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.
5. Unify the charity forces of the city. Let the churches do their
miscellaneous charity work through the regular organized charity
forces of the city.
6. We would urge the cities to organize their churches into
federations to meet at regular intervals for the discussion of social
problems and plans.