Understanding White Rural Consciousness: Implications for Social Work

Background: Political polarization has been a defining characteristic of US politics over the past few decades (Pew Research Center, 2022), culminating in radical public policy decisions, such as Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill, and infamously, the Supreme Court’s historical reversal of Roe v. Wade. The trend is concerning as such policies disproportionately undermine the health and wellbeing of the most marginalized. Then, what underlies this division and what do they mean for social work? While studies have identified growing inequality (Garand, 2010), racial/ethnic diversity (Esteban & Ray, 2011), and deteriorating social trust (Grechyna, 2016) as determinants of political polarization, of particular interest are those that have focused on the growing resentment in rural America, which is predominantly White (78.2%) (Gaventa, 1982; Kramer-Walsh, 2012). White rural group consciousness is built on the firm belief that governments favor wealthy urban areas while neglecting rural ones (Kramer-Walsh, 2012). Gaventa (1982) noted how the continual experience of rural blue-collar loss in political struggles in the past had internalized a sense of powerlessness among the rural population. In recent years, however, we are witnessing “Whiteness” becoming a unifying force in rural America and beyond (Jardina, 2019). Aiming to contribute to the knowledge base of rural social work and community building and advocacy, this study sets to empirically explore rural perceptions over resource-allocation, policy attention, and political influence.

Methods/Findings: The study uses a cross-sectional survey sample of 3,165 respondents in the U.S. from the American National Politics Study (ANES) 2019 Pilot Study, of which 1378 are from rural areas (43.5%). Descriptive statistics and ordinal logistic regression results will be generated. Preliminary results show empirical support for White rural consciousness: White respondents consider rural influence on government ‘too little’ and believe it is moderately-extremely important for Whites to collectivize against laws unfair to them. Overall, 38% of respondents stated place identity was moderately-very important. However, the rate was higher at 62% for those living in rural/small town areas.

Implications: The results of this study can inform SW practice, education, and research. First, it suggests that social workers need to be adequately trained to understand the relative deprivation rural communities feel against their wealthier metropolitan counterparts and the close-knit, tradition-valuing nature that resists change. While rural America represents 97% of the land mass, only about 1 in 5 social workers work in rural areas (Ohio University, 2021). These communities lack access to resources and suffer from poor infrastructure, generational poverty, and geographic and social isolation. However, social workers from non-rural areas will need to be uniquely prepared to gain trust and access as many of these communities are White, segregated, and suspicious of outsiders and the university as an elite institution. Next, the results can be used to generate discussions on how social workers can be at the forefront of healing, unification, and community building. In line with this year’s theme, “Recentering and Democratizing Knowledge," the present study highlights the importance of incorporating the viewpoints and voices of rural America as a whole (inclusive of the rural majority).