Editing Rural sociology (section)

=== Latin America ===
The beginnings of rural sociology’s development in Latin America began in 1934 under the research of Commission of Cuban Affairs of the Foreign Policy Association member [[Carle C. Zimmerman]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Nelson |first=Lowry |date=1967 |title=Rural Sociology: Some Inter-American Aspects |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/164794 |journal=Journal of Inter-American Studies |volume=9 |issue=3 |pages=323–338 |doi=10.2307/164794 |jstor=164794 |issn=0885-3118}}</ref> As a North American rural sociologist, he conducted a study in Cuba comparing the wealth and conditions of cane workers to that of colonizers. The results of this work ultimately resulting in a demand of rural life studies expanding to Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico largely for the sake of materials to fuel the quality of the United States’ performance in [[World War II]].

In the midst of the war, other rural sociologists were exploring the rural life of other countries. Dr. Olen Leonard assisted in the establishment of Tingo Maria’s [[Agricultural extension|Agricultural Extension]] program, the study of which was published in 1943.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Loomis |first1=Charles P. |last2=Provinse |first2=John H. |last3=Setzier |first3=F. M. |last4=Steward |first4=Julian |last5=Strong |first5=Wm. Duncan |last6=Weckler |first6=Joseph E. |date=1945 |title=Rural Sociologists in Latin America |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/44134858 |journal=Applied Anthropology |volume=4 |issue=4 |pages=50–52 |jstor=44134858 |issn=0093-2914}}</ref> While in Ecuador, Leonard attempted to establish a similar program in the Hacienda Pichalinqui region by identifying how locals gathered, the value and meaning of possessions, and the attitudes of those in the area. His work in Guatemala consisted of assisting public officials develop a long term plan for agricultural education; in Nicaragua he participated in the development of a general and agricultural population census. Glen Taggert (El Salvador), Dr. Carl Taylor (Argentina), and T. Lynn Smith (Colombia, El Salvador) all also took part in advancing Agricultural Extension programs in Latin America. Taylor’s work in particular inspired the Argentinian Institute of Agriculture to create the Institute of Rural life.

The Caracas Regional Seminar on Education in Latin America of 1948 established fundamental education as a system that would be “specifically attending to native groups in such a way as to promote their all-around development in accordance with their best cultural traditions, economic needs, and social idiosyncrasies”.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Poviña |first=Alfredo |date=1952 |title=Latin American sociology in the twentieth centrury |url=https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000059487 |journal=International Social Science Bulletin |volume=4 |issue=3 |pages=471–480 |via=UNESCO.org}}</ref> This establishment catapulted a pilot project that would be explicitly tailored to the education of adults in rural communities. By the Fourth Inter-American Agricultural Conference in 1950 Montevideo, the United Nations departments of [[Food and Agriculture Organization]] and the [[International Labour Organization]] were given the responsibility of becoming more involved in those activities that would benefit rural welfare. As a combined force, they were also tasked with requesting that studies be performed on conditions of social, economic, and spiritual nature as they pertain to the well-being of rural communities.

There are five ways in which Latin American rural communities are differentiated from North American rural communities in 1958:<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Smith |first=T.L. |date=1958 |title=The Rural Community with Special Reference to Latin America |url=https://www.proquest.com/docview/1290925572 |journal=Rural Sociology |volume=23 |issue=1 |pages=52–67 |id={{ProQuest|1290925572}} |via=ProQuest}}</ref>

# '''Village Community''': Rural communities in Latin America are much more likely to be established around village communities. This type of community showed the highest prevalence in Mexico, Guatemala, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. This is due to these countries having stronger aboriginal elements where the villagers own the land.
# '''Church and State''': At this point in time, Latin American countries were reported as having a government with stronger ties to religion, ideals and decision-making processes falling in line exactly with the church parish. In this same vein, municipalities are drawn almost exclusively to account for the social and economic factors of the region in an attempt to create a more natural social environment.
# '''Social Organization''': The rural experience of Latin America is much more closely knit. Rather than being familiar or having some sort of affiliation with the entirety of the area in an “everyone knows everyone” manner, the social organization here reflects a more contained approach to relationships. Social circles extend strictly to those with which they have daily interactions, hardly straying outside. This approach means that if these few relationships do not produce a particular set of goods, then the group must go without.
# '''Trade and Commerce''': Keeping in line with the established relationship between church and state, the portions of a rural area that would be considered the trade center in North America are referred to as “ceremonial” or “church” centers. Bartering was the dominating form of economics among Latin American countries.
# '''Stable Environment''': Latin American rural communities did not face much in the way of threats against the sustainability of their lifestyles. Hardly any boundaries—administrative, legal, judicial, fiscal, or otherwise—obstructed the ability to maintain natural rural areas and the lives of the residents settled in them.

Mobilized peasants of the 1960s and 1970 attracted scholars to perform more in-depth studies on Latin American rural life.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Kay |first=Cristobal |date=2008 |title=Reflections on Latin American Rural Studies in the Neoliberal Globalization Period: A New Rurality? |journal=Development and Change |volume=39 |issue=6 |pages=915–943 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-7660.2008.00518.x |via=EBSCO|doi-access=free }}</ref> Conflict struck between the Marxist lean of social science and neoclassical domination of economics. Rural class structure, agrarian reform, and capitalist modes of production were all topics of discussion as the peasantry navigated their revolutionary status. The turn of the 21st century introduced the concept of “new rurality”. The shaping of Latin America’s rural economy had finally become entrenched in the newfound neoliberalism and globalization of the 1980s and 90s. Researchers claim that this has been expressed through embracing non-farm activities, feminization of rural work, growing rural-urban relations, and migration and remittances. Though some argue that no change has occurred because social ills (e.g., poverty, social injustice) prevail.