SOCIOLOGY’S WELCOME IN THE NEW SOUTHLAND
Genuine enthusiasm and interest on the part of nearly a thousand social workers, who gathered in Atlanta from April 25–29 to attend the sessions of the Second Southern Sociological Congress, tended to disprove the statement of a speaker at the opening session that “when sociology came south it met with a cold reception.” At Atlanta sociology received a hearty welcome. Signs that a spirit of “constructive criticism” is awake in the South were present on every side, in the newspaper, the pulpit and in conversation.
Though the South is still a section and in some respects probably wishes to remain one, still, in the words of Acting President A. J. McKelway: “Broadly speaking, all our problems are American problems. There is no peculiarly southern problem of poverty, illiteracy or crime; our problems of the city, of rural life and child welfare are the same throughout the nation.”
The spirit of introspection was apparent on the floor of the different conferences. The boastful paragon of knowledge was lacking. The frank admission of all was: “We want to know.” Dr. John E. White, of Atlanta, expressed this when he declared: “We have come at last to the conclusion that to rid ourselves of criticism, we must first criticise ourselves. We here propose constructive criticism at the hands of southern men.”
But the southerners at the conference were willing to receive the message of those from the North who went to counsel and advise. Both Owen R. Lovejoy and Walter Rauschenbush declared, in essence, “The North is farther along in industry and consequently has more of the evils incident thereto than the South—evils which the South is sure to suffer unless it is more wise than we. We come south, not to criticise, but to warn—confessing our own failures and urging upon you the exercise of wisdom and common sense.” These men, together with such speakers as Francis H. McLean, Charles S. MacFarland, Hastings H. Hart, Alexander Johnson, Clifford G. Roe, John Ihlder, Mornay Williams, as well as Miss Lathrop, were listened to with a true regard which made itself apparent later. “I confess with shame that we have no adequate laws in the state of Tennessee,” said one member, “and that is the reason I am here—to learn as much as possible even at the risk of making myself obnoxious with questions.” The statement expressed the attitude of a large number of the delegates.
A striking feature of the departmental conferences of the congress was the series of thirty-five recommendations or principles adopted at the conference on the church and social service. Several of the more important recommendations follow:
1. We would recommend a more aggressive policy on the educational side of civic matters. Such questions as sanitation, the milk supply, meat inspection, social hygiene and other important matters can be taught with tremendous effectiveness by the use of the moving picture machine.
2. We would recommend that each church make a social survey, getting complete possession in systematic form of the various needs of the community in which they work and listing possible types of social effort.
3. We would recommend that each church elect a social service committee for the whole congregation and a social service assistant superintendent for the Sunday school, whose business it shall be to direct the expressive activities of the whole body.
4. We recommend the unification of our church forces upon one concerted effort at evangelizing the down-and-outs in a thoroughly equipped union mission.