DOCSLIB.ORG

Rurality, Class and Whiteness in U.S. Dominant Discourse and Counter-Narrative

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Rurality, Class and Whiteness in U.S. Dominant Discourse and Counter-Narrative, Postwar to Present Stacy Denton A Thesis In the Department Of Humanities: Interdisciplinary Studies in Society and Culture Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Humanities) at Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada October 2012 © Stacy Denton, 2013 CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES This is to certify that the thesis prepared By: Stacy Denton Entitled: Rurality, Class and Whiteness in U.S. Dominant Discourse and Counter-Narrative, Postwar to Present and submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Humanities) complies with the regulations of the University and meets the accepted standards with respect to originality and quality. Signed by the final examining committee: Chair Dr. D. Salée External Examiner Dr. R. Rimstead External to Program Dr. A. Arshad Ayaz Examiner Dr. R. Maule Examiner Dr. S. Weber Thesis Supervisor Dr. B. Freiwald Approved by Chair of Department or Graduate Program Director Dr. E. Manning, Graduate Program Director December 7, 2012 Dr. N. Esmail Dr. B. Lewis, Dean Faculty of Arts and Science ABSTRACT Rurality, Class and Whiteness in U.S. Dominant Discourse and Counter-Narrative, Postwar to Present Stacy Denton Concordia University, 2012 In present U.S. society, there persists the conception that rurality — particularly that of the white working-class and working poor — is a spatially, temporally and culturally regressed space. In this “dominant discourse on rurality,” white working- and poverty- class (WWCPC) rural subjects are considered retrograde because they appear to deviate from the norms of progress and development that most reflect the “mainstream,” or the "middle-classless" and sub/urban. Although this phenomenon is not unique to the U.S., the forms in which this society continues to understand rural "locations" are uniquely American and have roots in the recent past, the postwar period. However, as we see in representations of the "sense of place" of those subjects who are intimate with rural locations in both the postwar and the present, there exists a counter-narrative to such unwarranted notions. Following Marc Angenot’s Social Discourse Analysis, this thesis analyzes a “discursive topology” that includes a wide array of written and visual materials from the postwar (defined as 1945-1970) and the post-1980s, including an analysis of the “topoi” employed to represent rurality in both dominant discourse (here, primarily found in the social sciences and journalistic reportage) and WWCPC rural iii counter-narratives as found in autobiography, literature, and filmic adaptations. The study of representations of rurality across diverse discourses gives a fuller understanding of the role of rurality in American society in these time periods. Further, by studying WWCPC rural counter-narratives as portrayed in autobiographical, literary and filmic representations of memory, we can access a voice that is critical of the middle-classless sub/urban norms of progress and development that continue to dominate American society. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The journey towards the completion of this intensive and personal project was long and hard. And, as with all such projects, there are a lot of people to thank for helping me along the way and not enough room to directly name them all. First, I would like to thank the core of my thesis committee: Bina Freiwald, Rosanna Maule and Sandra Weber. They have offered invaluable guidance, both intellectual and editorial, since the beginning of my doctoral work and have done so with great patience and understanding. I would also like to thank my colleagues in the English and WORLD programs at Russell Sage College in Troy, NY. There were some stressful moments as I balanced teaching and writing, and their encouragement and support meant a lot along the way. In a similar vein, I would like to thank my friends and family, especially my parents, who may never see this but were instrumental in their support of me from the very beginning. The deepest gratitude of all is reserved for my husband, Doug Van Nort. His love has seen me through the frustrations, disappointments and victories in all things life, this project being just one part. Thank you. As a final note, some of the work in Chapter Three has already been presented or published, albeit appearing differently from its presentation here: presented at the Working-Class Studies Association Conference: Class Matters (“Thruways, Byways and Off-Road Consciousness,” University of Pittsburgh, June 2009); published in Journal of American Studies (“Nostalgia, Class and Rurality in Empire Falls,” 45(03). August 2011) v and Peer English (“The Meaning of Local Hierarchies in Contemporary US Rural Fiction,” 6. Summer 2011). This list does not include any articles that draw on other chapters of this thesis and that are still under consideration at the time of this thesis submission. