Rural/urban divide?

I think that "rural/urban" is a political rather than cultural divide. Steve Bannon liked to say that "politics is downstream of culture", and while this was presented as something radical and a bit scary, it's actually the common sense of the twenty-first century, he just said it out loud. (This is because we have collectively abandoned the idea that politics, the state, is an avenue for effecting change; if change is possible, we must imagine that it takes place somewhere outside of politics.) We therefore tend to look at the prevailing political divides and seek to infer some underlying cultural divide, that if a country is neatly divided into red and blue political teams, this would speak to some underlying cultural structure. Instead, I would contend, both teams are political formations, coalitions of economically and culturally heterogenous constituencies, who suppress their sense of difference in order to make a coalition viable.
Interesting. More accurate description for the Democrats. They are a heterogenous coalition that suppresses their differences, sometimes effectively, sometimes not.

I am unsure that it is as true of the Republicans. Differences of class are present in the Republican Party. Gentry, working class, what have you. Differences in preferences on issues of social policy are less present as far as I can tell.

I still see economics as the primary driver of culture, and I would say culture is presently driving politics more than the other way round. In urban areas, diversity requires a certain set of norms for optimal efficiency/minimization of workplace conflict. Capitalists implemented those norms, easily within their power due to the leverage of ownership over labor. Urban areas quickly adapted to that. Rural areas, not subject to the same diverse conditions, did not face the same demands, and did not adapt.

Here in the rural USA, I never see a group reach a consensus on what “cancel culture” is. I do however see rural people absolutely hate it, and I don’t think it’s political; what they hate is that system of norms making its way into their community and devaluing traditions they’ve held onto for hundreds of years. The culture in urban areas has shifted towards a more progressive environment, and it faces resistance as it spreads.

(that’s not to pass judgement on the merit of rural traditions, some of which are arguably pretty ugly)
 
Yea, it's definitely the money.
 
I still see economics as the primary driver of culture, and I would say culture is presently driving politics more than the other way round. In urban areas, diversity requires a certain set of norms for optimal efficiency/minimization of workplace conflict. Capitalists implemented those norms, easily within their power due to the leverage of ownership over labor. Urban areas quickly adapted to that. Rural areas, not subject to the same diverse conditions, did not face the same demands, and did not adapt.

Here in the rural USA, I never see a group reach a consensus on what “cancel culture” is. I do however see rural people absolutely hate it, and I don’t think it’s political; what they hate is that system of norms making its way into their community and devaluing traditions they’ve held onto for hundreds of years. The culture in urban areas has shifted towards a more progressive environment, and it faces resistance as it spreads.
I think this is a pretty compelling insight, and I don't think I would disagree with it; my quibble would be with the framing of "urban areas" and "rural areas", as if modern North America really broke down neatly on those lines. "Urban areas" is used to describe everything from major metropolises to Midwestern industrial cities to isolated college towns, while "rural area" is used to describe everything from the genuinely rural to small manufacturing towns to suburbs and satellite towns of larger cities. I don't think that any of these disparate environments have any natural affinity with one another, so I think we should interrogate why we're so quick to impose this neat dichotomy of "urban" and "rural" onto them.

You're probably driving at something quite real when you suggest that the divide has a cultural dimension in that it represents a represent differing responses to novel social norms, but it seems too convenient that it should have split the population so neatly into two dissimilar parts, and these should correspond to particular sorts of landscapes. I'd suggest that rather than their being two responses, acceptance and rejection, there are probably a multitude of responses which, due to the way party-politics works in the US, end up finding political expression through one or other party, and so requires each constituency to hammer itself into accepting some sort of shared narrative.

I think it's worth contrasting the US to the UK, where similar cultural battles are being fought, but where our rural population is statistically much smaller than the US (less than 2% of the population as against 20% in the US), so the framing becomes "cosmopolitan versus provincial" rather than "urban versus rural". The same sorts of environments are lining up into similar coalitions, but because the proportions differ we have to come up with a different story to explain it.

edit: Just to clarify, I don't mean this to just be a pedantic commentary on the use of the terms "rural" and "urban". My point is that I think the way we use of these terms (or of the less-standardised pretty vocabulary of "cities" and "provinces") naturalises coalitions which are products of circumstance and interest rather than intrinsic affinity. The way in which the sort of norms you refer to are responded to in a farming town in Kansas probably isn't identical to how they're responded to in a mill-town in Pennsylvania, and the way they're responded to in a college town in New England probably isn't the same as how they're responded to in an inner-city neighbourhood in Brooklyn, but because these responses are channelled politically into one of two paths, we're invited to imagine some sort of underlying commonality that isn't obviously there.
 
