The Community in Rural America

By Kenneth P. Wilkinson, Gene L. Theodori and Mark A. Brennan

The Community in Rural America, by Kenneth P. Wilkinson, is a foundational theoretical work that both defines the interactional approach to the study of the community in rural areas and frames its application to encourage and promote rural community development. Recognized for its detailed theoretical construction and logic for understanding human interactions, this book has been widely adopted and used by researchers, extension faculty, and community development practitioners for over thirty years. Presenting Wilkinson’s groundbreaking work in its original form, with a new foreword aimed at clarifying several key concepts in interactional theory, this edition of The Community in Rural America will appeal to new students of the community as well as established scholars in the field.
 

• Language: English
• Publisher: University Press of Colorado
• Release date: Mar 15, 2023
• ISBN: 9781646424009

Book preview

Cover Page for The Community in Rural America

The Community in Rural America

The Community in Rural America

Kenneth P. Wilkinson

With a new foreword by Gene L. Theodori and Mark A. Brennan

UNIVERSITY PRESS OF COLORADO

Denver

SOCIETY AND NATURAL RESOURCES PRESS

Logan

© 2023 by University Press of Colorado

Published by University Press of Colorado

1624 Market Street, Suite 226

PMB 39883

Denver, Colorado 80202

All rights reserved

Printed in the United States of America

The University Press of Colorado is a proud member of the Association of University Presses.

The University Press of Colorado is a cooperative publishing enterprise supported, in part, by Adams State University, Colorado State University, Fort Lewis College, Metropolitan State University of Denver, University of Alaska Fairbanks, University of Colorado, University of Denver, University of Northern Colorado, University of Wyoming, Utah State University, and Western Colorado University.

∞ This paper meets the requirements of the ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (Permanence of Paper).

ISBN: 978-1-64642-399-6 (paperback)

ISBN: 978-1-64642-400-9 (ebook)

https://doi.org/10.5876/9781646424009

Cataloging-in-Publication data for this title is available online at the Library of Congress.

Cover photograph: iStock.com/James Brey

To Harold Frederick Kaufman (1911–1990)

Contents

Foreword

Gene L. Theodori and Mark A. Brennan

Acknowledgments

Gene L. Theodori and Mark A. Brennan

Preface to the Original Edition

Introduction: Studying the Community in Rural America

1. The Community: An Interactional Approach

Community: The Elemental Bond

Territory

Community and Society

Community Interaction

Development of the Community

2. The Rural-Urban Variable in Community Research

Community Studies

Critical Issues

Rural and Social Interaction

The Rural-Urban Locality

Rural Community Life

3. The Community and Rural Well-Being

Social Well-Being

The Community and Social Well-Being

Rural Well-Being

4. Rural Community Development

The Process of Community Development

Rural Community Development in America

5. In Search of the Community in the Changing Countryside

The Interactional Community

Rural Community Problems

Toward Rural Community Development

References

Index

About the Author

Foreword

Gene L. Theodori and Mark A. Brennan

Since its original publication in 1991 by Greenwood Press, then reprinted in 1999 by Social Ecology Press, The Community in Rural America by Kenneth P. Wilkinson has shaped the thinking of generations of community scholars and practitioners. This deceptively short book provides a deep discussion of the interactional approach to the study of the community. A common reference material among new students of community, the book is also within arm’s reach of established community scholars who continue to find new insights into community theory within its pages. In his book, Wilkinson centered the discussion around two foundational questions: First, how is it possible for the community to persist in modern society? Second, how does ruralness affect this possibility? (3).

Drawing upon his earlier publications (Wilkinson 1970a, 1970b, 1972, 1979, 1986a) and several papers written by his mentor and friend Harold Kaufman (1959, 1962, 1979, 1985), Wilkinson articulated the assumptions, concepts, and propositions of his interactional approach to the study of the community in rural areas in The Community in Rural America. The interactional theory of the community—first conceptualized by Kaufman (1959), then espoused by Wilkinson throughout his career, and further elaborated upon by Wilkinson’s students and colleagues—is one theoretical perspective used to examine the personal and social organization within local communities.¹ Interactional theory was proposed as an alternative analytical model to the two popular theoretical perspectives of community organization that dominated the sociological and rural sociological literatures in the early to mid-twentieth century—human ecology (both traditional and modern versions) and social systems.

Like other theoretical perspectives, interactional theory has strengths and weaknesses. Interactional theory, as codified and depicted by Wilkinson in The Community in Rural America, has its adherents and critics, some of whom are both. Among the critiques of interactional theory, the one we probably have heard most from our students—and maybe from professionals too—pertains to Wilkinson’s subtle, and at times confusing, use of key concepts. We wholeheartedly agree with such an assessment.