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction: Non-Existent Places . 1 I. Considering Rurality . 10 II. Class and Rurality . 29 III. Social Discourse Analysis . 40 IV. Image and Discourse . 49 V. Discursive Topology . 62 VI. Memory and Agency in Fictional and Autobiographical Narrative 74 VII. Looking Back on Postwar U.S. 81 Chapter 2: Postwar Progress and Development: Conceptions of Space, Time and Culture . 86 I. Rural past-in-present: postwar U.S. 91 II. Distinguishing Between the Sub/urban and the Rural . 99 i. Class Distinction in the Rural and the Working-Class Suburb 107 II. The Look of Upward Mobility . 120 i. Upwardly Mobile Deviance . 131 ii. Rural-to-Urban Mobility . 136 III. Culture . 148 i. Recognizing Rural/Urban Difference . 156 IV. Culture Clash and the Counterculture . 166 V. Conclusion: Rurality Disappears . 195 Chapter 3: Literary Representations of WWCPC Rurality . 202 I. Postwar in Present . 210 i. Postwar setting . 210 ii. Using the Personal to Critique the Past . 223 iii. Past Inhering in the Present . 241 II. “Bad Locations” . 262 III. Evolution of Progress and Development . 266 i. Index of culture — Roads . 273 IV. College education — here versus there . 276 i. Upward Detachment . 277 ii. Upward Mobility and Nostalgia . 284 Chapter 4: The Role of WWCPC Rurality in Popular Film . 291 I. Contextual Literature . 292 i. Key Observations from Adaptation Studies . 292 ii. WWCPC Rurality in American Cinema . 294 iii. The Past in Popular Cinema . 301 iv. Memory Devices . 305 V. Analysis of WWCPC Rurality in Adaptation . 308 i. Cinematic Imaginary of WWCPC Rurality . 311 ii. WWCPC Rurality and Critique of Progress . 328 iii. WWCPC Rurality and the Cinematic Spectator . 342 iv. WWCPC Rural Perspectives in Film . 347 v. WWCPC Rurality and the Past/Present . 354 Chapter 5: Conclusion: WWCPC Rurality in the Present . 367 I. Modern day limit cases . 368 II. Farm Crisis: Get big or get out . 370 III. Regressed Rural Areas Still “Left Behind” . 376 IV. Cultural Regression: A Red/Blue Information Super Highway 390 V. Rural/Urban Distinction and the Decline of Society . 401 VI. Unconsciousness . 411 Works Cited . 414 Chapter 1: Introduction: Non-Existent Places Months before the 2006 New York gubernatorial election, democrat Eliot Spitzer made a comparison between Upstate New York and Appalachia. Spitzer stated, “You drive from Schenectady over to Niagara Falls, you see an upstate economy that is devastated. It looks like Appalachia. This is not the New York we dream of” (quoted in LeBrun). The statement became controversial in the following weeks, largely due to the cultural connotations of this comparison between Upstate New York and an economically disenfranchised, rural “Appalachia.” For some commentators, as we see in Robert LeBrun’s Times Union editorial, the “economic devastation” associated with Upstate is linked to a rural/urban division (as represented by “Upstate” and “Appalachia” versus “NYC”): according to this logic, the seemingly undeveloped rural spaces Upstate are predictably also marked by a lower socioeconomic status. LeBrun then links this division between “Upstate” rurality/low-socioeconomics and “Downstate” urbanity/prosperity to a cultural division by alluding to an iconic American film. “Maybe it is time to buy a banjo,” LeBrun writes, alluding to the dueling banjos sequence involving an upper-class urbanite and a local Appalachian boy in the early 1970s film Deliverance (dir. John Boorman, 1972). This reference draws on a commonly held perception that there exists an inherent cultural division between low-socioeconomic rurality and the rest of mainstream, urban America, so that economic difference is in part explained through the inherently regressive cultural character of rurality itself. 1 While LeBrun reinforces this view of rurality as culturally regressive, editorials in other publications directly contest such representations. For example, another 2006 editorial found in the right-leaning publication Observer Dispatch (based in Utica) takes a critical line towards Spitzer’s statement: “Spitzer’s disparaging remarks not only reinforce the argument that downstaters have no clue about upstate, but they also suggest that he’s out of touch with reality” (“Let’s Hope”). According to this article, the “reality” with which New York City native Spitzer is out of touch does not concern Upstate’s flailing economy, which this editorial also notes. Rather, the writer takes issue with the cultural devaluation of the rural Upstate experience. For this writer these rural communities, despite their economic problems, are “certainly not synonymous with total despair,” and he points to the natural beauty, the sense of tradition and the local pride of their inhabitants. Like LeBrun, this editor also draws on larger cultural conceptions to make sense of the continuing existence of lower socioeconomic rural places, but in this case what is invoked is an idealized vision of rurality characterized by a great strength of spirit. In so doing, the editor seeks to give voice to the people living in these rural communities, to their awareness of their cultural place within the larger U.S.
Recommended publications
  • The Literary and the Social

