Stances on the Land Political Perspectives on Land Use Governance in Vermont
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Stances on the Land Political Perspectives on Land Use Governance in Vermont by Thomas Hugh Niven Young A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Geography University of Toronto © Copyright by Thomas Hugh Niven Young 2011 Stances on the Land Political Perspectives on Land Use Governance in Vermont Thomas Hugh Niven Young Doctor of Philosophy Department of Geography University of Toronto 2011 Abstract Vermont, like many rural places in the developed world, has been the destination of many urban migrants seeking lifestyle amenities unavailable in the city. This migration has been blamed for intractable conflicts over land use governance, with newcomers pitted against long-time residents on such issues as wilderness designation, agricultural impacts and motorized recreation. How accurate, though, are these representations of political visions polarized along lines of residential status? This dissertation maps out the complexity of popular outlooks on land use governance in Vermont using a Q-method survey and semi-structured interviews. Analysis of the survey found evidence for two distinct perspectives on land use governance, which were termed Green Governance and Government Scepticism. While distinct, these perspectives were not diametrically opposed; on many issues of concern to one group the other group was neutral. These groups did not map directly onto residential status; in particular, long-time residents were clearly evident in both groups. Looking deeper into the stances on land use, tensions between stances are evident at both the level of the group and the individual. The dissertation traces these ii tensions and considers their implications for how individuals are enrolled in larger political projects such as neoliberalism. In many cases, uncertain enrolment suggests places where groups could productively engage each other and develop less antagonistic relationships. The dissertation fits the political orientations it examines into a broader cultural reading of social divisions that goes beyond residential status. It posits the existence of cultural complexes with an array of components contributing to social identity. These components – which include residential status and political orientation – influence each other without being determining. Compared with more established moral economy frameworks, this model seeks to provide a more flexible theorization of the relationship between social identity and political outlook. iii Acknowledgments Researching and writing a dissertation will always be a challenging process with constant twists and turns and an inevitable uncertainty about what’s around the next corner. The only way through it is with the unstinting support of family, friends, mentors and fellow students. I gratefully acknowledge my receipt of such support throughout this undertaking. Scott Prudham has been an amazing advisor throughout, consistently showing faith in my work any time my own faith was flagging. He encouraged me to find my own voice, at the same time raising alternative perspectives for my consideration. I also thank my other committee members – Sue Ruddick, Michael Bunce and Tenley Conway – and my departmental examiner – Ken MacDonald – for their excellent insights and their generous engagement with my ideas. The external examiner for my dissertation, Gail Hollander, gracefully combined a rigorous engagement and a sympathetic attitude in the task of assessing my work; I thoroughly enjoyed getting to know her in the process. The rest of the faculty and staff in the Geography department at the University of Toronto have been an invaluable resource and have done so much to create the vibrant intellectual climate that I have enjoyed during my time in Toronto. They are too many to name, but my appreciation is sincere. My fellow graduate students have been my lifeline. Our common experience was the basis of deep friendships that developed far beyond the confines of the academy. In particular I want to thank the members of the Social Construction of Nature reading group and of the Politics of the Environment working group that Scott Prudham organized. These informal groups brought together intellectual inquiry and camaraderie in the perfect balance. Two people deserve special mention. Valentine Cadieux has been an intellectual fellow traveler since the day we met and inspires me with her contagious enthusiasm and boundless interests. Kate Parizeau in my mind typifies committed scholarship and has been a remarkable source of support throughout this process. The rest of the fellow inhabitants of the basement and then the fifth floor of Sid Smith have contributed to conversations and experiences that will stay with me for a lifetime. In Vermont, I benefited from the incredible generosity of the people who agreed to participate in my research. I found them warm, honest and engaged, and this dissertation would not have been iv possible without their goodwill and cooperation. I look forward to the discussions that this work sparks. I thank the Dexter Foundation and in particular Mary Jane Dexter for believing in my work and supporting me to carry it out. Thanks also to the Department of Geography, the School of Graduate Studies and the Centre for the Study of the United States, all at the University of Toronto, for financial support. Gatherings of friends and family seem to be the rule rather than the exception in Wolcott. Our regular return trips to Vermont have never failed to rejuvenate and invigorate me for the work that I set out for myself. I cherish the feelings of warmth and ease that I always found within my extended family (where the word “family” is to be understood in its most generous terms). In particular, I owe a great debt to my parents, Janice Roy and Steven Young, not only for the obvious fact of bringing me up and supporting me, but also for their help in bringing this dissertation into being. They were both excellent readers and their familiarity with the work I was undertaking made them indispensible when I had specific doubts about which I needed reassurance. Thanks to my aunt and uncle, Gail Osherenko and Oran Young, for their longstanding commitment to my academic pursuits and for the countless strategy sessions whenever we were in Wolcott at the same time. My grandmother, Eleanor Young, and my much missed grandfather, John Young, planted the seed for this study when they bought a farm in Wolcott after the war and started growing Christmas trees on it. In so doing they joined a community that clearly enriched their lives and those of the people who followed them. To my husband Jan, I cannot convey in words the depth of gratitude I have for the way you have supported me through this process. Your willingness to leave your native Montreal and follow me to Toronto speaks volumes. Your patience as the years went by was more than anyone could hope to expect. Above all, your faith in me kept me going at the darkest moments. This dissertation would have been impossible without you. v Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Moral economies ..................................................................................................... 23 2.1 Introduction: Moral economy and the study of popular politics ................................... 23 2.2 Moral Economies, Part I ................................................................................................. 28 2.2.1 The classics of moral economy ............................................................................... 28 2.3 Moral economies, Part II ................................................................................................ 40 2.3.1 Scott’s fraught relationship with objectivity ........................................................... 41 2.3.2 Causal models and credibility ................................................................................. 49 2.3.3 Hegemony: maintaining consent by balancing policies .......................................... 53 2.3.4 Political projects and neoliberalism ........................................................................ 58 2.3.5 Potentials and pluripotency ..................................................................................... 62 Chapter 3: Methods – Interviews and Survey........................................................................... 67 3.1 Interviews ....................................................................................................................... 69 3.1.1 Sampling ................................................................................................................. 69 3.1.2 Conduct of Interviews ............................................................................................. 74 3.2 Survey............................................................................................................................. 79 3.2.1 The content of the survey ........................................................................................ 83 Chapter 4: Newcomers and Vermonters ................................................................................... 88 4.1 Literature on rural in-migration ...................................................................................... 95 4.2 Cultural complexes on the ground ..............................................................................