STATE POLITICAL CULTURES:
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SIX TOWNS
IN INDIANA, MICHIGAN AND OHIO

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN. STATE UNIVERSITY
ARTHUR RAYMOND STEVENS

l 96 9

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

State Political Cultures:
A Comparative Study of Six Towns
In Indiana, Michigan and Ohio

presented by
Arthur Raymond Stevens

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Political Science

V Major professd’r

é/Mp/Z/k— @A’c/g

0-169

amuse av
NOAO & SUNS'
BOOK BINDERY INC.

Llamnv amoms

 

 

 

§>-~~-730

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

373°

ABSTRACT

STATE POLITICAL CULTURES: A COMPARATIVE
STUDY OF SIX TOWNS IN INDIANA,
MICHIGAN AND OHIO

BY

Arthur Raymond Stevens

This is a study of state political cultures, centered

in the area surrounding the intersection of the state bound-

aries of Michigan, Ohio and Indiana. The bulk of the study

employed survey research techniques in the public schools of

Camden, Michigan, Pioneer, Ohio and Fremont, Indiana. A

control town in each of the three states was also surveyed,

to see if "state patterns" could be detected in the responses

of the school children. The control towns, each located at

some distance from the borders, were Springport, Michigan,

Ridgeville Corners, Ohio and Wolf Lake, Indiana. In addition

to the surveys, interviews were conducted with a number of
I

'kmmmunity influentials" in each of the border towns.
also employed the method of direct observation, and I
examined a number of local documents - telephone directories,

local newspapers, miscellaneous pamphlets etc.

My basic hypotheses were built around the idea that

the three states, while outwardly the same, might in fact

kmve different political cultures - that the political cul-

ture of.Michigan might be generally called "liberal" whereas

Arthur Raymond Stevens

the political cultures of Indiana and Ohio might be thought
of as "conservative" with Indiana, in addition, having a

tradition of patronage (corruption) which is not shared by

either Michigan or Ohio. I hypothesized, therefore, that

the political attitudes of the seniors in the high schools

(and, to a lesser extent,the students in the fifth grades)
might reflect these differences in the state political cul-

tures. On the whole, this was not borne out.

In addition to my hypotheses I asked three basic

questions: (1) Are the people in the three states - or,

in these tightly limited portions of the three states -

similar, and are the towns and the counties involved in

the study comparable units? (2) Do the people act differ—

ently in the three states, and do their views of government

and politics differ from state to state? (3) Do the state

lines constitute invisible barriers or walls, so that the
people are divided or separated in ways that they would
not be if the lines were not there?

The study revealed the following:

in the towns surveyed are essentially alike and the units

(1) The people

involved in the study are in all ways comparable units.
(2) There are differences in the behavior of the people.
Even though they are, geographically, neighbors, they read
different newspapers, they shop in different cities, they

cheer for different athletic teams, they worship in

different states, they expect to study and to work in their

Arthur Raymond Stevens

own state and they expect to live in their own state when

they are grown. Their attitudes about government and poli-

tics, however, are essentially the same. There is some
indication of an "Indiana Idea" - a consistency to the
responses which does not exist in the other two states.
There is some indication that the Ohio students know more
about politics than the students in the other two states.
(3) There is very clear evidence that the state boundaries
do act as "invisible walls" and that the people are in fact

separated by these walls.
There is also evidence that the boundaries themselves

provide, for the people living in the area, a type of

"boundary culture." This boundary culture seems to produce

people who are (l) somewhat more cynical about government
and politics than those who live away from the boundary,

and (2) somewhat more loyal to their states than those who

live away from the boundary. The evidence for cynicism,

however, is more clear-cut than is the evidence for loyalty.

STATE POLITICAL CULTURES: A COMPARATIVE
STUDY OF SIX TOWNS IN INDIANA,
MICHIGAN AND OHIO

By

Arthur Raymond Stevens

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Political Science

1969

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

the members of my Committee: Professors Charles Press,

Alan Grimes, and David Ziblatt. My particular thanks, of

I also wish to thank all of the people who were

interviewed during the course of the investigation. It is

school officials were particularly cooperative. Without
their help, and the willing cooperation of hundreds of

students, this study would not have been possible.

ii

 

LIST OF

LIST OF

Chapter
I.

II.

III.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O
FIGURES O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O

INTRODUCTIOPJ O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Political Culture and Political
SOCialization. O O O O O O O O O O O

The Concept of Political Culture . .
Political Socialization. . . . . . . .
State Political Culture. . . . . . . .

PERCEPTIONS OF DISTINCTIVENESS: THE
"STATE LITERATURE" F INDIANA,.MICHIGAN
HIO . . .

Ohio 0 O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O 0
Indiana. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

IinChigan 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

PRELIMINARY STEPS: THE NATURE OF THE
UDY; THE RESEARCH AREA; INTRODUCTORY
INTERVIEEQJS C O Q C C O C C O O C O 0 C C
The Nature of the Investigation. . . .
The General Area . . . . . . . . . . .
The Specific Research Area . . . . . .
Indiana. 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o O O 0

IVIi Chigan o o 0 O o o o o o o o o o O 0

Ohio 0 C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Page
vi

xi

l2
23

3A
35
41
SO

67
67
73
78
88
89
89

Table of Contents.

Chapter

IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

SURVEY RESULTS:
FAMILIES DESCRIBED. . . . . .

SURVEY RESULTS:

—-Cont.

n of the

- At the Intersectio

The "One"
State Lines . . . .

of Ray, Indiana. .

The "Split" Town
perintendents of

— The School Su
r Towns. . . .

The "Few"
Principal Borde

the Three
5 of the Three Principe

1 Border

The Mayor
Towns O O O O 0

e Three Principal Border

O O O O O

The Police — In th
Towns . . . . .

O O O O O O O O

rincipal Border

the Three P

The Bankers — of
Towns O O O O O

s - of the Three Principal

Border

The Editor
Towns . . . .

O O O O O O O O O

Other Indicators of the "Barrier Effect"
of the State Lines. . .

The Amish Enclave . . .

Conclusion. . . .
THE RESPONDENTS AND

THEIR

O O C O O

KNOWLEDGE AND BEHAVIOR . . .

Summary . . . . . .
SELF PERCEPTIONS, AND

SURVEY RESULTS:
OPINIONS OF THE THREE STATES. . . . . . . . .

ATTITUDES TOWARD POLITICS

SURVEY RESULTS:
AND GOVERNMENT IN THE THREE STATES. . . . . .

ssues and Programs. . . . .

Key National I

Key State Issues and Programs . . . .

The Police Question . .

iv

Page

90
92

95

10A

108

111

116

118
120
122

125
161.
206

208

2h1
277
293
307

Table of Contents.--Cont.

Chapter Page

VIII. CONCLUSION AND summer . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
GENERALREFERENCES..................346
APPENDIX A: The Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . 350

APPENDIX B: Some Responses by Fifth Grade Children
to the Question "Who Am I?" . . . . . . . 361

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. The Counties: Population Comparisons . . . . . 82
2. The Counties: Education and Financial Data . . 84
3. The Counties: Manufacturing and Farming. . . . 86
h. The Counties: Presidential Voting. . . . . . . 87
5. Comparative Data: Border School Districts. . . 96
6. State of Birth, Shown in Percentages. . . . . . 130
7. Educational Level of Parents, Shown in

Percentages (Father - F; thher - M). . . . . 134
8. Occupations of the Fathers in the Six

Principal Towns Shown in Percentages. . . . . 137
9. Occupations of Methers in the Six Principal

Towns Shown in Percentages. . . . . . . . . . 138
10. States in Which Fathers are Employed

Shown in Percentages. . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
11. States in Which Fathers Were Employed

in 1964 Shown in Percentages. . . . . . . . . 141
12. Extent of Church Connection in the Six

Principal Towns Shown in Percentages. . . . . 143

13. The Location of the Churches Attended by
Students from the Six Principal Towns,
Shown in Percentages of Those Who Indicated
. . 146

Any Connection With a Church. . . . .

14. Political Party Affiliations of Parents in
the Six Principal Towns Shown in
. 148

Percentages . . . .—. . . . . . . . . . . .

15. Political Party Affiliations of Students in
the Six Towns Shown in Percentages. . . . . . 151

vi

List of Tables.-—Cont.

Table Page
16. Sources of Information Concerning the World
"Out There," in the Six Principal Towns.
(No Answers have 153

Shown in Percentages.
been Omitted.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17. Plans for Life After High School, as Revealed
by the Seniors in the Six Principal Towns.
Shown in Percentages . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

18. States Where Seniors in the Six Principal
Towns Expect To Go To School Or To Seek 158

Employment. Shown in Percentages. . . . .

19. The State That The Seniors Expect To Live In
When "Grown Up," Shown in Percentages. . . . 160

20. Identification of Governor of Michigan, and
His Political Party, Shown in Percentages. . 165

21. Identification of Governor of Ohio, and
His Political Party, Shown in Percentages. . 168

22. Identification of Governor of Indiana, and
His Political Party, Shown in Percentages. . 169

Knowledge of US Senators from their Own
. . . 172

23.

State, Shown in Percentages. . . . . .
24. Knowledge of State Nick-Names, Shown in

Percentages of Those Who Knew. . . . . . . . 174
25. Favorite Radio Stations, Shown in

Percentages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
26. Choice of "Big City" Newspaper, Shown in

Percentages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
27. Daily Newspapers Received in Homes, Shown

in Percentages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
28. Sunday Newspapers Received in Hones, Shown

in Percentages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
29. Selection of "The City" as the Preferred

Place in Which to Shop, Shown in Percentages 191
30. Preferences to Go Each Year to the Rose Bowl,

194

Shown in Percentages . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

List of Tables.--Cont.
Page

Table

31. The Favorite Professional Teams Shown in

Percentages. Only the Top Favorites,
along with the No Answers, are Shown. . . . . 197

e or University, If they
Free to Go Where They O
2 2

Wanted to Go, Shown in Percentages. . . .

33. "Who Am I?" Identifications Made by the
students in Answer to the Question, Shown
219

in Percentages. . . . . . . . . . .

s in the Three Towns
of Themselves . . . . .

32. Choice of Colleg
Were Perfectly

34. Percentages of Student
223

Who Consciously Think

Reorganization of Nation by
f All Internal Borders, Shown in

35. Reaction to
Removal 0
Percentages . . . . . .

227

36. Reaction to Reorganization of State Boundaries
in the Tri-State Region, Where Border Towns
Would Move to Another State, or Land Would
Be Given to Another State. Shown in

Percentages . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37. The Choice of States, if the Borders Had to
be Changed. Shown in Percentages . . . . . .

229

230

38. The Evaluation of Their Own State in Relation
to Others, Shown in Percentages of those
. . . . 233

who answered. . . . . . . . . . . . .

39. Student Reaction to the Name of their Own
State, as Measured by the Semantic Differ—
ential. Shown in Percentages of the Two
"Most Favorable" Scale Positions. . . . . . . 239

High School Seniors Toward "Our
Shown in Percentages
. . . . . . 245

40. Attitudes of
National Government."

of Those Who Answered . . . . . .

41. Attitudes of High School Seniors Toward
President Lyndon Johnson. Shown in
Percentages of Those Who Answered . . . . . . 248

chool Seniors Toward
" Shown in Percentages
000.0000. 256

#2. Attitudes of High S
"Our State Government.

of Those Who Answered . . .

viii

List of Tables.——Cont.
Page

Table
niors Toward the

#3. Aflitudes of Hig
Governor of T Shown in
f Those Who Answered . . . . 258

44. Attitudes of High School Seniors Toward
"State Officials." Shown in Percentages

of Those Who Answered . . . . .
niors Toward

" Shown in

es of Those Who Answered . . . . 264

261

45. Attitudes O

chool Seniors Toward
Shown in Percentages
267

46. Attitudes of High 8
the United Nations.
of Those Who Answered . . . . .

47. Attitudes of High School Seniors Toward
"Politics." Shown in Percentages of
Those Who Answered. . . . .

48. Attitudes of High School Seniors Toward
State Politics. Shown in Percentages
of Those Who Answered . . . .

f High School Seniors Toward
" Shown in Percentages

270

o o o o o o o o 272

49. Attitudes 0
"Political Parties.

of Those Who Answered . . .

50. Attitudes of High School Seniors Toward
"Politicians." Shown in Percentages of
Those Who Answered. . . .

51. Attitudes of High School Seniors Toward
"Space Program." Shown in Percentages
of Those Who Answered . . . . . . 278

52. AUitudes of High School Seniors Toward
' ' nd Anti—Poverty Programs.

. 27A

. . . 276

Civ11 Rights a
Comparing the Percentage of Those Who
Think They are Very Fair and Very Unfair. . . 281
53. Attitudes of High School Seniors Toward
The Vietnam War. Shown in Percentages
000000. 286

of Those Who Answered . . . . .

5h. Attitudes of High School Seniors Toward
and Universities.

State Parks, Highways
Shown in Percentages of Those Who View
coco-o 291+

Them as "Very Strong.". . . . . .
ix

List of Tables.--Cont.

Table

55.
56.

57.

58.

59.
60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

The State Parks, 1962 . . . . . . . . . . .

Per Capita Highway Expenditures
in Relation

Per Capita Highway Expenditures
to State Population and Size.

Per Capita Spending of States on Education.
State University and College Enrollments. .

Attitudes of High School Seniors Towards
Methods of Taxation and State Aid to
Education. Comparing the Percentage
of Those Who View Them as Very Fair

and Very Unfair.. . . . . . . . . .
From Which Law Enforcement Agency Would
One Receive the "Fairest" Treatment?
Shown in Percentages. . . . . . . . . . .

Which Law Enforcement Agency Might Be
Mest Easily Bribed? Shown in Percentages

Assessment of the Possibility of Bribing
the State Police. Shown in Percentages .

Attitudes of High School Seniors Toward the
State Police. Measured by the Semantic
Differential. Shown in Percentages of

Those Who Answered. . . . . . . . . . .

Page
297
299

300
301
302

305

309

311

314

316

Figure

11.
12.
13.
14.
l5.
16.

LIST OF FIGURES

Schematic Representation of the Research
Area: Concentric Circles Indicating
the "One," the "Few," and the "Many"
in the Border Area; Arrows pointing to

the Control Towns. . . . . . . . . . . . .
As It Appears Without

The Research Area:
the State Boundaries . . .

The Towns in Which Research Was Conducted
- Showing Their Proximity to The State

Borders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Basketball Opponents - Camden, Michigan. .

Basketball Opponents — Pioneer, Ohio . . .

Basketball Opponents - Fremont, Indiana. . . .

Locus Score:

Locus Score: Camden, Michigan, 12th Grade .

Locus Score: Pioneer, Ohio, 12th Grade. . .

Ridgeville Corners, Ohio,

Locus Score:
12th Grade . . . . .

Wolf Lake, Indiana, 12th Grade

Locus Score:

Locus Score: Fremont, Indiana, 12th Grade .

Locus Score: Fremont, Indiana, 5th Grade. .

Locus Score: Camden,.Michigan, 5th Grade. .

Locus Score: Pioneer, Ohio, 5th Grade . . .

Perceptions of President Johnson, Camden,
Nfichigan, 12th Grade . . . . . . . . . . .

xi

Springport, Michigan, 12th Grade

Page

71

75

91
101
101
102
212
212
213

213
214
214
215
215
215

249

List of Figures.--Cont.

Figure

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

Perceptions of President Johnson, Springport,
Michigan, 12th Grade. . . . . . . . . . . .

Perceptions of President Johnson, Fremont,
Indiana, 12th Grade 0 O O O O O O O O O O O

Perceptions of President Johnson, Wolf Lake,
Indiana, 12th Grade . . . . . . . . . . . .

Perceptions of President Johnson, Pioneer,
Ohio, 12th Grade 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O O

Perceptions of President Johnson, Ridgeville
Corners, Ohio, 12th Grade . . . . . . . . .

Perceptions of Three Levels of Government
as Weak-Strong and as Unfair-Fair. Graphs
Show Percentages of Those Students Who
Expressed Strongly Negative and Strongly
Positive Opinions . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Perceptions of Vietnam War, Camden, Michigan,
12th Grade. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Perceptions of Vietnam War, Springport,
NIiChigan, 12th Grade. 0 o o o o o o o o o o

Perceptions of Vietnam War, Fremont, Indiana,
12th Grade. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Perceptions of Vietnam War, Wolf Lake, Indiana,

12th Grade. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Perceptions of Vietnam War, Pioneer, Ohio,
12th Grade. 0 o o o o o o o o o o O O 0 0 0

Perceptions of Vietnam War, Ridgeville
Corners, Ohio, 12th Grade . . . . . . . . .

xii

Page

250
251
252
253

25A '

268
287
288
289
290
291

292

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Political Culture and Political Socialization

Samuel C. Patterson has stated "that research in
state politics ought to be comparative, and that it can in
important ways fruitfully be guided by the organizing notion
of political culture."1 This is a comparative study of
state politics. And it has been guided by the notion of
political culture.

Specifically, this is a comparative study of the
political attitudes of students in the public schools of
six very small Midwestern towns, two located in each of
the states of Indiana, Michigan and Ohio. Of the six, three
are neighboring towns located along the state borders:
Fremont, Indiana, Camden, Michigan and Pioneer, Ohio. Each
of these has, in turn, been coupled with a similar town
located at some distance from the borders of the three
states. The basic question that I ask concerning these
towns is this: Are there distinctive political cultures

in the states of Indiana, Michigan and Ohio, and are these

1Samuel C. Patterson, "The Political Culturesoof
the American States," The Journal of Politip§, V01. 3 9
1968’ p. 188.

2

cultures sufficiently different that the students - partic-
ularly those living on the very borders — will have differ-
ent attitudes about government and politics? Or we can
reverse the question and ask if it is possible to detect
the existence of different political cultures from state to
state from an analysis of the attitudes of the students

who live in these border towns.

At the very outset I suggest that there is some
reason to think that these three states - even though they
are all "Midwestern" and apparently similar — do have pol—
itical cultures that are distinctive and "different." I
shall explain later why I think that this is so. But at
this point it will be enough to indicate that of the three
states Michigan might be in the "good government" tradition
and, therefore, in some ways a "liberal" state, whereas
both Ohio and Indiana might be thought of as "conservative"
states with Indiana, in addition, having a tradition of
"corruption" (or, "Patronage") which is not shared by either
Michigan or Ohio. If the above is true, then I hypothesize
that there will be differences in student attitudes from
state to state. From the above, and from the results of
an earlier study of the area, I make the following specific
hypotheses:

1. That the state borders, or boundaries, will

turn out to be "invisible walls" which sep-
arate the people, and that this will, in turn:

lend further credence to the idea thatfdis-
tinctive political cultures may ex15t rom

state to state.

 

 

10.

11.

That on matters of over-riding national impor—
tance - space, defense, foreign policy, etc. -
the state political culture will have no sig—
nificant effect on attitudes.

 

That on matters of national and regional
importance - civil rights, for example - the
state political culture will have no signifi-
cant effect on attitudes.

 

That on matters of state and local importance -
state parks, roads, education, etc. - the state
political culture will have a discernable effect:
that Ohio's "conservatism," Michigan's "good-
governmentism," and Indiana's "patronage system,"
will be reflected in political attitudes.

That on the whole the students will have a
strongly positive and supportive view of
government on all levels, but that the Michigan
students will be the most supportive.

That the Michigan students will think better
(or "more highly") of their state government
than will the Indiana and Ohio students. (Or,
they will be "less cynical.")

That the students in each of the states will
show a degree of state loyalty, but that this
feeling of loyalty will vary in intensity from
state to state, with the Michigan students
being the "most loyal."

That the feeling of statehood (for example, of
"being a Michiganian") will be of rather low
saliency in all three states until the feeling
is aroused, at which point it Will be discern-
ible and it will be different from state to

state .

That this feeling of loyalty to state is not
left to chance, but is both conSCiously and

unconsciously fostered by each state, largely
through the medium of the public school.

That this feeling of loyalty will not be related
to the extent of political knowledge.

' ' rimarily
That this feeling of loyalty Will vary p
in relation to the length of family residengfilin
the state - to the time of exposure to e

ture o

 

tt\'

i.

'1

RI“

12. That even where they perceive state government
to be corrupt or "bad" they will still be loyal-
have a sense of attachment - to the state.

13. That all of the students - fearing loss of
identity as a "Hoosier," for example - will be
highly resistant to any proposed change of the
state boundaries.

14. That the Michigan students will know more about
politics and government than the students in
Indiana or Ohio and that the parents of the
Michigan students will manifest a greater inter-
est in politics (through voting) than will the
parents of the students in Indiana or Ohio.

The Concept of Political Culture

It seems to me that the concept of "political
culture" stems of necessity from the broader concept of
"culture,” and that if we use the one we must, perforce,
also be willing to employ the other. The difficulty is
that these concepts are ambiguous and vague. As Patterson
says, "For many social scientists culture remains in the
exclusive and esoteric province of anthropology, where
internecine warfare continues over its definition. For
others,_political culture suggests the more unfortunate
qualities of national character analysis."2 It is neces-
sary, therefore, to specify the way in which these concepts

will be used, and to give them, at least for the purposes

of this paper, a meaning which is clear and precise.

It is possible, of course, to eliminate the concept

of "culture" completely — to think of "society" and "culture"

2Ibid, p. 187.

 

 

so

an.

vi

as synonymous. If this is done, then the concept of "polit-
ical culture" (a particular part of the whole) is also elim—
inated. Without becoming involved in any elaborate argument
over the justification of the concepts, however, I prefer to
keep the concept of "culture" apart from that of "society."
I shall use the term "culture,” therefore, and shall employ
it as Kluckhohn does: "A 'culture' refers to the distinc-
tive way of life of a group of people, their complete
'design for living.’ The Japanese constitute a nation or a
society. This entity may be directly observed. 'Japanese
culture,’ however, is an abstraction from observed regu-
larities or trends toward regularity in the modes of re-
sponse of this people."3 Culture, then is an all-embracing
term. It refers to the concepts, habits, skills, arts,
instruments, institutions, etc., of a given people in a
given period. (Note: A standard dictionary definition).
It is concerned with the entire configuration of their
”life style" - "design for living" - the total "way" of a
people.

A modern, complex society has within it many "sub
cultures" each of which may be studied by itself, but,
apart from this, the most fruitful method of studying the

overall culture is to attempt to unravel the separate

BClyde Kluckhohn, "The Study of Culture," in
Sociolo ical Theo , Lewis A. Coser and Bernard Rosenberg,

e s., ew or , 57), p. 49.

strands which, tOgether, constitute the total pattern. We
may label these strands the "political culture," the
"economic culture," the "religious culture," etc. All of
them are so intertwined and interconnected that it may be
impossible, as a practical matter, to study one without
reference to the others. But conceptually the separation
nay be made - it is made, all of the time — and, given the
enormous complexity of the whole, I think that this is
perfectly defensible.

I now turn to the separate strand called "political
culture.” Patterson indicates that the concept of political
culture "had its genesis in the seminal formulation of
Almond a decade ago."4 Developed in 1956 and enunciated
more fully in the conceptual scheme employed by Almond and
Coleman in 1960, this concept has since that time been both
used and elaborated upon by many others. When Almond and
Coleman introduced the words "political culture" and "polit-
ical socialization" into their conceptual scheme, they
stated that they preferred these phrases to such older ones
as "public opinion" and "citizenship training" because the
latter are "formal and rational in meaning."5 And they went

on to say that ". . . it becomes evident that we are not

LLPatterson, op. cit., p. 188

5Gabriel A. Almond and James 8. Coleman, eds., The

Politics of the DeveIOpinqureas, (New Jersey, 1960), p.4.

simply adding terms to an old vocabulary, but rather are in
the process of developing or adapting a new one. And, to
put all of our cards on the table, this is not only a matter
of a conceptual vocabulary; it is an intimation of a major
step forward in the nature of political science as science."6
Now, ten years later, the Almond and Coleman claim
seems to be quite extreme. Certainly the concepts of "polit-
ical culture" and ”political socialization" - along with
others such as "life style," "political style," etc. - are
of current interest to the discipline. My own inclination,
however, is not to think of them as new, but rather as
reformulations of concepts which have been central to the
whole study of politics since at least the time of the
Greeks. ‘We have given these concepts new names and have
broadened their meanings. In a sense we have rediscovered
them. But the basic notions are ancient. This does not
mean, however, that they are now of little value. Quite
the contrary. For the very fact that they have endured,
and that they keep reappearing in different forms, would
seem to be prima facie evidence of their utility and of
their validity.
That these concepts are not all that new may be
readily seen if we examine the following passage written
by Charles E. Merriam thirty eight years ago: ". . . the

61bid, p. 4

full understanding of systems of civic education will not
be reached unless they are taken as part of a total social
situation, in the midst of which they are set and as a part
of which they function."7 If we make allowances for a
slightly changed vocabulary, this passage has a decidedly

contemporary ring.