    The Literary and the Social

    LIVING BOOKS ABOUT HISTORY ANTHONY GLINOER THE LITERARY AND THE SOCIAL Introduction If there is one thing that those who have taken a retrospective look at the relationships between the literary and the social agree on, it is the difficulty of their task: everyone insists on instability, fragmentation, the impossible synthesis. No appellation has succeeded in becoming the authority. While the expression most commonly used is “the sociology of literature,” over the last half-century it finds itself competing with a number of other terms, some of which are specific to one or two authors, and others adopted by research groups and university program courses: sociology of the text, literary sociology, sociocriticism, sociopoetics. In Germany, literatursoziologie collides with the soziologie der Literatur. In Italian, one speaks of sociologie letteraria or of letterature sociologica. Beyond the terminology, there is unity neither among groups of specialists (literary scholars, historians, sociologists, communications researchers), nor in the objects themselves (fiction, texts, discourses, practices, actors, social conditions of production and reception, mediations) nor in the methods (textual analysis, historical narrative, quantitative study, theoretical development). There have been many who, in order to augment the latter, have juxtaposed a sociology of facts and of literary practices with a “textual social hermeneutic” (Popovic, 2011). There are just as many who consider this opposition to be artificial and excessive, preferring to study mediations between texts and contexts. Hence, the panoramic nature of syntheses on the sociology of literature. To mention only two of the most recent: in French, Gisèle Sapiro (2014) organises her book along communication axes (from the production of works up to their reception) while Paul Aron and Alain Viala (2006) structure their “Que sais-je?” according 1 to major orientations (sociology of content, forms and practices).
  • The Ideologies of Theory

    The Ideologies of Theory

    THE IDEOLOGIES OF THEORY THE IDEOLOGIES OF THEORY ◆ FREDRIC JAMESON London · New York This edition first published by Verso 2008 Copyright © Fredric Jameson 2008 All rights reserved The moral rights of the author have been asserted 13579108642 Verso UK: 6 Meard Street, London W1F 0EG USA: 20 Jay Street, Suite 1010, Brooklyn, NY 11201 www.versobooks.com Verso is the imprint of New Left Books ISBN-13: 978-1-84467-277-6 (pbk) ISBN-13: 978-1-84467-276-9 (hbk) British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress Typeset in Garamond by WestKey Ltd, Falmouth, Cornwall Printed in the USA by Maple Vail An die Nachgeborenen: Seth, Anne, Justin, Jenny, Cassie, Stacy, Cade, Charlotte Contents Introduction ix PART I. SITUATIONS OF THEORY 1 Metacommentary 5 2 The Ideology of the Text 20 3 Imaginary and Symbolic in Lacan 77 4 Criticism in History 125 5 Symbolic Inference; or, Kenneth Burke and Ideological Analysis 144 6 Figural Relativism; or, The Poetics of Historiography 161 7 Modernism and Its Repressed; or, Robbe-Grillet as Anti- 175 Colonialist 8 Morality Versus Ethical Substance; or, Aristotelian Marxism in 189 Alasdair MacIntyre 9 On Negt and Kluge 194 10 Benjamin’s Readings 222 11 Foreword to Jean-François Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition 243 12 Foreword to Jacques Attali’s Noise: The Political Economy of Music 256 13 The Theoretical Hesitation: Benjamin’s Sociological Predecessor 264 14 How Not to Historicize Theory 286 PART II.
  • 1 Intertextuality

