Culture and Poverty in Appalachia: A Theoretical Discussion and Empirical Analysis

Abstract

The prevalent explanation for persistence of in Appalachia stresses region's traditional culture which ill equips its population for participation in modern world. This research casts doubt on cultural explanation. A scale of orientation was produced from secondary analysis of data gathered from several thousand respondents in North Carolina. Attitudinal differences bet ,een respondents from Appalachian subregion of that state and from other regions including urban, industrial piedmont were quite small and attributable to rurality. Analysis controlling for age suggests that attitudinal factors cannot be used to account for economic development as it occurred in Appalachian region. An alternative approach for further research is discussed. Appalachia is a land of great natural wealth. Yet, despite its wealth, many of its people are poor-no matter whether income, health, educational attainment, or housing are criteria (H. Lewis and Knipe, 1971). But it is not true, as John C. Campbell (1921) warned, that Appalachia is a homogeneous area. Despite its stereotype as an underdeveloped rural area with a distinctive regional subculture, many of its six million inhabitants enjoy typically urban, middle-class life styles.1 Yet few studies of Appalachian have questioned accuracy of stereotypic description. In this paper I will discuss theoretical implications of these studies. As with any complex phenomenon, explanations of are strategically located at several conceptual levelscultural, social, and psychological. It is useful in particular to distinguish between cultural and situational theories of povery in reviewing literature on Appalachia.2 Unlike situational explanations which see behavioral characteristics of poor as adaptations to environment and circumstance, cultural theories attribute to poor a culture at variance with rest of society. Their is seen as an outcome (Spilerman and Elesh, 1971). Cultural theories predominate in literature on Appalachia. By comparing attitudes of respondents from Appalachian mountains of North Carolina with those of respondents from non-mountain regions of same state, I will offer evidence which casts doubt on distinctiveness and importance of Appalachian subculture. THE PREVAILING THEORY OF THE APPALACHIAN SUBCULTURE The culture of is most common theory in literature on and Appalachia alike. (See Herzog, 1967; Irelan and Besner, n.d.) It has developed out of anthropological research of Oscar Lewis. Although he is commonly criticized for mistaking behavior for culture (Leeds, 1971), Lewis has identified nearly eighty cultural traits which he claims are shared by poor of all nations. Once it arises-and Lewis is not clear as to how this comes about-the culture of tends to be self-perpetuating. Once socialized, poor are thereafter . . . psychologically unready to take full advantage of changing conditions or improved opportunities that may develop in their lifetime (O. Lewis, 1966:19). This is because of culture is one of crucial traits of culture of poverty (O. Lewis, 1966:25). This illustrates tendency for culture of theorists to go beyond descriptions of maladaptive value orientations. Often they hypothesize cognitive and personality pathologies as well. (See Hess, 1970.) Culture of explanations, when applied to Appalachia, take several forms. Usually they hypothesize a culture lag (Ford, 1 James Brown (1970) has observed that the industrial composition of region in 1960 was remarkably similar to that of United States as a whole. 2 Situational and cultural explanations are not mutually exclusive. Culture is responsive to situation (see Stephenson, 1968). The distinction is a matter of emphasis and it is analytically useful in discussing problems of explanation.