In this foreword, our primary objective is to clarify certain fundamental concepts in interactional theory. In doing so, we conducted a page-by-page deconstruction of the book and a systematic review of Wilkinson’s previous work. We have taken great care not to interpret, contextualize, justify, defend, or rephrase anything in the text. Through our analysis and presentation, we employ Wilkinson’s own words in an attempt to provide clarity in the use, operationalization, and meaning behind his core concepts. Such was the task we set for ourselves to accomplish. However, we realize that ours is not the sole or final interpretation of Wilkinson’s book, nor should it be. Endeavors such as this should prompt continued discussion, debate, and refinement of the interactional theory of the community.

Upon sharing information with our colleagues about our proposed objective for this foreword, one individual who interacted with Wilkinson and has studied Wilkinson’s writings over the past forty-plus years claimed the following in an email: While Ken didn’t necessarily speak entirely in code, there has always been and remains a need to more carefully sort out, clarify, and differentiate key elements of the interactional approach. May this foreword serve as a first step in this process. Before turning our attention to the selected core concepts, we first provide a brief backdrop of the context that led to the development and application of interactional theory.

A Brief Backdrop: From Systems Perspectives to an Interactional Approach

Throughout much of the twentieth century, community sociology was dominated by macrolevel approaches that emphasized the spatial and territorial features of local life (i.e., human ecology) or the enduring and persisting patterns of structured relationships among two or more interacting social units (i.e., social systems) (Bates and Bacon 1972; Hawley 1950; Hillery 1968; Sanders 1966; Warren 1978). These normative approaches to the study of the community—both of which viewed the community as a system—were similar to the wider theoretical analyses that dominated the field of sociology at the time (Homans 1950; Loomis 1960; Parsons 1951, 1960, 1967). Most scholars of the community focused their attention on the factors creating and maintaining stability and order in local life. Lesser attention was given to the factors influencing the emergent and fluid social interactions of different kinds of people within the local community.

In the mid-1900s, scholars and students of the community—especially those located at Mississippi State University (Kaufman 1959; Kaufman and Bailey 1965; Kaufman and Wilkinson 1967; Wilkinson [1968] 1998)—began to question the utility of the two macrolevel perspectives in community theory. Traditional theoretical perspectives used to study the community as a system, it was argued, helped explain only a fraction of modern community life. Between the 1950s and 1980s, many scholars turned their attention to the study of the dynamic social interactions that take place between/among individuals and groups at the local community level (Kaufman 1959, 1962; Stein 1960; Warren 1978; Wilkinson 1972). In response, interactional theory was proposed as a cogent alternative to the human ecological and social systems models of the community (Kaufman 1959). Interactional theory focuses less on the local territory and the institutions within the local society and more on the various interactions that occur between/among social units within the local community and beyond.

As interactional theory became most clearly established and articulated by Wilkinson, it began to resonate and figure prominently in a wide range of community research and outreach activities (Bridger, Brennan, and Luloff 2011). These research and outreach activities share a common focus on improving well-being and collective capacity at the local level through local efforts. Bridger and coauthors (2011), in a cursory yet systematic review of the extant literature, identified over 450 peer-reviewed articles and book chapters using this perspective as a theoretical base. The use of this theoretical perspective has continued in the years since that inventory. More importantly, the interactional approach has become the basis for a substantial body of scholarly work linking community with topics such as natural resource management, culture, economic development, civic engagement, disaster mitigation, healthcare, international development, leadership, youth development, criminology, and demography. This body of research highlights the range to which interactional theory can be applied.

Clarifying Key Concepts

In order to fully comprehend the two questions posed by Wilkinson, readers must understand his use of (1) the community concept and distinguish it from the concept of community; (2) social fields and their relationship to the community field; (3) social well-being; and (4) rural and the implications of rurality for the community. In addition to detailing each concept below, we highlight several of Wilkinson’s stated assumptions and propositions.

The Community

For Wilkinson, the community is a phenomenon manifested in a particular kind of territorial and social environment (Wilkinson 1986a, 3; [1986b] 1998, 97). In Wilkinson’s view, the community, "which is to say the local community (22), is a most distinctive sociological unit (4) containing three foundational properties—a locality, a local society, and a process of locality-oriented collective actions" (4). Locality, for Wilkinson, referred to place ([1986b] 1998, 97) or territory (4). It represented the local ecology (87; see also 1986a, 3; [1986b] 1998, 97) where people resided and met their day-to-day needs. Local society referred to the organization of social institutions and associations in the social life of the local population (23). And, process of locality-oriented collective actions referred to the interrelated actions through which residents express their common interest in the local society (4). Such actions by residents of a local community, according to Wilkinson, were largely geared toward solving common problems and seizing opportunities for improving their common life ([1986b] 1998, 97) and generally resulted from collective expressions of local identity and solidarity (1986a, 3). These three properties have commonly been found in most conventional definitions of the local community (Hillery 1955; Kinneman 1947; Lee and Newby 1983; Warren 1978; Wilkinson 1986a, [1986b] 1998, 1989).

