Appalachian Poverty as Deviance
Tall, hairy,
gaunt, and loose, his joints apparently tied together with bits of string. His garments consist usually of trousers and
the remains of a shirt, surmounted by an enormous flapping hat. As to occupation, he is represented for the
most part as sitting rather permanently on a rail fence gazing at very
intelligent and well-dressed visitors; or, more sketchily, running a moonshine
still; or shooting down his enemies in a feud. (Raine 1924:1)
The
above description provides a stereotyped image of the mountaineer, the
hillbilly, the Appalachian. By any name,
the image of the Appalachian person drips with the heavy colors of
impoverishment. His thin frame and
tattered clothing reveal intense material deprivation. His idleness and propensity for questionable
behavior also suggests moral and cultural impoverishment. He, in many ways, is the poster child for
poverty as stigma.
In
the pages that follow, Appalachian poverty as a form of deviance is
explored. First, Appalachia’s
status as an impoverished region and various definitions of poverty are
discussed. Second, various perspectives
regarding the cause of Appalachian poverty are outlined, with special attention
given to the debate between cultural and structural theorists. Third, Appalachian poverty as deviance is
explored via a synthesis of stigmatization, exploitation, and
functionalism. Finally, reactions to
Appalachian poverty as they relate to this synthesis are addressed.
The federally-defined Appalachian region spans the Appalachian
mountain range, containing 406 counties in 13 states (Alabama,
Georgia, Kentucky,
Maryland, Mississippi,
New York, North Carolina,
Ohio, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia, and West Virginia). Roughly 22 million people live in the 200,000
square mile area. The region is
disproportionately rural, with a rural population double the national average
(ARC 2001b).
As was mentioned earlier, the Appalachian region (especially the
central portion, containing part of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and
West Virginia)
is the veritable face of poverty. In the
1960s, the impoverished conditions of Appalachia
helped inspire the nation’s War on Poverty, and the region became a frontier in
the battle (Gaventa 1980). The term
‘Appalachian,’ for many, conjures images of desolate conditions and
deprivation. ‘Appalachian’ and ‘poverty’
are almost inseparable in the national consciousness (Precourt 1983). Such is the mythology surrounding the region
and its inhabitants.
Still, one must ask: Is Appalachia really as impoverished as these
associations suggest? Unfortunately,
many numbers suggest that the severity of poverty in the area is not
exaggerated by this national image.
Below are examples pertaining to poverty rates, income, and unemployment
rates.
- In 1990, 7
of the 13 Appalachian states had poverty rates exceeding the national
average. These 7 states had poverty
rates ranging from 22 percent to 120 percent above the national
average. In that year, Kentucky had a staggering poverty rate of
221.4 percent of the national average.
(ARC 1998)
- In 1997, Appalachia’s average per capita income was only 82.5
percent of the national average ($20,872 compared $25,288). States ranged from 62.1 percent (Kentucky) of the national average to 90.4 percent (Pennsylvania). No Appalachian state exceeded the national
average. (ARC 1999b)
- In 1998, 9
of the 13 Appalachian states had unemployment rates exceeding the national
average, 4 of which exceeded the average by over 40 percent. (ARC 1999a)
Similarly, an ARC report lists a number of
ways in which Appalachia, after more than
three decades as a battleground for the War on Poverty, still lags the nation
(Isserman 1996).
- The most rural, most isolated
Appalachian counties have only 82 percent of the per capita income of such
counties elsewhere.
- The most isolated Appalachian counties
have 3 to 5 more people per 100 in poverty than such counties elsewhere.
- Central Appalachia has considerably higher
poverty rates than the nation, with 24 people per 100 living in poverty.
- The nonmetropolitan unemployment rate in
Appalachia was still 2 percentage points higher than the nation’s in 1990
and was almost 11 percent in Central Appalachia.
- Appalachia has lower educational
attainment than the rest of the nation, with 7 fewer high school graduates
per 100 adults.
- Only half the adults in nonmetropolitan Central Appalachia have graduated high school.
- Appalachia has six fewer jobs per 100
people than the rest of the nation.
Based on the above statistics, one can
easily conclude that Appalachia is, in fact,
an impoverished region. However,
numbers, as useful and as illustrative as they are, never tell the whole
story. In order to better understand
poverty, the context and defining qualities of the phenomenon must be
considered.
A
number of critics have suggested that poverty rates and similar measures
provide a biased and limited view of poverty (Eller 1982; Precourt 1983;
Salstrom 1994). The United States Census
Bureau (1999) measures poverty based solely on income before taxes. Total income and household size and
composition are considered in such measures.
Poverty thresholds were first established in 1963, and the only changes
made since that time have been adjustments to reflect inflation (JCPR
1999). Also, poverty rates may appear
exaggerated because money and transfers from federal assistance programs (such
as food stamps, housing waivers, etc.) are not included in household income
measures (JCPR 1999). As a result, the
government’s own poverty measures fail to reflect poverty relief efforts.
More
importantly, especially in the Appalachian case, is that poverty is measured
solely in regard to income.
Historically, Appalachians have relied
on sources of subsistence rather than income.
Paul Salstrom (1994:56) asserts that “any generalizations about wealth
or poverty based on annual per capita income…reflect urban assumptions about
what constitutes a standard of living.”
Both home production and the tradition of borrowing within one’s kin
group and community reduce the need for income to purchase goods and
services. A standard of living is often
equated with standards related to the market economy. Measures along these lines overlook the
subsistence-barter-and-borrow economy that has characterized much of
Appalachian history.
Income, certainly, is not the only
way in which poverty can be defined. The
United Nations Population Fund (1996) provides three ways of defining
poverty. The first is traditional
income-based definitions, in which some threshold is set reflecting the income
level necessary for securing basic necessities.
As has already been mentioned, such definitions are limited in that they
overlook the role of non-market production and exchanges not involving
money. Second is a basic needs
approach. This definition of poverty
focuses on a set of minimal conditions for life, such as housing, food,
clothing, etc. Here, living standard,
rather than income, is emphasized. Third
and last are participatory definitions of poverty. Here, community members are actually invited
to engage in the process of determining poverty. Participants are asked to identify their
minimal needs for securing an adequate standard of living. Participatory definitions are unique in that
they allow for a subjective understanding of poverty.
