Malcolm Gladwell,[1] in his book Outliers, describes the
effects cultural experiences have on people generations after their initial occurrences. He points out the effect rice-growing
cultures have had on generations, even in America, as to the manner these descendants
conduct their affairs. That is, a people
who is known for its discipline, these Asian Americans are noted for their hard
work, high grades in school, and tenacity in business. Another highlighted group is Scots-Irish Americans
who descended from sheepherders in the old country.
This latter group is known for being distrustful, withdrawn,
and not open to social arrangements where cooperation and coordination might be
called for and even expected. Herding
sheep involves dealing with a commodity that can be easily stolen and those who
own or work them can be easy targets. Gladwell
writes,
So [the sheep herder] 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.[2]
After centuries, this
type of work has its effects.
This
group is pointed out to introduce J. D. Vance’s treatment[3] of his cultural background,
that of what in popular parlance is referred to as hillbillies. They are low-income whites in the Appalachian
states.
Here are some of Vance’s descriptions of his people:
“Americans call them hillbillies,
rednecks, or white trash. I call them
neighbors.”[4]
“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.”[5]
“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.”[6]
And, “… it is in Greater
Appalachia where the fortunes of working-class whites seem dimmest. From low social mobility to poverty to
divorce and drug addiction, my home is a hub of misery … we’re a pessimistic
bunch.”[7]
These descriptors, while
not ideal in terms of soliciting from them federalist attitudes and values, seem
reasonable given the historical backdrop of their cultural foundations.
But years have elapsed since this group first made its way
to American shores. Surely all these
years have softened their inward or anti-social biases. If pessimism reflects these other leanings,
then the news is not good. Recent
surveys have found that this population measures as more pessimistic than other
“low-income” groups including black Americans or Latino immigrants. Yes, as a group, Vance’s “neighbors” do have
economic challenges, but not greater than those facing these other groups. So, what’s up?
According to Vance,
We’re more socially isolated than
ever, and we pass that isolation down to our children. Our religion has changed – built around churches
heavy on emotional rhetoric but light on the kind of social support necessary
to enable poor kids to do well. Many of
us have dropped out of the labor force or have chosen not to relocate for
better opportunities. Our men suffer
from a peculiar crisis of masculinity in which some of the very traits that our
culture inculcates make it difficult to succeed in a changing world.[8]
This posting’s effort to
highlight Vance’s group is not to make a case against them. They just seem to exemplify many common
parochial-tribalistic attributes that can be ascribed to other groups. By looking at Vance’s hillbillies, maybe
because of the heightened degree they exhibit, one can come closer to
understanding why American politics has devolved into a state of “tribal”
conflict. That conflict, in turn, undermines
the nation’s ability to be federated.
Therefore, Vance provides a useful case study that serious
civics teachers should come to respectfully study and attempt to derive
insights as to what ails various cultural groups that find it difficult to be integral
parts of this vibrant nation. These
groups are human entities that harbor all the potential resources that that reality
represents.
From
a merely reciprocal sense, therefore, one should demand finding out how to encourage
these people and other estranged groups to be less tribal and more integral to
the grand partnership – the citizenry of the US. Beyond reciprocity, isn’t it natural to feel
the supportive sentiments that motivate such study and policies that promote
and advance this end?
[Note: Wishing a Happy New Year to all.]
No comments:
Post a Comment