220 MICHIGAN ACADEMY OP SCIENCE. 



gested in the above classiticatioii. 1 would call it the social phase of 

 the rural problem. This is perhaps not so much a branch of the agri- 

 cultural question as it is a discussion of the entire problem from the 

 social point of view. It is that point of view which considers the farmer 

 primarily, rather than his business or industry. And it considers him 

 not merely as an individual farmer, but in his various relations to his 

 felloAv farmers and to society as a whole. The social phase of the rural 

 problem has to do, of course, with special aspects of the question, such 

 as education, morals, social conditions, certain forms of co-operation. 

 These in themselves are phases of the rural problem, but they may for 

 convenience all be grouped under the term "social." From the social 

 point of view we not only study those things that have to do with the 

 social relations of the farmer, but we have to take into consideration 

 also the business, the economic, the political, and the scientific phases 

 of the question. For this reason I suggest again that the social phase of 

 the rural problem is not so much a branch or division of the subject as it 

 is a discussion of the entire rural problem from a certain standpoint. 

 I emphasize this idea, because I wish to avoid if possible the imputation 

 that I am merely laying stress ui)Ou a certain section or compartment of 

 the structure. I wish to consider the whole question, but to lay stress 

 es])ecially upon the method of approaching it. 



You will see that from this standpoint it is easy to argue that the 

 social aspect of the rural ]»roblem is an absolutely fundamental consid- 

 eration : and we may suggest two reasons why it is so. In the first place 

 social progress is an end in itself. We all admit that the ultimate thing 

 is not larger crops or greater returns per acre, but better men and women, 

 finer conditions of life, and in general, an elevation of the farmers them- 

 selves. This, I think, needs no argument, but is not so important a 

 reason as the next one I shall suggest, which is that social agencies are 

 the prime means of advancement in agriculture. That is to say, we may 

 all agree that better business talent, greater economic success, wider 

 political influence, and an apj»licatiou of science to the art of farming 

 are all factors in rural progress; but the j)oint I am trying to make is 

 that looked at in the larger way, those things that we would call social 

 agencies or social forces are the things that are practically indispensa- 

 ble in order that we may have better business farmers and wider indus- 

 trial success and greater jtolitical influence and an intelligent a]»p]ica- 

 tion of science to farming. Take it on the purely business side, for 

 instance, the successful marketing of farm (•ro])s is first of all something 

 that comes through the man who has keen business instinct and a knowl- 

 edge of business practice; who is alert and farsighted ; but it is ])erfectly 

 possible to cultivate this trait in men by education, to have better means 

 for communication between farm and market, to increase the knowledge 

 of the world's markets, to se{;ure laws that ])revent transportation com 

 panics from unjust charges, to make an application of science that pre- 

 serves the product in condition for a long journey. We can name a score 

 of ways by which this business talent, which is first of all a personal 

 possession of the individual farmer, can be materially aided and even 

 cultivated, or on the other hand, can be discouraged and even stifled, 

 by the 7)ossession or the lack of such social agencies as the Department 

 of Agriculture, the agricultural press, agricultural educational institu- 

 tions, the farm telephone, rnral iiiail delivery. It would not seem as if 

 this point needed further argument. 