Walter Precourt (1983) stresses the relative
nature of poverty standards, arguing that the meaning of poverty in any given
society is contextual. Definitions of
poverty based on income clearly express a capitalist, market-oriented
bias. Poverty, then, “is not a
simple synonym for ‘low income’ or ‘unemployment’; it has complex and
far-reaching ideological connotations rooted in the fabric of Western economic
and political history” (Precourt 1983:86-87).
According to John Kenneth Galbraith (1976:245): "People are
poverty-stricken when their income, even if adequate for survival, falls
radically behind that of the community. Then they cannot have what the larger
community regards as the minimum necessary for decency; and they cannot wholly
escape, therefore, the judgment of the larger community that they are indecent.
They are degraded for, in the literal sense, they live outside the grades or
categories the community regards as acceptable." As such,
poverty relates less to basic survival than it does to cultural standards.
Impoverishment, then, has both material and
cultural dimensions. These cultural
standards, ultimately, are at the heart of poverty as deviance. The cultural aspect of definitions of poverty
is discussed more fully in the sections that follow.
Appalachia does not exist in a vacuum, nor does an
understanding of the region. A number of
perspectives have been offered in regard to the region’s impoverishment.
Walls and Billings
(1977) outline the predominant approaches concerning social change and social
problems that have been used to understand and interpret Appalachia. These approaches have focused on a number of
factors both internal and external to the region. They include: 1) genetics; 2) the
environment/subculture of poverty; 3) regional development; and 4) internal
colonization. Each will be briefly
discussed below.
The genetic approach views the
source of social problems in light of the genetic deficiency of the people
experiencing those problems. This
perspective claims that “poverty and backwardness” in the region are due to the
fact that “the poor class of mountaineers were the descendents of convicts and
indentured servants” (Walls and Billings 1977:132). This rather racist approach posits poverty as
the result of the very nature of the impoverished.
Rather
than fault the ancestry of the people, some argued that the geographical
isolation of the environment created a certain backwardness of the people. Appalachian folk were stuck between
mountains, away from the rest of the world.
As a result, they failed to progress with the outside world.
This
environmental approach is closely linked to the subculture of poverty
thesis. Basically, this approach blames
the victims of poverty for their own situation, arguing that certain
personality traits, such as selfishness, traditionalism, and fatalism, impede
success and progress. Here, Appalachia is seen as a distinct subculture, with
maladaptive values differentiating them from the mainstream. Authors like Jack Weller (1965) and Michael
Harrington (1962) have pointed to certain traits of the region’s inhabitants,
stressing that these are the result of socialization in the subculture and that
they serve to create and perpetuate regional poverty.
The
regional development approach, unlike the genetic and environmental/subculture
of poverty approaches, does not blame the people for their own poverty. The regional development approach views the
region’s poverty as the result of a lack of opportunity and skill, stressing
the need for investing capital in the region, job training for individuals, and
improved road conditions. According to
this perspective, the region simply needs to be economically developed and
poverty will no longer be a problem. The
main focus in regard to social change with this approach has been on building
roads and providing job training.
The final approach regarding Appalachia is internal colonization. This perspective views Appalachia
as an internal colony over which dominant industrial players took control,
focusing on both economic and cultural exploitation. One of the most noted proponents of this
model is Helen Lewis. Lewis (1991) uses
Blauner’s model of colonialism to explain the conditions in the region. This is a four-part model of exploitation,
including: 1) forced or involuntary
entry; 2) rapid social and cultural changes for the colonized; 3) control by
the dominant group; and 4) a condition of racism against the colonized. For Lewis and others, focusing solely on
economics or culture leaves much to be desired.
Accordingly, regional poverty is rooted in structural inequality.
At the center of the debate over the
causes of Appalachian poverty are the notions of culture and structure. Is poverty the fault of the people, or was it
caused by outside forces? The most
popular approaches to Appalachian poverty are the subculture of poverty model
and internal colonization model. A
review of pertinent information regarding these two perspectives follows.
Culture
of poverty theory gained popularity during the 1960s, resulting from literary
and ethnographic traditions dating back to the late 19th century (Billings and Blee
2000). The idea of a ‘culture of
poverty’ originated from Oscar Lewis’ (1966) study of impoverished Puerto
Ricans. Lewis outlined a number of
characteristics of such a culture. A few
of these characteristics are:
§
Disengagement
from and hostility toward major institutions, such as government
§
Traditionalism;
recognition of but failure to adhere to middle-class values
§
Lack of
community organization
§
Fatalism
§
A sense of
inferiority
§
Helplessness
and dependency
Subculture
of poverty proponents have attempted to situate Appalachian within the above
framework.
Jack
Weller (1965), based upon his experiences in one Appalachian community in West Virginia,
identifies several maladaptive traits in the Appalachian subculture. According to Weller, the mountaineer is too
staunchly individualistic and uncooperative, concerned more about himself than
the larger community. He is
traditionalistic and “regressive” (34).
He loves action and hates routine.
As a result, his actions are unpredictable and inclined toward
violence. He is fatalistic, and “passive
resignation becomes the approved norm” (37).
In other words, the mountaineer is not a conscious actor and remains
content to be acted upon. He accepts his
poverty and does not attempt to better his condition.
Such
descriptions typify the subculture of poverty model and have translated into a
number of stereotypes about Appalachians. The people of the region are often viewed as
being lazy, ignorant, violent, immoral, unclean, unsophisticated, and so on
(McCoy and Watkins 1981). However, a
number of researchers have refuted this position and the negative images it
purports. These refutations are
discussed below.
Thomas
Ford (1991) looks at survey measures of individualism and self-reliance,
traditionalism, fatalism, and religious fundamentalism (the traits most often
associated with the subculture of poverty) among rural, urban, and metropolitan
groups according to socioeconomic status and age. His findings reveal that Appalachians
may have once been rather individualistic, traditionalistic, fatalistic, and
fundamentalist, but that things have and are changing. Older Appalachians tend to exemplify these
traits more so than younger Appalachians, but
neither group scores remarkably high on such measures. Also, these traits are not inherent to Appalachians.
Rather, they are quite possibly the result of the conditions and
economic changes the people faced. Appalachians have middle-class values and share many of
the same aspirations. Actually realizing
those aspirations, however, may be more challenging for Appalachians,
who often lack the resources to do so.
Socioeconomic status, too, is a factor.