Like other community scholars before him (Bender 1978; Warren 1978), Wilkinson acknowledged the presence of serious problems with each of the three elements of the conventional definition of the community (6). As he noted:

The locality today tends to have vaguely delineated boundaries and boundaries that overlap with those of other settlements (6). . . . [T]he boundaries [of the locality] are fuzzy. (6)

The local society today is comprised in large part of units and branches of regional, national, and multinational organizations (6) . . . [T]he local society is dominated by extra-local ties. (6)

The field of community action (6) . . . often expresses private rather than collective interests. (6)

After recognizing these concerns, Wilkinson suggested contemporary researchers might, in fact, be making more out of these potential issues than need be. He noted the same problematic elements of the community in modern America were always problematic when compared to the ideal type of the ancient agrarian village (7). As he elaborated:

Territorial boundaries rarely have been fixed. The key point in understanding the territorial element of the community, however, is that the community has a geographic location, not that the boundaries of that location are fixed and sharply drawn. Similarly, the local society throughout modern history has been tied to the larger society through diverse channels. The local manifestations of society, nonetheless, are local. There is an unfortunate tendency in the community literature to draw a sharp distinction between the local and the extra-local. Most of the important social phenomena in a community are both local and extra-local, and local importance of a community characteristic often increases with the extent of its extra-local significance. Similarly, the observation that the community arena contains a turbulent field of self-seeking special interest games could have been made about American towns in the 1700s as well as today. (7–8)

After acknowledging the inherent problems with the conventional elements of the community, Wilkinson (6) asked: Why should we continue to search for the community? Why not focus our attention instead on those structures and involvements through which people now meet the needs they once met through community relationships? The answers to these questions are embedded in Wilkinson’s primary thesis that the community has not disappeared and has not ceased to be an important factor in individual and social well-being (7).

So, returning to the first question posed by Wilkinson (i.e., how is it possible for the community to persist in modern society?), part of his answer lies in the following:

People still live together in places, however fluid might be the boundaries of those places. They still encounter the larger society primarily through interactions in the local society. And, at crucial moments, they still can act together to express common interests in the place of residence. (7)

He continued:

Most people, past and present, live and move and have most of their being in everyday life in local settlements. This is true even though extensive contacts occur among people in different settlements and even though much of the social life in any settlement has little to do with the locality. . . . Moreover, we cannot dismiss the fact that people in local settlements continue to interact with one another daily in the process of conducting various aspects of their lives. (19)

Additional answers, for Wilkinson, resided in the natural occurrence of the powerful and ubiquitous social bond of community.

Community

Local social interaction is a key concept in the interactional theory of the community. Wilkinson’s assumption was that

social interaction delineates a territory as the community locale; it provides the associations that comprise the local society; it gives structure and direction to processes of collective action; and it is the source of community identity. (12)

Furthermore, community—a bond that relates people to one another—occurs in social interaction.

Drawing heavily upon the writings of Mead (1934), Schmalenbach (1961), and especially Tönnies (1957), Wilkinson stated several assumptions about the concept of community: that community simply refers to the fact that one naturally is connected to other people (14); that community . . . is natural and ubiquitous (14); that community is not contrived (15); and that community is ubiquitous by virtue of the fact that all people engage in it almost all of the time, whether or not they recognize that fact (15).

For Wilkinson, community exists in social interaction and not in thoughts about relationships (22). Community emerged, according to Wilkinson, out of the natural flow of the interaction processes (15). As he stated, Community simply depends on people interacting with one another, and people interact in all kinds of ways (15). Such interactions are based on positive and not-so-positive sentiments. With respect to the latter, Wilkinson believed conflict, exploitation, and alienation (64) were all part of the natural interactions that occurred among people. He asserted that

community entails squabbles and fights as well as cooperation and affectionate touches. Indeed, community implies all types of relations that are natural among people, and if interaction is suppressed, community is limited. The unsuppressed flow of human interaction . . . is the elemental stuff of which community is made. (15; emphasis added)

Wilkinson applied Tönnies’s (1957) notion of Gemeinschaft to signify the natural bond that existed among people as they engaged in social interactions. A general Gemeinschaft quality, which itself is a structure-building force (30), was believed to be manifest in all social interactions. This general form of Gemeinschaft was not restricted inherently to locality-oriented interaction (22). This form of Gemeinschaft, for Wilkinson, arose

because people engage naturally in social interaction, and social interaction demands and assures that they form a commonality as they share meanings through symbolic communication. They are bound together naturally in this most human and communal of processes whatever the content of the meaning they share and whatever they might think or feel about one another. (32)

After describing the general process of community and its associated general form of Gemeinschaft, Wilkinson turned his attention to "the form of community that is of special concern to the interactional study of the community" (22)—community as a type of social bond that not only relates people to one