Last edited:
so I think we should interrogate why we're so quick to impose this neat dichotomy of "urban" and "rural" onto them.
Honestly, the practical necessity of keeping the thread title brief(I created it). I do admit it’s pretty brute-force, simplistic framing and doesn’t really provide the sophistication and nuance you really need to describe the split. It’s only accurate in the most general sense. It doesn’t have an impressive descriptive power, I just dunno a way to communicate the idea to people more effectively. People here in the US don’t really do analysis of long term macro social trends, we do analysis of this or that issue of the day.

What I observe is that in areas which have more diversity than the national average, new norms are more quickly implemented. Of course, there’s spread of these ideas from these places to places that are less culturally/ethnically diverse through various means: media, relocation, changes in ownership, all the usual ways in which large centers of population(which tend to have high diversity) tend to influence their surroundings. Upon receiving the frequency, homogenous(and yeah, often these are rural) areas don’t much appreciate the music, so to speak. It’s true of a whole host of subjects: how community is defined, the role of religion, gender roles, so on
 
Last edited:
Diverse in what ways? Diverse usually means a few specific cultural issues, but not all of them. Not by a long shot.

A lot of it is going to be access to services, access to cultural events in the mainstream eye, relative income, relative education, relative visibility.

There's all sorts of Hispanic and German and Scandinavian heritage stuff if you drive around out in the boondocks here. But they aren't big pride parades(for example) on the news. We drive ito the city for that sort of thing.

But relative income, poverty rates, depth of poverty, relative population size, access to media, shared life experience... all of that works against the more rural(and more so the more rural you get) picture being broadcast with any clarity.
 
Diverse in what ways? Diverse usually means a few specific cultural issues, but not all of them. Not by a long shot.

A lot of it is going to be access to services, access to cultural events in the mainstream eye, relative income, relative education, relative visibility.

There's all sorts of Hispanic and German and Scandinavian heritage stuff if you drive around out in the boondocks here. But they aren't big pride parades(for example) on the news. We drive ito the city for that sort of thing.

But relative income, poverty rates, depth of poverty, relative population size, access to media, shared life experience... all of that works against the more rural(and more so the more rural you get) picture being broadcast with any clarity.
Well, I try to imagine it like I think a boss would.

Boss thinks: are there issues causing cultural friction that will create workplace tension? Will my labor force accept inclusion of workers who they do not consider part of their group? If not, will this harm business efficiency?

If boss concludes new norms would boost his shops’ productivity, in they go. Likelihood boss reaches that conclusion is higher in areas with high ethnic/racial diversity, high language diversity, large amounts of foreign-born population. A boss in a more homogenous area doesn’t face the same decision and incentives because, well, fewer contrasts in homogenous communities.

Eventually, the two capitalist actors shape the norms of their communities differently. One set of workers, who have inclusive norms backed by their boss, come to believe things the other set of workers do not
 
A lot of people have noted that it's an international phenomenon, and a lot of people have noted how deep the divide is in the States. I'll share some about Denmark.

Denmark is usually seen as quite homogenous, and while the divide is not as stark as in the States, there's a real divide between major urban areas and rural areas. Even with all our progressive identity or whatever, one could benefit a good bit talking to a fisherman from South Jutland. There are real pockets of things around the country that are deeply conservative, innocent looking rural towns, reasonably large for Danish standards, where people will stop their car and beat you up if you walk on your own and appear too queer. They're just not as populous as rural areas are in the states, so they don't show up as much in the demographics and when doing international comparison. But trust me, it exists.

There's also the fact that isolated rural areas in Denmark have dialects that are so detached from the centralized language that it's incomprehensible to people from the urban areas. I bring this up a lot, but yea, I'm serious. Western Jute use another gender/article system than standard Danish. This is without going into the pronounciation which is extremely different. The dialects are dying out slowly, but they're still there. I'm not talking deep southern accent, but dialects so off sounding that my ex couldn't understand her Western Jute grandfather when he spoke.

Queue the bicycle shop meme, of course.


And this is without going into the divide between Denmark and - well - the rurality of our kingdom's possessions in Greenland and the Faroes. Both have their own perculiarities that differ heavily from the way the stereotypical Dane thinks.

Denmark could easily have considered these (mainland) linguistic and cultural pockets other ethnicities or a problem to deal with, but "we" - they - still identify as Danish. I'm often thinking about this when more "assimilated" pockets of people in other countries honestly differ less than the differences in Denmark, yet have nationalistic/separatist roots deep in their beliefs. Don't get me wrong, I support these people and would support the pockets in Denmark if they didn't want to be part of the urban centre of power. It's just kind of fascinating and speaks a lot as to the plasticity of identity.
 