.23

But it is not necessary to go back to the 19303 to

point up the fact that these are not brand new ideas. Both

N

Roberta Sigel and Fred Greenstein, who have worked exten-
sively with these concepts, have pointed to their ancient
lineage. Mrs. Sigel states that the training process now
called "political socialization" used to be called "civic
education," a matter of concern even to the Greeks.8 And
Greenstein states that "No topic of political science has
a longer and more distinguished lineage than citizenship
training. For Plato, education was at the heart of poli—
tics; depending upon the nature of civic training, a body
politic would remain stable or it would undergo change."9
Almond and Coleman used the term "political

culture" in context, but they did not define it. Patterson

defines it as follows:

. 7Charles E. Merriam, The Makinggof Citizens,
(Chicago, 1931), p. 11.

8Roberta Sigel, "Assumptions About the Learning of
Political Values," The Annals of the American Academy of
Eplitical and Social Science, Vol. 361, Sept., 1965, pp.l-9.

9Fred Greenstein, Children and Politics, (New
Haven, 1965), p. 20

 

V .

 

n 5-

Political culture is a somewhat open-ended, multi-
faceted, sensitizing concept. It is open-ended in
the sense that a rather wide variety of cognitions,
values, and emotional commitments might be included
in an analysis. It is multi—faceted, or multi-
dimensional, in the sense that it consists of sev-
eral analytically distinct though presumably inter—
related factors. Finally, it is a sensitizing con—
cept in the sense that it directs attention to
potential, or largely unexploited, political data
for the purpose of enhancing knowledge about sub-
jective orientations to politics. The concept is
not a theory about politics, nor does it invoke

new political phenomena. It does focus attention
on the symbolic, evaluative, and cognitive rela-
tionships 8f these orientations to other aspects of
politics.1

[It

Lucien W. Pye defines it somewhat more simply and
briefly. "Political culture is the set of attitudes,
beliefs, and sentiments which give order and meaning to a
political process and which provide the underlying assump-
tions and rules that govern behavior in the political
system. It encompasses both the political ideals and the
operating norms of a polity."ll

The principal emphasis in the concept of political

culture is on attitudes, broadly defined. Avery Leiserson,

 

for example, defines the political system as consisting of,
”first,_political culture - attitudes toward and values
concerning politics, political leaders, and governmental

processes - and, second, political organization — the formal

lOPatterson, op. cit., p. 188.

llLucian W. Pye, "Political Culture,” International

Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, (New York, 1968),
00 ,p. o

 

 

 

‘II

‘-

\-
i.

’A

”v

 

 

10

and effective power structures, including institutions for
expressing public opinion and political opposition, whereby
government is controlled and authoritative decisions about

12 This indicates

public purpose and policy are expressed."
that the political culture is somehow apart from the polit-
ical organization, and, as thus used, it would seem as

though the phrase could be dropped and that we could use,

I
II
I“;

instead, the more common word "attitudes." If this were
done, the Leiserson definition of the political system

might be reworded to read as follows: "The political

system consists, first, of attitudes toward both the govern—
ment and politics, and, second, of the formal institutions
of government."

But problems are raised when we do this, and I do
not see how we can make such a sharp distinction between
the "political culture" (attitudes) and the "political
organization" (formal structure). For the interconnection
between the two is extremely close. It would seem, for
example, that the formal structure in a given society must
arise because a host of underlying notions (attitudes)
Specify that this is the "way" to govern. But at the same
time, the structure is, itself, continuously generating

attitudes, both about itself and about other aspects of

12"Political Systems of the World," in Government
and Politics, Alex N. Dragnich and John C. Wahlke, eds.,

(New York."I966). pp. 33-31..

 

 

 

11

government. There is a dynamic, reciprocal relationship
between them - each producing the other.

Imagine, for a moment, a society in which justice
is determined by a triumvirate of aged crones who pronounce
the verdict after examining the random patterning of tea
leaves in the bottom of a sacred china cup, and where, on
the death of the leader, a successor is chosen on the basis
of the advice of the court astr010ger. The example is an
extreme one, of course, but it is no more fantastic, and
considerably less brutal as regards justice, than some
of the methods that were actually used in the Middle Ages.
Both might be formal institutions of government, but, in
themselves, they are manifestations of the culture, and in
particular the political culture.

In like manner, and within our own system, suppose
that we examine the formal institutions known as legisla-
tures in two of our states. We find that one is made up of
Part time, badly paid legislators; the other has full time
and well paid legislators. Would this not point to differ-
ences in the political cultures of these two states? I
think so, and I think that we can see with these two
examPles that popular attitudes are gmbggggd in the insti—
tutions themselves.

Pye makes this same point when he says, "If the
concept of political culture is to be effectively utilized:
but

it needs to be supplemented with structural analysis,

the difficulty is that political structures can be seen on

 

12

the one hand as products reflecting the political culture,
while on the other hand they are also important 'givens'
which shape the political culture."13
It would seem, therefore, that the concept of
political culture should encompass both attitudes and organ—
ization. We may catch glimpses of the political culture
through a study of both. This at least has the virtue of
consistency. For if culture refers to concepts, institu—
tions, etc., then it seems that political culture should
also refer to attitudes and to formal governmental struc-
ture. The phrase "political culture" will then lead
directly back into the "culture." I shall use the concept
somewhat more broadly, then, than it is used by Leiserson.
But even so, the primary emphasis will be on attitudes
(broadly defined) rather than on the formal structure of
government. And, as I have already noted, I shall examine
the attitudes of students in the public schools to see if

they reveal the existence of separate political cultures

in the three states.

Political Socialization

I turn now to the process of political sociali-
zation. What happens to the person who is born into a
given culture, or, less frequently, to the migrant who

enters a new and a different culture? He is subjected to

l3Pye, op. cit., P. 222.

nbb

13

the process of "socialization" - the method or methods by
which the "way" is passed from one generation to the next.
This process is itself one aspect of the total culture —
it varies from society to society — yet it, too, may be
subjected to separate analysis if we so choose.

It is widely reCOgnized at this point that the pro-
cess of socialization into the total culture starts very
early in life and that the most important institution in
this process of integration is the family. Elkin defines
socialization as the "process by which someone learns the
ways of a given society or social group so that he can
function within it." And he states that "Socialization

includes both the learning and internalizing of appropriate
14

Eisenstadt discusses the entire process of the

patterns, values and feelings."

transmission of cultural and social tradition from adult
members of society to the young. He too speaks of the
"learning" which takes place and states, "The process of
socialization and learning necessarily involves a normative
and evaluative element, and the demands made on the child
throughout this process are made legitimate in terms of

the differential evaluation of the adults' social experience

as compared to that of the child."15 Both of these authors

threderick Elkin, The Child and SOCiety, The
Egocess of Socialization, (New York, 1960), p. 4.

158. N. Eisenstadt, From Generation to Generation,
FP Paperback ed., (New York, 1964), p. 27-

 

. t
n.—

-

.Kh

 

14

state that the family ranks first in importance among those
agencies or institutions which play a part in the sociali—
zation process. Elkin then goes on to point out that the
ggggg socializing agencies in our culture are the family,
the school, the peer group and the mass media.16
In modern, complex societies, however, as Eisenstadt
indicates, the information to be transmitted from one gener-
ation to the next is so vast that special institutions have
been established for this purpose. The school is the most
important of these agencies. Elkin agrees and suggests that
beyond the formal institution of the school itself, the
individual teacher is of importance, perhaps "less because
of what they teach than because of the models or significant
others they become."17
If "socialization" is the process by which the young
are taught the "way" of the entire culture, then "political
socialization" is the process by which they are taught the
"way" of the political culture. As with socialization in
general, political socialization starts at a very early age
through the institution of the family. It has been found
that political attitudes develop early and that the child
reflects some, at least, of the political attitudes of his
parents. One example of this in our system is party
16Elkin, op. cit., Chap. 4.
17Elkin, op. cit., p. 61.

 

0 .

II)

"a

A '

g I

V'-

q-

"i

(I‘-

In

~i

N.

15

identification — the children identify with the political
party of the parents.18 Lane and Sears, in tracing the
longitudinal development of political Opinions, point to
the importance of the family in this process.19 Greenstein
specifically points to the fact that as family life styles
vary, so do the political opinions of the children: "Lower
and upper socioeconomic status children differ in the same
ways as do their elders on a good number of the indicators
of political awareness and involvement used in New Haven."
Greenstein adds the warning, however, that "the procedure
used for comparing status groups" was quite crude.2O
The major part of this learning process is not
conducted deliberately and formally, and the child, as he
learns, is not consciously aware of the fact that he is
learning. As Mrs. Sigel says, "He acquires most of these
(values and opinions) without being aware that he is
learning or that there may be other lessons with other
morals to be learned. More of the learning probably pro-
ceeds in a casual, non-politically charged setting than

does in a deliberately political one."21

 

18Herbert Hyman, Political Socialization, (Glencoe,
1959). pp. 51ff.

19Robert E. Lane and David Sears, Public Opinion,
(New Jersey, 1964), p. 18.

20Greenstein, op. cit., p. 105.

21Sigel, op. cit., p. 7.

 

v

4!

'v

h"

16

At what age does this learning occur? Basically it
is the process of a lifetime, but in 1962 Easton and Hess
concluded that the crucial time span was from the age of
three to the age of thirteen. They pointed out that polit-
ical notions and ideas are formed in the child casually and
indirectly at a very early age, long before, in fact, the
word "politics" becomes a part of their cognitive world:

". . . the words politics and politician usually do not be—

 

come a part of his vocabulary until he is 11 or 12 years
old," and even then politics is low in saliency compared to
other aspects of his life such as school and sports.22

The bulk of the "learning" about politics, then,
seems to take place as the result of the child's immersion
in the political culture - it is "absorbed" as he lives.
But this is not the only way he learns, for he is also
specifically taught political values through established
institutions. The most important of these institutions is
the school.

The pioneering study by Merriam in 1931 did not
include a specific analysis of the American system of
civic training, although there were frequent references
to it. But the following statement would apply to the

United States as well as to the nations he studied: "The

22David Easton and Robert Hess, "The Child's
Political World," Midwest Journal of Political Science,
V61. 6, August, 1962, p. 236-

 

U.

A: ‘1‘ u d.

 

17

school is by all odds the most important of the tech-
niques employed in the process of civic education in the
states here considered, and there is every reason to con-
clude that it will continue to be so."23 A number of
present day writers agree that, after the family, the
school is probably the most effective of the socializing
agencies. Some, indeed, make the point that the role of
the family has been over emphasized — even misunderstood -
and that the school is the most important of the socializing
agencies for the developing child. Hess and Torney, for
example, state that the family does transmit a preference
for a particular political PEEEY (as it does for a parti-
cular church) but that "in most other areas its most
effective role is to support other institutions in teaching
political information and orientations." They conclude
that "the school apparently plays the largest part in
teaching attitudes, conceptions and beliefs about the
operation of the political system."2h

Jennings and Miami, in studying the opinions of
high school seniors, and in comparing these opinions
with those of their parents, found that there was no

correspondence between the views held by the two groups.

23Merriam, op. cit., p. 35h-

2L’Robert D. Hess and Judith V. Torney, The Deyeg-)
ppment of Political Attitudes in Children, (Chicago, 9 7 9
p9 2170

 

18

They found, in relation to political cynicism, for example,
that the students do not mirror the cynicism of their
parents about politics. "Here is a case where the impact
of other socialization agents - notably the school - looms
large. The thrust of school experience is undoubtedly on
the side of developing trust in the political system in

general."25
Whether the school is "more important" than the

family or not, there is wide agreement that it is an impor—
tant agency of socialization. In the United States the
practice of deliberately providing citizenship training

26

in the public schools began in the 1850's. It did not

become fully developed, however, until after the great

 

25M. Kent Jennings and Richard G. Niemi, "The Trans-
mission of Political Values from Parent to Child," APSR,
March, 1968, p. 178. They point out, however, and I think
that this is very important, that one of the great difficul—
ties with their study, and with all such studies, is that
the life cycle is involved and there is no way of knowing
whether the children when rown will be similar to their
parents or not. They—EEyTgfiTEIs is an especially thorny
empirical question and nests in the larger quandry con;
cerning the later life effects of early soc1alization.
(P. 172).. It would seem, for example, that the findings
regarding political cynicism could as eaSIly be thought of
as a difference due to a e, rather than as an example of
the fact that the schoo is a more important soc1aliz1ng
agent than the family.

26Sister M. Thomas Johannemann, O.S.B., A Studygof
Q§1§ctives and Trends in the Teaching of Citizenship in
Eflpmentary Schools, (Washington, D.C., 1942)-

l9

flood of immigrants around the turn of the century, and above
all, the impact of World War I. This movement came to a head
in the drive for "Americanization" where the schools were
specifically considered to be, and became, conscious and
deliberate "makers of citizens."27

To sum up, then political socialization is (l) a

learning process, (2) it begins early in life, (3) much of

 

it occurs informally and unconsciously through the medium of

 

the famil , but, (4) because of its importance the system
also establishes formal institutions to further the learning,
and (5) in our system the most important of these institu-
tions are the schools. But what i§_it that is taught and
learned? we may say generally that through this process
the young are taught to love the system as it is.

Almond and Coleman note that "All political social-

ization involves an affective component - the inculcation

 

27At this point in time it is of interest to examine
the steps that were taken on all levels of government to
bring this about. It is particularly interesting at the
moment, because of our current concern with the "disadvan-
taged," the "culturally deprived," "civil rights, and the
"war on poverty." Once again the schools are being mobil-
ized, and one gets the feeling that our current national and
state conferences and programs, seemingly so new, are Simply
SOing over once more much of the same ground that was gone
over before in the name of Americanization. There is an.
enormous body of literature on this subject. The following
were particularly helpful: Johannemann, Cited above, t
Horace M. Kallen, Culture and Democracy in the United Sta es,
(New York, 1924); Emory S. Bogardus, Essentials of Ameiican-
IEEEIQE: 3rd ed., (Los Angeles, 1924); Proceedings 0d :he
Aflgricanization Conference, May 12-15,¥I919, held un gr t’on
auspices of the Americanization Division, Bureau If)E uCa 1 ,
Department of the Interior, (Washington, D.C., l9 9 -

 

. c

A'

‘-

 

 

20

of loyalty to, love of, respect for, and pride in the polit-
ical system - and often, perhaps usually, negative affect of
differing kinds and intensities for other political sys-

28 And Mrs. Sigel points out that the general effect

tems."
of the political socialization process, in all nations, "is

in the direction of supporting the status quo, or at least
e."29

 

the major aspects of the existing political regim
Is the above supported by empirical evidence? On
the whole it is. From their study of the attitudes of a
large number of American children, Easton and Dennis state
that "We find that the small child sees a vision of holiness
when he chances to glance in the direction of government -
a sanctity and rightness of the demigoddess who dispenses
the milk of human kindness. The government protects us,
helps us, is good, and cares for us when we are in need,
answers the child."30 And the child "learns to like the

31

government before he really knows what it is. From a
study of school children in New Haven, Connecticut,

Greenstein found essentially the same thing. "The child's

 

28

Almond and Coleman, op. cit., p. 30.
29Sigel, op. cit., p. 9.

30David Easton and Jack Dennis, "The Child's Image
of Government," The Annals of the American Academy of
Eplitical and Social Science, V61.’361, Sept., 1965, p. 43.

31

 

Ibid, p. 56.

21

first conception of political authority seems to have more
32
'

That the affective component develops before the

affective than cognitive content.’

c0gnitive one is revealed from a consideration of children's
attitudes toward political leaders and political parties.
The very young child has a strongly supportive, positive
attitude toward the President. He knows that the President
is "good” and that he is "important." But he does not know
why, nor does he know what the President does. The same
happens in relation to a political party: He likgg a polit-
ical party before he knows what it is. If cynicism toward
the President - or a political party — develops, it does so
later in life.

These investigators also found that the "government"
is viewed first as national in scope and that it appears
first through the image of the chief executive - the Pres-
ident. Greenstein found that the different levels of
government appear in the consciousness of the child in the
following order: the national government, the local govern-
ment and, last, the state government. And at each level he
learns first about the executive, later about the legisla-
tive branch of government.33

Other authorities could be cited to buttress the

above findings, but I do not think that they are needed.

 

32Greenstein, op. cit., p. 154.

33Greenstein, op. cit., p. 154ff.

22

Nor do I think it necessary to point out in any detail the
fact that the process is not uniformly successful so far as
every single individual within the polity is concerned. Of
course there are failures. Within our system, and in others,
there are to be found all sorts of cynics and "disbelievers."
This is natural. But, given a stable system, it is enough
to know that the overwhelming majority approve of the govern-
ment and its institutions. 0n the whole the process works
remarkably well and we know, as Easton and Dennis have said,
"from what little evidence there is directly about support
for government er se, that adult Americans are also highly
supportive of their government, whatever exaggerations may
exist about their belief in limited government."31+
I have now discussed the concept of political cul—
ture and the process of political socialization. We have
seen that this process works both informally and formally to
produce, as the end product, a person who feels affection
for, and who gives support to, the political system. Up to
this point, however, we have treated the idea of political
culture as a whole - as though, in any given system, there
was Egg political culture. But certainly within complex,
modern societies we have, instead, any number of political

sub-cultures. In our system these cultures seem to have

 

34Easton and Dennis, op. cit., p. 56.

23

arisen, at least in part, because of the existence of sepa-
rate states. I shall turn now, therefore, to a considera-

tion of the idea of state political culture.

State Political Culture

Patterson states that the idea of "interstate
variations in political culture within the American system
is intuitively attractive."35 He goes on to say:

The States are political sub-systems which, in
all probability, crucially affect the persistence
of the national political system. Obviously, the
states are highly influenced by national policy,
and politics in the United States has become
increasingly nationalized. Yet the states can be
treated for analytical purposes as relatively
independent political systems with political
cultures at least somewhat distinctive to them—
selves.

We have very little empirical data on the charac—

teristics ofgpoIitical culture within American

states.35

He then mentions the type of differences noted by
John Gunther, in Inside U. S. A., and by V. 0. Key, Jr., in
Southern Politics. 'We know, he says, "that the political
culture of Mississippi is not the same as that of Iowa,"
but we do not know by any means as much as we should about
the nature of these cultural differences.37

He then suggests five ways in which the political

cultures of the states might vary, and follows this with a

 

35Patterson, op. cit., p. 194.

36Patterson, op. cit., pp. 194-195, emphasis supplied.

37Patterson, op. cit., p. 195.

 

 

AA

"

 

'a

h.

0-

VI

on

DA

“v

‘7

'V

24

consideration of four sets of variables which might help to

 

 

 

 

explain why these variations occur:38
Kinds of Interstate Correlates of Politico—
Variability Cultural Variability
Basic Attitudes Group differences
Political Identi- Social and economic forces
fication Historical patterns of
Participant-Subject Settlement
Orientations Institutional impact

Political Styles
Political Socialization

Looking briefly at each of the above, we know for
example that basic attitudes are different from one part of
the country to another: Michigan residents have been found
to be more "democratic" than Florida residents; southerners
as a whole are more intolerant of non-conformity than are
the residents of other parts of the country; Mississippi is
more "conservative" than any of the other southern states.

So far as_pglitical identification is concerned, he

 

states that "We are all, presumably, aware of the phenomenon

of state pride. We suspect that Americans are generally

proud to be Iowans, Texans, Wisconsinites, or Michiganders.‘39
We know that this feeling of identification varies

from state to state - from a feeling of intense pride in

some state (Texas, perhaps) to a feeling of "humiliation or

mortification" in others (conceivably in Mississippi) - but

we have little evidence of the degree in which it varies.

 

38Patterson, op. cit., pp. 196-208.

39Patterson, op. cit., p. 199.

 

 

25

We know, too, that "the extent of pglitical partici:
ation varies from state to state“IO - in some states polit-

ical participation is facilitated and encouraged, in other
states it is discouraged. Likewise, pglitical styles vary
from state to state: "The dominant Iowa political style can
be described as highly pragmatic, non-programmatic, cautious
and moderate. The Virginia political style may be distinc-
tive in its sense of honor and gentility."Al And, finally,
there may be differences in the process of pglitical social:
ization from state to state.

There do seem to be, then, distinctive political
cultures in some, at least, of the American states. What
are some of the reasons for these differences? Patterson
suggests four sets of variables that might be at work in the
states to bring these differences about. (1) "QEQUP differ:
Eflgg§, in education, ethnicity, race, religion, sex and
social class.“I2 The states are not all alike in the above
respects, and these differences will, in turn, both reflect
and produce somewhat different political cultures. So, too,
will differences in the (2) agcial and economic forces
Within the states. "Urbanization, industrialization,

x
hoPatterson, op. cit., p. 200, emphasis supplied.

hlPatterson, op. cit., p. 202.
hZPatterson, 0p. cit., p. 204.

 

26

population movement, affluence and economic growth probably
have substantial consequences in terms of interstate

politico-cultural differences.“+3

(3) Historical patterns
of settlement have also been used to explain differences in
state political cultures. And, (4) there seems to be a
variation in institutional impact from state to state: the
political parties differ, the states have an impact on each
other, the federal government and its policies affect states
differently, etc. In the course of this investigation I
shall examine the three states of Indiana, Michigan and Ohio
to see if the differences suggested by Patterson exist, and,
if they do, to see if they can be explained on the basis of
the four sets of variables outlined above.

I think that it is clear, both from the above and
from our own every-day experience, that state political
cultures do differ. Certainly the Nevada "way" is not the
same as the Vermont "way." But if we return, for a moment,
to a consideration of what the nation attempted to do in
the Americanization drive of the 1920's, we surely must be
struck by a most curious development. For in its most
extreme form this drive was an avowed attempt to make
"Americans" out of all of us and to stamp out, deliberatelY:
all traces of previous "foreign" (and, therefore, "bad")

cultures and traits. Fortunately, in its most chauvinistic

and malevolent form, this attempt failed.

k

A3Patterson, op. cit., p. 205.

27

It failed for many reasons. In part it was impos-
sible; in part the idea was vigorously opposed; and in part
it failed because of the very diversity of the forces that
were at work to bring about assimilation and integration.
And, most important for us, a significant part of this
diversity was the fact that there were forty~eight separate
states involved in the process, each with a somewhat dif—
ferent idea of what it meant to be a citizen. For, almost
by instinct, the citizenship they taught was, in Elazar's
words, a "concurrent" citizenship: they were taught to be
"Texan-Americans," "Michigan-Americans," "Alabaman-Ameri-
cans."l*l+ They may have ppépd to create uniformity by
eliminating the notion of "Albanian—Americans" but, at
the same time, they seem to have created another kind of
diversity - "Alabaman-Americans," or, to push it even fur—
ther, "Albanian-Alabaman-Americans."

But, insofar as this relates to state political
culture, the main question is not whether people feel loyal
to their state, or whether they have a sense of pride in
their state, but whether these feelings, as Patterson sug-
gests, vary in intensity. Speaking to this point, Elazar
makes the following observation:

It is clear to even the most casual observer that

citizens of some states seem to have much more of

a sense of attachment to their states than do the
citizens of others, and the reasons for this have

. thaniel J. Elazar, The American Partnership,
Chicago, 1962, p. 320fn.

‘

 

 

 

28

yet to be investigated properly. Evidently, certain
factors in the history of individual states, perhaps
including early patterns of settlement, unique con-
tributions or experiences, and place in the total
scheme of American history, combine with certain
geographic factors, perhaps including degree of
isolation and uniqueness of topography to cause the
development of state loyalties of different strengths.
Evidence in the author's files indicates that the
level of peoples' attachment to their states today
is often underestimated. This is at least partly
because there is a tendency to evaluate loyalties on
the basis of dualism, whereby the two loyalties are
measured as to their mutual exclusiveness. In fact,
the 'man in the street' tends to consider these
loyalties as concurrent. He does not choose between
state and national loyalties but embraces them both.
One is a Minnesotan because one is an American and
vice versa. This common sense approach has definite
connections to the common sense attitude that has
contributed so much to the development of co—opera-
tive federalism.45

Of course, it is one thing to note the existence of
loyalty, or patriotism, or nationalism — be it in a nation

or in a state - and it is something else to measure it. In

 

hEThe American Partnership, p. 320fn. By letter
dated August 5, 1966,IProfESsor Elazar kindly informed me
that the evidence of state loyalties in his files consisted
of extensive "newspaper clippings from all fifty states (and
from most major cities) going back to the mid-1950's" which
throw light on the problem, along with his own informal pol-
ling, and his studies of both loyalty and "citizenship."

