tion than it deserves in analyses of rural social life. In American
society, there are two major sources of inequality, one resulting from
the distribution of resources in the economic order and another re-
sulting from the circumstances of one’s birth, i.e, race, ethnicity, sex,
location, etc. The former, indicated by measures of income inequality,
tends to increase as the average income increases. Accordingly, in
rural areas, where the average income tends to be lower than in
urban areas, inequality tends to be higher. Inequality of the other
kind, that based on noneconomic factors, can be particularly disrup-
tive because it directly contradicts egalitarian ideals. As it happens,
the most severe inequalities based on such factors as race and ethnic-
ity are in the rural population. Frequently the consequences are hid-
den in the countryside by spatial isolation and masked from national
consciousness by the more visible concentrations of minority popula-
tions in cities. The evidence for American minority groupings such
as Black Americans, Native Americans, persons of Spanish heritage
and others shows that the most severely depressed families live in
rural areas (Durant and Knowlton).
These problems, we now can say with some certainty, are strongly
associated with patterns of rural social disruption (Wilkinson). In
contrast to the idea that rural life is inherently more peaceful, har-
monious and healthy than urban life, the weight of evidence, while
far from conclusive in a causal sense, generally shows the opposite,
at least for some key indicators.
For example, consider rural mental health. The debate about how
best to measure rural-urban differences in mental health continues,
but the best evidence available shows a higher incidence of the most
severe psychological disorders, specifically psychoses, in rural urban
areas (Wagenfeld). Recent research on county rates of suicide and
homicide in the Northeast (Wilkinson; Wilkinson and Israel), shows
these rates increasing with rurality and there is good reason to think
this may be only the beginning of what will be found when rural
researchers turn their attention to drug and alcohol abuse, incest,
family violence and other problems that have been neglected in rural
research. In the specialized literature on these problems, theories
and findings tend to implicate as prominent contributing factors the
very conditions that abound in rural America, namely poverty, isola-
tion, inadequate services and inequality.
These problems converge to form what I call a crisis of community
in rural America. The background factors previously discussed-
social cost of space, world systems and the loss of a clear territorial
base for community life—set the stage for this crisis. They contribute
to a situation in which it is difficult to sustain the image of the rural
community as a place where people identify with and help one an-
other in times of need and where neighbors work together smoothly
and effectively to face common problems. The contemporary trends
producing rural distress and malaise call for far more cohesion and