The Changing Regional Subcultures of the American States and the Utility of a New Cultural Measure

• Author: Joel Lieske
• Published date: 01 September 2010
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912909331425
• Date: 01 September 2010
• Subject Matter: Articles

Political Research Quarterly
63(3) 538 –552
The Changing Regional Subcultures of
© 2010 University of Utah
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
the American States and the Utility
DOI: 10.1177/1065912909331425
http://prq.sagepub.com
of a New Cultural Measure
Joel Lieske1
Abstract
This study analyzes changes in the regional subcultures of the United States using 2000 census and religious survey
data. The results suggest a remarkable degree of continuity with those the authors identified in an earlier study. In
addition, they demonstrate that a new multidimensional measure of state culture does a much better job in predicting
social and political behavior than other frequently used indicators. Finally, they show how their new measure of state
culture significantly reduces and often eliminates the problem of spatial autocorrelation in many state-level indicators
that cannot be explained by differences in economic development and racial–ethnic diversity.
Keywords
political culture, regional subculture, state government, American federalism, social capital, immigration policy
The persistent effects of American political culture and its
however, should not be confused or equ ated with ideology
subcultures on the political processes, governmental insti-
(Erikson, McIver, and Wright 1987; Erikson, Wright, and
tutions, and public policies of the American states, along
McIver 1994). While an ideology generally specifies the
with those of economic development and social diversity,
types of policies that government should pursue, culture
have proven fundamental to a comprehensive understand-
specifies how government should operate (Wilson and
ing of American federalism (Elazar 1966, 1970, 1994;
DiIulio 1998, 87).
Dye 1997; Hero 1998, 2007). Culture is important because
The concept of political subculture itself has been
it shapes people’s basic racial, ethnic, religious, and social
used to explain regional and sectional differences in the
identities. It provides norms and rules on how they should
settlement of the United States (Zelinsky 1973),
behave and relate to others. And it determines what kinds
differences in the cultural values and “folkways” of four
of social relationships and institutions are acceptable and
distinctive British waves (Fischer 1989; Huntington
legitimate (Dreitzel 1977; Wildavsky 1987; Huntington
2004), variations in social and economic development
2004; Renshon 2005).
among the American states (Gastil 1975; Garreau 1981;
Culture also influences the types of social problems that
Dye 1997), differences in the quality of urban life (Lieske
are found in state and local communities (Banfield 1970). It
1990), and differences in the political processes,
affects the scope of racial and ethnic inequalities that persist
institutional structures, political behavior, and policies
and are tolerated in American life (Hochschild 1995; Hero
and programs of state and local government (Elazar 1966,
and Tolbert 1996; Hero 1998, 2003a). It influences the
1970, 1994; Sharkansky 1969). Elazar’s typology alone
kinds of political organizations and activities that are
has generated over one hundred empirical studies (Kincaid
encouraged or discouraged in American politics (Elazar
and Lieske 1991). But one of the most persistent criticisms
1966, 1970, 1994). It affects the range of governmental
made of this literature concerns the difficulties of
actions that are taken by states and communities. And it
measuring political culture. None of the extant measures
arguably helps define the possibilities for and limits of
were based on any rigorous statistical methodology. And
progressive politics (Nye 1951; Schrag 1998).1
In short, political culture provides answers to
fundamental questions that are raised in state politics about
1Cleveland State University, Ohio
what government should do, how it should be structured,
Corresponding Author:
what rules of the game should be followed, and who
Joel Lieske, Professor of Political Science, Cleveland State University
should participate (Press and VerBurg 1983, 51). Culture,
Email: j.lieske@csuohio.edu.

---

Lieske
539
most appeared to be too crude, too “political,” too circular,
One objective of this study is to understand the changes
or too dated to be practical and useful.
that have occurred in American culture and subculture by
To address these criticisms, we developed a new
replicating our earlier analysis of U.S. regional subcultures
measure of regional subculture that satisfies the following
using 2000 census and religious survey data. A second is
properties. First, it was derived from an explicit and
to see to what extent our new measure reflects differences
replicable set of mathematical and statistical algorithms.
in racial and ethnic diversity. A third is to develop a state-
Second, it was based on the latest available census and
level measure of culture that can be used by other
religious survey data. Third, it distinguished subcultural
researchers. A fourth objective is to test the relative utility
differences down to the substate level. And fourth, it was
of our typology in explaining differences in social and
based entirely on “nonpolitical” measures of American
political behavior at the state level of analysis. A final
culture. This study represented the first successful attempt
objective is to explore the extent to which our new
to measure differences in American culture and pinpoint
measure can significantly reduce or eliminate the problem
the spatial distribution of regional subcultures by state
of spatial autocorrelation that is often found in many state-
and county (Lieske 1993).
level indicators.
Among other results, our study was able to trace the
historical genealogy and evolution of ten distinctive
A Theory of Regional Subcultures
subcultures, many of them representing extensions of
earlier migrant and immigrant streams (Holbrook 1950;
As we have argued elsewhere (Lieske 1993), the peoples
Elazar 1966, 1970; Fischer 1989). It also demonstrated
who settled the United States came with distinctive racial–
the utility of a new statistical technique, a sequential
ethnic identities, religious beliefs, cultural preferences,
application of principal component and cluster analysis,
and social ways of life (Fischer 1989; Kincaid and Lieske
in measuring differences in American political subculture.
1991). In most cases, these cultural traditions shaped both
We found that our new typology compared favorably
their choices of and responses to the environment. Gener-
with Elazar’s in explaining the variation in selected social
ally, groups settled in clusters, not as randomly dispersed
and political indicators at the county level. But it has not
individuals. And as they pushed inland, as in the westward
been widely used for at least two reasons.2 First, our
migration of the “Yankees” across the entire continent,
typology was not cataloged in a data archive for use by
they took with them and transmitted to future generations
other researchers. Second, it was not aggregated to the
the values, beliefs, attitudes, and behavior of their fore-
state level of analysis where most empirical studies are
bears (Holbrook 1950). Moreover, given the traditions of
conducted.
local self-government that constituted the American dem-
However, even our new measure of regional subculture
ocratic experiment, groups could express their cultural
has become somewhat dated by recent demographic and
preferences within geographically defined political juris-
cultural changes in the U.S. population. It was based on
dictions, namely, towns, townships, cities, and counties
1980 census and religious survey data. Consequently, it
(Kincaid 1982). This gave an advantage to the early set-
does not reflect recent changes in the size and diversity of
tlers who founded the first local and state governments
the U.S. population that are due to immigration, migration,
(Zelinsky 1973; Gastil 1975). Unless they could numeri-
and differential rates of racial and ethnic fertility. But this
cally overwhelm these early settlers, later arrivals had to
criticism is equally applicable to the work of other
contend with and adapt themselves to existing social and
cultural scholars, including Elazar, whose state and
political power structures.
substate classifications are based on research that was
Based on this historical record, American regional
completed over forty years ago (Elazar 1966; Sharkansky
subcultures should be dispersed across the country in
1969; Gastil 1975; Garreau 1981).
relatively compact and contiguous patterns that are rooted
Another shortcoming of earlier research is theoretical
in political jurisdictions. In addition, relatively distinctive
in nature and concerns the need to identify the cultural
subcultures as well as multicultural blends should be found
traits that distinguish one subculture from another and
around the country because most states were settled and
link them more fully to the research of other scholars.
developed by diverse groups that clustered geographically
Hero (1998), for instance, observes that our typology as
within substate regions. Finally, the continuity and
well as Elazar’s reflects significant differences in social
persistence of these local subcultures is predicated on
diversity at the state and local level. A final deficiency is
...