Leaders in Appalachia, the local elites
and professionals of the region, tend to be most like their mainstream,
middle-class, urban counterparts.
Similarly, Dwight B. Billings
compares Appalachians to the mainstream
middle-class. In his study of North
Carolinians (1974), he found only an 11% difference between Appalachians
and non-Appalachians in regard to middle-class values. More importantly, such difference is
accounted for by rurality. The urban
experience tends to foster middle-class values and aspirations more so than the
rural experience. Appalachians
are not that different from the middle-class.
Such difference has often been exaggerated by the subculture of poverty
model.
Stephen Fisher (1991) also critiques
the culture of poverty, objecting to five aspects of the model. First, inherent in the subculture perspective
is the notion that Appalachia is, in fact, a
unique subculture. Fisher argues that
proponents have never demonstrated this uniqueness, whereas as the studies by
Ford (1991) and Billings
(1974) demonstrate similarities between Appalachian cultural values and the
rest of the country. Second, the
subculture model lumps all Appalachians
together. Fisher points to the diversity
of the region, contending that some people may fit into the subculture model
but certainly not all Appalachians do. Third, the traits used to describe the
subculture are often poorly defined, inconsistent, and biased toward a
middle-class perspective. Weller, for
instance, tends to contradict himself in his descriptions of the mountaineer
and judge Appalachians according to his own
subjective cultural values. Fourth, the
subculture of poverty model fails to acknowledge or focus on forces that may
have given rise to the subculture.
Fifth, avenues for social change focus entirely on changing the
subculture and the people in it, rather than addressing structural forces.
Allen Batteau (1991) calls into question the
conception of culture, especially the conception lain out by Weller. He argues that culture in the sense of a
subculture of poverty is often defined as anything distinctive, anything not in
line with the background and experiences of the researcher or observer. Instead, culture should be examined in terms
of group formation, negotiation of values, and creations of forms of political
consciousness.
Departing from a cultural focus,
David S. Walls (1978:319) states, “Central Appalachia
is best characterized as a peripheral region within an advanced capitalist
society.” Dwight B. Billings and
Kathleen M. Blee (2000:243) identify Appalachia
as a “peripheral, dependent region of resource extraction.” Persistent poverty is the result of this
structural, dependent relationship outlined by the internal colonization
perspective. A great deal of work exists
regarding structural explanations of poverty.
A number of such works are summarized below.
Helen M. Lewis and Edward E. Knipe (1978)
explore both the subculture of poverty and internal colonialism models. They see helpful aspects of both and argue
that the model one uses should depend upon the questions one is asking. The subculture of poverty model is a
descriptive device and even gives insight into certain aspects of the
perpetuation of poverty. However, it
does not trace or analyze the actual causes of poverty or the structural
perpetuation of poverty. The internal
colonialism model, though, seeks to do just that. Lewis and Knipe argue that Appalachia fits
each of the four components of colonization, stating that “coal interests came
into the region ‘uninvited,’ that cultural patterns changed as a result of this
intrusion, and that the area is controlled by representatives of the industry”
in the form of local elites and that racism against Appalachians exists to
perpetuate this pattern (24).
Candace Howes and Ann R. Markusen (1981)
begin by critiquing the very definition of poverty. Then, from their reexamination of poverty,
they propose an explanation for the causes of poverty in non-metro areas such
as Appalachia. Poverty, according to the
authors, is generally viewed in light of either supply or demand, with causes
of poverty being related to deficient job skills or lack of development. They argue that development, job creation,
and skill training do not necessarily alleviate poverty. The authors instead define poverty as the
ability of an entire household to earn a livelihood through four avenues:
household/nonwage production; wages; the marketplace; and the government. They see the source of non-metro poverty not
as an issue of supply and demand in the labor market, but rather as the result
of the very process of capital accumulation, which is comprised of three
processes: (1) the breakdown of household or other nonwage labor production in
certain areas, (2) the deliberate attempt to create and maintain a reserve army
of labor, (3) the changing profitability and production features of particular
capitalist sectors located in rural areas.
To understand non-metro poverty, then, requires looking at
underdevelopment and structural unemployment.
Paul Salstrom (1994) focuses on the economic
history of the region. He identifies
three causes of economic dependency and poverty. The first cause is that Appalachia
was not well suited to urbanize, keeping industrialization at a minimum and
resulting in the need for the import of manufactured goods. Secondly, due to deforestation and poor
agricultural practices, Appalachia was forced
to import most of its agricultural goods.
The third cause involves money and the creation of capital. Appalachia
produced little of its own capital, relying primarily on the import of capital
into the region. The federal government,
too, restricted the flow of cash into the region. As a result, Appalachia
was unable to maintain its subsistence level agricultural and barter-and-borrow
way of life. According to Salstrom, Appalachia’s declining barter-and-borrow economic system
made it vulnerable to capitalist exploitation.
Ronald D. Eller (1982) posits
industrialization as the cause of poverty in Appalachia. He discredits the culture of poverty
perspective, arguing that Appalachians cannot
be blamed entirely for their own condition.
Outside forces, powerful and laden with capital, entered the region and
transformed it in about 50 years, a staggering pace for the type of development
that took place.
Eller’s focus is not just on
industrialization per se, but rather on the speed of change and the type of
industrialization that occurred. Central Appalachia became industrialized in about 50
years, between 1880-1930. Most other
industrialized areas in the country experienced similar changes, but over a
much greater period of time. Also, the
nature of industrialization ill-prepared Appalachians
to become fully integrated into the mainstream of industry. Most industry in the region was
extractive. Outside, absentee owners
bought people’s land to strip it of its resources, such as timber and
coal. When the timber and coal were gone
or when they were no longer needed, the industry simply shut down, leaving no
alternative means of employment for Appalachians
who had become dependent on wages. The
quick, single industry focus of modernization in the region, not the
inhabitants of the region, is to be blamed for its continuing poverty.
Roberta McKenzie (1991) argues that
the isolation of Appalachian people did not create some sort of pathological
personality type. Fatalism,
traditionalism, individualism – all these things were not born out of nothing. Rather, the creation of an Appalachian
personality or worldview, an Appalachian ethnicity as such, is the result of
interaction and conflict with other groups.
Ethnicity becomes more apparent, gets strengthened, and becomes more
salient due to such interaction. Any
Appalachian identity, then, emerged largely as a result of the arrival of
industrial-capitalists.
