Histories of Women-Led Activism during the 1980s: Using Critical Rural Theory to Examine Gender, Power, and Solidarity in Social Movements

Background: Rural perspectives are often neglected in social work. Some scholars have pointed out that a “persistent undercurrent of urban bias” reflects “a broader urban cultural hegemony that permeates western societies” (Thomas, et al, 2011). However, ignoring rural contexts minimizes social work’s understanding of broader social, economic, and political issues by obscuring some of the intersectionalities and social dynamics that emerged from the transition to a global capitalist market during the late twentieth century. A lack of attention to the rural perspective leaves many social workers and social researchers prone to misinterpret present conditions in rural communities while failing to understand the lived reality of rural places and the unique systems of social welfare which exist in these communities.

Research objectives: (1) to understand how political, economic, and social transformations influenced rural social welfare during the 1980s; (2) to examine grassroots movements which emerged in response to economic crises; (3) and to explore how this history aids the interpretation of complex, overlapping social issues of today, both in rural communities and beyond.

Methods: This study uses primary and secondary historical data focused on two events: the Farm Crisis of the 1980s and the Hormel strike of 1985-86. Primary sources included archival collections housed at the University of Minnesota’s Social Welfare History Archives and the Minnesota History Center, local newspaper archives, and oral histories from women activists. A critical feminist perspective, social movement theories, and critical rural theories informed the analysis.

Results: (1) Political and economic shifts prioritizing globalization and deregulation led to overlapping agricultural and industrial crises which impacted the social fabric of many rural Midwestern communities during the 1980s. A wide variety of grassroots activism emerged in response to these crises, much of which was driven primarily by rural women.

(2) The form and character of the women-led activist efforts reflect two distinct “movement orientations” (Howe, 1986), shaped by intersecting cultural and ideological influences of the groups and time period that the activists represented. In general, farm activists were more individualistic in orientation, and labor activists were more collectivistic. However, counter-examples and contradictions exist in this generalization, highlighting interesting ironies in the movement orientations of the two groups that reflect their uniquely rural positionality.

(3) Rural crises of the 1980s contributed to ongoing feelings of social mistrust, entrenched political beliefs, and the proliferation of exploitative economic structures that exist in many rural communities today.

Implications: Histories of rural activism are useful for understanding the various power relationships underlying political, economic, and social structures in rural places. For this project, a lack of relevant data precluded exploration of how race and ethnicity may have been relevant aspects of the social dynamics at play in these communities during the 1980s; however, the gender- and class-based tensions which emerged as findings suggest the need for further attention to the critical rural perspective in understanding contemporary social issues, both rural and urban. A deeper analysis of rurality may be useful for efforts to build solidarity between rural communities and other social justice movements.