Social Inequality and Appalachian Economy

Social inequality is highly prevalent in the United States today. One of the major forms of social inequality is socio-economic. A population that has been severely affected by this form of inequality resides in the Appalachian region of the United States. By looking at this group through the perspectives of the functionalists and the conflict theorists, it is possible to locate the reasons for this inequality, what has been done about it, and what remains to be done. This model can then be adapted to be of use throughout the United States, specifically in other rural areas.

Functionalists believe that society is "composed of parts that work together." (Textbook, 13) Functions are actions of people that are beneficial to society, and these functions can be either manifest or latent. Dysfunctions, which undermine the equilibrium of society, also exist and can be manifest or latent. Through these distinctions, it can be determined whether a certain action or behavior is beneficial or not, and to whom. This becomes vital when discussion the customs of cultures that seem foreign, and prevent the dismissal of such customs as "weird."

Conflict theorists, while believing that all of society is indeed connected, see that society as existing in a constant power struggle between the bourgeoisie (the capitalists) and the proletariat (the workers). The bourgeoisie own the means of production, and can oppress the proletariat to fit their own needs. The proletariat then rise against the bourgeoisie, and if they are successful, there is a redistribution of the "means of production," (Textbook, 13) meaning things such as farms, mines, and factories. This model proves helpful when discussing relationships between workers and owners.

Both theories are vital to understanding the situation that currently exists in the Appalachian region, which spans a diagonal swath southward and westward from Pennsylvania to Alabama. This region was not always poor. In fact, until the mid nineteenth century farms in this region often out-produced those in the Mid-West. Also, a booming salt industry brought in goods, money, and slave labor. Although the Appalachian region was never a particularly wealthy one, families were able to support themselves comfortably using a system of "noncapitalist subsistence farming" (21, Billings and Blee). The first step in determining how to solve the economic problems of the area, then, is to discover how they started.

In the mid nineteenth century, the salt industry was vital to the region. The industry provided a foundation for the growth of a political elite, namely the slave-owning salt manufacturers. Though these salt makers "created a market for goods and services among farmers, laborers, and artisans," (24, Billings and Blee) they also remained largely self-sufficient by acting more as plantations than as corporations. The farmers and others grew to be dependant on the credits given to them at the company stores, and when the salt market dried up, though the salt makers themselves were able to live comfortably on slave labor, the farmers suffered.

Also during this time most families grew food and raised livestock for their own purposes, consuming most of what they produced and selling only a small surplus. This held true even in 1914, when they "consume(d) 89% of farm production at home and spen(t) an average of only $84 per capita on store-bought commodities." (23, Billings and Blee). Large families were vital to this system of living. However, because of this, farms were divided often among children, and the land was farmed more and more heavily to support a rapidly growing population. This subdivision and overuse of land led to the almost complete failure of the subsistence farming system.

Another option was open to those who were not still living comfortably on the profits of the salt markets. The people of the region, living a subsistence lifestyle, had to rely on outside sources to utilize the natural resources of the area. The agricultural troubles of the time contributed to "an underemployed labor pool that could be utilized cheaply," (30, Billings and Blee) and kept from earning enough money to do anything but farm or work for the large companies. Those who did have enough wealth or land to deal with these corporations without working directly for them were able to accumulate large amounts of wealth.

With the owners and directors of the corporations absent and unconcerned with local politics, and with the majority of the population struggling to find work and grow food, there was only one likely group from which government could be formed. The former slave owners and salt makers occupied a majority of government positions. The competition and feuding that resulted created an "inability of local government institutions to establish autonomy from factions of the contentious elite." (31, Billings and Blee) Nothing was done to help the impoverished of the region, and those attempting to assist from outside were soon confronted with corrupt and ineffectual local governments.

This was indeed a bad time for Appalachia. From the 1850's until the mid 1960's, the plight of Appalachia was largely ignored (with a few notable exceptions). The average per capita income in 1960 in the United States was $1,901. In Kentucky, one of the poorest states, it was only $841. (3, ARC 1964) Nearly seventy dollars was spent per capita on education in the U.S., and the average in the Appalachian region was a mere fifty-three. (17, ARC 1964) In fact, the overall percentage of federal expenditure in Appalachia in 1960 was a little under five percent, while the Appalachians made up eight and a half percent of the U.S. population (29, ARC 164)

The message demonstrated by these statistics is clear. The people of Appalachia were suffering. The bourgeoisie, in the form of corporate owners (and the few locals with enough money to have influence), were completely controlling the large population of workers and farmers. The federal government, perhaps not understanding the problem, did little to help, and what little they did never reached those for whom it was intended. With little education and even scarcer resources, the workers were unable to rise up against those with the means of production.

The governors of the Appalachian states eventually realized that there was a problem. Their states were suffering in many ways, and they realized that supporting the outside corporations, while financially profitable in a functionalist perspective, was destroying the people they were supposed to represent. President Kennedy was informed of the problem, and after a period of research and deliberation, the Appalachian Regional Commission was formed. The act creating the ARC was "not the optimum legislation envisaged," (45, Bradshaw) but it was an accomplishment merely to have the Commission in existence.

The ARC was created in 1965, and continues to exist even today, though in a much lesser capacity. The 1970's and 80's showed improvements in the region, and "these gains could be seen to parallel the increasing influence of the ARC up until 1980." (101, Bradshaw). The commission worked to provide "access to and within the region," to promote "more full use of natural resources," and to produce "immediate improvement in human resources." (31, ARC 1964). Federal, State, and local governments were forced to cooperate with one another, and active steps were taken to reduce the gap between the workers and those who were running the corporations. At attempt was made to provide workers the means to improve their lives, and to occupy the position of the bourgeoisie.

The ARC ran into a variety of difficulties, despite early progress and seemingly endless drive. The first major trial came in the form of Ronald Regan, who ended many similar programs, including the OEO. The survival of the ARC showed that "there was support for it among state governors and Congress. . .based on confidence in its programs." (120, Bradshaw) The method the ARC used, reforming the political structure of the area while also directly improving the lives of the people, is one that should not be ignored. Often outside reform efforts are defeated by local governments determined to ensure the continuance of their own power. This system of government must be destroyed before any lasting change can occur.

Despite the work of the ARC, President Kennedy, and many others, the Appalachian region is still dreadfully impoverished. In 1990, the average poverty rate in the area was twenty-five percent, nearly twice that of the nation as a whole. (19, Billings and Blee) Clay County, in Kentucky, is one of the twenty-five poorest counties in the nation, with a poverty rate of nearly forty percent. (22, Billings and Blee) Many people in the region remain without city water, and very few children finish high school, let alone college. Many attempt to escape the region entirely, and those who do so successfully with their limited resources are among the lucky.

Both cultural and economic reasons lie to blame for the poverty of the Appalachian region. A pattern of subsistence farming and virtual enslavement to outside corporations, coupled with the corrupt governance of the few, has prevented the working class from rising against those oppressing them. Outside assistance has been difficult at best, with those in power in the region fighting to stay in power, and to prevent the working class from gaining any advantages. Though substantial progress has been made, the region is still far behind the rest of the country in many areas.

When observing the socio-economic inequalities in this region, inequality in general can be considered, and methods of preventing and destroying it can begin to be implemented. Through functional and conflict theories, it is possible to understand why events occur as they do, and who benefits from each event and behavior. The ARC and it's many programs serves as a vital model for eliminating social inequalities in the rest of the United States, especially in other rural areas.