Gordon
McKinney (1977) attempts to dispel the myth that Appalachians
are disproportionately violent when compared to the rest of the country. He argues that Appalachians
have been no more violent than people in other areas, with the exception of the
1890s. Even that period of violence can
be explained via sociohistoric and economic factors. According to McKinney,
violence in Appalachia was sparked by economic
and cultural invasion. There is nothing
inherently violent about the Appalachian nature. Rather, the folks in the region responded to
certain events in a way that many others might have as well. He outlines two sets causes for
violence. The first are historical
causes, including grudges carried over from the Civil War, strained race
relations carrying over from the conflict, and labor/management disputes that
were rather widespread at the time. The
second set of causes relate to the capitalist invasion and its subsequent
economic and cultural changes. During
this time period, Appalachia underwent rapid
and sweeping changes. Outsiders entered
the region, taking over both land and local government. Appalachians
reacted violently and, in many ways, out of self-defense. McKinney’s
point is that under these conditions, most people would have reacted in a
similar fashion, or that Appalachians
reactions are at least understandable and not indicative of a predisposition to
violence.
In sum, the subculture of poverty perspective
calls attention “to the traditional values and attitudes of mountain people and
how these functioned as both a cause and consequence of Appalachian poverty” (Billings and Blee
2002:318). On the other hand, the
internal colonization perspective shifts the focus from the negative
interpretations of local culture to patterns of inequality, such as “economic
growth with little real development or diversification, boom-and-bust economic
cycles, endemic poverty and underemployment, population loss, environmental
degradation, extralocal control, and local community incapacity,” that helped
create Appalachian poverty (Billings and Blee 2000:319). Both perspectives, however, aid in the
understanding of Appalachian poverty as deviance, which is addressed in the
following section.
Aside from official statistics regarding poverty in
Appalachia, there exists an image of poverty in Appalachia. In a market economy, the market determines a subsistence
level. Subsistence is no longer solely related
to one’s basic survival but is becomes entwined with material luxuries. As such:
The circumstance of a person’s functioning inadequately in
terms of the market manifests itself in negative values such as inferiority,
shame, and guilt, i.e., the person is below the culturally defined ‘subsistence
level.’ Poverty is therefore the stigma
associated with this negative cultural and economic position. (Precourt 1983:96)
Poverty as a
label of stigma dates back to 14th century Europe
(Precourt 1983). In the Appalachian
case, those who failed to “demonstrate a consumption pattern at the prevailing
market level” became stigmatized (Precourt 1983:98).
Erving Goffman (1963) defines the
stigmatized as those who have broken some normative expectation. He differentiates three types of stigma: 1) abominations of the body, such as physical
deformities; 2) blemishes of individual character, such as various addictions,
chosen behaviors, or certain illnesses; and 3) tribal stigmas associated with
one’s group membership, such as race, nationality, and religion. On the surface, Appalachian poverty appears to fall into the “blemishes of
individual character” category. After
all, not all of the people in the region are poor. There are a number of urban centers in the
13-state region, and many people lead very middle-class, affluent lives. However, since this image is applied
to the region as a whole rather than to individuals within the region,
Appalachian poverty more appropriately falls under the “tribal stigma of race”
category. Appalachia has been considered
“a strange land inhabited by a peculiar people, a discrete region, in but not
of America”
since Will Wallace Harney’s “A Strange Land and Peculiar People” was published
in 1873 (Shapiro 1978:xiv).
The peculiarities
of Appalachian culture outlined by the subculture of poverty proponents reveal
and perpetuate the stigmatized, marginal status of the region’s
inhabitants. Henry D. Shapiro (1978)
posits Appalachia as the marginalized
other. Rather than viewing Appalachia in terms of its similarities to the rest of
the nation, he argues, outsiders have often emphasized and exaggerated
differences. Local color writers began
this tradition in the 19th century, describing the region as a
persisting frontier, painting the region and its inhabitants in bright hues
against a backdrop of dull, modernized, mainstream America. These local color writers established an
object-subject, voyeuristic relationship between Appalachia
and the rest of the nation. By the
middle of the 19th century, “the process of labeling Appalachians as
different on the basis of alleged antisocial traits or deprivation of
some form set the stage for the development of the clearly established poverty
image that emerged in the twentieth century” (Precourt 1983:98).
The
stigmatization of the Appalachian region as impoverished is intimately linked
to the area’s history of exploitation.
Erik Olin Wright (2000) argues that poverty and material deprivations
are a necessary result in a capitalist system.
The creation of poverty allows for a steady supply of cheap labor. Such has historically been the case in Appalachia. Wright
goes on to outline three principles of class exploitation (10):
- the
inverse interdependent welfare principle: the welfare of the exploiters depends on
the deprivations of the exploited.
The luxury of the exploiter is at the expense of the exploited
- the
exclusion principle:
the exploited are excluded from productive resources (lack of
property, capital, etc.)
- the
appropriation principle: those who control productive resources
appropriate the fruits of the labor of those without such resources (the
exploited)
As has been
the case in Appalachia (especially the coalfields of Central
Appalachia), outside interests entered the region, laying claim to
many of the resources there. As
subsistence activities waned and industrialization brought the market economy
into the region, Appalachians found themselves
in need of wages. The labor of
Appalachians was then exploited, allowing absentee owners and local elites to
grow wealthy as working-class Appalachians
became more impoverished than ever.
Where Wright focuses on the
economic consequences of exploitation, Batteau (1991:168), stresses cultural
consequences of such exploitation, claiming that the “distinctive culture of
Appalachia that many discuss is a product of, and did not exist prior to, the
exploitative relationship between Appalachia
and the metropolitan society.”
Exploitative forces, relying heavily of cultural exploitation and the
power of ideology, created Appalachia as it is
known today. Appalachia
is not simply the product of its ‘backward’ inhabitants. Powerful, external forces cast the mold for
present-day Appalachia. Appalachian difference was not considered
until they were labeled different by those with the power to make such a label
stick. In short, Becker and Arnold
(1986:46) state:
Those in control in a society have the power
to impose their norms, values, and beliefs on people who are powerless. Social stratification thus dramatically
influences the process of stigmatizing certain individuals. Vested interests of those in positions of
power and authority are maintained through the institutionalization of stigma,
which entails denial of access to economic, political, educational, and social
institutions.