I agree with Elazar when he says that "the level of
peoples' attachment to their states today is often under-
estimated." And I take it that Patterson would also agree
with this, as would, for that matter, John Gunther and many
others. Of course, there are other points of view. Note
the following, for example: "One outstanding conclusion to
be drawn from this review is that while the states are units
0f political organization, few of them any longer are com-
unities, in the social or sociological sense. Their citizens
do not share many common interests as such, or acquire a
distinctive common outlook . . . In a world where flaming
nationalisms are so widely prevalent, sentiments of patrio-
tism and community in this country are reserved for the union
rather than the states." Harvey C. Mansfield, "The States in
tie American S stem," Forty-Eight States, (8th American

29

a sense we can "see" it, and we can speak of "weak" loyal—

ties and "strong" loyalties, but we do not seem to be able

to "touch" it. Grodzins makes this point when he says,
Perhaps some day national loyalty as attitude can
be measured as precisely as specialists now mea—
sure attitudes toward race or toothpaste, and per—
haps some day national loyalty as act can be
counted with the same elegant exactness that the
act of voting for a presidential candidate is now
counted. Perhaps even the reasons for national
loyalty and disloyalty can be explained some day
with the certainty that we now explain the growth

of the great urban centers. But these are far-
distant days at best.46

Leaving aside the particular question of loyalty,
whether to the nation or to a state, we might look for a
moment at another and a somewhat different approach to the
idea of separate state political cultures. Elazar suggests
that the general American political culture stems from two
contrasting ideas: (1) Where the political order is thought
of as "a market place in which the primary public relation-

ships are products of bargaining among individuals and

 

héMorton Grodzins, The Loyal and the Disloyal,
(Chicago, 1956), p. 261. I‘had hoped, in this study, to
be able to devise some sort of a measure of state loyalty.

I was not successful and the days, therefore, of precise

measurement of such phenomena are still "far-distant days
at best." On the other hand, perhaps the measurement of

our attitudes toward both race and toothpaste are nowhere
near as precise as we might like to think.

And perhaps we try too hard to explain the "reasons"
for national loyalty. In the Ego Solitudes, Hugh MacLennon
has one of the characters say, "‘I suppose patriotism was
originally nothing but the remembrance of childhood. Child-
hood is always magical. No wonder the politicians got hold
Of it and organized it.'" (Popular Library, NY, 1945,

Po 339). For some of the "magic" of childhood, in "Green
Town, Illinois," see the stories b Ray Bradbury entitled
Dandelion Wine, (Bantam Book, 1964 .

 

n:

 

30

groups acting out of self~interest," and (2) Where the
political order is "conceived to be a commonwealth - a
state in which the whole people have an undivided interest ~
in which citizens cooperate in an effort to create and main-
tain the best government in order to implement certain

shared moral principles."l‘”7
He sees the political culture as a whole as being

in "itself a synthesis of three major political subcultures
which jointly inhabit the country," each reflecting its
"own particular synthesis of the marketplace and the com~
monwealth."z+8 He calls these the Individualistic Political
Culture, the Moralistic Political Culture and the Tradition-
alistic Political Culture. We shall refer to his scheme
later, when we think about the specific political cultures
of Michigan, Indiana and Ohio. But, as with the suggestions
of Patterson, I shall attempt to see, through studying the
attitudes of the students in these three states, if such
differences in the political cultures can be detected.

Now, from what has been said up to this point, I
assume that in any given political system there is a

political culture. If there are sub-systems within the

 

h7Daniel J. Elazar, American Federalism: A View
£30m the States, (New York, 1966), pp. 85-86. I“

hglbid, p. 86.

 

 

Fr...

fisfi

 

31

political system, the sub-systems will also have political
cultures}+9 In this study we are focusing on the question
of state political cultures. We know that the concept of
political culture seems to be a useful one, but at the
same time it is rather vague and we do not know exactly
how useful it is.

Suppose, however, that we consider two political
systems that are vastly different: Bolivia and Switzerland.
We are seeking to explain and to predict the political
behavior of each. Why should we be interested in the polit-
ical culture of each country, and in their respective sys—
tems of political socialization? Almond and Coleman sug—
gest that a study of both are necessary in order to under—
stand the other political functions. They say that "if
political socialization produces the basic attitudes in a
society toward the political system, its various roles,

and public policy, then by studying political culture and

 

thlazar speaks of the American federal system as
being "both a single system and a system of systems at the
same time" and says that the "states are systems within a
larger system." (American Federalism, p. 4.) In this way
of course, we might well find that there are an almost end-
less number of sub-systems each with a political culture of
its own. But if we think of political systems as having
discernable boundaries - borders - the number would not be
large. There would be at least five: nation, state count
township or city, and school district. I suspect thdt it y,
would be possible, for example, to view some of the stru
gles over the consolidation of school districts as in g—
fact, struggles between somewhat different "politidal
worlds." There also seems to be a county political cul
and a "county loyalty" of which we know practically not

 

ture,
hing.

32

political socialization we can gain understanding of one of
the essential conditions which affect the way in which these
roles are performed, and the kinds of political inputs and
outputs which these roles produce."5O

In this example, where the differences are great,
the notion of political culture seems to be a useful one.
Now let us consider two systems that are not quite so dif-
ferent. Let us, in fact, move to the United States and to
two separate states: Mississippi and Minnesota. Here, too,
we find marked differences, and again the concept of polit-
ical culture seems to be a useful one.

But finally let us think of two "ordinary" neigh-
boring states — states that are generally thought of as
being about the same in most respects. How useful is the
concept of political culture in this situation? This is
what we have to find out. I suspect, therefore, that a
very important question concerning the concept of political
culture is not its general usefulness, but is instead re-
lated to its discriminatory power. How "far down," in
other words, can we go with it? Can we, in short, stand
at that point on the map where the state boundaries of
Indiana, Michigan and Ohio come tOgether and, looking at
each state from that spot, detect, even faintly, three

distinct state political cultures?

50Almond and Coleman, op. cit., p. 31.

‘7.)

 

33

It would seem that if differences in the state
political cultures can be found in this border area of
the United States, that they might be found anywhere. If
this is pppp, then the concept of political culture might
become even more important than it now is. If, on the
other hand, it is not true, the concept will not become
less important, but the limits of its usefulness will
have been more carefully defined. This, in essence, is
what I have tried to do, largely through a study of the

attitudes of students in the public schools.

 

’\

CHAPTER II

Perceptions of Distipctiveness:
Theletate Literature" of Indiana,
Midhigan and CRIB

I have a friend who was born in Switzerland, and,
even though he is now a citizen and has lived many years

in this country, he returns every summer to his home in

Switzerland. For him there is no lovelier spot on the

face of the earth. Some years ago he met an American

a Kansan who was married to a Swiss and who had

woman,
He said that they

lived there for thirty years or more.

fell to talking about the beauties of Switzerland, the

mountains, the valleys, the climate, the people. Both

agreed that it was a lovely country. But then the woman

fell silent. After a moment she shook her head and with

a sigh said, "But, of course, nothing in the world can

compare to Kansas."
She liked her state - her spot on the earth — and

she still liked it (or thought she did) many years later.

It may indeed be the "magic" of childhood. But in our

more sterile language, it does illustrate the effectiveness

of the early process of socialization. It also illustrates

the fact that the natives of a state may think that their

state is the "best" or that it is "somehow different" from

 

It does show the existence of a state culture.

any other.
34

35

Before we go to the tri-state corner of Michigan,

Indiana and Ohio to conduct our investigation it will be
wise to look at some of the literature dealing with these

states, in an attempt to see how widely others have thou ht,

at 1east,that their state is "different." We shall look

in a rather random way for anything that will indicate the

existence of distinctive state cultures. At this point we

will not be too concerned with the specific notion of state

political culture (although we will not ignore it), but will
assume that if the cultures as a whole are different - if

there is such a thing as the "Indiana way," - that the

political cultures will vary as well. The purpose of this

chapter, then, is simply to see what others have had to say
about these three states — to provide us with leads into

the culture - to provide us with statements which we may

subsequently be able to test empirically.

Ohio
Is there anything about Ohio that sets it apart

from other "ordinary" states - that makes the "Ohioan"

distinctive in any way? Harlan Hatcher says that he has

wondered a great deal whether Ohio people "have any char-

acteristics that are singular to Ohio. I am not sure that

we do."51 But he also speaks of an "illusive something"

which does set Ohio and its people apart from others:

51Harlan Hatcher, The Buckeye Country, 2nd ed.,
(New York, 1947), p. 297.

 

IT‘

!|

36

Perhaps, as the social scientists say, we are only

a national average, a convenient yardstick,
typical in all things, singular in nothing. But

we Ohioans know that there is an illusive something
more ('and how much it is'), the subtle X that
colors our politics and religion; that gives tone
to our big cities, and our country acres; that
emanates from the college campuses and university
halls. . . and we call it simply Ohio. It is a

unity in all this diversity.5

Hatcher thinks that Ohioans love their state - they

miss it when they move away — but he notes that there is a

feeling of restraint about them. They do not seem compelled
to talk about their state all of the time: "Ohio is a stal—

wart leader in the nation, wealthy, powerful, self-assured,

and we proceed quietly from this assumption without troubling

to be vocal about it."53
There is an "aristocratic" quality about this — quiet,

confident, unassuming, but innately superior. It lacks the

stridency associated with the nouveau riche. Of course,

this was written twenty years ago and perhaps it is not now

fair to ask who is included in this "we" who proceeds qui-

etly from this assumption. Does the "we" include the

troubled residents of the ghettos of the great Ohio cities,

or the mass of the workers in the rubber factories and in

the steel mills? Or is the "we" limited to a rather narrow

strata of society drawn from the upper class, the elite,

the educated, the long—time residents? We do not know.

521bid, p. 311.
53Ibid, p. 298.

37

But here is one thoughtful man, at least, who sees a "subtle
X," an "illusive something" simply called "Ohio" that does

affect even the politics of the state — that sets it apart

from other states.
A different sort of view — in the Booster tradi-

tion - was written in 1944 by the Ohio Development Commis—

sion, wherein they detailed "the many resources and

facilities of this great state." It contains this passage:

"No one has more beautifully expressed the 'feel of Ohio'

and the devotion of its citizens than the Ohio poet,

Lucien Seymour. 'When the burdens of life I am called to

laY down. I hope I may die in Ohio.'"54
And in a still earlier tradition, much more effusive,

Charles Hopkins introduced his book on Ohio with these

"There is no state among the 48 which has a nobler

words:
Its story is painted in

history of achievement than Ohio!
colors of blood and fire; its pioneers sacrificed all that

we hold dear to claim its hills, valleys and plains for
civilization."55

I also examined four textbooks on Ohio, one
intended for use in the elementary and junior high grades,

one for use in the high school and two for use in college

540hio Development and Publicity Commission, Ohio:
Ag Empire Within An Empire, (Columbus, Ohio, 1944), p. I8.

55Charles E. Ho kins, Ohio: The Beautiful and
Historic, (Boston, 1931 , p. ix.

38

courses. All four are bland in tone, and, where they dis-

cuss the government of the state, it is done in a purely

descriptive and formal way. The first, by Collins, dis-

cusses the geography, the history and the government of

the state. It focusses on famous men from Ohio, on Ohioans
who have been President of the United States, and on the
56

"sturdy, determined" people of Ohio.
The high school text is intended for use in high

school government classes. It is quite brief, purely
57

descriptive and "factual" - skeletal and dry.
One of the college texts is a completely descriptive,

traditional account of the government of the state, with a

very "positive" tone throughout. The preface starts as

follows:
Ohio occupies a proud place in the history of the
nation. The first state to be created from the
public lands following the adoption of the
Federal Constitution, and the 17th state to enter
the Union, she has made a significant contribution
to the national life from the beginning of her
statehood. With her rich natural resources and
easy accessibility she is a leader among the

Seven

states in both industry and agriculture.
of her sons have occupied the office of President

of the United States and many other public figures
have held high national posts in the legislative,
executive and judicial establishments. The condi-

tions that have made it possible for Ohio to
contribute so much to the national life in the

56William R. Collins, Ohio, The Buckeye State,
2nd ed., (New Jersey, 1962).
57Alexander Greene, Ohio Government, (New Jersey,

1961).

 

V-

. r-

"A

'v-
A;

P4-

1‘“

°r1

h'§

39

brief span of her history also have enabled her to
build a state and local governmental system that

compareg favorably with that of any state of the

Union.5
The Childrens Press of Chicago has produced a set

of books in the Enchantment of America Series, aimed at

the elementary grades. Each book deals with the history

and the people of a separate state and each one is entitled

with the name of the state, followed by the phrase, "From

Its Glorious Past to the Present." On the jacket of the

book about Ohio we read, "This beautiful heartland state —

known as the mother of generals, presidents, inventors -

has a unique and enthralling story." The book then describes

the state, refers to Ohio as one of the great manufacturing
centers of the world, and emphasizes the important Ohio

people who have played a part in the history of the na—
59

tion.
A quite different insight into Ohio culture is

 

afforded by a series of full-page ads in the Wall Street

These consist of statements about Ohio and bear

Journal.
the signature of James A. Rhodes, Governor. Their purpose

is to attract industry to the state. The slogan adopted

 

58Francis R. Aumann and Harvey walker, The Govern-

ment and Administration of Ohio, American Commonwealth
The other text examined

Series, (New York, 1956), p. ix.
was by Albert H. Rose, Ohio Government, State and Local,
This is similar in tone and in

3rd ed., (Ohio, 1966).
approach - descriptive, factual, institutional.

59Allan Carpenter, Ohio - From Its Glorious Past to
phe Present, (Chicago, 1963);

 

AV

.v‘
be.

’A‘

vr

any

(I'

 

‘-

17"
(

PD.

40

for all of these ads is, "Profit is not a dirty word in

Ohio." Other states have advertised in this way, of course,

and we know that the competition for industry is keen

throughout America. The ads are of interest, nonetheless,

both from the standpoint of what they say and what they do

not say about their state.
The Ohio ads point first, naturally, to the favorable

financing arrangements that have been made, through the

formation of the Ohio Development Financing Commission and

Thereafter Ohio is "sold"

local development corporations.
because it is outstanding in the following ways: it is

the "market center of the nation," it has "unexcelled human
resources," there are "exceptional educational facilities,"
it has the "lowest utility rates of any industrial state,"

it offers a "dynamic research complex," and it has "superb

recreational and cultural opportunities." The nature of the

government of Ohio, or the political situation in the state

is never mentioned. To the best of my knowledge it is not

mentioned by any of the other states, or local units of

government, which engage in this type of promotion, whether
I suspect that

it is Nevada, Arkansas, Alabama or Florida.
Yet

this omission is not deliberate, but is unconscious.
if a state did have a tradition of "good government" - of

"clean" government - one would think that this might be as

much of a selling point as "clean water." But evidently it

60

is not.

——_I

60The Wall Street Journal, December 5, 1967, p. 17.

”A

ya
1.6

AA

5.

‘r

a.

 

.-
1

41

Indiana
John Bartlow Martin has written a book on Indiana

which compares in thoughtfulness and balance to Hatcher's

book about Ohio. Martin, however, writes as a journalist,

not as an historian, and says, "It is one man's interpre—

tation of Indiana ~ that is, the Hoosier character, the
Hoosier thought, the Hoosier way of living."61 If he is

concerned with "Hoosier character," "Hoosier thought," and

the "Hoosier way of living," he is studying Hoosier culture.

Is it distinctive in any way — does it differ from the
Martin's answer seems to be both

culture of other states?
In

yes and no. In Ohio Hatcher found great diversity.

Indiana Martin found something of the same thing. "Indiana,"

he says, "is a various state, in a sense the United States

in little, the United States with all its faults and its

virtues."62
Of course, the word "Hoosier" itself is interesting.

Do Indianans consciously think of themselves as "Hoosiers,"

is it used widely and seriously? Martin says that it is

not, that it is used seriously "only by editorial writers,

Fourth of July orators, and chamber-of—commerce propagandists,
and in his private life any of these would shoot like a dOg

61John Bartlow Martin, Indiana: An Interpretation,

(New York, 1947), p. vii.
62Ibid, p. 7.

 

in.

Ate

.r

V-t

 

’(1‘

N.

 

42

a man who called him a Hoosier. Why does the Hoosier whisper
diffidently that he is from Indiana (whereas the Texas bellows
63

that he's from Texas)?" Martin attempts to explain why.
Martin does see, in Indiana, a distinctive "Indiana idea."
This idea may not necessarily be "true," but he finds that
the people do try to conform to it:
This Indiana idea, this conception of the state as
a bucolic place inhabited by pleasant, simple,
neighborly folk, contains a good deal of mythology.
Like any myth, it has some truth in it; like any
myth, it goes back to ancient times, though not
until Riley's time did it receive wide currency.
And Hoosiers today try to conform to the myth.
They are likely to speak, often self-consciously,
in rural idiom. They p£otest that they are only
country boys at heart.
Martin does not add, although he might well have done so,
that, in trying to conform to it, the "Indiana idea"
becomes'true."
Another newspaper man, a transplanted New Yorker
(the parallel between him and the "recent immigrant" to
America, with his fervent sense of patriotism, is very
strong), is much more definite, much more positive, in his
conclusion that Indiana is indeed "different." He is
intensely enthusiastic about the state. "Indiana," he says,
"is more than a state. It's a state of mind, a sense of

belonging, a pride in being part of something permanent and

substantial . . . It's a feeling of independence." And he

63Ibid, p. viii.
6“Ibid, p. 277.

.0.-

0,.-

van

unv-

(y.

r:

n.

~—

V§

b3

continues: "Indiana has an entity. It is almost as if
Indiana had a fence around it and different customs and
traditions than the rest of the country."65 His picture of
the Hoosiers is not as restrained as Martin's: "A Hoosier
may forsake his state, but he remains a Hoosier to the day

he dies - and never ceases to brag about it." And elsewhere

66

he refers to their "noisy patriotism."
Martin refers to Riley as being responsible for
spreading the Indiana myth. His poems were not written
specifically in praise of Indiana. They were, however,
written in Indiana and they do express a "state of mind"
which is strongly sympathetic to the "bucolic place inhab-

ited by pleasant, simple, neighborly folk." They may well

be, then, partly responsible for the idea.67

But Riley was not the only famous writer to come out
of Indiana. There were a number of others, the most impor—

tant for our purposes being George Ade and Booth Tarkington.

65Irving Leibowitz, My Indiana, (New Jersey, 1964),
pp. 291 and 293. I do not know whether Leibowitz was the
first to refer to Indiana as a "state of mind" — he probably
was not - but it is interesting to see it used by others.

Tom Ochiltree, of the Lansing State Journal Washington Bureau,
writing about the primary campaign waged by Bobby Kennedy in
Indiana, said this: "He would seem to be a certain winner
except for one thing. Indiana is as much a state of mind as

a state in the Union. Hoosiers regard themselves as different
from other Americans. They want to be that way. I know,
because I'm one." (April 28, 1968, p. A—IZ, emphasis suppliedJ

66lbid, pp. 10 and 295.

 

 

. 67See James Whitcomb Riley: Songs 0' Cheer,
Undianapolis, 1883)- ‘~—

 

44

Ade, in particular, was somewhat ironic about his state's
uniqueness. ”Note," he says, as soon as one crosses the
border into Indiana, "the added tinge of green in the lux-
uriant vegetation, the simple majesty of the buildings that
decorate the sweeps of the Hoosier Campana, and the peculiar
turquoise blue of the sky - something like Italy, only more
so."68

Tarkington set the scene of many of his stories in
Indiana, and, while he did not poke fun at the state as did
Ade, he did talk about the "Hoosiers." He seemed to think,
for example, that the Hoosiers were inordinately fond of
politics: "Politics is the one subject that goes to the
vitals of every rural American; and a Hoosier will talk
politics after he is dead.”69 Leibowitz mentions this also
and quoted Dennis Hanks, the cousin of Abraham Lincoln, as
saying, "We lived the same as the Indians, 'ceptin' we took
an interest in politics and religion."70

When we turn to the chamber-of-commerce propagandists
we are able to find reams of material in praise of the state,

by those who think that Indiana is "distinctive." In 1917

 

68George Ade, ed., Hoosier Hand Book and True Guide

 

for the Returnin Exile, (C icago, , p. . ee a so
e s, new 1m en - A Hoosier Fable, (Chicago, 1910).
69B

ooth Tarkington, The Gentleman from Indiana,
£383 York, 1919), p. 13. This book was first printed in

7OLeibowitz, 0p. cit., p. 292.

#5

there was a centennial celebration in Indiana. Charity Dye
wrote that "the young peeple will be told the history of
their state. They will learn something about the courage
and the patience of the men and women who came out into the
wilderness and laid the foundation of this great common—
wealth."71 Included in this book was a lengthy Hymn to

"72 written

Indiana as well as a very long "Centennial Ode,
by William Foulke, one verse of which says,
Dear State, thy homelier
Charms are still the best
Thy peaceful landscapes
Filled with joy and rest.
Thirty years later a "Pilgrimage Address" was given
by a "distinguished Indiana industrialist." "Being a
Hoosier," he said, "I find it difficult to restrain myself
when speaking of our great state." The speech was full of
such phrases as "once a Hoosier, always a Hoosier;" and
"Indiana, the Garden Spot of America." It ended by quoting
the poem, "Ain't God Good to Indiana," by the "Hoosier
poet," William "Bill" Hershall:

Ain't God good to Indiana? 73
Ain't He, fellers? Ain't He, though?

Totally different in tone, and much more serious, is
the assessment of the state which may be found in the book

71Charity Dye, Some Torch Bearers In Indiana,

721bid. p. 303.

73William Avery Alkins, Pride in Our State - We
Hoosiers! (New York, l9h7).

#6

edited by Carmony in 1966. This is a collection of 19 essays
by "important leaders in Indiana life."7l+ In one of these,
two political scientists defend Indiana government and poli-

tics against the claim made by Theodore White in The Making

 

of the President, 1960, that Indiana politics is "'among the
most squalid, corrupt and despicable' in the nation."75
They say flatly that this has not been true for at least a
generation. They admit that Indiana still has an extensive
patronage system, and think that some reforms are needed,
but on the whole they defend it. They also point to the
Indiana belief in the "desirability of conducting govern-
mental affairs through the instrumentality of cohesive
political parties."76

I examined one high school text book on Indiana
government. As with the texts on Ohio government, this
was purely factualand descriptive. If part of the reason
for requiring high school students to study government is
to instill in them a love of nation and a love of state,
then these books must be enormous failures. For it would

be impossible to acquire a love of ones state from reading

 

7AD -
onald F. Carmony ed. Indiana: A Self-Ap rai
(Indiana, 1966), p. v. , ’ 9p sal,

75Philip S. Wilder, Jr., and Karl O'Lessker, "State
Goveggmgnt and Its Services," in Indiana: A Self-Appraisal,
PP- - he 9—-

761bid, p. 26.

 

 

 

\)> {’EI‘" r

#7

this sort of material. In the same way it would be impos-
sible to acquire a love of wood from a knowledge of its
specific gravity, or a love of the ocean from learning that
it consists of a certain number of cubic feet of salty
water.77
For the children in the elementary grades there is
also a book in the Enchantment of America Series - Indiana -
From Its Glorious Past to the Present. This book is rather
well done - better than the one on Ohio. On the whole it
is very positive and complimentary, but it does make occa—
sional reference to some of the "unpleasant facts" of
Indiana's history - for example, to the rise of the KKK in
Indiana after WOrld War I. It begins with the story of
Johnny Appleseed: "His sturdy individualism, his imagination
and spiritual qualities, have been especially typical of the

"78

people of Indiana over the years. In reference to the

word "Hoosier," Carpenter says the following:

To the peOple of Indiana Hoosier stands for some-
thing 'gracious' and kind, a proud word conjuring
up someone who has roots and belongs to the for-

ests, trees, rivers and lakes of the state.’ The
people of Indiana are Hoosiers and proud of it.79

 

77Pressly S. Sikes, Indiana State and Local Govern-
ment, (Indiana, 1940). “—

78Allan Carpenter, Indiana - From Its Glorious Past
§9_the Present, (Chicago, 1966), p. 10. "*

79Ibid, p. 43.

 

 

 

A1“

\ I hilly. .

