ruralurban continuum) that rural communities have
been seen as somehow more ‘naturally’ cooperative. The ‘naturalness’ of this relationship is often seen to relate to the nature of
work (particularly that in the primary industries - farming or fishing) that is seen to require a high level of cooperation.
The ‘rural romanticism’ that often suffuses
images of rural communities tends to draw
attention away from the diversity of rural
communities and inequalities of power that exist
within them.
To discover and measure the diversity that
exists, a sensitive and thorough method of
sociological investigation is required. This
can be found in the community studies or
ethnographic approach.
There have been a number of ethnographic
studies of Irish communities. There was a
considerable number in the 1960s and
1970s, though fewer in recent times. One
explanation for this is that Ireland no longer
provides researchers from overseas with the
sort of ‘primitive’ society that they were
looking for. Some work does continue, for
example amongst students of the NUIG rural development course, and on the communications program at DCU. Researchers at
NUI Maynooth are involved in studies of
developing suburban communities, including
some (such as Ratoath, Co. Meath) that
would formerly have been seen as ‘rural’.
One of the earliest, and the most famous,
rural ethnographies carried out in Ireland
was that of American anthropologists
Arensberg & Kimball [A&K], whose 1940
(& recently republished) book Family and
community in Ireland – based on the analysis of
a Co. Clare community, near the town of
Ennistymon - has had a huge influence on
Irish sociology.
For A&K community was an extension of
familial functions. The community was for
them almost ‘natural’: it provided vital functions as an extension of the kinship group
(and there was considerable overlapping between the two). The functionalist approach
adopted by A&K – their neglect to examine
issues of power and of broader social relationships – has been one of the main subsequent criticisms of their work (subsequent
writers have also questioned the extent to
which the lifestyle they depicted was ‘traditional’. Brody points out that it was essentially a post-Famine phenomenon).
The area studied by A&K was comparatively
remote, and populated mainly by small
farmers. There were very strong links between the family and the workplace: embodied in the family farm. This connection is
common amongst self-employed people in
rural areas: eg for shopkeepers, tradesmen
and publicans as well as farmers.
As well as emphasising the importance of
family links A&K stressed the importance of
reciprocal relationships outside the family: as
expressed in the cooperative labour system
of cooring; and in the broader kinship networks that spanned the community. Both
familial and extra-familial links were supported by a value-system that placed great
importance on neighbourliness and the
community. Those that failed to share in it
would be negatively sanctioned by the
community [the persistence of reciprocal relationships has also been identified by Meert
in relation to contemporary Flemish rural
communities, but it is also diminishing].
The community studied by A&K had little
in the way of formal organisations (apart
from the Church). It was held together by
Community studies 2003-04: Lecture 4
the bonds of reciprocity. The close links between people in the community, and the exercise of reciprocal work arrangements,
meant that there was a large measure of
equality.
It was difficult for people to either fall into
severe poverty or to become very rich. Indeed those that were significantly poorer or
wealthier than others in the community did
not participate in the reciprocal arrangements. Not wishing to participate in the exchange of work was seen as a ‘crime against
the community’ and such people were effectively excluded from the system.
While there were few inequalities based on
wealth, there were substantial inequalities
based on age. For the old, the community
‘worked well’. They:
live long because they have power, much to
live for and represent the community before
priest, school master, merchant cattleman and
government official (2001: 171)
The younger people in the community, especially males, were resentful of the power
of the old, and saw themselves as a group
with their own interests.
Rural life in Ireland in the 1930s was therefore – according to A&K – very strongly
shaped by the local community and the feelings of mutual identification, mutual dependence and collective identity to which it
gave rise.
A&K’s account has been much criticised,
but remains a powerful image of rural life: at
least partly as it gels with romantic notions of
the rural. A&K’s study – and others’ interpretations of it - tends to emphasise specific
aspects of rural life, that have often been
generalised to ‘rural communities’ as a
whole.
The community is seen as isolated, remote
and self-contained, a ‘naturally’ distinct and
bounded entity. Local households are seen
as economically isolated from the rest of the
country – despite the fact that the Clare
farmers were tied into the national – indeed
global – cattle industry.
