Having previously delved into the intricate dynamics of metropolitan areas in class and readings, considering white rural poverty added nuance and perspective to our historical understanding of American society. Although national poverty rates are much lower for whites than blacks, a sweeping, crude understanding of our country does not capture the relatively recent legacies of American policy and ideologies on rural communities. With the rise of national environmental regulation and ensuing exit of extractive industries from American soil, communities across the country have been economically devastated since they largely depended on these industries for their well-being. In spite of the gravity of the situation for many communities, it took Trump’s protectionist rhetoric, promising for the return of rural industries in 2016, for the blight of these communities to enter into national conversations. In Those Who Work, Those Who Don’t: Poverty, Morality, and Family in Rural America, Jennifer Sherman outlines the effect of economically destructive environmental regulations on Golden Valley, California- a town chosen for its normality as a rural white community. Economic downturn not only decreases the availability of work overall, but also affects the small, isolated town in culturally nuanced ways, resulting in a variety of coping mechanisms that both benefit and impede the town’s recovery. This brings into question where responsibility lies, how our society should go about addressing this national phenomenon, how rural white poverty compares with other forms of poverty as well as larger themes of whiteness in the US.
After the exit of the logging industry in 1990 when the northern spotted owl was added to the Endangered Species Act, Golden Valley’s already declining industry came to a sudden halt. Its largely abandoned main street is evidence of its inevitable fate, yet Sherman’s analysis also depicts a community that transitioned to a system of moral capital in order to survive. Work in
the town became largely feminized with service jobs that earned money for households and men were forced to find either paid or subsistence work at best, or utilize welfare and illegal activities as worst. Such a system is unhealthy in a population that values familial dependence on a patriarchal breadwinner. Nevertheless, through a system of community policing enabled by the small size of Golden Valley, status was determined by these means of scraping by. Sherman’s bleak ethnography also teases out a more positive theme that highlights the sentiment of post-industrial areas across the nation: people in these rural white communities do not want to leave because they love where they live. For a variety of reasons largely incomprehensible to most in metropolitan areas, people living in these communities continue to scrape by and disregard the economic appeal of more developed areas. Should such a systemic phenomenon in our country continue to play out or is it time for government intervention?
In changing cultural and economic times, one perspective could be that these communities do not fit within the domestic picture of our country. Men should assimilate to more modern metropolitan forms of masculinity and work feminized jobs, families should accept welfare, and communities should allow for more individual agency instead of policing one another’s every move. A more radical version of this view could even be that these communities are economically unsustainable beyond disrepair and should be left to perish as residents eventually move towards development. Such beliefs seem to frequently stem from stereotypes upheld by a rural-urban divide, characterizing these whites being angry, racist, uneducated, and generally behind the times. Recent protests ignited by the Trump election certainly seemed to show this dynamic on an extreme, violent level. Regardless of whether one takes this stance or not, it is clear that the status quo of government welfare does not address the intricate needs of
these communities, especially among a population already distant from and justifiably suspicious of large government. Similar to grassroots efforts regarding urban poverty, effective action would probably necessitate inviting key players in rural communities to the table.
Whiteness among these rural communities is also largely ignored because of the extent of their homogeneity. Sherman’s brief description of racial hierarchies Golden Valley portrays pervasive racism among white residents, yet I argue that a distinction must be made between those in metropolitan communities actively exposed to conversations on race and those who are not. White racial identity must be further investigated, as surely racial identity for homogeneous rural towns differs from that of more diverse suburbs or cities.
-Ethan Strull
Jennifer Sherman’s Those Who Work and Those Who Don’t looked at the consequences that environmental protection had on a white rural community in Northern California called Golden Valley. Under Clinton’s administration in the 1990s, the northern spotted owl was added to the Endangered Species list. This policy caused the entire logging industry to collapse and subsequently most Golden Valley residents lost their jobs. I thought that this part of the story line for Golden Valley was particularly relevant to our study of urban areas. This environmental consequence begs the questions “Who is environmentalism for?” and “To what extent should we be fighting for the environment?”