When rapid economic changes swept
the region in the late 19th and early 20th centuries,
ideas about Appalachian poverty became more widespread as subsistence oriented
production of the region became suspect.
As Appalachians were sucked into the larger market economy of the U.S.,
subsistence oriented production in the region became suspect. Subsistence production and consumption,
“which by traditional standards was appropriate, represented ‘poverty’ by market
standards” (Precourt 1983:99).
Stigma serves an important role in the
exploitation of a group of people.
Exploitation is often rationalized by the notion that “the exploited peoples are culturally or
biologically inferior” (Precourt 1983:101).
With such a rationale, exploitation cloaks itself in the guise of
progress and modernization. Local
populations are denigrated, portrayed as lacking, and “therefore in need of
salvation by outside industrial interests”
(Precourt 1983:101). The stigma
of poverty also focuses attention away from exploitative structural
relationships. In a 1964 Gallup poll (which was
during the heyday of the War on Poverty rhetoric), respondents reported “lack
of effort” as a major cause of poverty (Waxman 1983:73). Laziness and poverty are often associated,
even when the national attitude toward poverty is generally sympathetic. A 1975 study showed that people often
explained poverty in individualistic terms rather than structural ones. People are poor because they are lazy,
immoral, uneducated, etc. (Waxman 1983:73).
Karl B Raitz and Richard Ulack
(1991:10) make the following statement: “In short, a region is a mental construct: an
area that has been bounded in accordance with the goals of those delimiting the
region. In a sense, regions do not have
truth – they have only utility.” Appalachia can be and has been defined in a number of
ways, and the definition is always dependent on who is responsible for defining
it, the criteria they use, and ultimately their purpose in doing so. The definitions of the region as impoverished
serve a number of functions, whether intentional or not. As has already been discussed, these
definitions helped rationalize the exploitation of the region. Now, other functions are considered.
Herbert J. Gans (1994) outlines 13 latent functions the
stigmatization of poverty has for the non-poor.
These functions are divided into five categories: microsocial; economic; normative; political;
and macrosocial. Each of these
categories and the associated functions is discussed below as they pertain to Appalachia.
The two microsocial functions of poverty are (1) risk reduction
and (2) scapegoating and displacement.
The risk reduction function distances the labeler from the labeled,
protecting those with the power to label from pejorative
characterizations. With scapegoating and
displacement, a variety of social ills are blamed on the impoverished. According to Anne Shelby (1999), both of
these functions are expressed via redneck jokes, allowing those who tell the
jokes to distance themselves from the object of the jokes. These jokes also situate the cause of many
social ills, such as racism and incest, as the province of poor rednecks. Appalachians
who have migrated to urban areas often serve a similar function (McCoy and
Watkins 1981).
The three economic functions of poverty are (3) economic
banishment and the reserve army of labor, (4) supplying illegal goods, and (5)
job creation. The reserve army of labor
function was vital to the early exploitation of the region. By creating wage-dependency and impoverished
conditions, exploiters assured themselves a ready supply of cheap later. Today, as industry has subsided and moved to
other areas of the globe, many impoverished Appalachians
find themselves without jobs or the prospects of serious employment. Impoverished Appalachians
also find themselves involved in informal activities aimed at procuring a
livelihood. As a result, some have
resorted to the manufacture and sell of illegal goods, such as drugs. Finally, poverty in Appalachia
has created countless jobs for the non-poor.
The War on Poverty and subsequent social programs have provided
positions for missionaries, social workers, teachers, researchers, doctors,
police, journalists, etc. According to
Shapiro (1978:85), “the institutionalization of ‘mountain white’ work virtually
required that the mountain people themselves be identified a priori as a
‘needy’ and ‘client’ population.”
The three normative functions of poverty are (6) moral legitimation,
(7) norm enforcement, and (8) supplying popular culture villains. In terms of moral legitimation, the
stigmatization of the impoverished justifies the class hierarchy. The negative images of those in poverty are
set against those at higher locations in the hierarchy. The immorality and sullied character of the
have-nots reinforces the position of the haves (Duncan 1999). Additionally, Appalachian poverty enforces cultural
norms pertaining to consumption. The
desolate Appalachian image reaffirms the values of middle-class
consumerism. Also, such images are used
in the creation of popular culture villains.
Examples of this abound in television and movies. Shows like COPS and Jerry Springer
often focus on the vile nature of impoverished Appalachians. Movies such as Next of Kin and Deliverance
have done the same.
The three political functions of poverty are (9) institutional
scapegoating, (10) conservative power shifting, and (11) spatial
purification. Institutional scapegoating
is akin to scapegoating at the microsocial level. However, with institutional scapegoating,
attention is diverted away from the role the government has played in creating
and perpetuating poverty. If the plight
of the impoverished is blamed on their own shortcomings, institutions that are
supposed to serve and help these people are absolved of responsibility. Conservative power shifting refers to the
loss of political legitimacy of the impoverished. The stigmatized are excluded from political
decision-making, leading to the quiescence of the group (Gaventa 1980). Also, the area in which the impoverished live
becomes stigmatized, allowing for the possibility of spatial purification. The impoverished can be driven from their
land so the area can be utilized for other purposes. Many Appalachians
have lost their homes due to the coal industry and strip-mining.
The last two functions of poverty are macrosocial in nature. They are (12) reproduction of stigma and the
stigmatized and (13) extermination of the surplus. Often, those organizations aimed at relieving
poverty in Appalachia have actually
perpetuated poverty and its associated stigma.
The Appalachian Regional Commission has been accused of such
reproduction (Branscome 1991a; Whisnant 1994).
Extermination of the surplus is the most morbid of the 13
functions. Basically, social forces and
deprivation eliminate surplus labor. The
poor, often denied access to adequate health care, shelter, and food, have
higher morbidity and mortality rates than the non-poor population. For Branscome (1978), the hillbilly has
suffered similar annihilation coupled with cultural annihilation.
Mainstream, urban, middle-class America has
reacted to Appalachian poverty in a number of ways, many of which relate to the
functions of poverty discussed above.