The Clare farm families were also depicted
as culturally distinct from other people in
Ireland: especially those in the more ‘anglicised’ eastern counties. A&K’s account
tended to stress the similarities that existed
within the community.
A&K also stressed the harmony and lack of
conflict that existed within the community.
They did not see gender differences to be
unequal or exploitative, rather they saw men
and women as fulfilling complementary
roles.
Overall, the A&K image of the typical rural
community in Ireland, self-contained and
separate from ‘society’, homogenous, bound
together by local networks and characterised
by cooperation and consensus, remains
dominant in many contemporary references
to ‘community’ in Ireland.
A&K made some interesting points about
the geography of community. They revealed the
flexible and changing nature of community
boundaries (see A&K pp 273ff). This obviously has implications for how we define
community, and how we measure the operation of power within it.
This has been a fertile area for study in relation to communities. For example in a study
of farmers in Cumbria, the English sociologist Stephen Pile (in a book called The Private
Farmer) examined how their ‘world’ varied
according to situation. Sometimes it was the
local community, sometimes the region, the
nation or even the EU. These could be
mapped as concentric circles and Pile spent
a lot of time analysing the metaphors by which
people understood their community (often
by defining an ‘enemy’ outside) (see Cohen:
The symbolic construction of community).
Robert Cresswell, in a study of the South
Galway parish of Kinvara, also noted the
shifting nature of symbolic boundaries: parishes could unite for sporting events, but divide around other issues related to use or
distribution of resources.
Hugh Brody (in his well-known study Inishkillane, published in the early 1970s) found a
breakdown of the local social system and
Community studies 2003-04: Lecture 4
networks, largely as a result of rural depopulation and increasing urbanisation (he referred to this as the ‘demoralisation’ of the
rural community: reflected in the most extreme cases in suicide. The issue of mental
illness in Irish rural communities was also
discussed by Scheper-Hughes). There was
virtually an end to mutual dependence and
cooperation, and a rise in individualism and
competition: an increased marketisation of
rural society, expressed by Brody in the supremacy of the shopkeeper.
Again this was often reflected in generational differences. Brody also noted gender differences in the community: reflected in the use
of different spaces (women and the shop;
men and the pub) (Inishkillane pp157-166)
A study of Limerick (the Limerick Rural
Survey, 1964) also found inequalities within
the rural community. Again age was a key
line of difference. There was also a clear distinction between agricultural labourers and
farmers: illustrated for example in separate
eating arrangements. This also flowed
through to community organisations such as
Muintir na Tíre (LRS, pp. 208)
Irish sociologist Damien Hannan, in a
study in Roscommon, found an increasing
complexity of society and development of
broader networks. Individualism was becoming far more pronounced (backs up data re
changing values in Whelan et al’s book on
values and social change). Overall there was
less spatial restriction on rural life (though
note that Curtin in Connemara found important gender/age differences).
Most recently Adrian Peace found elements
in ‘Inveresk’ of both individualism and
commonality in the community. While economic globalisation supported individual
consumption, the community did often
come together in times of stress and of celebration. There were strong ideas of ‘our
own’ people and of long-standing relationships of reciprocity. People had long memories of who had done what for whom.
The information that has been gained from
community studies and ethnography (remembering that most of these studies were
done some time ago) provides a useful addition to the sort of information that can be
gained by survey research or other methodologies.
While not all these community studies examined the issue of power, you can see how the
material gathered can help us to understand
how rural communities are shaped by diversity and inequality.
More recent changes in rural communities
have been difficult to trace from a sociological point of view. There is now less enthusiasm for rural community studies in the classic mode.
This is a pity, given the extent of change that
is now shaping rural areas. Some of the key
changes include:
 the secure financial position of nearly all
farmers (Matthews: Farm incomes)
 the reduced importance of agriculture within
the rural economy
 the influx of ‘ex-urbanites’ (relocation: estate
agents Sherry Fitzgerald estimate that one in
five Dublin sellers it dealt with in 2000
planned to relocate to the country)
 the impact of industrialisation and tourism
 the impact of rural development programmes
such as LEADER
 the impact of new information and media
technologies such as the Internet, mobile
phones and broadband technologies (see report by Sarah Skerratt in Library [Official
Publications: NIRSA box].
Perry Share
October 2003