The nation is large with a multitude of different culturally based
populations. J. D. Vance wrote a
best-selling book concerning one them.
That would be the low-income population that resides in what is commonly
called the Appalachian region. Using Vance’s
term, they are referred to as “hillbillies.”
This region is solidly “red,” that is, they vote Republican in election
after election. They were part of the
coalition that got Trump elected to the White House. To understand the nation’s current political
landscape, understanding this population seems important.
This blog,
from time to time, will describe Vance’s take on this population and make
comment on what civics students should focus on regarding these Americans. That effort, in turn, will be guided by
federation theory. Central to such
guidance is the emphasis that theory places on how and to what degree Americans
feel federated among themselves – hence the name of the theory.
Reading
Vance’s account of these people reminds one of how Americans of an earlier time
are remembered. “Reminds” is a good
term; it is not mirroring these earlier accounts, but describing a people that resemble
an earlier America, perhaps to an exaggerated degree. But this is vague, one can be more precise.
Starting with
Vance’s overall description, he states:
As one observer noted, “In traveling
across America, the Scots-Irish have consistently blown my mind as far and away
the most persistent and unchanging regional subculture in the country. Their family structures, religion and
politics, and social lives all remain unchanged compared to the wholesale
abandonment of tradition that’s occurred nearly everywhere else.” [This tradition] comes along with many good
traits – an intense sense of loyalty, a fierce dedication to family and country
– but also many bad ones. We do not like
outsiders or people who are different from us, whether the difference lies in
how they look, how they act, or, most important, how they talk. To understand me [Vance], you must understand
that I am a Scots-Irish hillbilly at heart.[1]
This puts the term parochial, as in
what this blogger has called the dominant perspective regarding governance and
politics of pre-World War II America – parochial/traditional federalism – to a
more intense level. Perhaps, instead of
thinking of this cultural strain as federated, a tribal orientation is more
accurate. This provides the context for
such family feuds as the Hatfields and the McCoys – which it turns out was only
one of many such feuds that characterized the social life of nineteenth century
Appalachia.
Another writer who describes this region
is Malcolm Gladwell. He provides more of
an explanatory, versus descriptive, account.
[T]hat region was plagued by a
particularly virulent strain of what sociologists call a “culture of honor.”
Cultures
of honor tend to take root in the highlands and other marginally fertile areas,
such as Sicily or the mountainous Basque regions of Spain … You probably raise
goats or sheep, and the kind of culture that grows up around being a herdsman
is very different from the culture that grows up around growing crops. The survival of a farmer depends on the
cooperation of others in the community.
But a herdsman is off by himself.
Farmers also don’t have to worry that their livelihood will be stolen in
the night, because crops can’t easily be stolen unless, of course, a thief
wants to go to the trouble of harvesting an entire field on his own. But a herdsman does have to worry … So he has
to be aggressive; he has to make it clear, through his words and deeds, he is
not weak. He has to be willing to fight
in response to even the slightest challenge to his reputation – and that’s what
a “culture of honor” means. It’s a world
where a man’s reputation is at the center of his livelihood and self-worth.
… So why was Appalachia the way it
was. It was because of where the
original inhabitants of the region came from.[2]
And where was that? They
mostly came from the herding regions of Scotland and Ireland and they brought
with them the social-cultural attributes like those of the people from Sicily
and from the Basque regions. And that
basic disposition leads to a number of cultural traits one can classify as
antagonistic toward the “them.”
Within that social context, one can
be quarrelsome with family members, but something else with non-family related
people. Gladwell uses the following
terms to describe general behavior patterns in those encounters: clannish loyalty, criminality, and violence. And the bulk of such behavior – particularly
the violence – was not often for economic reasons, but over or a perceived
affront to one’s honor. That is, the
violence tended to be personal.
Actually, other crimes – those aimed
at acquiring property, such as mugging a stranger – are lower in this region
than in other parts of the country. Mind
one’s “p’s” and “q’s” and one is probably safer in the Appalachian region than
in other areas of the US. But if one even
hints at disrespecting a “hillbilly” or his/her family, be forewarned; troubles
are likely to befall one. One needs to
take care when visiting an area that is under the sway of a “culture of honor.” That is, where honor is or nearly is
radicalized.
This clannishness helps one make an
important distinction. This writer reacts
negatively when he hears such terms as the “American family.” He understands that whoever says such a thing
is only trying to emphasis a notion of inclusion or promoting emotional ties
between and among Americans – not a bad sentiment. But one should use such a term with
reluctance.
Obviously, the people of the US – and
this cannot be said as thoroughly among the various national populations of the
world than that of the US – are not a family.
They are the conscious members of a partnership. The familial analogy tends to make one forget
or diminish that constitutional arrangement.
It might even encourage the view attributed to the Appalachian culture
described and explained above – it sort-of legitimizes such a view.
One can care for a partner because
partners share common goals and aims, and it is useful to care for those who one
needs to work with to accomplish those goals and aims. Yes, one can also feel certain friends are
close enough to be considered family.
But one does not have that feeling for people one does not know. Is this getting too “picky?” This writer thinks the point being made should
be made.
No comments:
Post a Comment