Cercetări de sociologie rurală în România
Romanian Research in Rural Sociology (Carina Herbei`s translation; Edited text, and Abstract by Andrei Negru)

Summary/Abstract: The following paper is a brief presentation of the Romanian research in rural sociology carried on by the School of sociological monographs led by D. Gusti. In its introduction, the author ranges Gusti’s studies with the international framework of research in rural sociology. He emphasizes the growing interest in rural life displayed by Western sociology after World War I, and at the same time focuses on the East European, chiefly Russian, sociological practice of research in the field. According to the author, the literary and socio-political agrarian movements that have dominated, side by side with the national question, the Romanian public and intellectual life before 1918 should be ranged with the abovementioned tradition. Learning from both schools, D. Gusti aimed at an objective approach to the Romanian village in his monographic fieldwork studies. Conducted every year by the members of the Sociological Seminar led by D. Gusti in the villages of various parts of our country in order to perceive the diversity of the Romanian rural area, the fieldwork research was initiated in 1925 and the first papers were published in the volume X of the journal „Arhiva pentru ştiinţa şi reforma socială” (Archive for Social Science and Reform). Starting from these studies, George Em. Marica first delineates the principles of the sociological system elaborated by D. Gusti, based on the theory of social life frames and manifestations. The respective frames and manifestations, the questions related to them are the very criteria according to which the papers in the volume have been elaborated and grouped together. This association, Marica asserts, has the advantage of emphasizing the consistency of the theoretical-methodological principles and the unity of the work. Nevertheless, it offers a fragmented picture of the village, shortcoming that becomes blatantly apparent in the volume, as it comprises papers dedicated to five different villages. At the same time, as far as the redaction is concerned, he states that it would have been more useful to sum up all theoretical and methodological remarks in one chapter common to all the papers, and to replace the systematic organization of the material by an objective association. Besides the aforementioned critical remarks, Marica highly values the scientific accuracy of the redaction as well as the content of the papers. His appreciation is emphasized by a more detailed analyses of several papers included in the volume, signed by some of D. Gusti’s closest collaborators, such as H. H. Stahl, A. Golopenţia, D. Amzăr, N. Argintescu, Tr. Herseni, and M. Vulcănescu. His only objection concerns the tendency manifested by several of D. Gusti’s disciples, more obvious in M. Vulcănescu’s case, to “mix sociology with philosophy”, to make a too close, even extreme, connection between sociology and philosophy.

• Details
• Contents