The previous discussion also illustrates the social control function of
stigmatization. Appalachians
are often suspect and treated according to the prevalent stereotypes of the
region and its people (ignorance, laziness, uncleanliness, immorality, incest,
violence, unsophisticated, etc.) An
unpublished report by a Cincinnati
police captain provides a good example:
The report is replete with negative
stereotypes of Appalachians, emphasizing
particularly their supposed proneness to violence as it related to the ubiquity
and agility of knife-wielding. The image of Kentuckians as trouble-makers led
the captain to suggest that most crimes in Cincinnati were committed by Kentuckians. The
final tribute to the hillbilly in the report would lead people to believe that
the hillbilly was so tough and immune to pain as not to be seriously affected
by a police club. (McCoy and Watkins 1981:25)
Similarly,
McCoy and Watkins (1981:25) site police officials for scapegoating many urban
problems onto the alleged “uneducated, nonskilled, welfare-seeking, unsanitary
migrants.” Duncan (1999) argues that those labeled poor
are often denied access to work, health care, housing, and education.
Reactions and
social control of Appalachian poverty have also occurred along more formal
channels than the prejudices mentioned above.
Since waging the War on Poverty in the 1960s, the federal government has
been an active agent in dealing with the problem of poverty. The Appalachian Regional Commission is the most
notable and long-lasting federal effort in this regard.
The Appalachian Regional Commission
(ARC) was developed in the 1960s to meet the needs of the Appalachian
region. The official mission of the ARC
is to “be an advocate for and partner with the people of Appalachia
to create opportunities for self-sustaining economic development and improved
quality of life” (ARC 2001d). In its
strategic plan (ARC 2001d), the ARC outlines five major goals for the future of
Appalachia.
These are:
- Appalachian residents will have the skills
and knowledge necessary to compete in the world economy in the 21st century.
- Appalachian communities will have the
physical infrastructure necessary for self-sustaining economic development and
improved quality of life.
- The people and organizations of Appalachia will have the vision and capacity to mobilize
and work together for sustained economic progress and improvement of their
communities.
- Appalachian residents will have access to
financial and technical resources to help build dynamic and self-sustaining
local economies.
- Appalachian residents will have access to
affordable, quality health care.
The ARC has
established several programs aimed at realizing these goals. These programs (ARC 2001c) are:
§ The
J-1 Visa Waiver Program enables
health-care professionals from foreign countries to work in health manpower
shortage areas in Appalachia.
As
a result of these programs, the ARC touts a number of marked improvements in
the region. The ARC’s noted
contributions (2001d) are listed below.
- In
1960, one in three people in Appalachia
lived in poverty, compared with one in five in the nation as a whole. By
1990 Appalachia’s poverty rate had been
cut in half, while the nation’s poverty rate had dropped by 40 percent.
- Since
1965, per capita income has risen by more than 6 percentage points, to 84
percent of the national average.
- In the
1950s, over 2 million Appalachians—some
13 percent of the population—left the region in search of jobs and a
better way of life. As the economy has improved with the help of ARC,
outmigration has been reversed to growth in all but a few counties.
- The base for
ARC’s economic development achievements, the 3,025-mile Appalachian Development
Highway System, is now more than three-fourths complete or under construction.
Hundreds of thousands of new jobs have been created in counties with access to
the new highways.
- ARC has completed
more than 2,000 industrial and commercial water, sewer, waste disposal, and
other types of community development projects. ARC funding also provided the
first clean drinking water and sanitary sewer lines for some 700,000 residents
of the Region’s poorest counties.
- ARC has
helped construct or equip more than 700 vocational and technical facilities
serving more than 500,000 students a year. Some 100,000 workers have received
ARC-funded job training to upgrade their skills.
- ARC has
helped construct or rehabilitate more than 14,000 housing units, helping to
reduce dramatically the number of Appalachian families living in substandard
housing.
- ARC-supported
revolving loan funds for small businesses—the source of many new jobs—had by
1993 assisted 200 businesses and created 8,000 new jobs.
- A network of
more than 300 ARC-funded health-care clinics and hospitals serves 4 million
patients a year. Through a regionwide ARC initiative, primary health care is
now within 30 minutes of every Appalachian.
- More than
220,000 children have been served in ARC-funded comprehensive child development
programs in areas that lacked preschool programs and where affordable child
care was essential to help low-income working parents stay above the poverty
line.
- ARC’s role
in leadership development has dramatically enhanced the capacity of local
communities to build the institutions needed for local determination and
self-help. The local development district concept supported by ARC has
strengthened the ability of dozens of local government entities to provide
effective service, and more than 4,500 young Appalachians
have served in ARC-supported community service projects aimed at developing
their leadership skills.
- According to
a study funded by the National Science Foundation and conducted by the Regional
Research Institute of West Virginia, Appalachian counties have grown 48
percentage points faster in personal income and earning, 17 percentage points
faster in per capita income, and 5 percentage points faster in population than
a group of “twin” counties. The ARC program was a major factor in producing
such a dramatic difference.
The
ARC, however, is not without its critics.
The ARC, along with other institutions in the region, has been charged
with reproducing or failing to adequately address the conditions of poverty in
the region. Branscome (1991a) and
Whisnant (1994) both critique the ARC on similar grounds. They assert that the ARC has generally given
money to local elites rather than to those actually in poverty. Local elites then use the money to further
their own interests, just as they always have.
The ARC has focused primarily on roads, providing relatively little
money and attention to major concerns involving housing and healthcare. According to the ARC (2001a), 2,526 miles of
road had been constructed in Appalachia by
September 2001. Billions of dollars have
been spent on this endeavor, and the remaining 500 miles will be among the most
expensive to build, costing an estimated additional $8.5 billion (ARC
2001a). Aside from the large sums of
money used on road construction, Whisnant also argues that this focus on roads
has been destructive, ignoring public interest and environmental concerns.
Branscome offers a few suggestions on the ways in which the ARC could overcome
its bias and better serve the people.
According to him, the ARC should:
involve people who care about and are familiar with the region; revive
underground mining, making it safer in the process; encourage local
control/influence; mediate between local and federal interests; cut down on
outside controlling firms; and, encourage citizen participation.
The ARC is not the only institution to receive criticism. Branscome (1978) looks at a number of social
institutions and how they have dealt and continue to deal with Appalachia.
