Chapters in Rural Progress

CHAPTER XVII

FEDERATION FOR RURAL PROGRESS

It is almost trite to assert the need of the "socialization" – to use a much-worked phrase – of the country. It is possible that this need is not greater than in the cities, but it is different. Among no class of people is individualism so rampant as among farmers. For more than a century the American farmer led the freest possible social life. His independence was his glory. But, when the day of co-operation dawned, he found himself out of tune with the movement, was disinclined to join the ranks of organized effort, and he prefers even yet his personal and local independence to the truer freedom which can be secured only through co-operative endeavor. Moreover, the social aspect of the rural problem is important not merely because the farmer is slow to co-operate. The farm problem is to be met by the activities of social institutions.

We may say (assuming the home life, of course) that the church, the school, and the farmers' organization are the great rural social institutions. They are the forces now most efficient, and the ones that promise to abide. This classification may appear to be a mere truism, when we suggest that under the church should be placed all those movements that have a distinctively religious motive, under the school all those agencies that are primarily educational in design, and under farmers' organizations those associations whose chief function is to settle questions which concern the farmer as a business man and a citizen. But the classification answers fairly well. It includes practically every device that has been suggested for rural betterment.

There are two interesting facts about these rural institutions: (1) None of them is doing a tithe of what it ought to be doing to help solve the farm problem. The church is apparently just about holding its own, though that is doubted by some observers. Rural schools are not, as a rule, keeping pace with the demands being made upon them; comparatively few students in the whole country are studying scientific agriculture. Not one farmer in twenty belongs to a strong farmers' organization. (2) All these institutions are awakening to the situation. Progress during the last decade has been especially gratifying. Co-operative efforts among farmers are more cautious, but more successful. The Grange has nearly doubled its membership since 1890; and it, as well as other farm organizations, has more real power than ever before. The rural-school question is one of the liveliest topics today among farmers as well as educators. Opportunities for agricultural education have had a marvelous development within a decade. Discussion about rural church federation, the rural institutional church, rural social settlements, and even experiments in these lines are becoming noticeably frequent. The Young Men's Christian Association has, its officers think, found the way to reach the country young man.

The institutions which we have just discussed, together with the improvement that comes from such physical agencies as assist quicker communication (good wagon roads, telephones, rural mail delivery, electric roads), constitute the social forces that are to be depended upon in rural betterment. None can be spared or ignored. The function of each must be understood and its importance recognized. To imagine that substantial progress can result from the emphasis of any one agency to the exclusion of any other is a mistake. To assert this is not to quarrel with the statement we frequently hear nowadays that "the church should be the social and intellectual center of the neighborhood;" or that "the school should be the social and intellectual center of the neighborhood;" or that "the Grange should be the social and intellectual center of the neighborhood." It is fortunate that these statements have been made. They show an appreciation of a function of these agencies that has been neglected. The first item in rural social progress is that the country preacher, the rural teacher, the country doctor, the country editor, the agricultural editor, the agricultural college professor, and especially the farmer himself, shall see the social need of the farm community. But to assert, for instance, that the church shall be the social center of that community may lead to a partial and even to a fanatical view of things. I would not restrain in the slightest the enthusiasm of any pastor who wants to make his church occupy a central position in community life, nor of the teacher who wants to bring her school into relation with all the economic and social life of the farm, nor of the leader of the farmers' organization who sees the good that may be done through the social and intellectual training which his organization can give. But if there is danger that the preacher in the pursuit of this ideal, shall ignore the social function of the school and of the farmers' organization, or that the teacher, or the farmer, or anybody else who is interested, shall fail to see that there is a logical division of labor among rural social forces, and that it is only the intelligent and efficient and harmonious co-operation of all these forces that will insure the best progress, then to such I appeal with all the power at my command to recognize not only the breadth of the whole movement, but to appreciate the limitations of their own special interests. There are things that the church cannot do and should not attempt to do. There are things the school cannot do and should not attempt to do. Accepting our conventional division of social agencies, we may say that efficient rural progress stands upon a tripod of forces, and that balance can be maintained only when each is used in its proper measure.

We reach now the heart of the topic, which is how these various social forces may be brought into co-operation – a co-operation that is intelligent and real. I would suggest, first of all, the encouragement of all efforts along this line that are already under way. For instance, there are scattered all over this country individual pastors who are seeking to make their churches the social and intellectual beacon-lights of the community. There are other individuals who are endeavoring to apply the social-settlement idea to the needs of the country. There are associations which attempt to bring together the teachers and the school patrons for mutual discussion of educational topics. In numerous instances the farmers' organizations include in their membership the country pastor, the district school teacher and perhaps the country doctor. In these and doubtless in other ways the idea we are dealing with is being promulgated, and up to a certain point this fact of promiscuous initiative is entirely satisfactory and desirable. So long as the work is done it makes little difference who does it. Every attempt to bring any of these agencies into closer touch with the farm community is to be welcomed most heartily. But beyond a certain limit this promiscuous work must be unsatisfactory. The efforts and interests of any one social agency are bound to be partial. Indeed the more effective such an agency is, the more partial it is likely to be. Intensity is gained at the expense of breadth. The need for federation exists in the desirability of securing both the intensity and the breadth.