A8

Are there others who think that Indiana is "differ—
ent"? An unusually penetrating analysis of the state was
made in 1957 in connection with a massive study of philan—
thropy in the city of Indianapolis by a team of social
scientists. When they first arrived in that city they were
constantly told that Indiana was "different" from other
states, and that the people would be difficult to understand.
Were they told the truth? Here is what they say:

Now, after many months of combined effort, we would

say that while Indianans are in most ways no differ—

ent from Americans anywhere else, there is some
truth in the advice we were given at the outset:

Hoosiers are difficult to make acquaintance with,

partly because so few of them participate very

much socially with 'newcomers,' even when the
latter have resided in Indianapolis for twenty
years, and partly because as Hoosiers, when they
adopt that stance, they may indeed 5e difficult

to understand.80
As with Martin, then, the answer seems to be both yes and
no ~ Indianans are the same as "most Americans" and yet
. . . they are a bit "different."

They think that three key words are to be found in
the "Hoosier vocabulary of virtues" and that these three
are related to the "Hoosier stance" - to the Indiana idea:

The first of these is 'independent' - the individ-

ual, 'independent' of other individuals; the
business, 'independent' of government; the state

 

80John R. Seeley, et a1., Communit Chest: A Case
Stud in Philanthro , (Toronto, I957T:_§5¥—z7:337_dflfifi§_'
book, fortunately, was cited by Patterson in "The Political
Cultures of the American States."

 

49

government, 'independent' ofthat most subversive of
influences, 'federal aid.‘

The second key word is 'native' or 'home-grown.‘

The same belief, fundamentally, that speaks for

'independence' - the faith in the strength and

virtue of local resources: individual, social,

and material — speaks for the native son, or,

where this is impossible, for the Hoosier by

adoption.

The third key word is 'practical.' 'Practical'

means 'what works,’ especially in the short run -

and often, consequently, only for the short run.

This tendency or bent militates both against

standing sufficiently far off to see particulars

in their general bearing, and against hisgorical

perspective . . . or the long look ahead. 1

One final note: The University of Indiana football
team went to the Rose Bowl for the game on New Year's Day,
1968. With them went a good many thousand enthusiastic,
and presumably loyal, "Hoosiers." I found it particularly
interesting to watch the half—time showzut on by the Univer-
sity band. The pageant consisted of routines and acts that
supposedly typified the state. Included were the following:
(1) Hoagy Carmichael's "Stardust," (2) "76 Trombones," in
honor of Elkhart, the "Instrument Capital of the World,"
(3) Cole Porter's "Night and Day," and, (A) the world
famous automobile race - the "Indianapolis 500." Somehow
none of these, except possibly "Stardust," would appear to
relate too closely to the "bucolic place inhabited by

pleasant, simple, neighborly folk," at least as this might

h.-

81Ibid, pp. 397—399.

 

50

be portrayed by James Whitcomb Riley, or by that other great

poet, William "Bill" Hershall. But the times have changed

since these men wrote, and perhaps, in some mysterious way,

it all does tie together. Indiana: the state and the

state of mind.

Michigan

Much the same type of literature can be found on

Nfichigan as was found on the other two states. In 1927 a

 

book appeared with the modest title, Michigan's Thirty-

Seven.Million Acres of Diamonds. This was a guide book -

highly laudatory - of the cities, the natural resources,

the scenery. The author stressed the wealth, the size and

the beauty of the state.
ment, or of the political tradition, but the introductory

No mention was made of the govern—

pages contained a letter to the author from Governor Fred

W. Green. He wrote, "With her diversified agricultural

interests, her manufacturing and industrial growth, her
mineral wealth and her religious, educational and institu-

tional develOpment,.Michigan occupies a conspicuous position

among the states."82

The centennial history published in 1939 was similar

in tone. This, too, is written in the familiar chamber-of-

commerce, booster style:

82Clyde L. Newnom, Michigan's Thirty-Seven Million

Acres of Diamonds, (Michigan, 19277; p. xi.

__¥

 

51

Michigan's splendid history bears in upon us the
fact that Michigan is more than a place, more than

the occupations of its people. It is the habit of
achievement, a symbol of the realization of high
ideals, a symbol of material dependability and of
spiritual satisfaction in the higher values of
living. If hardship, misfortune and evil have
sometimes appeared, yet the forces of courage and
truth have usually triumphed. It is this inspiring

story that we shall try to tell.83
There seems, however, to be one conspicuous differ-

ence in the writing about Michigan: seldom do we find

references to a "Michigan state of mind," or to the fact that
the "Michigander" (or, preferably, the "Michiganian") is a
different sort of creature from Americans elsewhere. So far
as these three states are concerned, judged solely on the
basis of the available literature, we would have to conclude

that the Hoosiers of Indiana are the most distinctive,

followed thereafter by the Ohioans and, last, by the Michi-

ganians.
Why should this be so?

written in 1941 by the WPA writers, suggests an answer.

The book on Michigan,

They state that Michigan has not developed a particular
First, because the "place

"type" of person for two reasons.
It

is physically so lacking in state-wide characteristics."

is geOgraphically diversified and "such variety as this does

not shape men in a common mold." And, second, "because of

what Michigan people did with what they found." "Michigan's

-_—A

. 83George N. Fuller, ed., Michi an, A Centennial
filfitory of the State and its Peep e, hicago, 1939),

p0 iii.

52

place in the national contemporary scene has been won by a
series of physical and tonal changes that in their variety
and clarity have made the state, not one, but many; have
given it, not one, but half a dozen different histories;
and have stroked a painting that at today's point in its

develOpment is one of the fascinating, complicated char—

8A

acter."
Yet, is this an adequate explanation for the failure

to develop a Michigan "type" - if, indeed, there was such a

failure at all? I suspect that it is not. Michigan seems

to be no more geographically diversified than either Indiana

or Ohio. And I suspect that both Indiana and Ohio, because

of what "(their) peeple did with what they found," likewise

have "not one, but a half a dozen different histories." But

be that as it may, there are not as many references to the

distinctiveness of the "Michiganian" as there are - certainly

- to the'Hoosier."
When we turn to children's books we find that they

are without exception strongly supportive, very enthusiastic,

84Michigan, A Guide to the Wolverine State, compiled
by workers of theBWE‘itersT Program of the WPA in the State
of Michigan, (New York, 1941), pp. 3 and A. This is a
remarkably good book, well worth reading even now, more than
a quarter of a century later. It does not gloss over the
unpleasant aspects of the develOpment of the state - for
example, the wanton destruction of the forests - and suggests
that the prevailing attitude in the state for many years is

This

best captured by the phrase, "Easy come, easy go."
attitude, however, would not be peculiar to Michigan alone.

 

('0

(O—

53

highly laudatory of the state. One of them — descriptive

only and very sweet - stresses the greatness of the state

in industry, sports, education, recreation and natural

resources. It ends with this sentence: "Long called the

Whlverine State, Nflchigan is loved for its beauty and
admired for the energy and inventiveness of its people." 5
Another, in the Enchantment of America Series, has

this to say on the jacket: "The story of Michigan, like

the story of America, is a dramatic one of the formation

of the land and of the people who came to it and used it
86

wisely."
A book by Ethelyn Theresa Abbott is also intended

for use in the elementary grades. This one is unusally

positive in tone and stresses the famous men of Michigan,
as well as the natural resources of the state. The book
gives the impression that Michigan is the "best" in all
ways: "But even now the copper of our Michigan mines is
the purest and best in the world."87 See, too, the assess-

ment of Henry Ford: "Mr. Ford started with nothing but his

85Bernadine Bailey, Picture Book of Michigan,
Chicago, 1950). This book is intended for usefiin the third

and fourth grades. The pages are not numbered.

86Allan Carpenter, Michigan - From Its Glorious
Past to the Present, (Chicago, 196A).

87Ethelyn Theresa Abbott, Michigan Histogy Stories,
his 00 is, or was,

(Hillsdale, Michigan, 1936), p. 60.
widely used in the schools. My reference is to the fifth

printing, 19A7.

54

liking for machines and his will to work. Now he is worth

between one and two billion dollars. Mr. Henry Ford is a

good man. He takes great care of his health, so he ought

to live for many years.

the most used kind of thing, make it better and sell it
88

Then you have the market."

Another is a long (500 pages) book of "stories" in

His rule in business is to make

cheaper.

which Michigan is presented to the children of the fourth

and fifth grades. This one stresses the natural resources

of the state, the history of the state and the social prog-

ress which has been made through the years. It does not
89

mention the state government, or politics in any way.

A somewhat more recent example of the manner in
which the school children are taught about Michigan may be
found in the unified social studies approach of Delphine

Newcomb. She presents the following "units" on Michigan:

Hello to Michigan, Indians in Michigan, French in Michigan,
English in Michigan, Americans in Michigan, then a series

on the natural resources, and ending with the conclusion

"Hurray for Michigan."90 This one, too, does not mention

the government of the state in any way.

88Ibid, p. 83.

89Berenice Bryant Lowe and Leland W. Singer,
.flgllo Michigan, (Syracuse, NY, 1939).

90Delphine Newcomb, Exploring Michigan, (Chicago,

1954).

 

 

55

The "unit" approach is also used by Lewis, in his
fth grades. This one includes a

book for the fourth and fi
It is a straightforward,

unit on Michigan State Government.
ription of the offices, departments and

It does not mention the

91

matters in any way.

positive, desc

branches of the state government.

political parties or "controversial"

of course, in addition to books, television is

Now,
A

being used rather widely in the elementary grades.

carefully worked out series of lessons is broadcast over

from Michigan State University. In the

WMSB, Channel 10,
there were 66 lessons,
From the teachers guide to

1962-63 series the whole entitled

Past and Presegt.

ygphigan:
that five of these lessons were

this series it was found

concerned — in part at least - with the "government" of
called "Our Michigan Governor," and

the state. One was

te Police: "Children will

two were on the Michigan Sta
bilities of the State

the many and varied responsi

realize
Iichigan depends on them

Police and how every citizen of B

for making our state a safe place to live."

Lesson 61 in the above series was called "It's

One of the suggested
' Ask the

Let's Celebrate."

Michigan Week,
"Declare a 'Brag Day,

activities for the week:

91Ferris E. Lewis, My_State and Its Stqu, Rev. ed.,

(Hillsdale, Michigan, 1953)»

92Marjorie Bliss, Michi an: Past and Present,
Tpachers Guide (Classroom 1 TV Counci , East an51ng,
Michigan, 1962 , p. 51.

56

children to either write or tell about the wonders of our
state."93

The final lesson, "It's Great to Live in Michigan,"
ends with all of the studio personnel serenading the children
with the song "Michigan is a Part of You." The first and
the last stanzas are as follows:94

You can travel down south,
or up to the Soo,

You'll know in your heart,
Michigan's a part of you.

One final example. In 1954, Willard Baird, the head
of the State News Bureau for the Federated Publications,
prepared a series of newspaper articles on Michigan. The
series was begun for the celebration of Michigan Week, but
it ran for three months in the papers. Subsequently the
articles were published in book form and they have been
widely used in the elementary grades. He begins thusly:
"The envy of others in so many ways it is slightly embar-
rassing to enumerate them — yet taken for granted by us
who enjoy and who matter-of—factly contribute our share to

the heritage of a powerful and progressive state. Let's

inventory our greatness. It's a story worth bragging
about."95 And he concludes: "All of this, and more, is

 

93Ibid, p. 58.
941bid, p. 63.

9SWillard Baird, This Is Our Michigan, (Battle
Creek, Michigan, 195A), p. 7.

 

(j

(‘f

C)

(I)

(j

'r

In

’1‘

57

our Michigan. Gratefully we acknowledge the privilege of
enjoying its rich heritage. Proudly we invite others to

share our delight."96
The Baird articles were written in connection with

the yearly celebration of Michigan Week. Each year, in the
spring, a week is devoted to the glories of the state. As
one newspaper put it, "It's that time of year again when
all of us stick out our chests and thank the fates that we
live in Michigan."97
This celebration is carefully coordinated by a
state committee which appoints and works with county and
city committees. Posters and buttons are prepared on the
state level, and the whole program is promoted through the
mass media, with extensive news releases being sent to all
newspapers, radio stations, etc. The week begins on a
Sunday, with the observance of "Spiritual Foundations Day,
when special recognition is given to the part religion has

"98 One day is devoted to the

played in Michigan's History.
state government - Menday, "Our Government Day" - and on
this day there is an exchange of mayors throughout the
state. Schools are encouraged to work the Michigan Week
celebration into the curriculum, and after the week is over
newspapers carry stories about what the children have done

- poems to the state, art work, class room projects of many

SOI‘tS.

‘-

96Ibid, p. 74.

97Detroit Free Press: May 12: 19669 P: IB‘A'
981bid, p. 13-A

 

()

CW

{

(J

(A)

f)

r)

2"

58

There are other ways, too, in which the residents
of the state reflect a feeling of loyalty or love for Mich-
igan. A rather popular TV program - Mort Neff's "Michigan
Outdoors Show," from Lansing, Iichigan - often has Neff
saying, "Friends, there's something special about Michigan -
about our wonderful state." The Bob Reynolds sports show,
broadcast twice daily by WJR Radio, Detroit, frequently
makes reference to the fact that "Everyone in Michigan
certainly shares your pride. . . " in such and such a
winning team. The fact that it is a professional team, or
a university team, does not seem to make any difference.
And a whole separate study might be devoted to the "Themes"
worked out by high school bands for use at half-time. Many
of them are highly patriotic themes dealing with all levels
of government - national, state and local. lost of these
are professionally produced, with the band routines and the
accompanying "patter" published and protected by copyright

In the section on Ohio we mentioned the effort made
to attract industry to the state. Similar efforts are
made in Michigan. A booklet published by the Michigan
Economic Expansion Department describes the state, and
stressed the advantages it offers to industry. No reference
is made to the state government, or to the political situa-
tion, except obliquely as one part of its summary. "Mich-
igan is a great place for industry, because," they say, it

is "A State With Public Facilities, far above the average -

59

including highways, schools, hospitals, parks and recreation

From this sampling of "state literature I think that
we can draw the following conclusions:

1. In each of the three states there are people
who exhibit a feeling of love for their state.
They are "patriotic." Some think that their
state is the "best" of all the states. They
are proud to be Indianans - Ohioans - Michi-
ganians.

2. In each of the three states there are people
who maintain that their state is "distinctive"
- that it is "different" from any of the other
states.

 

3. In each of the three states we have found
"Boosters" - characteristically expressing
themselves in a "Chamber-of-Commerce" style
of writing. This style is essentially the
same from state to state and it would seem
as though the names of the states could be
interchanged without altering the content of
the statements that are made about each one.

A. If any of the three states have produced a
"type" of person peculiar to the state, it
might be the state of Indiana - with the
"Hoosiers." There appears to be less indi-
cation of a particular state "type" in Ohio,
and still less in Michigan.

5. So far as the formal - school-centered -
process of socialization is concerned, the
literature in all three states, on the ele-
mentary level, is strongly supportive of the
state. It is always very positive, and it is
usually sweet in tone. It clearly claims
that each of the states is unusually fortunate
and that each has a magnificent heritage. In
this sense it promotes a blatant - "second-
level" - patriotism. On the high school level

99This Is Michigan, Michigan Economic Expansion
Department Booklet, p. 24.

60

this is less true. There, the discussions of
the state (government) are purely descriptive
and the description is usually limited to the
formal institutions of government.

How do these conclusions - tentative as they are,
and admittedly based on sketchy information - fit in with
what we know from specific studies of nationalism and
patriotism? They seem to fit well. Leonard Doob contends
that, although the "content of the demands behind nation—
alism and the nature of national actions vary, the patri—
otism from which they spring has certain ingredients that
are roughly the same everywhere." These are (1) an emotional
attachment to the lggd, (2) distinctive attitudes toward the
people in their midst, and (3) reverence for a "way of life,

100

a culture." Everywhere, he says, "in some significant

sense people connect the land with themselves and their

101

welfare." He points out, too, that patriotism involves

a feeling of distinctiveness — and a desire to continue to

102

be distinctive. And, as a tentative generalization, he

 

lOOLeonard W. Doob, Patriotism and Nationalism -
Their Ps cholo ical Foundations, (New‘Haven, Conn., 196E),
p. . 18 was y ar t e est source that I was able to
discover on this subject. See also, however, the work of
two historians: Carlton J. H. Hayes, Essa s on Nationalism,
(New York, 1926) and Boyd 0. Shafer, Nationalism, Myth and
Reality, (New York, 1955)-

loiIbid, p. 27.

lOZIbid, p. 91.

61

suggests that this statement might be made: "'Other nations

are like us, but in some important ways we are happily and

proudly different.’ Here is a basis for mortal fame and for

blessed immortality."103
It would seem to be quite clear, on the state level,

that there is this same interconnection between the lggg,

the eo 1e, and the culture. This is particularly evident

in the books for the elementary grades. I think, too, that

we could substitute the word "states" for the word "nations,"

in the last quotation, without affecting in the slightest

the validity of Doob's tentative generalization: "Other

states are like us, but in some important ways we are

happily and proudly different." Thus, Ohio might be the

same as any other American state, and Indiana might be

"the United States in little," but there is still that
"illusive something more. . . the subtle X. . ." which

makes us "happily and proudly different." It is, however,
so illusive and so subtle, that it is difficult to detect

- even more difficult to describe.104

 

103Ibid, p. 92.

lo[*Doob's notion of attachment to the land as one of
the ingredients of patriotism is probably worth a much
closer look, even in a study of the American states. This
fondness for a particular spot on the face of the earth -
for the spot called "Kansas," for example - could easily
be discussed in relation to the attempt by Robert Ardrey to
apply the findings of the "territorial instinct," as mani-
fest in birds and animals, to human behavior. Ardrey's work
is highly controversial, of course, but intriguing nonethe-
less. See African Genesis (New York, 1961) and his later
book, The Territorial Imperative (New York, 1966).

 

 

62

With the possible exception of Indiana, however, our
review has‘pgp helped us very much in our attempt to describe
the different state cultures. We know that there are those
who think that their state is "different" but when we try to
enumerate the ways in which they differ - to delineate the
"shape" of the state culture — we do not seem to get very
far. The problem is somewhat similar to the one posed by
Peru and Ecuador. In these two countries the people "feel"
that they are different, they "think" that they are differ-
ent, and they even dislike each other. They identify them—
selves as "Peruvians" and as "Ecuadorians." But when we look
at them, they seem to be much the same — they act and behave
in similar ways. Perhaps it is the "thought" alone which
makes them, in fact, different. Perhaps this is all that
the "illusive something" consists of.

But we might approach the question in another way.
Suppose that we limit ourselves to the idea of political
culture and that we start with the common stereotypes of
the governments of the three states. What are the words
which come to mind when the names of the three states are
mentioned? With "Ohio" the word seems to be "conservative."
With "Indiana" such words as "corrupt," "patronage,"

"Machine politics," and "bombastic" seem to appear. When
"Michigan" is mentioned we seem to think of such words and
phrases as the "good government tradition," "state wel-
fareism," "rational government," "professional government."

At least, these were the words which seemed to float to the

 

 

 

In

(A

63

surface in a conversation which I had with another political
scientist. But - and the "but" is important — both of us
had, at that time, spent a number of years in Michigan!
Would the same words have materialized in a conversation
between two political scientists from Indiana, or from

Ohio? I rather doubt it, but I do not know. In any event,
are these stereotypes rooted at all in reality? Do they
spring from any sort of a factual base? Do they describe

- even remotely - the political cultures of these three
states?

Let us return for a moment to Elazar's classification
of the political cultures of the American States as Tradi—
tionalistic, Individualistic, and Meralistic. He thinks that
the dominant political culture of Michigan is MOralistic and
that Indiana and Ohio both have Individualistic political
cultures. What is the difference between the two? In "the
moralistic political culture, both the general public and
the politicians conceive of politics as a public activity
centered on some notion of the public good and properly
devoted to the advancement of the public interest.105 The
Individualistic political culture, on the other hand, "holds
politics to be just another means by which individuals may

improve themselves socially and economically."106

 

105Elazar, op. cit., p. 90.

106Ibid., p. 87.

 

64

John Fenton, in his study of politics in the Midwest,

does not use quite the same terms, but he comes very close

to this idea when he divides the states on the basis of
"issue-oriented" and "job-oriented" political parties. The
issue—oriented parties, says Fenton, "are conceived to be
groups of people who come together out of some common con-
cern with public policy and a desire to do something about
it."107 The job-oriented parties, on the other hand, "are
conceived to be groups that are primarily concerned with

108 Fenton thinks

obtaining government jobs and privileges."
that the parties in Michigan are issue-oriented, while those
in Indiana and Ohio are job-oriented. Fenton and Elazar are,
therefore, in substantial agreement, at least as these three
states are concerned.

Elazar suggests, too, that where the moralistic
political culture is dominant there will be found "more
amateur participation in politics," along with less "cor—
ruption in government and less tolerance of those actions
which are considered corrupt."109 Fenton's analysis of
Indiana politics is entitled "Corruption and Competition in

110

Indiana," and from this analysis it would appear as

107John Fenton, Midwest Politics, (New York: 1966):

lo81bid, p. 4.

109Elazar, op. cit., p. 92.

110Midwest Politics, p. 155ff.

 

 

65

though Indiana and Michigan do differ rather widely so far
as "corrupt" practices are concerned. Ohio, with "Issueless
Politics," stands somewhere between Indiana and Michigan so
far as corruption is concerned.

How does all of this tie in with our stereotypes,
and with the information on the general cultures of the
three states as these were revealed in the literature? It
seems to hang together fairly well in relation to Indiana -
less well in relation to Michigan and Ohio. The "Indiana
idea" - the independent individual, interested more in the
short run than in the long term, suspicious of "government,"
amused at the "country boy" beating out the "city slicker,"
- fits to a certain extent with Elazar's notion of the
Individualistic political culture and with Fenton's use of
the concept of the job-oriented political party. If Indiana
politics are more corrupt than politics in other states
(Fenton thinks they are, Wilder and O'Lessker think they are
not), then the stereotype fits as well.

With the other two states the pattern is no where
near as neat. We would be hard put to deduce from the
general literature on Michigan any "good government" trad-
ition. Fenton believes that Michigan politics are in that
tradition. Elazar thinks that Michigan has a moralistic
political culture. If they are both right, then the
stereotype seems to fit. The "if" however, is a big one.
And so far as Ohio is concerned - yes, it appears to be a

"conservative" state, and in this very limited sense the

66

stereotype seems to fit — but is it, really, any more
conservative than Indiana? In certain ways the reverse
appears to be true. But this is all so nebulous that I
am afraid we simply do not know.

With these questions, then, very much open, we
can turn to the tri~state corner of Indiana, Michigan and
Ohio to see if we can detect, from that spot, differences
in the political cultures of the three states, largely
through a study of the attitudes of students in the schools

of Fremont, Indiana, Camden, Michigan and Pioneer, Ohio.

CHAPTER III

Preliminary Steps: The Nature of the Study;
the Research Area; IntroductoryfiIhterviews

In this chapter I shall (1) outline rather briefly
the nature of theinvestigation which I conducted in the tri—
state border area of Indiana, Michigan and Ohio, (2) describe
the area as a whole in relation to both natural and man-
made reference points, (3) describe the specific counties
and towns in which the investigation was centered, and,

(A) report the results of interviews with some of the

officials and leading citizens of these towns.

The Nature of the Investigation

The field work consisted of (1) personal interviews
and observation, (2) an examination of local "documents,"
and (3) school-centered survey research. In relation to
the first of these I interviewed the school superintendents,
the mayors, the police chiefs, the bankers and the newspaper
editors in Fremont, Indiana, Camden, Michigan and Pioneer,
Ohio. I also conducted interviews in the town of Ray,
Indiana - a town which is split down the middle by the
Michigan-Indiana border - and with the person who lives the
closest to the spot where the three states come together.

The "observation" was carried out constantly in my travels

67

68

through the area. I tried to "see" if there were differences
from state to state — differences in the behavior of the peo—
ple, differences in the roads, differences in customs, etc.

I looked around as one would be forced to do if he had been
dropped into "Europe" by parachute and, without inquiring

of the residents, had to determine which country he was in.

I was trying, in other words, to look at a familiar part

of the country as though I were a foreigner, and to "see"

it as though it were new and strange. This is very diffi—
cult and I am sure that I missed much.

My examination of local "documents" could have been
far more extensive than it was. After all, books might be
written about any one of the towns, and still there would
be unexamined materials. But this was not my purpose.

Instead I sought to find out, in a rather roughend ready
way, if some of the more ordinary every-day sources gave
evidence of state—based differences,flgp evidence which

showed that the state borders separated the peOple in the

 

area. I looked, therefore, at the following: (1) Local
newspapers - the Fremont Eagle of Fremont, Indiana, the
Farmers' Advance of Camden, Michigan, and the Tri-State
Alliance of Pioneer, Ohio; (2) County newspapers - the
§teuben Republican, Angola, Indiana, and the Bryan Times,
Bryan, Ohio; (3) Telephone directories of Angola, Indiana,
Camden, Michigan and Bryan, Ohio; and (A) miscellaneous
county maps, local folders and brobhures wherever they

could be found.

