Appalachian Studies and the Third Millennium

Abstract

Appalachian Studies and the Third Millennium John B. Stephenson Twelve years ago there was a small conference at the University of Kentucky on which occasion we looked at the state of Appalachian Studies. Some of the papers were collected in a special issue of the Appalachian Journal (Winter-Spring 1982). It was at this meeting that Jim Wayne Miller referred to "hard" and "soft" Appalachian Studies, the Action People and the Creative Folk. And it was at this meeting that Loyal Jones defended Appalachian scholars by describing their work as "chasing hats in a high wind and getting them on the right heads," meaning that our passions drive us in different directions and that we should not be too critical of the kind of work our neighbor is doing. I wrote at the time, in attempting to size up the state ofAppalachian Studies, that it had gained considerable maturity in its short lifetime as a field of study, which, with the exception of a few dedicated but isolated pioneers, was about ten years. It was also clear at that time that Appalachian Studies, born in political frustration and anger, had developed a palpable tension between the scholars and the activists. And more conversation back and forth among them. In summing up, I wrote: . . . We share beliefs that we need to get beyond distractive dualisms, that we need better theories, that we need to articulate visions for the region, that we need teaching and research methodologies which get us closer to the daily life of the people, that we need studies which allow us to bear witness to the complexities and ironies of social history and John B. Stephenson ispresident ofBerea College. He was keynote speaker on thefirst day of the symposium. individual biography, and that we need to accomplish these things without relinquishing our impulses for democratic reform. What of Appalachian Studies today? The region certainly seems to have dropped from the conscience of America in general, to the extent that it was ever there. And there is some anxiety that Appalachia may fall off the policy table in Washington along with rural America in general. Additionally, most state-supported universities have suffered mid-year budget cuts in recent years and are anticipated to do so again this year, with the result that interdisciplinary programs may come to be defined as marginal, i.e., dispensable. Are we in a "trough" of inattention, neglect , and resource starvation in Appalachian Studies as well? How might we go about answering such questions? It strikes me that there are, among others, these two ways to assess Appalachian Studies today: by looking at the life and times of the Appalachian Studies Association, and by examining the health of campus-based programs. (In the course of the discussion of these two categories, I'll touch briefly on other matters such as the production of future Ph.D.s in the field, new areas of scholarly interest, and the extension of the campus into mountain communities.) First, the Association, which was born right here in Berea at the initiative of Richard Drake and with the close guiding hand of Loyal Jones. Those with whom I have spoken over the past few months (in preparation for this presentation) agree that the nature of the Association has changed, or at least that the structure and style of its meetings have changed. I'm not so certain that this has been a recent change, because even twelve years ago participants were lamenting two things: Association meetings don't involve enough social action people; and they aren't as spontaneous and informal as they once were. Even in 1981 they were looking and sounding like a bunch of academics splintering into subspecialties. Alice Brown remarked a few weeks ago that the meetings used to be like family reunions. Jerry Williamson said he thought instituting concurrent sessions was the beginning of the end. Dwight Billings noted that the number of concurrent sessions had increased from twelve in the second year to thirty-six this year. Jean Speer observed that the meetings used to involve informal caucus groups but now had become academic conferences, with some important differences such as the youth conference...