The precise method of securing this federation of effort is not easy to foresee. It can be determined only by trial. It must be worked out in harmony with varying conditions. Some very general plans at once suggest themselves: (1) Let the agricultural college in each state take the lead in the movement, acting not so much as an organization as a clearing-house and a go-between. Let it direct conferences on the subject, and seek to bring all who are interested in rural affairs into touch and sympathy. (2) Have a "League for Rural Progress," made up of representatives from the churches, the agricultural colleges, the departments of public instruction, the farm press, various farmers' organizations, etc. (3) Enlarge the "Hesperia movement," which now seeks to secure co-operation between school and farmers' organization, by including in it the church.

It may be of interest to note that this idea of a federation of rural social forces is getting a foothold and has indeed already crystallized into organization. A brief description of what has actually been done will therefore not be out of place.

So far as the writer is aware, the first meeting based on the definite idea of co-operation between school, church, and Grange was held at Morris, Connecticut, in the summer of 1901 and was organized by Rev. F. A. Holden, then pastor at Morris. This meeting was a very successful local affair, held in connection with "Old Home Week" celebration.

Probably the first attempt to hold a similar meeting on a large scale was the conference at the Agricultural College, Michigan, in February, 1902. It was a joint meeting of the Michigan Political Science Association and the Agricultural College and farmers' institutes. The practical initiative was taken by the Political Science Association under the leadership of its secretary, Professor Henry C. Adams, who had the cordial co-operation of President Snyder of the Agricultural College and Professor C. D. Smith, then superintendent of farmers' institutes. It was a notable gathering, and its promoters were rejoiced to see the splendid attendance of farmers particularly; teachers and clergymen did not attend as freely as might have been expected. The programme was a strong one and included men of national reputation and topics covering a wide range of interests.

The addresses were published in the Michigan Farmers' Institute Bulletin for 1901-02, and were also gathered into a publication of the Michigan Political Science Association under the title Social Problems of the Farmer.

The state of Rhode Island has organized on a permanent basis. In 1904 there was held in Kingston, at the College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, a "Conference on Rural Progress." It was a one-day meeting, well attended by representative farmers, clergymen, and educators. A committee was appointed to discuss further procedure, and the next year there was held in the halls of Brown University a two-days' conference. The programme included addresses on: The Grange, The Country Church, School Gardens, and several phases of practical agriculture. Among the speakers were the assistant secretary of agriculture, Hon. N. J. Bachelder, now Master of the National Grange, and Dr. Josiah Strong.

In the spring of 1906 there was organized "The Rhode Island League for Rural Progress," which was constituted through representation from the following organizations: State Board of Agriculture; Rhode Island College of Agriculture; State Federation of Churches; State Grange; State Association of School Superintendents; State League of Improvement Societies; Washington County Agricultural Society; Newport Agricultural Society; Rhode Island Horticultural Society; Newport Horticultural Society; Rhode Island Poultry Association; Florists and Gardeners' Club; Kingston Improvement Association.

This league held the Third Annual Conference on Rural Progress, April 10 and 11, 1906, the first day's session being at Brown University, Providence, and the second day's at East Greenwich. Its fourth meeting was held in Newport in March, 1907. In Rhode Island the idea lying back of this conference has certainly approved itself to all who are interested in rural matters.

The following is the constitution of the league:

I. Name. – The name of this body shall be the "Rhode Island League for Rural Progress."

II. Object. – The object of the League shall be to secure the co-operation of the various individuals, organizations, and agencies which are working for any phase of rural advancement in this state.

III. Membership. – Any organization interested in rural advancement, which may desire to co-operate with the work of the League, may be represented in the League.

Any individual in the state interested in rural progress may become a member of the League upon the payment of one dollar annual fee.

IV. Officers. – The administrative work of the League shall be conducted by a council, to be composed of one delegate from each organization represented in the League, to serve until superseded. The council at the time of each annual conference shall choose from among its members a president, a vice-president, and a secretary-treasurer, and these officers shall act as an executive committee.

V. Meetings. – The meetings of the League shall be held at the call of the executive committee. There shall, however, be at least one annual Conference on rural progress held under the auspices of the League.

VI. Finances. – The funds necessary to forward the work of the League may come from three sources:

a) Contributions made by organizations belonging to the League and represented on the council, such contributions to be voluntary and in such amount as the respective organizations may designate. The council may, however, make up a schedule of desired contributions from the various organizations and present it to the different organizations.

b) Membership fees from individual members, $1.00 per year from each member.

c) Private subscriptions.

Probably the first successful attempt to organize a permanent league for rural progress was accomplished in 1904 through the efforts of Rev. G. T. Nesmith, of Hebron, Ill. It was called "The McHenry County Federation," and has held three annual meetings and seems to be on a solid basis. Mr. Nesmith has endeavored to keep the purpose of the league on a high plane by endeavoring to state clearly the object of the federation, which is, "that the people of McHenry County might have life, and have it more abundantly, and this life was not to be a narrow life. It was the largest aggregate and highest symmetry of the sixfold ends of individual and community action, viz., health, wealth, knowledge, sociability, beauty, and righteousness." He also endeavored to make it clear that "the federation does not seek to supplant the other forces. It rather seeks to be a clearing-house of the ideas of all the federated organizations; to be a mount of vision from which each may look and get a complete vision of life; to be a fraternal bond which shall link all together in common ties of sympathy, fellowship, and co-operation."

The results thus far obtained are perhaps best described by quoting the words of Mr. G. W. Conn, Jr., superintendent of schools of McHenry County: