The return to the soil, to nature, is a recurring preoccupation of the civilized. Whenever a society reaches a state of high development it seems a repeating pattern that a segment of the population begins to yearn for the good ol’ days of yore. Ironically, even the ancients knew this temptation. Recall Cicero’s lament: “O the times! O the morals!” But even the Greeks reached a point when they began to dream wistfully for a golden age that never was.
This dream is perhaps most beautifully realized by the reinvention of pastoral poetry in the third century CE. The product of the fertile mind of Theocritus, it was devised as an entertainment for the court of the Ptolemies of Egypt, arguably the most sophisticated society in the western world for its time, and home to its greatest library, that of Alexandria. Theocritus wrote of his native Sicily, of singing shepherds and the love stories of goatherds, of silver streams and green pastures that give us the images we associate with the word “idyllic,” a word derived from the name of this new form of literature: the idyll.
By the start of the French Revolution, this form of aristocratic playacting had reached strange absurdities. At Versailles, Marie Antoinette and her lady friends dressed in peasant clothes and pretended to be milkmaids in a miniature reproduction of a peasant village, beating Walt Disney by about two centuries in turning the troubles of the poor into theme-park entertainment for the idle few.
Around the same time, Jean-Jacques Rousseau had begun to put pen to paper. Rousseau, born to the liberty of the Swiss, made talk of liberty and the brotherhood of man popular among the aristocratic class who, in practice, believed it not at all. An accomplished amateur botanist in addition to being a philosopher, Rousseau taught that man in his primitive state was pure but, after the rise of civilization, like Adam and Eve and their loss of innocence, there had been a fall from grace. An idea that we shouldn’t be surprised took root in a mind that had sprung from Calvinist Geneva. In consequence, we must “get back to nature” if salvation was to be had. This was at least the reductionist take-away from a deceivingly simple thinker.
Such revolutionary ideas were enthusiastically adopted by a bored aristocracy happy to entertain any new novelty that could distract them from the tedium of existence, and give a new rationale to their seemingly childish preoccupations. Despite this popularity with literate society, however, the state sensed the obvious danger in his ideas for traditional authority, and Rousseau fled France as an exile like Cain with his mark. Yet his influence remained, and after the revolution, this desire to return to the perceived authenticity of the natural world carried over into the next century as the driving force of the romantic movement in art and literature.
And it has been with us ever since. Bound by a growing nationalism, first in France, then through the rest of Europe in the wake of Napoleon’s armies, the life of the humble peasant became the source of every nation’s purity and pride. Peasant songs were collected, studied, and emulated, and the Brothers Grimm began the serious study of the common folktale for the first time. Thus, contrary to American myths of exceptionalism, the United States was not the first people to admire the rugged individuality of the lonely woodsman and the solid humility of the lowly farmer.
What is exceptional in America’s case is the persistence of this view and its unsevered link to authenticity and individuality in the American mind made toxic by partisan politics. For in addition to the myth of exceptionalism, Americans also suffer from the illusion of a classless society. Class indicates a state of affairs in which one’s success or failure in life is not entirely within one’s power to change, a thought that must be banished in a society that views all outcomes as the result of the individual’s will and hard work. This self-image plays well with the tropes of the cowboy, the mountain man, and the gunslinger, which, for our purposes here, can all be conveniently set beneath the catchall term “redneck.”
At this moment in US politics, it is perhaps more important than ever to revisit and seek to better understand the deep ironies and contradictions involved in this phenomenon. For instance, how is it that an identity so tied to the poor and rural life is just as often found among the middle class, and in well developed middle-class neighborhoods at that? Because the term redneck is less about the ideal of country life than a projection of a perceived lost age of white dominance. An ideal the wealthy are happy to sell. An excellent example of what I mean can be found in the very popular Duck Dynasty franchise. Although the patriarch may be true to his roots, it is well known by now that the rest of the clan is, as one clever critic dubbed them, “hillbillies in drag.” Rather than sons of the soil, these rednecks need never labor again, have in fact done little by the typical definition of labor all their lives.
But this matters little, the bourgeoisie has always taken its cues from the upper class they so hunger to join. Just witness the contradiction in their relationship to higher education. Redneck culture is at its heart deeply anti-intellectual and suspicious of all perceived academic authority. Yet, few redneck parents, above all those from a middle-class background, would be ashamed if their child acquired an ivy league diploma, a college credential being an important outward sign of economic status. The real redneck is self-sufficient and needs no fancy book learnin’.
Of course, this is not to say that background and social context has nothing to do with taking up the redneck mantle as a title of pride, that it is not something genuine to the individual’s experience. We are highly susceptible to the influences of childhood. It is only natural that one would come to associate grandma’s apple pie and fishing trips with daddy with the feelings of warmth and security we might equate with a particular worldview and lifestyle in later life. It is just that, sometimes, we are thirsty but drink from a well that is unknowingly poisoned. Many excellent people are attracted to the shadow of the idea without a knowledge of its origins, of seeing the thing itself in the light of day.
We see now that the obsession with the pastoral ideal was and is almost exclusively but the distraction of the wealthy and those who would be wealthy. The distinction then is one between need and want. The true redneck, the redneck of history and historic myth, was forced out of necessity to farm and hunt to live. Today most family-owned farms are being bought up by agribusiness, and most people hunt less due to fear of starvation than as a sign of one’s class, as it was for the fox-hunting aristocrats of old. After all, hunting equipment, hunting licenses, as well as the pure leisure simply to run around in the woods pretending to be Daniel Boone, are all outward signs of middle-class prosperity. If the true redneck is one who is happy without modern electronics, cares nothing for the internal combustion engine, and has no deep desire for indoor plumbing or personal hygiene, then clearly Ted Kaczynski stands crazy head and shoulders above the rest.
The redneck has little to do with the rustic. No self-described redneck would be without the pleasures of materialism and technology. They will be happy to talk at length to you about the joys of the simple life on their Chinese manufactured smartphone while driving to town in their gas-guzzling oversized pickup truck to purchase the newest state-of-the-art video game from the local Walmart. By comparison, the often-maligned “dirty hippie” who lives in a co-op and grows his own food is closer to the backwoods ideal than even the dirtiest mud-caked redneck on his all-terrain vehicle. Thus, it is not so much traditional values or independence from state control that they hold dear. Rather, they are quite content with the state so long as the state reflects their own economic interests over the interests of society as a whole. As Trump has demonstrated, they are happy to accept a brand of authoritarianism that allows for the economic prosperity of the few at the expense of the many rural poor who they, if they followed the logic of their own thinking, should idealize.
Instead, the redneck we see is just the label of yet another product for the white middle class to consume, albeit one with strong emotional resonances. And it is those emotional connections that Republicans have tapped into for decades and made disastrous use of. Through propaganda and psychological manipulation, they have created a leviathan whose force they sought to harness for their own political ends, but the beast has now appeared to be turning on its masters, and the outcome may leave us all longing for a golden age that has passed.
While it might be true that “the United States was not the first people to admire the rugged individuality of the lonely woodsman and the solid humility of the lowly farmer,” I think it was the “discovery” of the new world that gave rise to the “noble savage” and that notion influenced Rousseau and the European imagination in general.
Very true. However, it is also often forgotten just how much influence Rousseau’s political thought had on the founders. Jefferson’s “all men are created equal” is straight out of The Social Contract. Thanks for writing.
What you seem to be pointing out is a dichotomy between virtuous and unvirtuous back-to-the-land philosophies. For the virtuous side, going back to the land would appear to involve attaining independence, facing many real challenges of survival (beyond waking up to an alarm clock every day and sitting in a cubicle at work), and ultimately living a simple yet meaningful life in tune with nature. On the unvirtuous side, an unexamined false nostalgia coupled with a materialist penchant, shaped by politicians and marketers.
That is correct, thank you.
I understand where you are trying to go with this. I also understand that this is just a little internet blurb.
At the same time, you approach some lofty subjects and then in the same frame of reference make fairly bold inferences while using gross generalizations. Not sure how I feel about this,…probably wouldn’t care, as you are willing to identify the generalizations at some points. However, many times you aren’t willing to, and then you go on to cave into exactly the type of bigotry you accuse the redneck of having.
Here is a perfect example, “They will be happy to talk at length to you about the joys of the simple life on their Chinese manufactured smartphone while driving to town in their gas-guzzling oversized pickup truck to purchase the newest state-of-the-art video game from the local Walmart.”
Wowsers! This is especially ironic considering how prolifically you speak of the redneck’s mistrust of intellectualism, Perhaps their mistrust isn’t so misguided.
Another glaring example of your bigotry, “For instance, how is it that an identity so tied to the poor and rural life is just as often found among the middle class, and in well developed middle-class neighborhoods at that? Because the term redneck is less about the ideal of country life than a projection of a perceived lost age of white dominance.”
Again, wow! what evidence do you have for this? Duck Dynasty? Ok, quite a stretch, but even if we give you that, where does that leave hip hop? or jazz music for that matter? what projections are they?
I could go on and on. But I won’t. I think I’ve made my point.
This is probably the most offensive article I’ve ever read on PEL.
Would you mind elaborating?
You would be hard pressed to find another, or so has been my experience. This one quickly devolved into somebody’s personal agenda. What really struck me though was how poorly written it was. It made me cringe several times, and I’m no Faulkner.
If you would like an example Lancelot here it is, your part on the myth of American exceptionalism.
“Thus, contrary to American myths of exceptionalism, the United States was not the first people to admire the rugged individuality of the lonely woodsman and the solid humility of the lowly farmer.
What is exceptional in America’s case is the persistence of this view and its unsevered link to authenticity and individuality in the American mind made toxic by partisan politics. For in addition to the myth of exceptionalism, Americans also suffer from the illusion of a classless society.”
First of all, when speaking of American exceptionalism, especially in the way which you go on to do, ie, illusion of a classless society, exceptionalism really dealt with, and was addressing the idea that because so much free land was available to the American people they weren’t as prone to take up cause in communistic revolution. Regardless, this is a tiny facet of American exceptionalism as a broader subject, nearly irrelevant.
Where this really becomes a problem is when you make reference to “American myths of exceptionalism,” to bolster your point and then in the very next sentence, lead with, “What is exceptional in America’s case…”
Well, which is it? Exceptional or not? Or whichever one you need and whichever definition fits your purpose?
The entire article was littered with contradictions. Like I said previously, wouldn’t bother me were it not so bigoted.
Interesting, you choose the moniker Democrates, which in reminiscent of the word democracy, yet rather than encouraging a plurality of opinions, you mostly try to shut down the ideas presented here with finger wagging and calling bigotry. Perhaps reflect for a moment that the definition of bigotry is being intolerant towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.
Irwen,
Let’s get a few things straight: I have in no way called for the removal of this article, or the infringement of this author’s right to espouse his opinion. Rather, I cited a couple points in this article where I thought the author was espousing bigoted thoughts and using inflammatory language to do so, why I took issue with it, and why I thought it was contradictory to other sentiments the article was trying to establish. Have I not a right to express this without also being a bigot?
I find it interesting that you chose not to address my responses, or the citations of the author, but rather chose to make an ad hominem attack about my moniker. Feel free to not do that next time. I am entirely open to the idea that my opinions are incorrect, that my knowledge is limited on the subject, or that I misinterpreted the intent of the author. Please point out where such is the case and moving forward we can engage in discourse in democratic fashion.
Fair call, my comment ended up as an ad hominem, which is a fallacy of course. As for the article, it is a polemic for what I think is a just cause, so if it confronts, challenges, or offends anyone, I think that’s okay. Call it part of a dialectic process. To follow the pro-side of the article, I think one has to be partial to the side of seeing city life as dull or unsustainable, or not ideal for other reasons. There may, before too long, really be a need to get back to the land for more than a few. If so, then what that ought to or not ought not to look like should be discussed. What I think that may need to look like is communities of farmers/gatherers/crafters sharing an area of land and not being dependent on junky imports from cities. What it currently looks like, at least near where I live, is wealthy people buying an acre each in the agricultural land reserve, then building a mansion with a large paved driveway covering the majority of the arable land (under the perhaps once reasonable rule of one house per ‘farm’). This is I think the type of thing the article is against – as this then drives up land prices leaving less and less escape for those still in cities, with perhaps a passion for farming let’s say, but with modest incomes. However, as in my example, I can see that an acre with a mansion (if that is indeed the new redneck these days) is surely a privilege worth maintaining.
So yes I see in regard to the use of land there will be lots of disagreements and probably antagonism from different groups going forward.
Sorry to not address specific parts of the blog post or your replies, I instead picked up on what I think is the gist of the article, as well as the gist of your replies. Hopefully I didn’t get way off track and miss the mark too much.