69

The survey research which I carried out was done in
the local schools. In January and February, 1968, I
administered an extensive five-part questionnaire to the
senior classes in the towns of Fremont, Indiana, Camden,
Michigan and Pioneer, Ohio. I also used four parts of
this same questionnaire with ppg of the fifth grade classes
in each of these three towns. The questionnaire will be
described in detail later, as I report the results. The
same five-part questionnaire was also used in February and
March, 1968, with the senior classes in the "control towns"
of WOlf Lake, Indiana, Springport, Michigan and Ridgeville
Corners, Ohio. In December, 1964, I administered a less
elaborate questionnaire to the senior classes in the towns
of Angola, Indiana, Reading, Michigan and Mentpelier, Ohio.
I shall include some of the information obtained at that
time in this paper.

In a sense my research method involved interviews
with "the one, the few and the many" as I moved from the
exact intersection of the three state lines out into the
border towns and schools and, eventually, deeper into all
three states. I show this schematically in Figure 1. The
three concentric circles represent the ppg (living closest
to the intersection), the‘fgp (who were interviewed in each
of the border towns), and the mgpy (who were surveyed in
the border schools). The arrows point to the control towns
of Wolf Lake, Indiana, Springport, Michigan and Ridgeville

Corners, Ohio, each at some distance from the border.

 

70

In the initial stages of the investigation - the
interviews, the observation and the documentary examination
- I sought the answers to three questions: (1) Are the
towns, the people, the school districts, similar in all
three states? Are they, in fact, comparable units? (2)
Are there differences from state to state in how the people
get things done - in otha‘words, in their behavior? (3) Is
there any evidence that the state lines act as barriers,
as‘pgllg or fences for the people in this area?

I think that the reason for the first question is
self evident. But what is the purpose of the other two
questions? I am concerned with state cultures — above all
with political cultures. If we can find that people behave
differently from state to state we might conclude that these
differences stem from or reflect, different cultural config-
urations. Of course there is the equal possibility that
the differences - if they exist - are random and accidental
and that they do not indicate an underlying culture which
is distinctive in any way. We shall think of them, then,
as possible indicators of different cultures.

I am interested in the idea of "walls" for two
reasons. In the first place, if the states do pp; make a
difference for the people living in this area - if it
'simply does not matter which state they live in - the
pattern of their movement back and forth in the area should
be essentially the same. On the other hand, if the states

Q3 make a difference, this difference might be reflected in

71

 

.Springport
A

 

 

 
 
  

-——~-—~.-*

 

 

 

Indiana
Ohio
WOlf . .
,RidgeV1lle
Lake ' Corners

 

 

 

‘7

Figure 1. Schematic Representation of the Research Area:
Concentric Circles Indicating the "One," the
"Few," and the "Many" in the Border Area;
Arrows Pointing to the Control Towns.

 

72

what the people do — where they g2 — within the area.
Secondly, we know that when groups of people are kept
apart from one another, that each group tends to develop
its own life style, its own culture. I employ the metaphor
of the "wall." Perhaps the concept of a "filter" is a
better one. The Berlin Wall does not permit much "flow"
back and forth. A county line permits far more. But
walls, or barriers to the movement of people, are crucial
to the development of different cultures. During the
Middle Ages separate cultures, even separate languages,
developed behind various "walls" brought about by diffi-
culties in communication and by the proliferation of
countless tiny states. The same process is going on
today. Distinctive dialects are preserved in Appalachian
pockets, and in the Maine villages. Different life styles
emerge behind the "walls" of American ghettos and suburbs.
Hence, if we can discover the wall we can.ipfg£
the existence of different cultures on either side. If
the wall is low, or if the filter is very porus, the
differences may be slight. And even though we have found
the wall, we still may not be keen enough - our eyes may not
be sharp enough - to point to the differences, or to
describe them in detail. We will be in the position of the
diagnostician who knows that a certain symptom indicates a
malfunction in another organ, even though he is unable to
detect it. In effect, then, we are asking if the political

boundaries are, at the same time, social-systemic boundaries,

 

73

and we are wondering if it is possible to step over a
political boundary without at the same time crossing
another kind of a boundary - one which demarcates, even

slightly, somewhat different symbolic worlds.

The General Area

How does one explain where he lives, or where he is
going, without referring either to a political boundary or
to a man-made reference point? Most of us do not live at
the foot of a mountain, or at the mouth of a river. But
even if we did, we would probably say, "I live in Zermatt,"
or "I live in New Orleans." It has not always been so.
But since the rise of civilization the majority of men
place themselves in relation to man-made reference points,
rather than to natural features of the land. Our reference
points may be no more "real" than a line on a map. Yet
these lines probably determine who we "are" and we take our
bearings from them.

Hence if you ask me where I live I will tell you
that I live in the small city of Olivet, in Eaton County,
in the State of Michigan, in the United States of America.
I have referred each time, implicitly at least, to a
political boundary. Of course, I might answer in another
Way. Depending on your own familiarity with the area I
might tell you that I live about half-way between Detroit
and Chicago, or half-way between the cities of Battle

Creek and Lansing, or between the smaller cities of

 

7A

Charlotte and Marshall. Or I might refer to the highway net—
work, and place myself in relation to the Indiana-Ohio turn-
pike, or in relation to one of the major highways in
Michigan. As with the boundaries, I will be understood,
although I am now referring to man-made features of the
area - cities and highways — rather than to lines on maps.
Now let me try to describe the general area wherein
the bulk of the research described in this paper was carried
out. Look at a physical map of North America. Draw a line
between the westernmost point of Lake Erie and the southern-
most point of Lake Michigan. Divide the line roughly in
half. Lean a bit towards Lake Erie and then, with this
point as the center, draw a circle with a diameter of some
twenty-five miles.
Within this circle there are no outstanding physical
features which would differentiate one part from another,
or which might make this circle different from any other
which might be drawn fifty miles in any direction. There
are a number of small lakes. There are open fields.
There are woods and small streams and low, rolling hills.
No rivers of any consequence flow through this spot,
although the headwaters of the St. Joseph River are nearby.
After 210 lazy miles this river empties into Lake Michigan.
A bit to the south is the drainage basin for the Maumee
River, which flows east into Lake Erie. For the raccoons,
the deer, the turtles and the birds there is nothing to

distinguish one part of the circle from another.

 

 

75

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. The Research Area: As It Appears Without the
State Boundaries.

 

 

76

But human beings also live within this circle, and
for them it is different. For it is here that the bound—
aries of the three states of Indiana, Michigan and Ohio
come together. The people, therefore, are divided into
Nfichiganians (or Michiganders), Hoosiers and Buckeyes.

Of course, they are divided in other ways, too. They

live in three different counties. They live near or in
different towns. Their children attend different schools.
But before I describe them more fully I want to talk
further about where they live in relation to other man—
made reference points, in particular to cities and to
highways.

We might think of the nearby cities as great mag-
nets, or even as minor "suns," each exercising a powerful
pull on the disparate human "particles" travelling in their
respective orbits, or residing within their sphere of
influence. In theory, at least, the degree of pull should
be the same on all people, varying only with distance and
accessibility. The people in our circle live roughly half-
way between the great metrOpolitan centers of Detroit and
Chicago. Assuming equal accessibility to each center,
therefore, we might suppose that both will exert the same
degree of pull-perhaps with Detroit's slight edge in
proximity making up for Chicago's edge in size.

But there are also other cities in the general
area, and this makes the problem of plotting orbits, or

of calculating the pull that each exerts, much more complex.

 

 

77

Fifty miles to the south is Fort Wayne, with a 1960 papula-
tion of 161,776. Sixty-five miles due east is the city of
Toledo, with a population of 318,003. South Bend lies
seventy-five miles to the west, with 132,445 inhabitants,
while Lansing, 70 miles to the north, has 107,807. Still
further away are such cities as Cleveland, Columbus, and
Indianapolis. How shall we calculate the attraction that
each of these centers of population will exert on the
people living within our circle?

In the main we will do it not by calculation but
by observation. But before we attempt to do this, we must
also look at the highway network which surrounds the area,
to see how accessible these cities are to the people in
whom we are interested. In the immediate vicinity is the
Ohio-Indiana Turnpike, a part of the toll road system
which leads west into Chicago and east into Toledo, linking
up thereafter with both the Pennsylvania and New York turn-
pikes.

A few miles to the north is US 94, a part of the
trans-Michigan freeway system, while to the east, running
north and south, is US 69, also a freeway, extending
through Fort Wayne, Indiana, and eventually to Indianapolis
and beyond. These are the main routes. There are, of
course, others which provide access to the major highways
and accessibility to many nearby lesser centers of popu-
lation. The highway networks resemble river systems in a

striking manner—-giant concrete riverbeds along which tons

78

of metal and thousands of peeple flow from place to place.
But it can be seen at a glance that all of the cities we
have mentioned are, in fact, readily accessible.

Up to this point, I have been writing of the area
as a physical unity--a portion of the earth in the vicinity
of vast lakes and huge rivers, dotted with cities of varying
sizes and criss-crossed by inter-connecting highways. The
one remaining task is to superimpose on the entire complex
the state boundaries,1he lines which are nowhere evident
on the earth itself, but which exist solely on maps (and on
highway signs, etc.), and above all else, in our minds. At
last we can see it as it fis"--the land, complete with cities,
highways and state boundaries. It is my principal contention
that the states-~and the state boundaries-~are far more
important than we are apt to think, and that they act as
powerful determinants on the behavior and thought patterns
of our citizens, prompting them to move and to think in
certain directions and acting as though they were "real"

rather than merely lines on maps.

The Specific Research Area

Up to this point I have been describing a large
area from afar. I shall now move closer and examine the
specific area in which the research was done in greater
detail. I shall first describe the area as a whole, as
it was revealed through personal observation. Next, I

shall present some data for the counties in which the

79

research was conducted. And, last, I shall describe
briefly each of the towns in which the research was carried
out.

What do the towns along the borders look like? As
a small town resident I do not like to answer this question,
for it is not a simple one. The residents see one aspect
of their town; the casual passer-by sees another. The
inhabitants always have a far more favorable mental picture
of their town than does the tourist, although in the case
of certain outwardly picturesque New England towns this may
not be true. But they "see" different things. Which pic-
ture is true? Perhaps neither, or perhaps both. But with
this reservation, and with genuine apology to the residents
who are fond of their towns and who seethem through dif—
ferent eyes, the first impression is of a tired, poor, run-
down, scrubby and depressed area. The towns are typically
Mud-Western - small, bare, unimaginative. Of course each
town has some attractive houses and some pleasant spots
and streets. But the over-all impression is one of tired-
ness. There is a marked lack of graciousness. They seem
to lack a sense of community pride. In short, they are
grubby little places.

Years ago I heard a prominent sociologist compare
the average small, Michigan town to "fished—out farm ponds
- inhabited largely by bull heads and suckers." Having
but recently moved to such a town from metrOpolitan Boston,

I thought then that the comparison was an apt one. Of course,

—; _.__.__4~.-_ _ _.__

80

I think less kindly of it now. One's perspective broadens
with the years. But, aside from the possibility of a "Bull-
head-Sucker Scale," by which one might measure such towns,
there are other ways to assess them - less colorful, perhaps,
but more reliable: the number of vacant stores, the yearly
new home building rate, the sewage disposal methods, the
amount of industry, the existence of national food stores,
the type of hospital service, the condition of the schools,
the percentage of black-topped roads and streets, the
extent of curbs and gutters, the number of bars and the
type of clientele in these bars, the condition of the local
restaurants, the level of discussion at the morning coffee
hour in those restaurants, the cracks in the sidewalks -
and the amount of grass growing in these cracks. All of
these, and more, are useful indicators into the nature of
the community.

In all of these ways, the small town emerges as
a rather sorry place. So do most of the towns along the
borders in which my research was carried out. But the
longer I live in such a town, and the more carefully I
study them, the more I tend to think of them in other
ways. For it is rather remarkable that they are able to
do all that they do. Their resources are severely limited.
Yet they manage to survive. And they manage to PI'OVide
water and fire protection, and some form of POlice protec-
tion (except for the very smallest of them) and to keep

the streets plowed, and to build some sidewalks, and to

Provide some shopping facilities, and to educate their

J_‘I

81

o — perhaps not well,tut that is not the

children and to d
gs that much larger aggregates

point - countless other thin
Most of these

y in doing.

eople also find much difficult
es. Because they

of p

towns are old. Occasionally one of them di
are old and small and poor they are frequently sullen and

But there is a toughness about

crabbed in their outlook.
e at all, and that they

them, and the fact that they surviv

they do, is in itself a rather remarkable -

do all that
And it is certainly a

s — accomplishment.

even a miraculou
hard, usually thankless, day

testimony to the stubborn,

y efforts of the few in each community who see that

done — usually by doing it theme

to da
elves.

the work gets

nducted in six counties — two in each

My work was cc

of the three states. In Indiana I worked in Steuben County,

located on the border, and in Noble County, in which the

Indiana, is located. In Michigan

control town of Wolf Lake,
I worked in Hillsdale County, located on the border, and
in Jackson County, in the control town of Springport,

Michigan. In Ohio I worked along the border in Williams
County and then went a few miles south into Henry County,

where the control town of Ridgeville Corners is located.

The location of these counties may be seen on the accom-

panying map.

The table below contains information pertaining to

the general population of these counties.

111The information in this and in the next three
tables was obtained from the Count and Cit Data Book 1 6 ,
published b the U. S. Departmen o ommerce: ureau 0 8

Census, Was ington, D.C.

82

 

 

 

 

m.aa o.oa o N.ma Hp mom.mm spesoo spams
o.HH 0.: o 4.4a as moo.om Annapomv qusoo neweaaaa
oago
0.0 o.mH ©.m m.NN oma dmm.ama >ps300 sowxomw
b.aa m.s a.o o.m mm was.sm Apostomv senses panamaaam
dwm H30 HS
s.ma m.s o m.ma mo mos.mm spades mapoz
m.ma m.s H.o 0.0 pm ama.sa Annapomv spazoo ampsmpm
msmHoaH
coma coma pooonom
.pmpo .xoopm o as oomH10mmH Opes come
one no swwonom on oz .ownmso .oawz .dm .s0flp
psmohom psoohom pdoonom

.mom Hmpoe nod .mom

Inasmom

 

maomwhmmsou soaumazmom

«moHQQSOQ osB

.H manna

83

It can be seen from the above figures that the only

county which is substantially different is Jackson County in
Michigan. This has the largest population, it is the most
thickly settled, it has the fastest growth rate and it has
the highest percentage of both negroes and people of foreign

stock of all six counties. Most of these differences can be

accounted for, however, by the city of Jackson, Michigan,
which is an industrialized city of some 50,000 inhabitants.

The control town of Springport, Michigan, located in this

county, is very much like the small towns along the border,

even though the county as a whole is different. Otherwise,

as can be seen, the counties are much alike.

Information pertaining to education and to family

financial circumstances in the six counties appears in

Table 2.
It can be seen that the border counties are much

alike from the standpoint of education and income. The

educational level is slightly higher on the borders in all

three states, but otherwise the differences are not great.
A larger proportion of people receive public assistance in

both of the Michigan counties than in either of the other

two states. Jackson County, in Michigan, has the highest

family income, but it also has the largest percentage of

public assistance recipients. Is the area poor, or is it

rich? The median income for the East North Central States

as a region was $6,215 in 1960 (for the US as a whole it

8A

 

 

 

Rw.c mam 5.0m m4m.m m.cH aposoc hpqom
Rm.c mum o.cN Hdm.m ¢.HH Aooooomv sundoc mEmHHHHB
ownc
am.m smw.m m.mH st.o m.oa spades someone
am.m soo o.om osm.s e.HH Apostomc senses mapsmaaem
cmwwsofiz
es.o was s.om msm.m m.oa spesoo manoz
Rm.a mam m.mm How.¢ NH Ammonomv hpsdoc condopm
mowflonH
ooma
.pom use .02 coma coma coma
.mpsoaqwoom .osoosH .osoocH Apooac one mmv
cosmpmwmmd .hh\cccmw hflflsmh oopoamsoc .mnw
oHHosm some: .pom :mwooz Hoonom compo:
mmwc Hmfioswsfih one nowpmosom

“mowpsdoc omH

"m magma

85

was $5660) and, for the same region, the percentage of those

receiving less than $3000 per year was 15.9%. It would seem,

therefore, that with the exception of Jackson County, Michi-

gan, this area of the tri-state region is not a particularly

prosperous one.
The following Table 3 compares the counties from

the standpoints of manufacturing and farming.

Again, with the exception of Jackson County in

Nflchigan, the counties are much alike. They are character-

ized by the presence of small manufacturing concerns and by

people who earn their livings by a combination of farming

and factory employment. Even though most of these counties

are made up of farm land, the largest source of income is
derived from off-farm employment. And this is true even

in Henry County, Ohio, which has the best and most expensive
land and also has the highest proportion of farm land.

This information, combined with the information pertaining
to education and income, reveals rather clearly that the
majority of the people in these counties are essentially

rural, blue-collar workers - members of the lower—middle

and working classes. This was borne out in my surveys in

the schools.
The final Table 4 shows how the people in these

six counties voted in the last two presidential elections.

Normally this entire area is strongly Republican.

In the Kennedy-Nixon election of 1960 all six of the

 

86

 

 

spssoc hasom
. m
s . H RH mm
.m mm o m \ . 3 Aoopaomv spcsoo manages
aaém pew .8 mm 030
i . N Rm.mm H
to no mo Asoosomv sundoc oamomaafim
ass OS is 1. Heads.
hpGSOD manoz
ea.pm new as.sm a
o o 9m o Ahmfitflomv hpgoo Gmpfimpm
H mm mmme .m we N g
pcosuoamsm 1soma .984 momfi
Boshwwwmmmw pom coma doma I mason woohoamsm one:
Spam 0 s so 5 use 0 H
mo .pom osaw> .om< w o A p c A ccH 39.3

 

mo sowphom0hm

mshoosoc .sz

 

NGHEAwh use wofihdpommssmz

«mowpssoc o£B

« m mHQwB

87

it

 

a.m¢ I mmm.ca
o.ss I oom.ma

m.sm nsm.ms
s.sm I coo.ma

m.ss mom.ma
m.ss I moa.m

I doma .mohm
pom opo> ampoe

a.mm I c
m.mm I c
m.nm I c
a.cm I c
c.mm I c
m.cm I m

coma .spemm
wsaomoa pom
mpo> Ho .00&

asapo> amapcooamohm

s.os I m
m.as I m
a.mo I m
N.ae I m
m.oo I m
o.so I m

coma .spnmm
wsaomoq pom
opo> wo .pom

”woapssoc oAH

apnoea bucom

“hmfihomv %QGSOD mEmHHHHB

oanc
bouzoc nomxomw

nhcchomv hpcdco mamvmaaam
Cmmanoflz

mussoo manoz

“noonomv apnoea noosopm
panacea

 

"a magma

88

counties voted Republican by a substantial margin. But in
the Johnson landslide of 1964 all of the counties but one
voted Democratic, even though in some cases the margin was
a slim one. Steuben County in Indiana — the border county -
was the sole exception. A state pattern appears to exist
in the 1964 election. Within each state the turnout from
county to county is almost identical. But the states vary:
Indiana has the highest turnout, Michigan has the lowest.
We can now briefly describe each of the towns in

which the research was centered, and place each in relation
to the state borders and to each other.

Indiana

Angola, Indiana, is the county seat of Steuben County.

t 15 a town of about 5000 inhabitants - a rather
prosperous, busy, Mid—Western town with some character
and a sense of community. There are a number of small
industries in and around the town and TrieState College,
an engineering school, is located here. Nearby are a
number of lakes and parks, and the population increases
greatly in the summer. The high school is well financed
and well maintained. The town is 9 miles south of the
Michigan line, and 9 miles west of Ohio. I surveyed the
senior class in the high school in December, 1964.

Fremont, Indiana, in Steuben County, is a small town of
about 1000 inhabitants. But this town, too, has a
certain amount of character. The high school is old;
there is a new and well maintained elementary school.
The town is only two miles to the east of a major high-
way interchange, off the Indiana turnpike. The town is
but 2 miles south of the Michigan line, in the extreme
northeast corner of the state. This is one of the three
principal border towns in which most of my research was

conducted in the winter of 1968.

Wolf Lake, Indiana, is a town of about 400 people,
ocate in Noble County. This is a very tired little
town, in a depressed part of the country. The high
school is old, small and over crowded. The town is
"basketball—mad" and it is also, according to the high
school principal, something of a center for the John

 

89

Birch Society. It is located 30 miles south of the
Michigan line and 35 miles west of Ohio. This was the
control town in Indiana, and I surveyed the seniors in
the winter of 1968.

Michigan

Camden .Michigan, in Hillsdale County, has a pOpulation of
500. The outskirts of the town are so shabby and run-down
that it takes a conscious effort to realize that the center
of the town has a fairly respectable appearance. The
CamdenaFrontier consolidated school is located about two
miles from the center of the town. It is fairly new and
in reasonably good repair. Camden is located but 3 miles
north of the Ohio border and 2 miles from the nearest
point in Indiana. It is one of the three principal

border towns in which the research was conducted in the
winter of 1968.

Readin , Michigan, in Hillsdale County, is a town of 1100
peOpIe located 5 miles to the north of Camden, and 8 miles
north of the Ohio border. It is another weary little town
with one decent restaurant (which was for sale) and a few
stores. The main part of the local school is old, but
there is a new addition and both parts are well kept. The
town advertises itself as having the highest elevation in
southern Michigan. I surveyed the senior class in this
school in December, 1964.

S rin ort, Michigan, in Jackson County, has a population
0% 705. due north of Camden and Reading, it is 45 miles
from the Ohio border. This town gives every appearance

of a dying town. Yet I was told that it seems to be
growing - slowly - due somewhat to the movement of peqie
away from Albion and Jackson Michigan who are trying to
avoid "trouble" (integration) in these cities. The

larger part of the school is rather new and well maintained.
I used this town as the Michigan control town and surveyed
the senior class in the winter of 1968.

Ohio

Montpelier, Ohio, is located in Williams County. It has a
pep ation of 4000 and, while not as much of a town as
Angola, Indiana, it is roughly comparable to it. It is
located 8 miles to the south of the Michigan line and

10 miles east of Indiana. I surveyed the senior class in
the high school in December, 1964.

90

Pioneer, Ohio, in Williams County, has a population of 855.
is is the principal Ohio border town in which most of

my work was done in the winter of 1968. The North Central
School is situated in the town, and they had just completed
a substantial addition when I visited there. The center
of the town is very shabby. The town is located just one
mile south of Michigan, 12 miles east of Indiana.
Ridgeville Corners, Ohio, in Henry County, has a population
of about 400. It is quite comparable to Wolf Lake, in
Indiana. It is more of a cross~roads than a town — set in
the middle of some very expensive farm land and some very
prosperous farms. The school is old, but neat. Merger
discussions with neighboring towns were being held while
I was there. This was the control town in Ohio, and I
surveyed the senior class in this school in the winter of
1968. The town is located 20 miles south of the Michigan
line and 30 miles east of the Indiana border.

Interviews conducted in the border towns of Fremont, Indiana,

Camden, Michigan and Pioneer, Ohio, provided further descrip-

tive information, and this will be set forth as I report the

results of these interviews. The accompanying diagram shows

the location of these towns in relation to each other and

to the state borders.

The "One" -

At the Intersection of the State Lines

I thought that it would be of interest to locate

the exact intersection of the three state lines and to talk

with whoever lived the nearest to this spot. The lines

converge in the middle of a farm owned by Mr. Wier Lemon.

Sixty-three acres of his land are in the state of Michigan,

and forty-three acres lie in each of the other two states.

He lives on Cope Road, and his house is in the state of Ohio.

But his mailing address is Ray, Indiana — a town which is

sPlit down the middle by the Michigan-Indiana line. He said

91

 

. Springport

 

MICHIGAN
. Reading
—————————————— . Camden
Fremont~ _7 _“__ ____________
F’ {Pibneer 7
Angola . i ,
l vMontpelier
INDIANA l OHIO

l
I . Ridgeville
l

.Wolf Lake I Corners
l
|
l
l

I L I

| . ,. ..
I See Is
I
1

 

 

 

Figure 3. The Towns in Which Research Was Conducted -
Showing Their Proximity to The State Borders.

92

that he pays local taxes in counties in the three states.
He is employed in Ohio, he votes in Ohio and his children
attend Ohio schools. He stated that most of his friends
happen to live in Ohio, but that he does most of his shop-
ping in Indiana — in Fremont and in Angola. But he said
that he also goes rather frequently to Goldwater, Michigan
as well as to the county seats in Hillsdale, Michigan and
Bryan, Ohio.

