Where Is “the South”? Assessing the Meaning of Geography in Politics

• Published date: 01 September 2019
• DOI: 10.1177/1532673X19843714
• Date: 01 September 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X19843714

American Politics Research

2019, Vol. 47(5) 1100 –1134

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1532673X19843714

journals.sagepub.com/home/apr

Article

Where Is “the South”?

Assessing the Meaning of

Geography in Politics

Melanie J. Springer1

Abstract

The use of geographic classifications to make empirical or theoretical

generalizations is common in political science research. Yet, in most cases,

these groupings, in and of themselves, lack broader meaning. Offering an in-

depth example of the American South, this study demonstrates the need to

scrutinize the qualities we are actually interested in when using geographic

classifications to explore political trends. The article begins by discussing

the many ways that “the South” has been defined in the existing literature.

Then, it evaluates the theoretical and empirical consequences of these

various definitions using examples focused on discriminatory practices,

voter turnout, and civil rights roll call votes. This evidence demonstrates

the importance of grounding one’s definition in substantive metrics and

historical context over and beyond basic geography. The study concludes

with a discussion of its broader implications that apply to several topics of

interest and research strategies.

Keywords

state politics, Southern politics, political behavior, American political

development, political geography

1University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Melanie J. Springer, Associate Professor of Politics, University of California, Santa Cruz, 1156

High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA.

Email: mjs@ucsc.edu

843714APRXXX10.1177/1532673X19843714American Politics ResearchSpringer

research-article2019

Springer 1101

“You don’t know my state. My state was a slave state. My state is a border state.

My state has the eighth-largest black population in the country. My state is

anything from a Northeast liberal state.”

—Joe Biden (2006), former Vice-President of the United States

While in South Carolina eyeing the 2008 presidential race, Joe Biden

famously appealed to Southern voters with a curious description of his home

state of Delaware. Considered by most to be a Northeastern state, Biden char-

acterized his Delaware roots as being more akin to those of a Southern state;

and by extension, likened himself as more of a Southerner than a Northerner.

Beyond providing an example of presidential politicking, Biden’s sentiments

illuminate a broader issue regarding the role regional shortcuts often play

when making generalizations about political behavior and preferences. They

highlight the importance of scrutinizing the qualities we are actually inter-

ested in when using geographic classifications to explore political trends.

Although the tenuousness of geographic classifications is not confined to

one subfield, this article focuses on the challenges of trying to define “the

South”; arguably one of the most important independent variables in

American politics.1 Long before V. O. Key’s (1949) seminal Southern Politics

in State and Nation was published, and over the decades since, Southern poli-

tics have captivated scholars. The uniqueness of the region has been explored

in a number of topics, including, its partisan politics (e.g., Aldrich & Griffin,

2018; Black & Black, 2002; Johnson, 2010; Key, 1949; Lublin, 2004; Mickey,

2015; Schickler, 2016); its voting laws and participation rates (e.g., Kousser,

1974, 1999; Lawson, 1976, 1985; Rusk & Stucker, 1978; Springer, 2014;

Valelly, 2004); its socioeconomic attributes, social hierarchies, and immigra-

tion patterns (e.g., Margo, 1984; Matthews & Prothro, 1966; G. Wright,

1986); and its identity and perpetuating social culture (e.g., Ayers, 1996;

Black & Black, 1987, 1992; Cooper & Knotts, 2010b; Katznelson, 2005;

Parker, 2009; Price, 1957; Prysby & Riesser, 2013; Putnam, 2000; Shafer &

Johnston, 2006). Indeed, much of the literature has portrayed it as a central

feature of American political development. This work, however, centers on

the slipperiness of the concept; on the problem of treating “the South” as a

fixed geographic region rather than as a set of political traits or patterns, or as

a more fluid, continuous variable that might shift over time.

Drawing on work by Ayers (1996), Bensel (1984), and Elazar (1966), this

study champions the importance of historical appreciation in framing one’s

research on the South. This means considering the focus of one’s research

question, and thinking through the historical, contextual, and sometimes geo-

graphical implications of the definition one selects. For example, a scholar

1102 American Politics Research 47(5)

might adopt the perspective that the 11-state South is a good definition of the

region, not just because it was the one used by Key (1949) but also because

these states shared a common history (e.g., slavery, secession, and

Reconstruction), and this history led to an adherence to Jim Crow and the

Democratic Party’s stronghold over politics in the region. Indeed, a state’s

history might set off a chain of events that affects subsequent politics—and,

it is the connection between history and politics, regardless of geography, that

one might use to define a region.

Too often, geographic classifications are used as proxies for shared char-

acteristics that resulted from particular historical developments or experi-

ences. Identifying what the geographic characteristics are actually proxies for

(which characteristics, patterns, or qualities) and why is the real challenge. It

not only has quantitative repercussions—for how many states should be con-

sidered Southern in a given study, for example—but also allows historical

context to enter into conversations about what we mean by “the South” more

explicitly. One of the major deficiencies of using geographic shortcuts is that

they “tend to be a static product of historical experience” (Bensel, 1984,

p. 415). If the definition we use to define a region is instead historically flex-

ible, then the appropriate boundaries of the South are not actually geographi-

cal. They are rooted in race, or policy, or something that could depend on

historical context for meaning, might move over time, and even extend

beyond (or be narrower than) geographic boundaries.

In exploring this connection, it is critical to differentiate between political

culture and geographic context. Drawing on Elazar’s (1966) classic work, we

might think of “the South” as a variable rooted in political culture; where a

state’s political culture is derived from its history and is perpetuated over

time by the way it runs and maintains its political institutions. In this sense,

“political culture, like all culture, is rooted in the cumulative historical expe-

riences of particular groups of people” (Elazar, 1966, p. 84). Depending on

the nature and timing of one’s research question, there are a number of met-

rics that one might use to determine “southern-ness”; to identify the South as

“a distinct place that has certain fundamental characteristics” (Ayers, 1996, p.

66). As shown in this work, one might compare metrics—such as, instances

of systematic racial discrimination, the prevalence of Jim Crow laws, the size

of a state’s Black population, variance in electoral participation rates, support

of the Democratic party, or positions on civil rights legislation—between the

former Confederate states and other states that have frequently been charac-

terized as “Southern” in literature. Through an analysis of substantive metrics

that are rooted in state history and culture, one might identify varying con-

ceptions of the region.