Appalachian Poverty as Deviance

 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 19^th 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 19^th 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 19^th 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):

1. 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
2. the exclusion principle:  the exploited are excluded from productive resources (lack of property, capital, etc.)
3. 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 19^th and early 20^th 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:

1. Appalachian residents will have the skills and knowledge necessary to compete in the world economy in the 21st century.
2. Appalachian communities will have the physical infrastructure necessary for self-sustaining economic development and improved quality of life.
3. 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.
4. Appalachian residents will have access to financial and technical resources to help build dynamic and self-sustaining local economies.
5. 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 transportation program, which includes the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS), provides access to jobs, markets, health care, and education.

§  Economic and Human Development Activities help create jobs through education, physical infrastructure, civic development, business development, and health care projects.

§  The Distressed Counties Program provides special funding for the Region's poorest counties.

§  The Local Development District (LDD) Program provides administrative support funds to the Region's 71 local development districts.

§  The J-1 Visa Waiver Program enables health-care professionals from foreign countries to work in health manpower shortage areas in Appalachia.

§  The Entrepreneurship Initiative helps communities assist entrepreneurs in starting and expanding local businesses.

§  The Telecommunications and Information Technology Initiative is working to ensure that America's information highway does not bypass the Appalachian Region.

§  The Business Development Revolving Loan Fund Program helps create and retain jobs by providing capital for economic development activities.

§  Research and Technical Assistance tracks economic trends and emerging issues, undertakes program evaluation, and funds research.

            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. (3^rd 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. (3^rd 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. (3^rd 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. (3^rd 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. (3^rd 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. (3^rd 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. (3^rd 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. (3^rd 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. (3^rd 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. (2^nd 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.