He said that he did not find it particularly strange
to live in this spot and that he really never thought much
about it after the first novelty of the situation were off.
He recalled that a newspaper reporter had visited him some
time ago, to see how he liked being split into three parts
this way, and said that the reporter had told him that this
particular border was a bit unusual since there was no
natural feature of the land, such as a river, to mark the
spot. He said that he had grown up in Michigan, but that he
never thought much about whether he was a Michiganian, or
a Hoosier, or a Buckeye. Needless to say, there was no way
to differentiate between the three states from standing in
the middle of this farm and looking at the surrounding

countryside.

The "Split" Town of Ray, Indiana
As noted above, Mr. Lemon's mailing address is in
the town of Ray, Indiana. Mr. Lemon, along with a number of

people in Fremont, Indiana, mentioned the town of Ray as

93

being an interesting example of a small town which is divided
in half by the Michigan-Indiana state line.

The principal of the Fremont, Indiana, high school
told me that he had grown up in the town of Ray. He said
that all of the children in the town played together until
they were old enough to go to school. But then, those who
lived on the Michigan side went to one school, while those
on the Indiana side went to another. Thereafter, he said,
they did not play together to any extent - the states had
pulled them apart.

I interviewed Mrs. Flossie Binkley, the Ray Corre—
spondent for the Angola, Indiana, newspaper. The town is
a very small one - perhaps 200 people. The state line goes
through the middle of the main street, dividing the town
about equally between Michigan and Indiana. To the outsider
the town appears to be crumbling, rotting, disintegrating -
overrun by dogs and destructive children. The residents,
of course, do not see it this way at all, and talk about it
as they think it was many years ago. Mrs. Binkley's home is
on the Michigan side, but I interviewed her on the Indiana
side, where she works as a companion and helper to an old-
time resident of the town. Both Mrs. Binkley and her
employer told me about some of the old families, and then,
disapprovingly, about some of the newer residents from
Kentucky.

I wanted to know, however, how the state line

affected their lives. It seems to do so most clearly in

94

three ways. So far as law enforcement is concerned, both
sides of the town feel that the Michigan authorities are

more ready to help than are the Indiana authorities. In

the event of trouble on the Michigan side the residents

call the Michigan State Police, or the Branch County Sheriff's
Office. If trouble occurs on the Indiana side, the Indiana
State Police or the Steuben County Sheriff's Office is
contacted. Their conclusion was that the Michigan authorities
answered their calls for help, but the Indiana authorities

did not.

The state line makes a difference in another way.

On the Michigan side of the line the town has street lights,
provided by the Consumers Power Company of Michigan. On
the Indiana side of the main street there are no lights,

and the Northern Indiana Power Company, which services that
portion of the state, refuses to install them.

They both said, too, that last summer the town was
in a constant state of confusion because of the time dif-
ference in the two states. Michigan was on daylight savings
time, while Indiana was not. They found it very difficult
to schedule church services, picnics, ball games etc., and
said that it turned into a standing joke in the town, with
events often being set for the half—hour in an attempt to
please both the Michiganians and the Hoosiers. They also
said that the children of the town go to different schools
- those on the Michigan side going to Quincy, in Branch

County, and those on the Indiana side going to Fremont.

95

Both thought, however, that the children remained friends,
even though they went to schools in different states.

The "Few" -

The SChool Superintendents of the Three Principal

Border Towns

In reporting the results of my interviews with the
"few" - officials and leading citizens of the three princi-
pal border towns - I shall first discuss the school districts
as a profile of each emerged from discussions with the school
superintendents. In the Fremont District of Indiana the
Superintendent is Mr. Myron Clark. In the Camden-Frontier
District of Michigan, Mr. Gareth Dominey is the Superin—
tendent. Mr. Richard K. Harpster is the Superintendent of
the North Central School District of (Pioneer) Ohio. I
summarize some of the information they furnished in the
following Table 5.

It will be noted that the districts are roughly the
same in size, particularly in terms of school populations.
Financially, however, they are quite different. The Camden-
Frontier District of Michigan is about one-half as wealthy
as the North Central District of Ohio. They differ, too,
in the amount that each district taxes itself, as well as
in the amount that each state contributes to the operation
of the schools. The Michigan residents pay only 17 mills
for operating expenses while the Indiana residents pay 40
mills for the same purpose. The Ohio residents are closer

to Michigan in this regard. Note the difference, however,

96

wmm

 

Rmm woo opwpm s30 ca cosmooq maOOSom
ca topmosom mponomoe mo .pom
amm aso acm mumpm scam
oo>aooom moans moapmnomc no .pom
ma ma co owmaaaz wsapmsomc I woe awooa
a
000 sa ooa.m ooo.aa pawns some so spam pa mnmaaoa
ccc.mmo.ma ccc.ccm.o ccc.ccc.w poahpmac
mo soapmsam> commommd ampoa
moo Rcca Rmm aoooom op commdm masoUSpm mo .pom
we mo No mmmac ooasom ca .02
com mmm mmm aooaom nwam Ga .02
Now mam cmm Amalxv mpsoUSpm mo .oz amooa
Omma ccw coma woaaasmm mo .02 .pmm
Itwm cm mca poaapmac ca moaaz .mm
. oazc swwaaoaz msmaosa
amnpcoo npsoz .noapconhlooosmo .psososm

 

mpoaApoac aoonom socsom

”mama obapmsmgsoc .m canoe

97

in what the states pay: the state of Michigan contributes
twice as much as does either Ohio or Indiana.

What might this say about the existence of different
state cultures? It might point to the fact that the Michi—
ganians are not as willing to support their schools - on
the local level - as are the Indianans and the Ohioans.

Or it might indicate that the Michiganians are living in
more of a welfare-state than are the Ohioans and the
Indianans. In any event, there is a sharp difference here
and this difference is of such a nature as to indicate the
probability of a basic difference in underlying philosophy
concerning the support of education. This is not to say,
however, that the individual resident of the Camden—Frontier
District of Michigan would in any sense be aware of, or
concerned with, the theoretical nature of this philoSOphy,
nor is it to say that he would even know that there was a
substantial difference in the amount that each state con-
tributes to the running of the local schools.

There is another very noticeable difference in the
pattern of support for the schools. In both Ohio and
Michigan the local voters decide on bond issues which are
put before them by the local school boards. But in Indiana
this is not so. Mr. Clark, the Superintendent in Fremont,
Indiana, explained that they do not go to the polls for
either operating or building funds. Instead, public
hearings are held on the budget prOposals of the school.

If any ten taxpayers feel aggreived, they can then demand

 

98

a hearing on the proposals. The hearings are conducted by
state officials. After hearing the citizens, and after
examining the school proposal, these officials then make a
decision. If the state decides in favor of the school -
and this is the usual outcome - the local citizens are then
bound by this decision and must pay the taxes accordingly.

Otherwise the differences are not very large. The
attrition rate was low and they attributed the few drop-outs
they do have to low academic achievement and (for the girls)
pregnancy. In Fremont, Indiana, the Superintendent suggested
that drop-outs usually reflected home attitudes.

It should also be noted that even though these schools
are located on the very borders of their states, the great
majority of the teachers have received their educations in
schools located within that state. The majority are natives
of the state. The only exception here is Fremont, Indiana.
Superintendent Clark explained this by pointing to the prox-
imity of Tri—State College in Angola, Indiana. The Fremont
school hires a number of wives of students from Tri—State,
and these women have frequently attended school in some
other state. Otherwise he thought that the percentage of
Indiana-educated teachers would be much higher.

Again, what does this mean, or what might it mean,
in relation to our central question of the existence of
separate state cultures? Why do the superintendents in
each state normally look to their own state as a source of

teachers? Why do applicants for positions normally apply

99

only to schools in their own state? It is a fact that all
three schools have difficulty in finding qualified teachers.
Of course, there are differences in requirements, and in
problems of certification, but these differences are not so
great as to be insurmountable. The fact of the matter seems
to be that the whole system is so oriented that Michigan-
educated teachers teach Michigan children. And the same
thing happens in Indiana and in Ohio. If, therefore, there
are separate state cultures, this is one way to perpetuate
them.

There might be a parallel, too, in the fact that
other matters pertaining to the schools are also state—
centered. Shortly after my investigation was completed in
Pioneer, Ohio, a new addition to the school was dedicated.
The program listed the firms participating in the construc-
tion. The architects, the general contractor, the plumbing
and heating and the electrical work were all done by Ohio
firms. The only exception in the entire list was a firm in
Fort Wayne, Indiana, which supplied the kitchen equipment.
Lichigan schools employ Michigan firms. Indiana schools
employ Indiana firms. It is well known that this happens
with state highway construction. We take all of this for
granted, and fail to see how very strange it really is.
Again, it may be another indicator of the existence of an
all-pervasive state culture.

There is one other aspect of the schools which I

wiSh to consider: the subject of athletics. As a general

lOO

rule, schools compete with other schools on the basis of
proximity and size. Here are three schools, all about the
same size. They are immediate neighbors. Do they compete
with one another? Or are they divided by the walls erected
by the state lines that divide the three school districts?
All three of these towns are intensely sports—minded, and
all three of the schools play basketball. Do they differ in
their love for the game? In the winter of 1968 Indiana's
much-vaunted basketball fanaticism was certainly matched

by the Camden, Michigan, school, and the school in Pioneer,
Ohio, did not seem to be far behind. But in any event, here

are the basketball schedules for the three towns:

 

 

 

Egemontl_lndiana Camdenl Michigan Pioneer, Ohio
Albion, Ind. Fremont, Ind. Antwerp, Ohio
Bishop Dwenger, Ind. Hanover—Horton, Delta, Ohio .
Camden, Mich. .Mich. Edgerton, Ohio
Eastside, Ind. Morenci, Mich. Edon, Ohio .
Edon, Ohio North Adams, Mich. Evergreen, Ohio
Garrett, Ind. Pittsford, Mich. Fayette, Ohio
Hilltop, Ohio Quincy, Mich. Fremont, Ind. .
Jefferson, Ind. Reading, Mich. HleSVlll , Oth
Lakeland, Ind. Tekonsha, Mich. Hilltop, Ohio .
No. Cent. (Pioneer) Waldron, Michigan Pettisv1lle, Ohio
Ohio Stryker, Ohio

Prarie Hts., Inc.
Tekonsha, Mich.

From the above list, and from the accompanying
diagrams it is clear that two of the states, at least,
look within their own states for their opponents in
basketball. Camden, Michigan, looks north, largely into
Hillsdale County. Camden has but one link outside the
State of Michigan - this being with Fremont, Indiana.

Pioneer, Ohio, looks to the south—east and this town, too,

101

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michigan
/
Indiana Ohio
0 II
“Test—'4
Figure 4. Basketball Opponents -
Camden, Michigan
Michigan
\
7“~\1‘, gt/,/
0
Indiana

Ohio

19*

Sonic

 

Figure 5. Basketball Opponents - Pioneer, Ohio

 

102

 

Michigan

 

 

 

. __._——l
\
‘1‘~g*
Indiana \\\
Ohio
° to
Sea In

 

 

Figure 6. Basketball Opponents - Fremont, Indiana

 

103

has but one link with another state - also with Fremont,
Indiana. Fremont, Indiana, seems to be the most "inter—
nationally minded" of the three towns - with five links
outside their own state, two in Michigan and three in Ohio.
With the exception of Fremont, Indiana, therefore, it would
seem as though the state lines do act as walls, at least so
far as athletic schedules are concerned.

M . Max Mitchell, the principal of the high school
in Fremont, Indiana, said that he thought the state lines
do separate the peeple, and furnished several examples. In
relation to athletics, he said that some of the parents usu-
ally ask him how to get to Pioneer, Ohio (even though it is
but twenty miles due east of Fremont), and indicate to him
that they have never been there before. But perhaps the
best evidence of the existence of walls along the borders
may be seen in the fact that none of the superintendents
knew each other. On the other hand, all three of them can
call by name all of the other school superintendents for
miles around, in their own states. The upshot of it is
that these three neighboring superintendents have no contact
with one another at all. My earlier study in the towns of
Angola, Indiana, Reading, Michigan and Mentpelier, Ohio,
revealed the same thing. "The officials of these border
schools might be pictured . . . as standing close together,
but with their backs to one another. One looks to Lansing,

another to Columbus and the third to Indianapolis. In this

 

104

way they could be very close, but still unaware of the

other's existence and the other's problems"112

The Mayors of the Three Principal Border Towns
All of the mayors, of course, have other full—time
jobs. The Mayor of Camden, Michigan, Mr. Woodrow Wilcox,
is the owner of the Farmers Advance, a weekly farm journal.
The President of the Town Board of Trustees of Fremont,
Indiana, is Mr. Robert Vaughn, the owner of a dry cleaning
business. The Mayor of the town of Pioneer, Ohio,
Mr. J. L. Oliver, is a railroad conductor. All of these men
have been active in local politics for many years, and all
of them contribute countless hours to their jobs as mayors.
The elections in Pioneer, Ohio, are non—partisan.
But in both Camden, Michigan and Fremont, Indiana, they
are partisan. In Fremont, Indiana, Mr. Vaughn said that
the Republicans always win. He stated that the only way
for a Democrat to get elected is for him to run on the
Republican ticket. This happens, he said, once in a while,
but even then the people know his party affiliation. In
Camden, Michigan, two out of the six councilmen are Demo—
crats, and the Republicans are normally in the majority.
The town of Pioneer, Ohio, is also a Republican town, but,

as noted above, the local elections are non-partisan.

112Arthur R. Stevens, "Political Culture in the Tri-
State Area of Michigan, Indiana and Ohio," Mimeographed
paper, (Michigan State University, 1965), p. 12.

-fl'

 

105

I asked each of the mayors about the main problem
facing the local government. All three were unanimous in
pointing to the difficulty of financing local government.
In Fremont, Indiana, I was told that the chief problem was
"inadequate money - and getting worse all the time." In
Pioneer, Ohio, the mayor reported that financing was a
severe problem. He said that they have been operating on
the same millage for a long time and that the only increase
in revenue comes from the very slow rise in valuation as
the result of the building of a few new homes each year.

In Camden, Michigan, the problem was also money. The

mayor pointed to an inadequate and out—dated city charter,
with tightly earmarked funds, as being one of the diffi-
culties in straightening out community financing. The
mayors also agreed that another problem, but more difficult
to pinpoint or to describe, was the matter of citizen apathy
and the resulting lack of leadership in the small town.

In Camden, Michigan, Mr. Wilcox said that it was
often impossible to find enough people to run for public
office - the citizens simply did not seem to care what
happened to their town. He said that his firm had just
finished printing a ballot for the town election in the
neighboring border town of Mbntgomery, Michigan. The ballot
was blank - there were no candidates at all for the offices.
This apathy, however, does not square very well with
another develOpment which Mr. Wilcox mentioned. This is

the formation of a type of vigilante committee throughout

 

106

many of the towns in southern Michigan. These committees
frequently are formed around the volunteer fire departments,
which serve as the nucleus, and are aimed at the maintenance
of law and order, and the protection of the area from pos—
sible rioters and looters from the large cities. He said
that these committees are well organized and well armed,

but that they operate very quietly and without publicity of
'any sort. This information was volunteered, and I did not
have the opportunity to find out whether the same thing

was happening in the other two towns. I suspect it was,
however, from some of the oblique references that were made
to some of the rioting that occurred in the summer of 1967,
particularly in Detroit.

From this very limited bit of evidence, therefore,
we might conclude that there is a great deal of apathy and
indifference on the part of the citizens insofar as the
solution of ordinary community problems are concerned:
sewage, roads, water, schools - the troublesome, day to
day routine of community living and community betterment.
For these, leadership is lacking; the problems are not
"seen." But, where a problem is seen - the problem of
defense against rioters, real or imagined - there appears
to be intense activity and all kinds of leadership. This
latter activity is at best quasi-legal and at worst
illegal. There seems to be a tendency, therefore, to
ignore the legally established channels of government and

to resort to somewhat questionable methods of solving

 

107

community problems. After all, if a person was convinced
that the community was endangered, it would be possible for
him to run for office on this platform, in the ordinary way.
But this is not done. Instead, a more glamorous - direct -
solution, is sought. The result is that the grinding, day-
to-day work of running the community does not get done.
The leaders are lacking. In effect we are talking about
the breakdown of local government. It is an intriguing
area for further research, for in certain ways it is not
unlike the activity attendant on the Great Fear which
swept through rural France in the initial stages of the
French Revolution of 1789.

Each of these mayors is acquainted with fellow
mayors in his own state and in his own county. But none
of the three could identify either of the others by name,
and all three said that they did not know what kind of
problems the others might have. These three mayors, then,
have no contact with one another. The towns do have, how-
ever, fire agreements with surrounding townships, and
these agreements are apt to cross the state lines. All
three of the towns have rather active volunteer fire depart-
ments. The department in Camden, Michigan, used to have
fire agreements with other townships, including some in
the state of Ohio. But Mr. Wilcox said that these have now
all been withdrawn, because the townships refused to pay.
The mayor in Pioneer, Ohio, said that their fire department

presently has an agreement with Ransom Township, due north

108

in Michigan, and he said that this presents no unusual
difficulties. The fire department in Fremont, Indiana,
served four or five townships in Michigan, and this presents
no problem either. The Michigan townships pay as promptly -
or as reluctantly - as do the Indiana townships. But except
for the fire agreements there is no official contact between
these towns or between the towns and any other governmental
units in other states. As Mr. Oliver put it, in Pioneer,
Ohio, "From our corner of the state, we look south and

east" — they do not look north to Michigan, or west to

Indiana at all.

The Police - In the Three Principal Border Towns

The towns of Fremont, Indiana and Pioneer, Ohio
have one-man police departments. Camden, Michigan is
presently without a policeman — they can not find anyone
willing to do the job at the salary the town can afford to
pay. In Camden, therefore, Mayor Wilcox answered my questions
about the police. In Pioneer, Ohio I talked to Police Chief
Ronnie Flightner. In Fremont, Indiana I interviewed Chief
Billy Hornbrook.

I asked them about the percentage of arrests of
out of state people. The Chief in Fremont, Indiana, thought
that only about 10% of the arrests were of out of state
people, and these were largely Michigan high school students
who come to Indiana looking for beer. Both Michigan and

Indiana, by the way, do not permit drinking by anyone under

109

21, while Ohio permits it at age 18. In Pioneer, Ohio, the
Chief thought that perhaps one half of the arrests were of
Michigan pe0ple, but these arrests were, on the whole, of
"locals" even though they are from another state. In
Camden, Michigan, Mr. Wilcox stated that the great majority
of arrests are of Michigan peOple - largely for minor
traffic violations.

In Fremont, Indiana, the principal problem for law
enforcement was seen as minor juvenile crime. In Pioneer,
Ohio, the principal problem was identified as traffic,
usually, but not always, involving juveniles. Mr. Flightner
said that in Pioneer they "look the other way all the time
on juveniles from Michigan" simply because the problem of
arrest and subsequent processing is complicated by the state
line. In Camden, Michigan, Mr. Wilcox said that the biggest
problem seems to come from a combination of speeding and
drag racing, and/or drunkenness. In all three towns, there—
fore, the main problem for law enforcement comes from juve-
niles with automobiles.

Is there any police cooperation between these three
neighboring towns on the borders? The answer was a unanimous
no. None of the policemen knew each other, although they
all knew their counterparts in surrounding towns in their
own state. There is no police radio contact between the
three towns. In each town the local police radio is tied in

only with the Sheriff of their own county.

p).

*4

110

I wanted to know, too, about the nature of the contact
that each had with the County Sheriffs and with the State
Police in all three states. This varied from state to state.
In Camden, Michigan, Mr. Wilcox said that while some of
their contact was with the Hillsdale County Sheriff, most of
it was with the Michigan State Police. He said that the
State Police were prompt, efficient and highly reliable, and
that they could always be counted on in an emergency. The
local authorities in Camden, Michigan, have no contact at all
with either the Ohio State Police or with the Indiana State
Police.

In Pioneer, Ohio, the principal contact with a larger
department is with the Williams County (Ohio) Sheriff's Office
- an agency with six deputies. The Ohio State Police is
reached through the Sheriff's Office, but Mr. Flightner said
that because of their location in the upper corner of the
state it was rather difficult to get any assistance from
them. He said that they have no contact with the state
police of either Michigan or Indiana and that on the rare
occasions when they did want to reach either force, the
communication problem made it very difficult to do so.

In Fremont, Indiana, Mr. Hornbrook said that his
radio was tied in with the Steuben County (Indiana) Sheriff's
Office and that this was a small department with only two
deputies. He said that when he needed help, therefore, he
usually turned to the Sheriff of Branch County in Michigan.

He said that this is a well staffed department with about 11

lll

deputies and some tracking dogs. He contacts them through
the Sheriff in Indiana. But he said that they are most
cooperative and perfectly willing to help - regardless of
the state line. He stated that the Sheriff across the
border in Ohio had a limited staff and was of no help to
him.

Mr. Hornbrook said, too, that the Indiana State
Police were not of much help. He indicated that they are
concerned more and more with the major highways, and that
they tend to feel so superior that they are reluctant to
assist local officers with their problems. He also said
that he has very little contact with the Michigan State
Police or the Ohio State Police, but indicated that of the
two, the Michigan department was the more Cooperative. He
reported one incident involving the Ohio State Police, that
happened a short time before our interview. The Ohio
authorities had pursued a car over the state line and into
his jurisdiction. The occupants then abandoned the car and
fled on foot. He said that when he arrived at the scene,
the Ohio men then drove away. They simply shouted out of
the window that since he was there they did not have to
hang around, and they did not even tell him what the case

was all about.

The Bankers - of the Three Principal Border Towns
There is a bank in each of the towns. In Fremont,

Indiana, it is the First National Bank of Fremont, with

tc

Arm

Ab

an

It

112

total assets, as of December 30, 1967, of almost $12,000,000.
The President of the bank is Mr. E. B. MCNaughton, a very
elderly man. He is the founder of the bank and one of the
town's leading citizens. I interviewed him briefly but,
since he is no longer very active, I received most of my
information from Mr. W. B. Sidel, the Cashier. In Pioneer,
Ohio, I spoke with Mr. L. H. Bollinger, the President of
the Pioneer Banking Company, a bank with assets in excess
of $4,000,000 as of June 30, 1967. In Camden, Michigan I
interviewed Mr. Carl Gilmore, the manager of the Camden
Branch of the Litchfield State Savings Bank of Litchfield,
Michigan. This bank has offices in four Michigan towns

and listed its total assets as of December 30, 1967, at
almost $11,000,000.

I wanted to find out, first, whether the state lines
seemed to be a wall so far as the movement of money was
concerned. In Fremont, Indiana, I learned that perhaps
sixty percent of their business was with Indiana customers.
Mr. Sidel said that they have many customers from Montgomery
and Camden, Michigan, and also from both Pioneer and Mont-
pelier, Ohio. He said that a number of people prefer to do
their banking away from their own home town, and that the
state line did not seem to be a barrier to the flow of
money. Mr. Gilmore, in Camden, Michigan, thought that
perhaps ninety percent of their business was with Michigan
people. He pointed out that so far as loans were concerned

it was easier to make them within one's own state, largely

 

(V)

II

on I—4

t!)

C)_.

(‘1)

0r1

rn

113

because the laws differ from state to state and each banker
is more familiar with the laws of his own state.

Mr. Bollinger, in Pioneer, Ohio, estimated that probably
seventy—five percent of their business was with Ohio peOple,
with the other twenty-five percent from Michigan.

The flow of money back and forth across the state
lines, then, does occur. For one reason or another people
are attracted to a particular bank for personal reasons.

But when it comes to deliberately seeking new business,

each of the banks acts as though there were in fact a wall
along the state line which impedes their movement in that
direction. Mr. Gilmore, in Camden, Michigan, was ruminating
about this when he said that on a slow day in the bank he
was apt to go out and visit farmers in the area, ". . . but
they are Michigan farmers," and he said that while he sup-
posed that he could visit farmers in Ohio, he never did.
This same attitude was found in the other banks as well.

The bankers informed me, too, about the business
conditions in each of the three towns. Camden, Michigan, is
the least industrialized of the three towns. Mr. Gilmore
said that the largest dollar volume of any business in town
is done by the Camden Basket Company. Formerly a local
manufacturer, this business is now an import company with
connections throughout most of the world. In Fremont,
Indiana, according to Mr. Sidel, the Fremont Manufacturing
Company, a maker of auto parts, is the biggest employer.