Last edited:
The fun thing about living in "nowhere," but with major highways running right past is that the city people are scared they'll get beat up if they get out, and you're scared they're going drive out in the middle of the night and rob or kill you. News being news, I hear about the latter.

I guess I'm struggling to come up with a story that feels... relevant.

A couple years back my dad and I were out picking up nails. There's a huge old turn of the 20th century dairy barn that is in the process of falling apart. 5 more years and it will be a pile of garbage, but for a few years, it looks very romantic as it overgrows and dilapidates. You have to pick up the nails it constantly sluffs, or it's a never ending stream of flat tires. Either way, we're out picking up nails and I, at least, am dirty and sweaty. Been outside, and I'm at home. A couple cars pull up and start talking with dad. The people are just gorgeous. Wedding-photo-dressed, literally. They're shopping around for places to take pictures, and they ask if they can pose in the farmyard. One for a pose with the barn and one for a pose because there is a sight line where if you position the camera right, all you will get is Midwestern horizon, without buildings or towers in the background. Dad of course said "yes." I'm sort of idly chatting with one of the people along with, can't keep picking up nails because the photos are in the way, and we have company besides. It takes me a while to realize that the slightly off reactions I'm getting in the conversation are because this man is terrified of me. Or maybe I'm unpleasant smelling? It seemed like fear. Which was weird, considering the context. We're two guys that clearly were up to something already, outnumbered by a party of people that initiated the contact. Any fear in the equation should have been flowing the other way.

There are places in any city where you can get beat up, or worse, for looking "too <x>." "Queer" seems to be a common one in that sentence. The countryside is pretty much exactly like that. But it's hard to determine when your read of the situation is unfamiliar.
 
Last edited:
A big factor is the rise of neoliberalism.

The "liberal" parties in the West have moved to the far right on economic issues. One example is that Biden has pledged to veto universal healthcare if it ever reaches his desk. In contrast, Nixon supported UHC and Reagan signed EMTALA into law.

Voting for either major party is voting against your own economic interests so the Democrats have to find a way to divide and conquer via cultural issues. The Republicans already have the conservative lane on those issues. So you have, for example, the HHS mandate in 2012. (But if your child needs insulin, too bad so sad, not our problem.)

You see the same thing in the private sector. Cartoonishly evil companies like Frito-Lay and Wells Fargo donate to Planned Parenthood so gullible people do business with them. Nike, the worst and most chronic exploiter of child slave labor, celebrates anthem kneelers. Blackrock rainbow-washes its logo every June and we're supposed to ignore their crusade against homeownership.
 
It's definitely the money. ;)
 
That is a somewhat different matter - more political in nature - the old Latin/German border runs through Belgium in fact - in Portugal it probably originates in Moorish times no ?
I'm not sure what you mean, "more political in nature"? If you're suggesting north-south cultural differences are more political in origin than geographical, then I would disagree
 
I'm not sure what you mean, "more political in nature"? If you're suggesting north-south cultural differences are more political in origin than geographical, then I would disagree
If there is a geographic divide in some European countries, what processes caused it? Legacy of past cultural borders between various states?

seemed like fear. Which was weird, considering the context. We're two guys that clearly were up to something already, outnumbered by a party of people that initiated the contact. Any fear in the equation should have been flowing the other way.
I’m reminded, reading this, of scenes I regularly view entering the local Walmart. Here, Walmart is one of the few institutions that brings people from different classes and cultures together to the same place at the same time(which is perhaps a sad commentary on American culture). Often, I detect fear, sometimes mutual, between the small-town soccer moms and bank managers there for groceries(but not clothes) and the more rural crowd that shows up in their duck-hunting boots and camouflage jackets.
 
Interesting. More accurate description for the Democrats. They are a heterogenous coalition that suppresses their differences, sometimes effectively, sometimes not.

I am unsure that it is as true of the Republicans. Differences of class are present in the Republican Party. Gentry, working class, what have you. Differences in preferences on issues of social policy are less present as far as I can tell.

I still see economics as the primary driver of culture, and I would say culture is presently driving politics more than the other way round. In urban areas, diversity requires a certain set of norms for optimal efficiency/minimization of workplace conflict. Capitalists implemented those norms, easily within their power due to the leverage of ownership over labor. Urban areas quickly adapted to that. Rural areas, not subject to the same diverse conditions, did not face the same demands, and did not adapt.