Although he begins his article with a brief discussion of the
stereotyped and caricatured media portrayals of Appalachians,
his primary focus is on government in its various incarnations and areas of
influence. Basically, any attempts at
meeting the needs of the region are inadequate and sometimes even
insulting. Mining safety and black lung
compensation are problematic. Branscome
points to the numerous mining fatalities and the government’s unwillingness to
enforce mine safety regulations. In
addition, miners in Kentucky and West Virginia are denied black lung benefits
two, three, or more times as frequently as miners in other states. The government has also failed to adequately
handle poverty, especially where children are concerned. Figures provided estimate that just over 10
percent of children under six living in poverty in Appalachia
receive benefits from various “welfare” programs (215). Education falls short as well, failing to
provide sufficient resources at the primary and secondary level (due in part to
a lack of taxation of large corporations).
Regional colleges and universities, in turn, fail to promote a regional
consciousness, and often serve as “revolving doors” to Appalachian students
(218). Certainly, the capitalistic
forces that have exploited the region for over a century are not prepared to
restore or preserve the region and its integrity. It simply is not in their best interest to do
so. The government, which has
historically enforced capitalistic domination and exploitation, also appears
quite unwilling to help restore the region it helped to decimate.
Mike Clark (1978) criticizes the regional education system. Education, which is often touted as the key
to success, serves an exploitative function in Appalachia. Basically, the author points a condemning
finger at those who have risen from the ranks and sold out, chastising those
who have gotten where they are “by climbing over the backs and bodies of our
brothers and sisters” who now labor away while we bask in the comfort of our
educated, privileged positions (207).
The educational system, rather than serving the needs of Appalachians, serves the purposes of outside powers by
creating a local elite that looks after and controls its own people. Branscome (1991b) offers a similar critique
of education, focusing on the way in which the educational system prepares Appalachians to leave the region or to be good, obedient
workers.
Richard A. Couto (1983) explores health care in Appalachia. He provides quite a bit of information on
problems of funding and organization.
However, his emphasis on the relationship between health care and
community is central to the issue of institutions and social control. Primarily, outsiders have controlled health
care in the region. Company doctors in
coal camps are a prime example. Health
care has often been outside the realm of control of those most affected by
medical institutions. Inadequate
services, coupled with the distrust of outside control, have lead to a region
whose basic needs have largely gone unmet.
In sum, Appalachian poverty can be viewed in light of the
stigmatization of the region. This
stigma rationalized a relationship to the region marked by severe inequality
and exploitation. The impact of this
stigma is far-reaching. Even efforts to
deal with poverty are often shaped by this notion of stigmatization. As a result, conceptions of and reactions to
Appalachian poverty continue to be mired by notions of deficiency and deviance.
Bibliography
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). 1998. “Poverty Rates
in Appalachia, 1990.”
Washington, DC: Appalachian Regional Commission, Retrieved
December 4, 2001.
(http://www.arc.gov/research/poverty/povmain.htm).
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). 1999a. “Employment
Rates in Appalachia, 1998.”
Washington, DC: Appalachian Regional Commission, Retrieved
December 4, 2001.
(http://www.arc.gov/research/employ/empmain.htm).
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). 1999b. “Income Rates
in Appalachia, 1997.”
Washington, DC: Appalachian Regional Commission, Retrieved
December 4, 2001. (http://www.arc.gov/research/income/incmain.htm).
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). 2001a. “Appalachian
Development Highway
System.” Washington, DC: Appalachian Regional Commission,
Retrieved December 4, 2001. (http://www.arc.gov/programs/highway/highway.htm).
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). 2001b. “The
Appalachian Region.” Washington,
DC: Appalachian Regional Commission, Retrieved December 4,
2001.
(http://www.arc.gov/aboutarc/region/abtapreg.htm).
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). 2001c. “ARC
Programs.” Washington, DC:
Appalachian Regional Commission, Retrieved December 4, 2001.
(http://www.arc.gov/programs/progmain.htm).
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). 2001d. “Setting a
Regional Agenda: ARC
Strategic Plan 1997-2002.” Washington, DC: Appalachian
Regional Commission,
Retrieved December 4, 2001.
(http://www.arc.gov/infopubs/poldocs/stratpln.htm).
Batteau, Allen. 1991. “Appalachia and the Concept of
Culture: a Theory of Shared
Misunderstanding.” Pp. 163-184 in Appalachia: Social
Context Past and Present, edited by Bruce Ergood and Bruce E. Kuhre.
Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co. (3rd edition).
Becker, Gaylene and Regina Arnold. 1986. “Stigma as Social
and Cultural Construct.” Pp.
39-57 in The Dilemma of Difference: A Multidisciplinary
View of Stigma, edited by Stephen C. Ainlay, Gaylene Becker, and Lerita M.
Coleman. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Billings, Dwight B. 1974. “Culture and Poverty in
Appalachia: A Theoretical Discussion and
Empirical Analysis.” Social Forces 53(2):315-323.
Billings, Dwight B. and Kathleen S. Blee. 2000. The Road to Poverty: The Making of Wealth
and Hardship in Appalachia. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.
Branscome, James. 1978. “Annihilating the Hillbilly: the
Appalachian’s Struggle with
America’s Institutions.” Pp. 211-227 in Colonialism in
Modern America: The Appalachian Case, edited by Helen M. Lewis, Linda
Johnson, and Donald Askins. Boone, NC: The Appalachian Consortium Press.
Branscome, James. 1991a. “What the New Frontier and Great
Society Brought.” Pp. 257-266
in Appalachia: Social Context Past and Present,
edited by Bruce Ergood and Bruce
E. Kuhre. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co. (3rd
edition).
Branscome, James. 1991b. “Educating Appalachia’s Poor.” Pp.
327-330 in Appalachia:
Social Context Past and Present, edited by Bruce
Ergood and Bruce E. Kuhre. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co. (3rd
edition).
Clark, Mike. 1978. “Education and Exploitation.” Pp. 199-207
in Colonialism in Modern
America: The Appalachian Case, edited by Helen M.
Lewis, Linda Johnson, and Donald Askins. Boone, NC: The Appalachian Consortium
Press.
Cuoto, Richard A. 1983. “Appalachian Innovation in Health
Care.” Pp. 168-188 in
Appalachia and America: Autonomy and Regional Dependence,
edited by Allen Batteau. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press.
Duncan, Cynthia M. 1999. Worlds Apart: Why Poverty
Persists in Rural America. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Eller, Ronald D.
1982. Miners, Millhands, and
Mountaineers : Industrialization of the
Appalachian South, 1880-1930. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.