They employ about 70 people and have been in town about six

114

years. In Pioneer, Ohio, the major industry is the Pioneer
Transformer Company. They have about fifty peOple on the
payroll and moved to town about ten years ago.

Each of the three bankers thought that their own
town was growing, even if slowly, or that it was gpppp to
grow. In Fremont, Indiana, Mr. Sidel thought that the town
was about to grow because of the easy access to the highway
network. In Pioneer, Ohio, Mr. Bollinger said that the
number of homes was slowly increasing and that business,
while declining in numbers, was increasing in dollar volume.
In Camden, Michigan, Mr. Gilmore said that the business area
was growing slowly - a few new store fronts and increased
dollar volume — but that the town was plagued by an apathetic
citizenry who simply did not seem to care about much of
anything. In each case, over the past ten years, real
estate values - measured by the value of farm land - have
about doubled, with the most expensive acreage being found
around Pioneer, Ohio.

So far as the shopping habits of the residents are
concerned, Mr. Gilmore thought that if the people in
Camden, Michigan, wanted to go out of town to shop, they
would probably go either to Fremont, Indiana, or to Hillsdale,
Michigan, the county seat. He said that more would go to
Hillsdale than to Fremont. Mr. Sidel identified the shop-
ping area for the residents of Fremont, Indiana as either
Angola or Fort Wayne, Indiana, with the newly opened Route

69 pulling a good many peOple to Fort Wayne. But he also

 

F).

9‘3

('1'

115

said that Goldwater, Michigan, is a popular place to shop,
too. Mr. Bollinger said that the people in Pioneer, Ohio,
did much of their out of town shopping in Bryan, Ohio, the
county seat, or in the city of Toledo. But both Fort

Wayne, Indiana and Hillsdale, Michigan are also rather
popular. He said that, strangely enough, a good many
Michiganians who lived close to the border came to Pioneer
to do their shopping, particularly for groceries. This is
because there is no sales tax on groceries in Ohio, compared
to the four percent tax in Michigan.

Otherwise the towns, from the standpoint of the
bankers and the business communities in each, are much the
same. In Pioneer, Ohio, there is a Chamber of Commerce
with about seventy members - a few being quite active. In
Fremont, Indiana, the Chamber of Commerce is an active
organization, but there are no other service clubs in town.
In Camden, Michigan, there is a rather active Lions Club
of about twenty—five men.

Finally, do these bankers, in these essentially
neighboring towns, know one another? They do not. Their
paths never cross and they have never met - yet they know
all of the other bankers in nearby towns in their own
state. Mr. Gilmore, who has had extensive governmental
service as well as banking experience, has thought much
about develOpments in the area around Camden, Michigan.

He said that his house was located on Route 120, right

across from the Ohio line. He said that that line might

116

just as well be a stone wall - that it divides the people
politically and socially and, to a lesser extent, economically
as well. He said that even though he has lived there since
1943 he is not acquainted with anyone south of the line and
said that "all along the line, the Michigan people simply

don't know what's going on on the other side of the fence."

The Editors — of the Three Principal Border Towns

Each of the three towns has a weekly paper. In
Fremont, Indiana, and in Pioneer, Ohio, the papers are
barely surviving and the editors are eking out a precarious

and harassed existence. The Fremont Eagle is a four page

 

paper consisting of a few ads and some local news items.
The editor said that their circulation was about 350 per week,
with some 150 of this number going to other states, largely
Michigan. He said that they kept publishing the paper only
in order to keep their postal permit. In effect they are no
longer trying to produce a "news" paper. Their primary
business is the publication of a weekly shopper. On
February 15, 1968, the Egglg consisted of four tabloid size
pages. All of the news items related to Indiana events,
either in Fremont or in Steuben County. Excluding the
classified ads, there were seven advertisements in the
paper. One was from a store in Michigan, the other six
were from Indiana business firms.

In Pioneer, Ohio, I spoke with Mr. William Turner,

the editor and owner of the Tri—State Alliance. On

 

117

February 29, 1968, his paper had six full size pages. This
is much more of a "paper" than the Egglg, and the front page
carried a number of items of interest to Michigan residents.
The majority of the news, of course, related to Ohio.
Excluding the classified ads, there were thirty—four adver-
tisements in the paper, and all of them were from Ohio
businesses. The editor put his circulation at about 1000
per week, with about 700 of these going to Ohio residents.
The rest are sent out of state, largely to Michigan.

In Camden, Michigan, the situation is totally dif-
ferent. Mr. Wilcox, the editor and owner of the Farmers'
Advance, said that while his paper is published weekly in
Camden, it is not a local paper at all. It grew out of a
number of area weekly papers which he purchased and absorbed
and is now a farm journal with a circulation of some 16,000
throughout the tri-state area. He said that the state
lines were no barrier to business at all, except perhaps
from a tax standpoint. Since this paper is not "local" in
the same sense as the other two, I did not count the ads.
Aha Wilcox said, however, that his advertising revenue
comes from all three states, and from a number of others
as well, although perhaps seventy percent of it is of
Michigan origin. Mr. Wilcox is a very successful man, and
his paper runs to about sixty-four pages each week. BUP
he is not a local, small-town editor, and the town of
ven though

Camden, Michigan, does not have a local paper, 8

a Paper is_published in that town.

118

Other Indicators of the "Barrier Effect" of the State Lines

We might look very briefly at two other indicators
of the effect of the state lines on local businesses.
Mr. Wilcox, of Camden, Michigan, said that the state lines
are not barriers to business, and to him they are not. Nor
are they, of course, to most of the major industries of
America. But they do appear to pg barriers, both for the
average business man who lives in this tri—state area, and
for the consumers as well. The town of Camden, Michigan,
is served by the Camden Rural Telephone Co. With the
exception of the very small town of Cooney, Ohio, just
across the border, this phone company serves only Michigan
residents. I counted all ads in the yellow pages of this
directory relating to automobiles. There were a total of
19 items. One was from Indiana, two were from Ohio, the
remainder (84.2%) were from Michigan.

Pioneer, Ohio, is served by the General Telephone
Company of Ohio, and the listings for Pioneer are included
in the Bryan, Ohio, telephone directory. I counted the
same ads in this directory and found a total of 164 items.
Six were from Indiana, none from Michigan. The Ohio
percentage, therefore, is 96.3. Fremont, Indiana, is
served by the General Telephone Company of Indiana and the
Angola, Indiana, directory carries the Fremont Listings.
In this directory there were 65 ads relating to automobiles.
Of this number, one was from Ohio and three were from

Nichigan. The Indiana percentage: 92%.

119

I did the same thing with two of the county newspa-

pers. The Bryan Times, in Ohio, is a daily paper and the

 

issue of February 13, 1968 had ten pages. Excluding
classified, there were a total of 45 ads in this paper. All
of them were from the state of Ohio. The Angola Steuben

Republican, in Indiana, a weekly, had twenty pages on

 

January 24, 1968. Excluding classified, there were 127 ads
in this paper. There were none from Michigan. Four were
from Ohio, the remainder (96.8%) were of Indiana origin.

It would appear, therefore, that while the boundaries
do not £313 to be barriers to the flow of money and business,
in effect they ggg. The newspapers do not cross the lines
to solicit business, and the businesses do not cross the
lines to seek customers. The same thing happens in the
yellow pages of the telephone directories. The state lines
seem effectively to stop what would otherwise be a normal
fanning-out process in all directions. Mr. Wilcox, of
Camden, Michigan, is clearly the exception, rather than
the rule.

The barrier may be observed directly, too. Of the
three states, Ohio is the only one that permits the public,
widespread sale of fireworks. The little stands that line
the border are very much in evidence. Too, Ohio is the
only one of the three states that allows drinking at age
18. The flow of high school students into Ohio for this
Purpose, from the other two states, is heavy. Anticipating

some of my findings from the schools, a number of Indiana

120

and Michigan students, in answering a question about state
nicknames, referred to Ohio as "the beer state." And in the
Ohio taverns, "Buckeye" beer is featured. Guns, too, are
more readily available in Ohio than in either of the other
states. The sale of guns in Toledo, to residents of Michi-
gan, is notorious throughout the entire area. And the sales
tax on groceries in Michigan, but not in Ohio, has already
been mentioned.

Direct observation reveals another difference from
state to state. Route 120 runs east and west, almost
directly on the Ohio-Michigan line. As you drive south on
Michigan 99 (which becomes Ohio 15 on the south side of
Route 120) you see home delivery boxes for newspapers from
Detroit and Hillsdale, Michigan. As soon as you enter Ohio,
however, you see boxes for the Toledo Blade and for the
Bryan Times. The cut-off is very sharp, and it coincides
exactly with the state line. To a lesser degree this is
true even in the divided town of Ray, Indiana. The newspaper
from Goldwater, Michigan, is more evident on the north side
of Main Street than it is on the south side. And by the time
you get four miles to the south, in Fremont, Indiana, the
Goldwater paper has vanished, giving way to newspapers from

Fort Wayne and Angola, Indiana.

The Amish Enclave
There is one group of people which remains completely

outside the scope of this study - a small colony of Amish

121

farmers who live in the Camden—Frontier school district of
Michigan. Mr. Dominey, the school superintendent in Camden,
told me about them. They are the Amish who waged a lengthy
battle with the Michigan State Department of Education and,
in a sense, won. A number of them left the state and moved
to Iowa and Missouri, but a small colony remained.
Mr. Dominey said that he always tells them about any state
or federal pregram which affects the school district. He
said that they listen politely, but that they always refuse
to participate in any way. He told me where their school
was located and said that the teacher is Miss Martha Wagler,
a nineteen year old Amish girl with an eighth grade education.

I located the school and talked briefly with
Miss Wagler and her father, Henry Wagler, at their residence
on Camden Road. I thought at first that I might try to
administer my questionnaire to these children - thinking
that they would serve as another kind of control group in
view of their completely different experience and background.
But after talking to them for a few minutes I realized that
I was simply curious about them and that I had no right to
push myself upon them in any way.

They received me politely. They explained that
they did not have any connection with the world around
them, and that they did not want to have any. They said that
they do not vote, they do not serve in the army, they do not
read newspapers, listen to radios or watch television. They
do not own or drive automobiles and they do not use electri-

city. They believe that knowledge of the "outside" will

122

contaminate them, and they particularly think that a study
of history will lead them into all kinds of evil - distract-
ing them from their own study of the Bible and their own
religious concerns. Mr. Wagler said that they read exten—
sively in the farm journals. What knowledge they do have of
the outside world is gained from this type of reading mater-
ial and from overbearing people talk in the stores and at
the feed mill.

They suggested that if I wanted more information,
or if I wanted to administer my questionnaire to their
children, that I should ask the elders of the church for
permission. They said, however, that the permission would
probably not be granted. But even so, I decided that I
would not do this — that my personal curiosity was not
sufficient grounds for the asking of questions which would
threaten them in many ways. 22 the society, but not pf it
in any way, they remain — in relation to this study - a

completely unknown quantity, a hidden enclave.

Qpnclusion

At the beginning of this Chapter I indicated that I
was seeking the answers to three questions: (1) Are the
units involved in the study, the towns, the schools, etc.,
similar - are they comparable units? (2) Are there differ-
ences, from state to state, in the behavior of the people?

(3) Do the state lines act as barriers for the people living

in this area?

123

Up to this point, what have we found? First, I think
that the units are clearly comparable - remarkably so. On
the basis of size, population, education, political prefer-
ence, and economic circumstances they are quite similar.
Jackson County, Michigan, is the only exception, but the
difference here does not affect the control town of Spring-
port, Michigan which is located in this county.

Second, there is some indication that peOple do
things differently from state to state. These differences
are not great. But perhaps they will serve as pointers,
even though they are faint, to the existence of somewhat
different state cultures. The most noticeable difference
involved the pattern of school financing in the three states.
In Michigan the state supplies the major part of the school
operating funds; in Indiana and Ohio the local community
supplies most of the money. In Indiana, too, there is a
difference in the way school budgets are fixed and met -
the Indiana school authorities do not "go to the polls" as
they do in both Michigan and Ohio.

There may also be a slight difference in the way
that each state views the need for law enforcement. There
seem to be differences in attitudes toward the State Police
in the three states. In Michigan the State Police were seen
as cooperative and helpful; in Indiana they were viewed
with some suspicion. In Ohio the State Police do not have
the broad.police powers that either of the other state

forces possess. This difference is also manifest on the

124

county level - with Branch County, in Michigan, for example,
having a well-staffed Sheriff's Office, compared to relatively
weak departments in Steuben County, Indiana, and Williams
County, Ohio.

Third, it is quite clear that the state lines do
act as barriers, as walls, for the people in this area.
The people are separated by the state lines. This may be
seen in the athletic schedules (of schools in two of the
three states, at any event), and, more clearly, in the fact
that the bankers, the police, the mayors and the school
superintendents simply do not know one another. Some of
the people are actively aware of the existence of these
walls. Others do not seem to be aware of them, as such,
but talk of living in a "corner" of their state. But,

overall, the evidence of the walls is very strong.

CHAPTER IV

Survey Results: The Respondents and
Their Families Described

 

 

We turn now to the results of the interviews with
the "many" — to the school surveys conducted in the winter
of 1968. I shall also include some of the information
which was obtained in my 196A study in this chapter. I
shall be concerned primarily, in this chapter, with infor~

mation which describes the respondents and their families.

 

Succeeding chapters will deal more specifically with student
attitudes and opinions of government and politics. But

since we are trying to describe a thinking and behaving

group of individuals, our division of the data on the basis
of description, behavior, knowledge and opinions, is bound

to be somewhat arbitrary. But in this chapter I shall
describe the students from the standpoints of age, sex,

state of birth, type of family, educational background of

the parents, occupation of the parents, religious affiliation
and political party preference.

As would be expected, the ages and sex distributions
of the children were much the same in all three states. In
the fifth grades the children were 10 and 11 years old,
with the majority being 10 in each of the classrooms. The

high school seniors were 17 and 18. There were, however, a

125

126

few older students in each of the schools. Fremont, Indiana,
had the largest percentage (11.9%) of students over 18.113
The smallest percentage of students over 18 was in Wolf Lake,
Indiana, with a total of b.6fl. The majority of the students
in all of the schools were 17. The sexes were divided about
equally in every school and in every classroom. The only
exceptions to this were found in the control towns of
Ridgeville Corners, Ohio (73.3% females) and in Wolf Lake,
Indiana (60.5% males).

much has been written in recent years about America
as a nation of "movers." We are told that one family in
three moves each year. We are told of the great migrations
to the central cities and of the drying up of the hinterland.
We are told of the booming suburbs and the flow of population
to the west coast and to other growing sections of the coun-
try. And all of these population movements are, of course,
going on. But the nation is huge, and over the past few
years, from my own observatory in one small Midwestern town,
I have been struck by the fact that while some people come

and go, the majority seem to stay. The small town appears

113From this point on I shall underline the names of
the towns located along the borders of the three states. I
shall do this in order to assist the reader in distinguishing
the border towns (Fremont, Indiana, Camden, Michigan, Pioneer,
Ohio - and, less rEaafizatly, An ola, Indiana, Readin , Mich-
igan, Montpelier, Ohio) from the control towns. I sEall
employ the same device in the tables - the names of the
border towns will be underlined. And, even though it is re—
pefitive, I shall try to include the name of the state each
time I mention one of the towns - again, as an assistance
to the reader.

 

127

to be quite static and it is frequently inhabited by families
who span at least three, and sometimes four, generations.
These "clans" form an intricate network of cousins and
relatives and I wondered if this pattern might also be

found in the small towns in our tri~state circle, as well

as in the control towns outside the circle.

I found that a majority of the students in all of
the schools were born within twenty miles of their present
home. Ridgeville Corners, Ohio, had the highest percentage
(83.3) born this close to home. The lowest percentage
(52.3) was in the border city of Pioneer, Ohio. But even
in this town most of the students were born nearby, with
88.7% having been born within a fifty mile radius of their
present home. The evidence of large numbers of "localities"
is even more striking if we look at the other end of the
scale to see how many were born 500 or more miles away
from their present homes. In Springport, Michigan there
were only 10.8% in Camden, Michigan, 9.1% in Fremont,
Indiana, 3.4% and in Pioneer, Ohio, none at all. The 1964
study of the other three border towns revealed much the

same pattern.114

 

11LiThe Chi Square test of significance was employed
in connection with most of the data, testing for statistical
significance at the .05 level. In some cases the test was
made on the entire table, which usually consisted of six
senior classes - two from each state - simpl to see if
there were differences among them. The usua manner of
statistical treatment, however, was to break the complete
table up into six separate sub-tables and to test for
statistical significance in each. In this way the border

 

128

What is the family pattern in these towns? Are we,
in fact, tapping the sort of clan-structure mentioned above?
I inquired about the number of grandparents who live, or
lived, in the state, as well as about the number of first
cousins living in the same state. The three control towns,
deeper in each of the states, had a higher percentage of all
four grandparents living in the same state than was found
in the border towns. In Ridgeville Corners, Ohio, it was
80%, in Wolf Lake, Indiana, it was 69.8% and in Springport,
Michigan it was 58.5%. But the evidence of family contin-
ufly in the state was very strong even in the border towns.
For when we look at the percentages of those who said that
two, three or four of their grandparents lived in the same
state we find that this applies to 81.0% of the senior
class in Fremont, Indiana, 78.6% in Camden, Michigan and 77.3%
in Pioneer, Ohio.

The evidence was the same for their first cousins.
The students were asked if "none, a few, the majority or

all" of their first cousins lived in the same state. The

 

town in each state could be compared with the control town
in the same state, to see if there was a "state pattern."
After this was done, each of the border towns was compared
with one of the other border towns, to see if they differed
among themselves. Thus, Camden, Michigan, was compared
with Fremont, Indiana; Fremont, Indiana, was compared with
Pioneer, Ohio; Pioneer, Ohio was compared with Camden, Mich—
gan.

In relation to birth data, the two Indiana towns
(at the .05 level) were similar, whereas the two towns in
Michigan differed, as did the towns in Ohio. There were no
statistically significant differences among the three
border towns.

 

129

fifth graders had some difficulty answering this question.
But when we combine the answers given by the seniors for
"the majority" and "all" we find that the percentages, in
the control towns, range from a high of 86.7% in Ridgeville
Corners, Ohio, to a low of 79% in Wolf Lake, Indiana. In
the border towns the percentages were as follows: Fremont,
Indiana, 52.1%, Camden, Michigan, 70.5%, Pioneer, Ohio,
72.7%

I wanted to know, too, in which state they were
born and in how many states they might have lived. An
allied question asked them about the number of years they
had spent in the same school system. The following Table 6
shows where these students were born.

If we compare the 12th grades in Camden and Spring-
port, Michigan, we find that the percentages of native born
are both high - over 80% — and very much alike. The same
situation is somewhat different in Indiana where only 66.1%
in Fremont were native born, compared to 90.7% in the control
town of Wolf Lake. But even in Fremont, 85.7% of the fifth
graders were born in the state of Indiana. my 1964 study of
the other three border towns revealed essentially the same
pattern - a very high percentage of in-state births in all
three states. With one or two exceptions, then, these

figures seem to indicate that even though these people are

 

130

 

 

(i1

 

 

 

 

m.m 0.0 o m.m m.mm o m.m apNH I .meoo oaaflbowuwm
m.4 O O o w.Hm 0.0 m.0 SpNH I hwoGOHm
o o m.0 o m.mm 5.0 0 sum I pmonowm
owso
0.e 0.: a.» o o H.mm 0 same I pnoamcwndm
0.H o o o m.m m.om m.m news I smegma
o a.m o o.m N.mH 0.m0 a.0 gun I sesame
sameness
m.m o m.m o m.m m.m p.00 epma I mess macs
s.H o o m.o fi.m m.om H.0o news I pucEvtm
O o o O m.® m.d m.mm cum I paofimhh
mamHUGH
wc¢ 3.0H2
oz emepo gaseomamdeaz cease oweo sameness memfleeH

 

mewmpqmosem as Gaozm anphwm mo opmpm

.0 efinme

131

theoretically free to move in any direction they choose,
when it comes to having children they actually tend to
choose doctors and to look for hospital facilities in their
own states.

One other point deserves comment. In Fremont,
Indiana I was told by the Superintendent that they have
experienced quite an influx of people from Appalachia.
During my earlier study I was told the same thing by the
school authorities in Readin , Michigan. If these people
are, in fact, moving into the area, they do not appear in
the above table. Springport, Michigan has the highest
percentage of students who by any stretch of the imagination
could be thought of as having come from Appalachia — 7.7%.
The fifth graders in Pioneer, Ohio, are next, with 6.5% I
suspect, from my own knowledge of the area, that at any
given time there are a few such families in all of these
schools. They do not stay long, howeven in any one school
district and, since they are often academic problems, their
presence is noticed by the school authorities and the teach-
ers. In short, therefore, there iszmme migration from
Appalachia, but not as much as one would think from talking
with people in the area.

What other evidence is there which might point to
the static nature of these towns? I inquired into the
number of states they had lived in. The majority in every
school and in both the fifth and twelfth grades have lived

in but one state. In the control towns the percentages

132

range from 78.5% in Springport, Michigan, to 86% in Wolf
Lake, Indiana. In the border towns the percentages vary
from a low of 50.8% in the Fremont, Indiana, twelfth grade
to a high of 84.1% in the Pioneer, Ohio, twelfth grade.
Thirty-two percent of the Fremont high schoolers have lived
in‘gwg states - by far the largest percentage in any of the
schools. The highest percentage of those who had lived in
.3553; states was found in Ridgeville Corners, Ohio (6.7%)
but this only involved two students and in all other respects
the town of Ridgeville Corners appears to be the most stable
of all.

I also asked about the number of schools they had
attended. In all three of the fifth grades more than 66%
of the students had attended only the one school system. In
the twelfth grades this percentage falls off, but the control
towns are about the same as the border towns in this regard.
Fremont, Indiana, again, was the lowest, with 37.3% having
attended that school all of the time. Wolf Lake, Indiana,
for comparative purposes, shows 51.2% having attended the
same school for all twelve grades. In Camden, Michigan,
the figure was 55.7%, compared to Springport, Michigan with
40%. In Ohio, Pioneer was 52.3%, while Ridgeville Corners
was 60%.

What has been revealed up to this point? Three
summary statements may be made. (1) There are no notable
differences in age or sex of the students in these schools.

(2) In all of the towns the majority of the students were

133

born in their own state, within twenty miles of their present
home. The majority have lived in but one state and, by the
12th grade, with two exceptions, a majority have attended
but one school. (3) There does appear to be a type of "clan
structure" in all of these towns, spanning at least three
generations. Moreover, these "clans" (or extended families)
appear to be state oriented, or state centered. The picture
of a "mobile nation," therefore, simply does not appear in
this area of the country.

I shall turn now to a further description of the
people living in this area. I obtained information con—
cerning the educational level of the parents, the occupation
and place of employment of the fathers and mothers, their
religious affiliation, and the political party preference of
both the parents and the students. I shall, moreover, also
indicate in this chapter, the extent of their exposure to
the mass media and, finally, I shall explain what they ex—
pect to do and where they expect to live after they "grow
up."

The following Table 7 shows the educational level
of both the father and the mother in the six towns surveyed
in the winter of 1968.

In assessing these figures I think that we should
treat the answers given by the fifth graders with a great
deal of caution. In Pioneer, Ohio, this question produced
a veritable wave of panic when one little girl chirped out

with "Why would you expect us to know that?" The result

.mopmpm ompnp exp :anHB thpHm “Ho>mH mo.

A.msoehon was mQOHm so

can pmv mLOHuom HOOSOm 30H: can He mpmspmH exp
90 Hm>mH Hw20Humosem esp :H mmosmsmHHHv pqmonHsmHm HHHmoHpmewpm on who: whenev

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o o o o m.m 5.0 0.0m m. MN H.0H .2 essence
o o m.m o o.OH o.oN s.eN o. as o e NH I mHHHsomeHm
m.e o o e.HH m.o m.Nm H.0N m. N m.N 2
m.e o o e.HH H.m o.wm d.mH N. mH m.N e NH I nmo:OHm
n.mm o o N.m e.0 N.me 4.0 o o la
m.He o o s.m N.m o.mN m.NH N.m o e m I cemeOHm
OHeo
m.H s.s o 5.5 N.0 m.mm .eN m.NH . H
a m N.o H.m s.e N.m m.om m.mH H.mN m.w % NH I ptoemeHcdm
. o o m.m m.HH m.Nm e.0H H.HH o s
OH o 0 O O O O O O I
A. W.0 M.MH m M 0 W M W M Nm 0 mm m HN 0 H m NH I :mvsmo
q, . . . .em o.m H. NH o H
l H o o o o o IH
0 N mH o m o m H NH H mm H NH H. m o m m I :m Emu
am Heon
3 .e . . . . .
o m.N m.m o.w o.e N.Hm H.0H o s o a
m.H e m n 0 o b w N0 0 HH m.@ o m NH I mqu 9H0:
. .H as 0.: N23 HdN . _
O o o o o 0 MW 0 O H
m.0 H m m m w 0 N Nm 0.mH m.oN m.H m NH I MWQQMMN
o m.eH o m.m m.e H.NH o.mH .
o 0 0H 0 m.m o e.Nm m.eH .w o z
m o m m I psoSoJm
wcmHeqH
<2 .zonx .mm¢ teem .Umho .HHoo m III
, peppmhu
p.coa poz Ipmom .H o .
H o meow Haom emHm HHIm mIm eIo
«E I heapoE .h I hmfipmM%

 

mommpmmohom CH £30

£0 .mHthmm M

o Hw>mH HmCOHpmommw.