With regards to any policy making, we need to consider the risk associated with policy enforcement. In this case, the enforcement of such a policy created a population with inherent frustration and distrust towards the government. I also think that a growing rhetoric around environmental issues sees individuals as a part of the environment and this is clearly a case where that notion was not taken into account. Currently there is a new movement of environmental justice within urban settings, which acknowledges how carbon emissions and toxins affect the urban poor. If issues like these are so prominent (even in the 1990s), why are we not viewing the environment as also intricately tied to the lifestyles of the rural poor? Sherman’s work clearly highlights these inherent tensions between environmentalism, governance, and both the urban and rural poor.
Sherman’s work left me with the following questions: to what extent should we consider the environment and the people who live in those environments?
I find the gendered perceptions of the environment and government intervention/welfare very interesting, as it connects back to how these white residents perform spatial practices and claim spatial ownership. In Jennifer Sherman’s Those Who Work and Those Who Don’t, we see how men in the Golden Valley often cite the outdoors as what motivates them to stay in these rural towns, despite the lack of work and always trying to scrape by. These men are “strongly tied to the mountains, forests, and the nearby rivers for their leisure activities” (Sherman, 42). Even in the workplace, before stricter environmental policies were implemented, all of their manual labor was performed outside for logging or farming purposes. For years, these residents asserted their spatial presence on the environment with little resistance from the government. This led to a sense of freedom and “getting away” from the hecticness of life that is impossible to obtain in the city. It attracted and motivated these individuals to the rural lifestyle, despite financial hardships and lack of opportunity.
With this in mind, it is understandable to feel their frustrations at the loss of various industries and restricted use of the land due to government intervention and environmental protection. Their spatial claims were being controlled by larger entities which in effect threatened their freedom and made it financially difficult to maintain the rural lifestyle. The government’s power to impose environmental regulation (thus restricting the residents’ actions), while not making any efforts to replace the masculine jobs that it obliterated, led to sentiments of mistrust to the government. These residents were already struggling to make ends meet with their deteriorating industry, but because of this government involvement, the men lost their jobs and the freedom to use their space.
The resulting mistrust instigate conservative perceptions where they see government involvement of any kind as bad, and that their lives would be much better without it. This notion creates a culture where acceptance of welfare assistance is condemned. It is seen as receiving help from an administration that is the root of all their troubles and causes all their problems. They blame the government because they have too much pride in their actions and in what the rural lifestyle can offer. From another viewpoint, it can be interpreted that the government implemented these restrictive policies to protect the traditional, rural environment that was once coined as the American lifestyle. It is an interesting tug-of-war, as the government wants to conserve these natural spaces for the long-term, while white residents want to implement their spatial claims of the environment for their own leisure and work, without caring for the future. While rural residents, specifically men, find value in interacting with the outdoors and clearly want to make spatial claims on the environment, they despise the institution that is working to maintain that rural lifestyle for future generations.
In 1990, when the northern spotted owl was added to the Endangered Species Act, men in California’s Golden Valley felt the brute of the law. Losing their logging jobs meant losing their “masculinity,” as women became the breadwinners and worked “feminine” 9-5 jobs while subsequently taking care of the house and the kids. This sent the lives of many white men into a spiral, they became enriched in guns and hunting which ultimately caused great the environment, and turned into alcoholics, with many cases of domestic violence. This is stemmed from and tugs at environmental issues, which force the hand on the government and policy makers and causes drastic life changes down the job chain. However, when deciding on a policy, the government also has to incorporate efforts to mitigate any potential environmental effects. For example, in the near future, government officials and policy makers will need to make a decision on potential government intervention regarding energy resources. If and when the government decides to rely more heavily on renewable energy resources, individuals in the oil industry will lose their jobs, creating the same ripple effect that occurred when the northern spotted owl was added to the Endangered Species Act.