    1 Intertextuality

    1 Intertextuality If Kristeva is openly acknowledged for coining the term intertextu- ality in the late 1960s, this recognition is surprisingly fleeting and dismissive.1 However supportive critics may be of its semiotics con- texts, they glide rapidly over Kristeva’s term, to concentrate on its more illustrious theorists such as Barthes.2 Indeed it was he, not Kristeva, who wrote the definition for intertextuality in the Encyclopédie universalis in 1973. In arenas outside semiotics, critics of intertextuality also relegate Kristeva’s contribution and its French contexts, but as derivative of the work of Bakhtin and the Bakhtin circle.3 A notable exception is provided by Worton and Still (1990), who focus extensively in their introduction on Kristeva’s part in a French high-cultural, avant-garde and intellectual tradition that com- bined experimental writing, literary theory, Saussurian linguistics and left-wing politics. By placing Kristeva firmly within the French critical and intellectual elite of Tel Quel, however, they separate her brand of intertextuality, as specifically highbrow, from similar modes of cultural borrowing practised by popular culture. Film and popular music had quickly adopted recycling and sampling in distinctly non- French, and non-theoretical, ways.4 While these critical snapshots of Kristevan intertextuality focus on very different issues, they have all contributed to one outcome, marginalization of Kristeva’s contribu- tions to the ‘real’ work and texts on intertextuality: Kristeva’s first published work in France is on Mikhail Bakhtin’s lit- erary writings, Roland Barthes’ seminar is the place where this first substantial part of the Kristevan oeuvre would be presented.
  • 6722 Poetics Today / 23:3 / Sheet 3 of 214

    6722 Poetics Today / 23:3 / Sheet 3 of 214

    Introduction to the Study of Doxa Ruth Amossy French and Poetics and Comparative Literature, Tel Aviv 6722 Poetics Today / 23:3 / sheet 3 of 214 Inherited from ancient Greece, the notion of doxa as common knowledge and shared opinions haunts all contemporary disciplines that put commu- nication and social interaction at the center of their concerns. To be sure, the specific term is not always used: doxa appears under various guises, such as public opinion, verisimilitude, commonsense knowledge, commonplace, idée reçue, stereotype, cliché. Broadly speaking, however, all that is consid- ered true, or at least probable, by a majority of people endowed with reason, or by a specific social group, can be called doxic. Whether the Greek term is explicitly mentioned or not, the functions of doxa in social life and in ver- bal exchanges have been the subject of continuous inquiries, if not of sharp polemics, for the two last centuries. In this domain, francophone literary and linguistic theories, from Gus- tave Flaubert’s studies to Oswald Ducrot’s pragmatics and to Chaïm Perel- man’s ‘‘new rhetoric,’’ offer important insights.They seem to have explored the question in two main directions. The first, rooted in the modern con- sciousness of banality, carries to a paradoxical extreme the obsession with accepted ideas, trite expressions, and (bourgeois) stupidity. In this perspec- tive, doxa is a major obstacle to individual thinking and creativity as well as to genuine communication; as such, it constitutes a source of alienation. This approach is masterfully exemplified by Roland Barthes’s essays, widely drawing on Flaubert’s heritage.
  • Marc Angenot and the Scandal of History

    Marc Angenot and the Scandal of History

    01.barsky 11/10/04 12:08 PM Page 163 Robert F.Barsky Introduction: Marc Angenot and the Scandal of History It’s fashionable to suggest that the social sciences and the humanities are undergoing a “crisis,”or that the new millennium, the New World Order, or some other grand force has led us, or should lead us, to reevaluate our presuppositions about the work undertaken in the do- mains of which they are composed. Even a brief glimpse into the lit- erary,historical, and cultural theories of past eras suggests that, in fact, each moment of history was rife with tensions and discord that threat- ened to challenge in fundamental ways prevailing dogmas of a given culture or a particular discipline. It’s perhaps more fruitful to suggest that the present moment, like moments that preceded it, is dominated by a series of assumptions, questions, and approaches tied to a finite set of theories, and associated with a small number of theorists who for some reason not necessarily related to quality or importance have risen to the top of an exceptionally rich mixture of work undertaken inside of, and beyond, the academy.The goal of this issue on Marc Angenot is to give the mixture a shake, to call up from its vast multiplicity of writings a corpus of work which, on account of its ambition, its depth, and its implications, deserves a more prominent place in the fields of criticism, history,and language studies, for a range of reasons. Consistent with other leading foreign-born figures who have risen to prominence in the realms of theory and criticism in the United States, including Eric Auerbach, Mikhaïl Bakhtin, Roland Barthes, Jacques Derrida, Paul de Man, Edward Said, Ferdinand de Saussure, and René Wellek, Marc Angenot had a classical and rigorous educa- tion, in his case in philosophy,rhetoric, literature, and, crucially,philol- ogy, which, along with his great erudition and original approach to language studies, history, and literature, should put him in the com- pany of those who are most cited on the critical scene.