Questioning the Illusive Appalachian Identity

by Carmen Bowes

February 9, 2015

             I am a big fan of the “I am from the mountains so I know Appalachia” remark.  It is proving a bit difficult for me to shake that mentality as truth and what I know of this place as the only Appalachia. I know it is far more diverse than I can imagine and I also know that all different kinds of people live within Appalachia. If that is so, how do we as educators or future educators develop an identity for this region that is useful to all of its inhabitants?

            This week we read two texts. The first was “Appalachian Identity: A Roundtable Discussion” with an introduction by Barbara Ellen Smith and including: the thoughtful Stephen Fisher, insightful Phillip Obermiller, list-maker David Whisnant, the feisty Dr. Emily Satterwhite. The second text was an investigation into “the hillbilly” in Sandra L. Ballard’s “Where Did Hillbillies Come From? Tracing Sources of the Comic Hillbilly Fool in Literature.” Both texts fueled class discussion and thought on what makes Appalachia and how on earth can we try to find a regional identity when it seems to be so many things to so many people?

            We discussed ‘Appalachian Identity’ and the Roundtable Discussion first. It became clear pretty quickly that finding one Appalachian Identity was going to be impossible. Right out of the gate, Smith deals out a slew of questions in her introduction and gives a taste of each of the writers to follow. She finishes with the big question, “Defense of the embattled region slides all too easily and unconsciously into xenophobic condemnation of that which is foreign. In such a complex and perilous political context, what forms of Appalachian identity truly point toward justice?”(Appalachian Journal, 57). Too often, getting caught up in being Appalachian leads to backwards thinking and bashing of people from elsewhere or elsewhere itself. How can we be Appalachian and not let the consensus slip into this counterproductive elitist thinking?

            Fisher was a natural slot to follow the introduction. He spoke a lot about telling Appalachian stories and about what being Appalachian meant to him. He said, “Claiming Appalachia has given me a place and a people and a sense of who I am and who I want to become and has brought focus and commitment to my work and politics” (Appalachian Journal, 59). I think that claiming Appalachia has done that for a lot of people, I know it did that for me. What is it that Fisher, myself, educators, students, and so many others are identifying with?

            I think Obermiller tries to answer that question when he quotes 21^st Century Sociology: A Reference Book. He says, “Appalachian culture provides a forum for negotiating meaning, not a set of fixed and final values operating over and above mountain people…” (Appalachian Journal, 62). I love that because it seems to be the intangible thing we are working towards naming. Tim said of Obermiller that he was somewhat vague but this captures that “You can’t make one distinctive Appalachian culture.” Because Obermiller does not give an exact definition of what Appalachian Identity entails, he is “more concerned with the agency of identity, that is, how it can be used to create a better life by people in the place, or from the place, we call Appalachia” (Appalachian Journal, 63). This is the real task at hand, establishing the agency that identity imparts.  

            Whisnant’s “Eschatological Laundry List-on Appalachian Regional Identity” was full of thought-provoking one-liners and brought the question of insider/outsider politics to light. Is there value to having separate insider and outsider categories when discussing Appalachian identity and if so/not what value or lack thereof? Here are a few of Whisnant’s list items:

7. Being ‘local’ is sometimes, but not always, an aid to clarity or understanding.

8. ‘Insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ are false and useless categories.

9. Too many of the arguments in favor of Appalachian regional identity have been built too uncritically around several as yet untested and unverified (mostly cultural) notions/concepts: ‘Appalachian people,’ ‘mountain people,’ ‘love for the land,’ ‘family,’ ‘sense of place,’ ‘tradition,’ ‘heritage.’

(Appalachian Journal, 67-68)

We chewed on number 8 for a while and said that maybe the insider/outsider category could be false but not useless or that perhaps the use for these categories is simply unproductive. Brandi said, “Insider/outsider categories oversimplify the complexities.”  In other words, while there is certainly a group of people that would consider themselves insiders, and the rest outsiders, it is not a productive or useful way to view Appalachian Identity itself or the study of that identity.

Dr. Emily Satterwhite expressed strong views on insider/outsider politics. Caleb gave a great overview of Satterwhite’s piece, he said, “Appalachian identity is multiple. You shouldn’t ignore those negative things that might not be so pretty about Appalachia. Insider/outsider distinctions are not useful and the difference between resistance identities versus project identities is important.” To expand a bit, Satterwhite explains,

“‘Resistance identities’ challenge negative value judgments about ridiculed groups…but also reinforce generalizations without being reflective about potentially negative characteristics of the group’s members…’project identities’ identify common goals that a group of actors may collectively pursue in the interest of transforming the overall societal structure” (Appalachian Journal, 72).

Aaron explained that “the false dichotomy created by the insider/outsider concept made us miss important lessons.” I agree with Aaron. Getting rid of the insider/outsider dichotomy could create space to discuss an Appalachian Identity that could provide the agency we are looking for.

Moving past the insider/outsider politics, Sam said of Satterwhite that “she seems devoted to the idea of disrupting the common narrative and replacing it with something more inclusive and socially fair.” Satterwhite says, “The first part is to teach students to think critically about all generalizations regarding group difference-including and even especially favorable generalizations about group difference.” In other words, let us not dumb down the problem at hand, it will lead to false solutions. Let us instead, be critical about the world around us and both things that are being presented positively and negatively. Positive generalizations can cause negative effects even if no bad intent were meant. Sam added “What is lost if we throw out those positive generalizations?” Do we as educators or future educators see another way to challenge the issues regarding group difference without losing anything of value?

Shifting to Ballard we began discussing the hillbilly as fool and specifically the television show from the 1970s The Beverly Hillbillies. Ballard says that the problem with this representation of country folk, “is that, despite their virtues, the mountain people are depicted as mere children” (Ballard, 139). She continues, “Recognizing the essential “goodness” of the Clampetts makes me more comfortable with The Beverly Hillbillies than some people from the region are” (Ballard, 139). Jonathan from class disagrees with this, saying, “just because there is a lesson behind the caricature does not make it alright.” Caroline said, “When we see this representation that is all we get, there is no counterargument. When you see a representation of Appalachia on television, that may be the only one this month.”  These two are right, the perpetuation of these negative images won’t do well for anyone in the region. 

Jennifer moved on to discussing action and said, “We have a responsibility to highlight the positives, we work to develop an identity that we project to the nation in a different capacity.” Audra S. said, “It’s not just who tells it, it is how it is experienced. What level of control do we have about media and the broader area and what they choose to play?” The concept of representation and choice here becomes very important; it is not only what is being perpetuated but also who is perpetuating it. There are many cool, nice, smart things happening in Appalachia that do not get heard about on a national level. How do we make these things more commonly representative of Appalachia? Is that important? As teachers, how can we help students to see these issues from a young age and work towards changing the status quo?

As we were wrapping up discussion it took a turn for the proud in our little class, an earnest Caroline said,

“I’m gonna be proud of it in spite of you. It feels good because there are things about this place that I love almost in a perverse way. I love the things that are dirty…the cars in people’s yards…there is a guy that turns these cars in to art. That is what you do, you recognize what needs to be changed, love it in spite of it, and find some way to make it better.”

I have to say, I agree with this girl whole-heartedly, I got cold chills as I was recording her thought process. I think that is just what this is about; seeing what needs changed, loving it anyways, and finding modern, innovative ways to make something out of it. Appalachia needs this kind of thinking. This is what all people in Appalachia should be able to identify with, no matter how ugly, no matter how worn down and beat, something can be done with it.