Here in the rural USA, I never see a group reach a consensus on what “cancel culture” is. I do however see rural people absolutely hate it, and I don’t think it’s political; what they hate is that system of norms making its way into their community and devaluing traditions they’ve held onto for hundreds of years. The culture in urban areas has shifted towards a more progressive environment, and it faces resistance as it spreads.

(that’s not to pass judgement on the merit of rural traditions, some of which are arguably pretty ugly)
I'm curious on how this would apply to the suburbs.
 
The fun thing about living in "nowhere," but with major highways running right past is that the city people are scared they'll get beat up if they get out, and you're scared they're going drive out in the middle of the night and rob or kill you. News being news, I hear about the latter.

I guess I'm struggling to come up with a story that feels... relevant.

A couple years back my dad and I were out picking up nails. There's a huge old turn of the 20th century dairy barn that is in the process of falling apart. 5 more years and it will be a pile of garbage, but for a few years, it looks very romantic as it overgrows and dilapidates. You have to pick up the nails it constantly sluffs, or it's a never ending stream of flat tires. Either way, we're out picking up nails and I, at least, am dirty and sweaty. Been outside, and I'm at home. A couple cars pull up and start talking with dad. The people are just gorgeous. Wedding-photo-dressed, literally. They're shopping around for places to take pictures, and they ask if they can pose in the farmyard. One for a pose with the barn and one for a pose because there is a sight line where if you position the camera right, all you will get is Midwestern horizon, without buildings or towers in the background. Dad of course said "yes." I'm sort of idly chatting with one of the people along with, can't keep picking up nails because the photos are in the way, and we have company besides. It takes me a while to realize that the slightly off reactions I'm getting in the conversation are because this man is terrified of me. Or maybe I'm unpleasant smelling? It seemed like fear. Which was weird, considering the context. We're two guys that clearly were up to something already, outnumbered by a party of people that initiated the contact. Any fear in the equation should have been flowing the other way.

There are places in any city where you can get beat up, or worse, for looking "too <x>." "Queer" seems to be a common one in that sentence. The countryside is pretty much exactly like that. But it's hard to determine when your read of the situation is unfamiliar.

For the record, it's not all rural areas, it's specific cities you should avoid. It's the most violent areas in Denmark. It is not urban fear of something, it's real social problems, neo nazis and such. I only brought it up to denote that even in Denmark there's a divide between urban and rural, not to go Deliverance about all existing farmers.

The divide exists. It's backed up by the stats. That's all.
 
If there is a geographic divide in some European countries, what processes caused it? Legacy of past cultural borders between various states?

In Denmark, the commercial influx from global trade (slaves included) was mostly secluded to urban areas. After the industrial revolution, this made the positive feedback loop of urbanization happen there. Beyond that, a lot of the soil in Jutland was trash for farming before modern agricultural mechanization.
 
I'm curious on how this would apply to the suburbs.
What’s the level of economic integration between the suburb and the urban center? What % of people sleep in the suburb, but work in the urban center? Higher that number is, the more cultural influence the urban center has on the suburb. Any cultural shift or evolution amongst those who own business/corporations in the urban center will soon be felt in the suburb. Higher the economic integration, higher the influence.

There’re other factors that influence the suburb, of course. Media, etc. I just happen to think the largest factor in determining culture is what your boss happens to say is acceptable(unemployment is generally brutal in the USA)
 
For the record, it's not all rural areas, it's specific cities you should avoid. It's the most violent areas in Denmark. It is not urban fear of something, it's real social problems, neo nazis and such. I only brought it up to denote that even in Denmark there's a divide between urban and rural, not to go Deliverance about all existing farmers.

The divide exists. It's backed up by the stats. That's all.

Yup. The gangs are real and change depending on where one is.
 
Yup. The gangs are real and change depending on where one is.
... look, in denmark these particular rural areas are more dangerous than the capital. this is because copenhagen is extremely safe. it's a statistical outlier in regards to urban areas, but that doesn't mean you have to color my point with this implication of clueless urban guy. i grew up outside the city. people in our country, including other rural areas, know which places to avoid. i dated and half lived with a girl the next city over to one of the cities, i have looked at statistics following the stories back then. you note that rural people are afraid of urban areas and vice versa, but this includes rural people afraid of rural areas. so like. drop it :)
 
I'm well aware that rural poverty is more widespread and deeper than urban poverty tends to be, that the culture varies from place to place, and is sometimes more violent than the headlines. I like your point and am reiterating it. I'm agreeing with you, why are you wanting me to drop it?
 
Top Bottom