What you speak to was what brought me to this if I recall,…For the longest time I thought that with the advance of communications e.g. internet, cellphones etc., that there would be an influx of people returning to rural communities. With my former logic, I had concluded that people congregated in cities because all varieties of transactions and communications could be made with more ease from a centralized location, and now that these things could be done from anywhere, people of course would prefer to live in an environment that was cleaner, safer, less crowded, and more in touch with nature. The opposite has come to fruition. Statistically our cities are still growing and our rural communities are losing population. As you pointed out, if somebody does make the transition out of the city, it is typically with a good degree of wealth, and the first thing they do is build a mcmansion.
Why are people still flocking to cities? As far as I can tell it is jobs. What is left in the United States is the corporate infrastructure, even if they don’t produce anything inside of our borders, and the service industry which caters to the whims of these wealthier members of society.
From my personal experience, being somebody who moved out of a metropolis into a semi-rural community and worked in a factory for several years, I think that a lot of the rural communities’ concerns have been pushed aside, and that now we are seeing the backlash. What do I mean by pushed aside? I think of trade as being by and large the biggest aspect of this. Specifically NAFTA and the WTO.
I followed this campaign season very closely, right from the start, for reasons I won’t go into here, but as soon as Donald Trump uttered the words NAFTA he went from 5% to 25% in the polls. Why? Because neither party had accepted trade protectionism as part of its platform.
Please don’t interpret this as an endorsement of Trump. I just wanted to point it out in contrast to the conclusions this article made. I also fully understand that there are racist elements to Trump’s campaign, I just think it is dangerous to throw the baby out with the bath water. I also would like to note that Bernie Sanders did extremely well in rural communities, and I don’t think anybody would attribute that to some notion of lost dominance.
As far as your idyllic balance of farmers/gatherers/crafters sharing land and living in a more sustainable manner, I’m just not sure I see it happening, as nice as it sounds. It does exist in luddite communities across the country, but as far as it taking hold as a philosophy of the masses, uprooting the technological gains of the past century, I just don’t see it. I have noticed that with this new technology, and with the organic movement, there is more fluidity between the rural and the urban, e.g. farmer’s markets So maybe it is already happening, I was at a craft fair about a month ago and I was astonished by how tasteful and well made everything there was and especially by the number of booths and the variety, you would think every living room in the country was a workshop. So maybe it is on the horizon and I am just in denial.
I’ve read and re-read this post five times now and I still have no idea what the point of it is…
https://againstclassbigotry.wordpress.com/2015/05/12/eminent-class-bigots-tad-friend-and-new-york-city-media-part-1/
Thank you for the link. I believe there is some misunderstanding.
The purpose of my essay was to point out the hypocrisy inherent in the redneck lifestyle as adopted by members of the middle class. There is indeed class warfare going on, but it is the warfare of the middle class against the poor, a segment of whose lifestyle has been co-opted by those who couldn’t care less about the ‘real’ redneck.
I admit my rhetoric is somewhat extreme, and this is perhaps largely what has elicited so much disapproval but, considering that the subjects of the piece are often the same people who decry political correctness in any form, I didn’t think it would hurt to give them a little taste of their own medicine.
Fair enough… After reading your post again, with your above comments in mind, I did have a different reaction than with my first more visceral one regarding the topic. I think the problem I originally had with your essay was the loaded nature of the very term ‘redneck’ and how it has evolved so quickly into merely an epithet. (For a quick reference of what I mean, here is the Wikipedia etymology of the word: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck)
Those farmers pictured at the heading literally had reddened necks from toiling under the sun in the fields. That the word ‘redneck’ has come to be synonymous with bigoted, ignorant, gun-toting, white, uneducated and philistine is far too broad a burden for a single descriptor to bear. As such there is too much room for misinterpretation when using it to describe one’s own or another’s worldview.
Yes, I actually read that Wikipedia entry while writing. The remark: “Canadian Paul Brant, a self-identified redneck, says that primarily the term indicates independence.” was especially telling to me. It begs the question, independence from what? Although this may mean personal independence to some, considering the modern associations of the term, it can serve very easily as a codeword for white hegemony and segregation for many others. It is just this coded meaning of the term that I contend is what many (especially in the middle classes where overt racism would be bad for business) is meant to convey. Of course, there are many others who have adopted the term without clearly understanding its often negative associations in recent history, associations which I would argue have soiled the term beyond respectability, but that is another matter. I partially attempted to address this in paragraph ten.
I am glad to have helped clarify the confusion, thanks for writing.