Rural mountain natives, in-migrants, and the cultural divide

Conventional wisdom suggests that different views held by native and in-migrant rural residents lead to a division that ultimately damages community. Using a sample of rural residents in the Southern Appalachian Mountains, we seek to (1) determine whether these groups differ and, if they do, (2) explain the predictors of the difference. Our results suggest that there are demographic and attitudinal differences between natives and in-migrants, although a significant number of in-migrants share native attitudes. Proportion of lifetime spent in the region and perception of threat to cultural heritage play important roles in determining shared attitudes among the groups, implying that natives and in-migrants may not be as different as previously assumed and that in-migrant status by itself may not be sufficient to explain changes in rural community. Published by Elsevier Inc. Rural areas have experienced significant growth due to increased in-migration in recent years, reflecting many people’s desires to escape growing patterns of urbanization and suburbanization in the United States (Beale & Johnson, 1998; Beyers & Nelson, 2000; Fuguitt, Beale, Fulton, & Gibson, 1998; Jobes, 2000; Johnson & Beale, 1994, 1998; Salamon, 2003). Much of this growth can be attributed to the influence of the baby boom generation (Nelson & Sewall, 2003; Nelson, Nicholson, & Stege, 2004). Southern Appalachia has been no exception to this pattern of growth. From 1995 to 2000, approximately 63,000 more people immigrated into North Carolina’s Appalachian counties than left them (Pollard, 2005). ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 828 227 3879; fax: +1 828 227 7061. E-mail address: [email protected] (K.M. Brennan). 0362-3319/$ – see front matter. Published by Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2008.03.006 280 K.M. Brennan, C.A. Cooper / The Social Science Journal 45 (2008) 279–295 What does this demographic shift mean for the state of rural community? Traditional viewpoints suggest that rural in-migrants hold different social and cultural values and views than native rural residents, leading to a division between the groups. Social psychologists have long known that when a close-knit group faces outside infiltration, group members may perceive the outsiders as a threat to group solidarity. Until now, we have had little evidence to suggest whether a divide is present in rural mountain communities. In this paper, we address whether in-migrant social and political views differ significantly from native views and, if they do differ, whether time spent in the region decreases differences between native and in-migrant views. 1. Culture clash in the rural community During the past several decades, communities on the rural–urban fringe have experienced a pronounced influx of upwardly mobile and, more recently, younger populations (Beale & Johnson, 1998; Fuguitt et al., 1998; Jobes, 2000; Johnson & Beale, 1998; Jones, Fly, Talley, & Cordell, 2003; Salamon, 2003). Attracted to scenic beauty, recreation possibilities, lower population densities, and clean environment, many in-migrants see rural communities as an alternative to the negative effects of urban and suburban sprawl (Bridger, Luloff, & Krannich, 2002). Although quality-of-life considerations top the list of reasons for the move to rural areas, rural communities also have more to offer economically than in the past, particularly for those residents who can afford to live in a rural community and commute to work in nearby areas (Jobes, 2000; Jones et al., 2003; Reichert & Sylvester, 1997; Salamon, 2003). While the potential benefits of rural areas to newcomers seem apparent, the effects on rural natives are questionable. Research on rural in-migration is a testament to this, often focusing on factors underlying community conflicts with the expectation that in-migrant and native rural residents hold differing attitudes and values—a “culture clash” thesis of rural community interaction in which the values and attitudes brought by rural in-migrants are expected to pose a threat to the established native community (Jones et al., 2003; Price & Clay, 1980). An underlying assumption of the culture clash thesis is that community solidarity is undermined by the unwillingness of natives to accept newcomers into the community and/or the unwillingness of in-migrants to become a part of the community (Salamon, 2003). This unwillingness generally stems from sources of difference between the groups—differences related to identity, cultural expectations, social and political viewpoints, or socioeconomic status. According to social identity theory, people make comparisons between their group and other groups in an effort to create a favorable between-group distinction and reach a positive sense of self (Tajfel, 1982). While this process often results in positive outcomes such as in-group identification and cooperation with in-group members, it may also result in negative outcomes for members of out-groups. This most often takes the form of stereotyping and discrimination (Van der Vegt, 2002). The problem of in-group/out-group conflict may be intensified in rural communities. Fitchen (1990) points