Fisher, Stephen L. 1991. “Victim-Blaming in Appalachia:
Cultural Theories and the Southern
Mountaineer.” Pp. 185-193 in Appalachia: Social Context
Past and Present, edited by Bruce Ergood and Bruce E. Kuhre. Dubuque, Iowa:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co. (3rd edition).
Ford, Thomas R. 1991. “The Passing of Provincialism.” Pp.
80-103 in Appalachia: Social
Context Past and Present, edited by Bruce Ergood and
Bruce E. Kuhre. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co. (3rd
edition).
Galbraith, John Kenneth. 1976. The Affluent Society.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin
Company.
Gans, Herbert J.
1994. “Positive functions of the
undeserving poor: Uses of the underclass in
America.” Politics & Society 22(3):269-284.
Gaventa, John. 1980. Power and Powerlessness in
Appalachia: Quiescence and Rebellion in
an Appalachian Valley. Urbana, IL: University of
Illinois Press.
Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of
Spoiled Identity. New York,
NY: Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Harrington, Michael. 1962. The Other America: Poverty in
the United States. Baltimore, MD:
Penguin Books.
Howes, Candace and Ann R. Markusen. 1981. “Poverty: A
Regional Political Economy
Perspective.” Pp. 437-464 in Nonmetropolitan America in
Transition, edited by Amos Hawley and Sara Mills Maize. Chapel Hill, NC:
University of North Carolina Press.
Isserman, Andrew M. 1996. “Socioeconomic Review of
Appalachia: Appalachia Then and
Now – An Update of ‘The Realities of Deprivation’ Reported
to the President in 1964.” Washington, DC: Appalachian Regional Commission
Report, Retrieved December 4, 2001. (http://www.arc.gov/research/resmain.htm).
Joint Center for Poverty Research (JCPR). 1999. “Measuring
Poverty — A New Approach.”
Joint Center for Poverty Research, Policy Brief, Vol 1, No.
6. Retrieved on November 14, 2001. (http://www.jcpr.org/policybriefs/vol1_num6.html).
Lewis, Helen. 1991. “Fatalism or the Coal Industry?” Pp.
221-229 in Appalachia: Social
Context Past and Present, edited by Bruce Ergood and
Bruce E. Kuhre. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co. (3rd
edition).
Lewis, Helen M. and Edward E. Knipe. 1978. “The Colonialism
Model: The Appalachian
Case.” Pp. 8-31 in Colonialism in Modern America: The
Appalachian Case, edited by Helen M. Lewis, Linda Johnson, and Donald
Askins. Boone, NC: The Appalachian Consortium Press.
Lewis, Oscar. 1966. “The Culture of Poverty.” Scientific
American 215(4):19-25.
McCoy, Clyde B. and Virginia McCoy Watkins. 1981.
“Stereotypes of Appalachian
Migrants.” Pp. 20-31
in The Invisible Migrants: Urban Appalachians, edited by
William W. Philliber and Clyde B. McCoy. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky
Press.
McKenzie, Roberta. 1991. “Appalachian Culture as Reaction to
Uneven Development: A
World Systems Approach to Regionalism.” Pp. 284-289 in Appalachia:
Social Context Past and Present, edited by Bruce Ergood and Bruce E. Kuhre.
Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co. (3rd edition).
McKinney, Gordon. 1977. “Industrialization and Violence in
Appalachia in the 1890s.” Pp.
131-144 in An Appalachian Symposium, edited by J.W.
Williamson. Boone, NC: Appalachian University Press.
Precourt, Walter. 1983. “The Image of Appalachian Poverty.”
Pp. 86-110 in Appalachia and
America: Autonomy and Regional Dependence, edited by
Allen Batteau. Lexington,
KY: University of Kentucky Press.
Raine, James Watt. 1924.
The Land of Saddle-Bags: A Study of the Mountain People of
Appalachia. New York, NY: Council of Women for Home
Missions and Missionary Education Movement of the United States and Canada.
Raitz, Karl B. and Richard Ulack. 1991. “Regional
Definitions.” Pp. 10-26 in
Appalachia: Social Context Past and Present, edited
by Bruce Ergood and Bruce
E. Kuhre. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co. (3rd
edition).
Salstrom, Paul. 1994. Appalachia’s Path to Dependency:
Rethinking a Region’s Economic
History. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky
Press.
Shapiro, Henry D. 1978. Appalachia on Our Mind: The
Southern Mountains and
Mountaineers in the American Consciousness, 1870-1920.
Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Shapiro, Henry D. 1991. “Appalachia and the Idea of America:
The Problem of the Persisting
Frontier.” Pp. 74-80 in Appalachia: Social Context Past
and Present, edited by Bruce Ergood and Bruce E. Kuhre. Dubuque, Iowa:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co. (3rd edition).
Shelby, Anne. 1999. “The ‘R’ Word: What’s So Funny (and Not
So Funny) about Redneck
Jokes.” Pp. 153-162 in Confronting Appalachian
Stereotypes: Back Talk from an American Region, edited by Dwight B.
Billings, Gurney Norman, and Katherine Ledford. Lexington, KY: University of
Kentucky Press.
United Nations Population Fund. 1996. “Definitions of
Poverty.” New York, NY: United
Nations Population Fund, Retrieved November 14, 2001.
(http://www.unfpa.org/swp/1996/DEFBX96.HTM).
United States Census Bureau. 1999. “How the Census Bureau
Measures Poverty.”
Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau, Retrieved on
December 4, 2001.
(http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povdef.html).
Walls, David S. 1978. “Internal Colony or Internal
Periphery? A Critique of Current Models
and an Alternative Formulation.” Pp. 319-343 in Colonialism
in Modern America: The Appalachian Case, edited by Helen M. Lewis, Linda
Johnson, and Donald Askins. Boone, NC: The Appalachian Consortium Press.
Walls, David S. and Dwight B. Billings. 1977. “The Sociology
of Southern Appalachia.”
Appalachian Journal 5(1):131-144.
Waxman, Chaim I. 1983. The Stigma of Poverty: A Critique
of Poverty Theories and Policies.
New York, NY: Pergamon Press. (2nd Edition).
Weller, Jack E. 1965. Yesterday’s People: Life in
Contemporary Appalachia. Lexington, KY:
University of Kentucky Press.
Whisnant, David E. 1994. Modernizing the Mountaineer:
People, Power, and Planning in
Appalachia. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee
Press.
Wright, Erik Olin. 2000. Class Counts: Student Edition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