out that “in-migrants are not always effectively absorbed into the community as part of the social system and part of the conceptual ‘us”’. Even after many years of rural residence, in-migrants may continue to be labeled as “others” who embody negative out-group K.M. Brennan, C.A. Cooper / The Social Science Journal 45 (2008) 279–295 281 characteristics. Fitchen (1990) further argues that the dichotomy of “native” and “newcomer” reinforces a “separateness and tension” that undercuts community solidarity. Other researchers note the disconnection, and sometimes disinterest, that newcomers feel when they arrive in small towns (Jobes, 2000; Salamon, 2003). Misinformation or lack of knowledge about local culture and history, lack of family connections, segregated social networks, and spatial segregation (for example, living in new subdivisions) may inhibit a newcomer’s ties to the rural community. Interaction is crucial for upholding a sense of community, and all of these things may contribute to limited face-to-face interactions between newcomers and local community members (Bridger et al., 2002; Jobes, 2000; Salamon, 2003; Wilkinson, 1991), perhaps permanently altering social capital in the area (Krannich & Zollinger, 1997; Putnam, 2000; Putnam & Feldstein, 2003).1 If in-migrants arrive in rural areas with suburban/urban expectations of privacy and independence, disinterest in community engagement will likely only contribute to the “other” view of local residents. Likewise, if in-migrants come to scenic rural areas with unrealistic expectations of life in that community, they are unlikely to stay, thus impeding the ongoing sense of community in the area—particularly when the influx of arriving and departing in-migrants is continuous (Jobes, 2000). 2. Potential sources of the culture clash Part of the expectation for culture clash in rural communities is related to socio-demographic differences between native and in-migrant rural residents. Rural natives tend to be younger, less educated, and have lower household incomes than in-migrants (Green, Marcouiller, Deller, Erkkila, & Sumathi, 1996; Jobes, 2000). Because sociodemographic differences generally predict differences in socio-political attitudes and values, it follows that in-migrants would hold different views than natives. In addition to socio-demographic explanations, common misunderstandings about the within-group homogeniety of natives and in-migrants in rural communities are often used to explain culture clash in rural communities. However, it may be inappropriate to assume that all rural natives share similar views. Flora and Flora (2004) state, “In the past, small size and isolation combined to produce relatively homogenous rural cultures. . . and a strong sense of local identity. But globalization, connectivity, and lifestyle changes accompanying shifting income distributions have altered the character of rural communities. They are neither isolated nor as homogenous as they once were” (p. 4). Existing research demonstrates that there are some similarities between rural natives and inmigrants (Jones et al., 2003; McBeth, 1995; Smith & Krannich, 2000; Talley, 2002), indicating that in-migrants may be drawn by the rural heritage or may increasingly value this heritage as they spend more time in the community. Given this last possibility, we would expect that for in-migrants who stay, time spent in the community should lessen the differences between them and the natives. A final explanation of culture clash in rural communities is tied to misconceptions about the existence of a rural “cultural heritage” which may be threatened. As newcomers, rural inmigrants usually do not have a direct connection to the cultural heritage of the region, although 282 K.M. Brennan, C.A. Cooper / The Social Science Journal 45 (2008) 279–295 perceptions of regional culture may be part of what draws them to the area. Often times, though, in-migrants find that their perceptions of regional culture do not match the reality of their new surroundings. Disappointed, some will leave their new rural home (Bridger et al., 2002; Goudy, 1990; Flora & Flora, 2004; Jobes, 2000; Salamon, 2003). Still others will choose to actively support environmental, developmental, and other community changes in an effort to feel comfortable in their new surroundings. Natives may perceive these changes as threatening to the cultural heritage of the region. With these explanations in mind, a better way to think about the effects of population growth may be to consider what in-migrants bring to rural community. If in-migrants are bringing similar attitudes and values, or if their views increasingly conform to native views as they spend more time in rural communities, a strong sense of community should remain even in the face of change. However, if in-migrants bring attitudes and values that stand in opposition to those held by rural natives, or are inadvertently promoting unwelcome changes in the community, it is unlikely that natives will accept them as members of the community group. Similarly, in-migrants in this circumstance will not identify with and become engaged members of the community. Both of these possibilities clearly support a culture clash thesis of community interaction.