.5 stme

135

was that a very high percentage of the entire room said that
they did not know. From some of the comment in the rooms,
to this and to other questions, it was apparent that a good
many of the fifth graders had simply never wondered very much
about their parents at all. But instead of saying "I do not
know" to some of the questions, they responded by guessing
in the most "favorable" direction. This is a normal reaction,
as we know.

40st of the seniors probably did know, however,
about their parents education. From the standpoint of the
college educated person, the educational level in all of these
towns is low. The lowest educational level is in Ridgeville
Corners, Ohio, with 86.7% of the fathers and 96.7% of the
mothers having a high school education or less. Very few
in any of the towns have attended college. By and large,
the educational level is much the same in all of the towns.
My l96h study of the towns of An ola, Indiana, Readin ,

Michigan and mentpelier, Ohio, revealed essentially the

 

same pattern of education. The percentage of college
educated was somewhat higher in Angola, Indiana than it
was in the other two towns, probably owing to the presence
in that town of Tri—State College.

How are the parents of these children employed, and
where do they work? Very few of the fathers were retired,
and very few were unemployed in the winter of 1968. The
highest unemployment rate was shown by the fathers of the

12th graders in Camden, Michigan, 6.5%. But in most of the

136

towns the unemployment rate was zero. With the exception
of Fremont, Indiana, the majority in all of the towns are
farmers, factory-shop workers, or a combination of the two.
The following Table 8 summarizes the occupational breakdown
of the fathers.

Again, this question engendered great confusion in
the fifth grades, producing a veritable sea of waving hands
wanting to know "What if my father . . .?" As indicated in
the table, however, Fremont, Indiana, has more business and
professional men, fewer farmers and factory workers, than
any of the other towns. This tallies with the fact that the
educational level is higher in that town than in the others.
It also corresponds with information furnished by the Super—
intendent of Schools, who said that there were a number of
families living around Clear Lake, in the very northeast
corner of Indiana, whose fathers were professional peOple
who commuted every day to Fort Wayne, Indiana, or to Toledo,
Ohio. But otherwise the majority seem to be blue—collar
workers, or farmers. The highest percentage of people so
employed is to be found in the control town of Ridgeville
Corners, Ohio — the town, incidently, with the lowest
educational level.

The occupation of the mothers is set forth in
Table 9. The highest number who are "only housewives" is
to be found in Ridgeville Corners, Ohio. The lowest number
is in Wolf Lake, Indiana. Wolf Lake, too, is the town where

more of the mothers do factory work than any of the other

137

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

msoceoo
m.m o.OH e.mH m.ms NH I mHHHsmmeHm
w.0 0.mH m.ON H.0m NH I LmoGOHm
N.m e.©H N.m N.:b m I AmeOHm
OHSO
b.0H m.mH O.MN w.0m NH I whomwaHpam
m.m m.0H N.m m.m0 NH I covsmo
N.mH N.mH H.d 0.5m m I am see
as HSOHs
N.mN m.© o.mH m.mm NH I ome HHoB
N.OH 0.5H m.mm 0.0m NH I pcosmsm
m.m m.4H m.mN 0.54 m I pcosmsm
mstccH
42 so HchHm Shem I .omm COHpm
..mm< poz .umHOHm ImmHOhm so ICHnEoo so deem
lama: .emqumm scape sex mmmchdm Ihsopomm .SLNm

 

mmwmpsmohmm am nzonm
wszoe meHoaHsm me map CH msmnpmm on» mo wQOHpmmdooo .m mHnme

138

 

msecsoo
NH I mHHHsmmsHe

 

 

 

 

 

 

o m.mH 0.0H 5.05
o o e I. «HWGCOH
o m mN a 0 5 50 m mmmm.
o m.Hm m.oH 5.0m NH I pnoemthdm
o m.HN 5.5H 0.5m NH I emeemo
H.o N.HN H.NH .o m I masses
0 e emmHSOHa
m.N e.Nm e.mN m.am NH I mess eHos
H.m a.HH “.mH m.se NH I saogmwa
m.m w.mN w.¢ ©.H0 m I psososm
mcchsH
a2
so ..mm¢ poz smnpo mosml5popomm mHHmesom

 

mowmpcmosom cm czoflm
mcsos HmmHosHsm me esp sH wsmnpoz Ho mQOHpNQSQQO .0 mHnme

139

towns. Otherwise the towns are much the same. Again, as
would be expected from the educational level and from the
occupation of the fathers, more of the mothers in Fremont,
Indiana, do non—factory work than in any of the other towns,
although both WOlf Lake, Indiana and Springport, Michigan,
are not unlike in this regard.

Where is the work done? A very high percentage of
the working mothers work in the state in which they live.
This is of course true in the control towns, but it also
applies to the border towns. As a general rule we are
safe in thinking that if commuting of any distance is
done it will be done by the father, rather than the mother.
Table 10, therefore, indicates the place of employment of
the fathers.

We are, of course, attempting to assess the signi-
ficance of the state boundaries, and the pulling power of
the states. Where does one go to work? Let us imagine a
small town, without any industry of its own, located exactly
in the center of a triangle formed by three medium sized
industrial cities, all equally accessible to the residents
of the small town, and all with the same wage scale. In
this purely imaginary situation we might expect to find a
completely random choice by the residents. It would not
make any difference where they chose to go to work. But
otherwise we would expect to find the residents of the
small town going in the direction of the work, wherever the

work was located, with a general fanning out process

140

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mhmflhoo

H.H o H.H5 o H.H NH I mHHH>mmsHa

w.0 o H.em m.4 m.e NH I wchOHm

N.m o H.5m e.o N.m m I mmmmmmm
0Hao

5.5 H.m o 5.5m m.H NH I shoemeHnam

H.e m.m e.0H o.me 5.e NH I sesame

H.s H.o N.HH e.m0 H.5 m I smegma
aw HeoHa

m.N o o o 5.55 NH I mama HHos

m.m m.0 ¢.m m.0 0.¢5 NH I peosmsm

w.s o m.: w.e 5.mw m I psosmsm
NQNHUQH

.. as
to sea pox spasm tmepo OHao eemHeoHs aemHecH

 

hummucmohmm,nm,azo£m
UmMOHmEm mam mhmnpmm noHQB :H mwuwpm

.OH mHQmB

lhl

determined by the wage rate and the distance. Does this
happen in the tri—state corner that we are investigating?
Apparently not. In the control towns, located deeper in
the states, the percentages of those who work in their own
state are very high. But on the exact border, they are still
high. Note the percentages in Pioneer, Ohio and Fremont,
Indiana. The only exception at all is the Michigan border
town of Camden. This is the town with the least industry of
its own, and it is the smallest of the border towns. Both
Indiana and Ohio are very accessible, yet even here the
number who go across a state border to work is small. Of
course there isenme - limited - movement back and forth from
all three border towns.

The towns that I studied in 1964 were located a few
miles further away from the state borders. The Table 11
below shows the employment pattern at that time.

Table 11. States in Which Fathers Were Employed in 196k
Shown in Percentages

 

Indiana Michigan Ohio

Indiana

Tichi an

Reading - 12 2.0 90.0 0
Ohio

Montpelier - 12 1.0 2.0 95.0

__h

142

It would seem from both of the above tables that there is a
clearly discernable "wall effect" insofar as patterns of
employment are concerned. Directly along the borders we
have found what might be thought of as a rather narrow area
of "cultural turbulence," with rather limited movement back
and forth, but this disappears very quickly as we move
deeper into each of the three states. The Hoosiers, the
Michiganians and the Buckeyes seem to prefer to work in
their own states.115
This araaof the Mid West is not located directly
in the so—called Bible Belt, although it is close to the
northern fringe. In order to establish further the char-
acter of the people living in this region, I inquired into
the extent of their curch affiliation. The great majority
of these people are Protestants. Because of an objection
from one of the Superintendents I did not ask about the
denominational affiliation of the children, but limited
myself to asking about the extent of the family-church
connection. I asked them to select one of four phrases
which would best describe their church connection: None,
Slight, Active, Very Active. Since this tends to be a tOpic
where respondents exaggerate in the "desireable" direction,

I have combined the answers to the first two in Table 12.

b—

115In relation to where the fathers of the students
were employed, statistically significant differences were
found between the two Michigan towns and also between the
two Indiana towns. There was no statistical difference be-
tween the two Ohio towns. Of course there were very large
differences between the three border towns.

 

 

1&3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

whens

m.m 0.0m m.m0 m.m NH I mHHH>mWWHm

m.N 0.MH m.©N 0.¢m NH I sonOHm

O d.mq m.mN m.mN m I hmmCOHm
OHQO

m.H 5.5 m.MH 0.05 NH I phomwcHhmm

O m.HH 0.5N 0.00 NH I copEmo

O.m ¢.©m H.NH ¢.m4 m I Cmesmo
OHao

O N.Om N.Om 0.0m NH l mxmq MHOB

O N.OH m.mH m.e5 NH I psosmem

w.¢ m.dH m.mN H.5m m I onEmhm
mcmesH

me:
Im:« 02 m>Hpo¢ 5sm> o>Hpo< pstHm so .msoz

 

mmwmpcmohod CH csoam

mQZOB HmmHqumm me map :H COHpomscou flotsam Ho pcmpxm

.NH mHQmB

lhh

What do these figures seem to indicate? With the
possible exception of Fremont, Indiana, they seem to show
that the fifth graders have a somewhat different perception
of church affiliation than do the twelfth graders. It is
possible, too, that all of the students misinterpreted the
question and reported the extent 0f.£221£ affiliation,
rather than the affiliation of the family as a whole. I
was careful, however, to stress the fact that I was inter-
ested in the family. But if we look at the "active" and
"very active" columns, and concentrate on the answers as
given by the 12th graders, we can see that the most church-
oriented group by far is the control town of Ridgeville
Corners, Ohio. This ties in with another bit of evidence,
which will be reported at a later point, involving the stu-
dents‘ perception of themselves as revealed by their answers
to the question "Who Am I?" A far larger number of these
students saw themselves as "Christians" than did the students
in any of the other schools. I was also told by the Super-
intendent in Ridgeville Corners that the German Lutheran
Church was very strong through the district.

Ridgeville Corners is a bit to the south of the tri-
state corner, and hence a few miles closer to the Bible Belt.
What is the situation in Wolf Lake, Indiana, which is also
on the southern edge of the zone we are interested in, and
thus that much closer to this famous "Belt" across the mid-

part of America? If we combine the "active" and "very

 

 

145

active" here (60.4%0 we find that this is the next highest.
Springport, Michigan, on the other hand, is the furtherest

away from the Bible Belt and the combined figure of active

church members drops to its lowest level, 21.5%.

Now let us look at the towns on the border. Still
referring to the answers as given by the seniors, the Egg;
church people in Fremont, Indiana, constitute 74.5% of the
total. In Camden, Michigan, the figure is 60.6% and in
Pioneer, Ohio, it is 54.6%. The Indiana town, therefore, is
the "least religious" of the three border towns.

But perhaps the most interesting fact to emerge
from these figures is the realization of how much the actual
facts diverge from the popular stereotype we are apt to have,
not only of the small town residents, but of the American
population as a whole. In four out of the six towns a
clear majority have none, or only a slight, connection
with any church at all. They may be baptized, married and
buried from a church, and go to an occasional Christmas or
Easter service. But for the rest of it, as the saying
goes, apparently "they couldn't care less."

For our purposes, however, I am more interested
in knowing whggg they go to church, if and when they go at

all. The following table presents this information.

 

156

Table 13. The Location of the Churches Attended by
Students from the Six Principal Towns,
Shown in Percentages of Those Who Indicated
Any Connection With A ChurCh.

 

 

Indiana Michigan Ohio

Indiana

Fremont — 5 88.2 11.8 0

Fremont - 12 97.8 0 2.2

Wolf Lake — 12 97.6 0 2.4
Michigan

Camden - 5 3.6 92.9 3.6

Camden - 12 11.5 80.8 7.7

Springport — 12 0 100.0 0
Ohio

Pioneer - 5 3.2 12.9 83.9

Pioneer - 12 0 2.8 97.2

Ridgeville - 12 O 0 100.0

Corners

 

So far as the control towns are concerned — with the
exception of one individual in Wolf Lake, Indiana — all of
the churches are located in their own state. On the border
there is some difference in the pattern reported by the fifth
graders from the one revealed by the seniors. But even in
Camden, Michigan, where the seniors showed some church
attendance in both Ohio and Indiana, the percentage of those
attending church in their own state is very high (80.8).

In both Fremont, Indiana and Pioneer, Ohio, the percentages
are higher - essentially the same as shown by the towns

deeper in each state. As with employment, therefore, we

147

seem to have found a slight band of cultural turbulence
along the borders, but on the whole the church people in
each state worship (as they work) in their own state. They
do not fan out in all directions - the shape of the "fan"
is determined by the existence of the state lines.

We know that these are Republican towns located in
Republican counties. How much do these students know about
the political party affiliation of their parents, and do
they think of themselves as personally belonging to one of
the parties. The table below shows their answers to this
question about their parents.

The first question that had any connection with
political parties came at the beginning of my questioning
when the students were asked to name the governors of the
three states and to indicate the party that each represented.
I did this first in the town of Camden, Michigan. I was not
prepared at all for the nature of the response from the fifth
graders. The children were completely bewildered. They knew
of the "governors," but they had no idea at all of what was
meant by the phrases "and their party," or "the political
party." Again, all of the hands were waving, and one little
boy said, "I just don't have any idea what you mggg." I
could not then explain this, since it would distort the
answers to subsequent questions. Accordingly I merely told
them that if they did not know, they should simply leave the

question blank.

 

 

148

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . . . mhwcho
m m m mH 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0.05 0 NH I mHHH>oNWHm
m N 0 mH w 0 0 m.N m.N ¢.HH ¢.me m.mH NH I pmoCOHm
4 0 0 Hm 0 w.mN :.0 0 N.m 4.0 0 m I somCOHm
0H£0
0.H w.0H m.H N.0N N.0 m.H H.m 0.:N m.HN NH I psomwsHhmm
0.H m.0 0 0.HN 0.H 0.H m.HN m.HN m.HN NH I cmeswo
o 5.5w 0 o o o o H.0 H.0 m I sesame
cm HSOHZ
m.N 0.H 0 m.N m.N m.N m.¢m 5.5N N.mN NH I mme HHoz
5.H N.0 o m.mH a.m o m.HH N.Nm H.0m NH I psosmhm
m.0 0.5: 0 0 0 0 0.H m.mm 0.4 m I psoamam
mqude
.mcH 30cm .mmncH .mwucH .amesH .060 .060 .Emo
oz s.eoa Hague spam I.dmm I.Smm I.smm ssom seem

 

mowepsoosmmIcH c3000
mesoe HmmHoerm me map eH spawned Ho meOHpmHHHHHa ashes HNOHpHHom

.eH mHsme

149

In asking about the parents, however, the students
were shown a list of alternatives (as indicated in the
table) from which they had to choose. In this manner they
were, of course, furnished with information which they
previously did not have - i.e., the labels "Republican,"
"Democrat," etc. But even so, the area of ignorance was
great in the fifth grades. In Camden, Michigan, 87.9% did

not know of the political party affiliation of their parents.

 

In Fremont, Indiana, with a somewhat higher educational
level on the part of the parents, 47.6% did not know. In
Pioneer, Ohio, 51.6% did not know. And since most of the
information furnished by the fifth graders differs rather
widely from that given by the seniors, I suspect that a
large number of the fifth graders chose to guess rather
than to expose their ignorance. In any event, it appears
that the process of political socialization is such that by
the age of 10 or 11 the notion of "political party" is not
a very meaningful one in these small towns. It‘mgy be less
meaningful in Camden, Michigan, than in either Fremont,
Indiana, or Pioneer, Ohio. But in the latter two towns
I was expecting the reaction and I may have done something
(unconsciously) to minimize it when I put the question to
them.

By the 12th grade, however, the concept of political
party is thoroughly familiar. In this part of the country,

therefore, we might think that this information enters the

150

cognitive world of the children somewhere between the ages
of ten and seventeen. The most thoroughly Republican town
in our sample is Ridgeville Corners, Ohio. This is followed
by the border town of Pioneer, Ohio. Thereafter, according
to the information given by the seniors, the division is
rather close. In Camden, Michigan, there are the same
number of wholly Democratic families as there are wholly
Republican ones. In Fremont, Indiana, the Republicans
have a slight edge. The number of Independents seems to
be greater, too, in both Camden, Michigan and in Fremont,
Indiana, than it does in Pioneer, Ohio. In short, there
seems to be more of a clear—cut Republican bias in Ohio
than in either of the other two states, and this bias is
evident directly on the border as well as deeper in the
state.

How does this affect the students in these schools?
Do they follow the same pattern as that set by their
parents? The following Table 15 shows their responses to
the question pertaining to their own party affiliation.

Except in Fremont, Indiana, a majority of the 10
and 11 year olds do not know the answer to this question —
they do not think of themselves as "belonging" to a polit-
ical party, presumably because they do not know what the
"parties" are. The seniors, however, lean in the same
direction as their parents. In both the Ohio towns the
Republicans are favored over the Democrats. In Ridgeville

Corners, Ohio, however, the percentage drops from 70% for

151

Table 15. Political Party Affiliations of
Students in the Six Towns
Shown in Percentages

Dem. Rep. Indep. Other Don‘t Know or

 

 

No Asnwer
Indiana
-—Fremant - 5 4.8 38.1 9.5 0 47.6
Fremont — 12 35.6 23.7 27.1 5.1 8.5
Wolf Lake - 12 20.9 23.2 34.9 2.3 18.6
'Eiggéggg - 5 6.1 9.1 6.1 6.1 72.7
Camden - 12 21.3 22.9 49.2 0 6.5
Springport - 12 23.1 24.6 43.1 3.1 6.2
2%oneer - 5 ‘o 16.1 22.6 3.2 58.1
Pioneer - 12 13.6 25.0 36.4 6.8 18.2
Ridgeville - 12 6.7 46.7 33.3 0 13.3
Corners

 

There are no statistically significant differences
between the border towns and the control towns in the three
states so far as the political party preferences of the
seniors are concerned. Among the border towns, at the .05
level, there is a (slight) statistically significant differ—
ence between Camden, Michigan and Fremont, Indiana. But
since Fremont, Indiana, is similar to Pioneer, Ohio, and
Pioneer is similar to Camden, Michigan, the difference is
not considered to be of any particular social significance.
In all three of the border towns there are large, easily
discernable, differences between the fifth graders and the

seniors.

the parents to k6.7% for the seniors. In Pioneer, Ohio,

it drops from 45.4% for the parents to 25% for the seniors.
In all six towns more of the seniors think of themselves as

Independents than do their parents. But otherwise there is

152

no great difference and, in some of the towns, there is a
very close correlation. For example, in the two Michigan
towns of Camden and Springport, and in the Indiana town of
Wolf Lake, the figures are about the same for both generations.
The seniors in Fremont, Indiana, are somewhat different from
those in the other towns, since they indicate a preference
for the Democrats over the Republicans and, moreover, more
of them think of themselves as Democrats than as Independents.

I shall discuss in another chapter the information
I received concerning the newspapers that are to be found in
their homes, and the radio stations they listen to. But
here, still under the general heading of "description" I
shall look quickly at some overall indicators which might
throw some light on how the students in the different towns
obtain information about the world "out there." I asked
them if they usually listened to radio news broadcasts,
watched TV news shows, "Looked" at a daily newspaper, or
read one of the national newsmagazines. Their answers are
compiled in the following Table 16.

As can be seen, in each of the towns, and in both
of the grades, somewhat more listen to the news on the
radio than watch a TV news show. This is probably because
the news is interjected frequently - in the form of brief
bulletins - in with the music and disc jockey chatter that

most of them listen to. The fifth graders in.2igggg§, Ohio,

153

 

 

mhmssoo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.04 0.00 5.0 m.m0 0.0a 0.00 0.0N 0.00 NH I mHHHsmmeHm

0.0 N.Hd 0.0H 0.Hw m.5N 0.05 0.mH H.em NH I semeOHm
m.H0 5.0m 0.0m 0.40 N.05 0.0N 5.50 m.Nm 0 I tmmeowwmm

0.0m m.H0 m.Ha 0.00 5.5N H.N5 0.0N 0.0m NH I psosweHudm

N.0e 0.00 0.0 5.00 5.5m m.N0 0.0N 0.05 NH I emesmo

m.mm 5. a. m .m a. m . N.HN .05 m I cmesao
00 0 0 0 0 0 m0 0 mmmwmwmm

0.Nm 0.50 m.0 5.00 N.HN 5.05 0.HH 0.0m NH I mxmq NHoa

H.5s H.Na H.0m m.a0 H.0m H.50 0.5H 0.Hm NH I seesasa

0.0N 0.H5 5.Ns H.5m m.mm 5.00 0.5H 0.Hm m I guesses
msmesH

02 we» oz 005 02 we» 02 005

.mm: 0302 .H.0mz

mzm 0.H m 0
wam hHHwfiwD Z .0 m p

swpmHH 5HHwSm0

smmmmwzmz 5HH00
0a e000 HHHasws

2000 0302 50
seems 5HHmsms

 

H.009PHEO seem m>mm.mstms< ozww..wmwspc00
Imam cm :zomm, .mGZpBIHsmHosHpm me one :H swohmfls
p50: 0Hsoz oanwsthmosoo COHmesOHcH mo mcossom .0H anwe

154

seem to be the ones who are least well "tuned in" to the

news broadcasts, but with this one exception the pattern

is quite uniform from town to town and from state to state.
Insofar as their reading habits are concerned, more

of the seniors in the three border towns "look at" a daily

newspaper than do the fifth graders. For the seniors

there does not seem to be any particular state pattern.

The highest percentage was found in Ridgeville Corners, the

lowest in Springport, Michigan. In relation to newsmagazines,

I cited as examples such publications as Time, Life, Newsweek,

 

ngk, etc. It seems that more fifth graders than seniors in
the towns of Camden and Fremont "look at" such magazines.

In the town of Pioneer the seniors were required to read one
of the weekly newsmagazines in school by their government
teacher, and this explains the higher percentage there.
Again, there does not appear to be any particular pattern,
or, if there is, it does not appear to be state—based.

These figures do reveal that the majority of the students
(with the exception of the fifth grade in Pioneer) are
regularly exposed, at least, to the news as it is presented
in the mass media.

Finally, I wanted to know something of their aspir-
ations following high school graduation, and where they
pictured themselves as living after they had "grown up." I
did not ask these questions of the fifth graders. I started

to ask them in Camden, iichigan, but I was met with such a

155

solid wall of blankness that I omitted them. For the fifth
grader to think of life after graduation from high school -
even to think of being 23 high school - was simply too much.
And as for where he might live when he was "grown" — an
unthinkable question! There is a passage in Daniel Lerner's
The Passing of Traditional Society, a study of the Mid East
peasant, where some of the back-country people reacted in
the same way to the question, "What would you do if you were
the King?" Blank incomprehension. How could a simple pea—
sant even emagine such a thing? In like manner, how could

a fifth grader in a small Midwestern town even imagine life
anywhere else?

The post-high school plans of the seniors are
summarized in the following Table 17. There is very little
deviation from state to state or from town to town, so far
as plans for further education are concerned. The highest
aspirations were found in Wolf Lake, Indiana, the lowest in
Ridgeville Corners, Ohio. If the low aspiration in Ridgeville
Corners, Ohio, reflects the fact that their parents are the
least well educated, then Fremont, Indiana, should have the
highest such hopes. But this is not so. The hopes of the
seniors in the exact tri—state corner are much alike. There
seems to be more of a difference, however, in expectations

about employment and service in the armed forces. But there

does not seem to be a state pattern in this respect, for in

Camden, Michigan, 27.9% expect to enter the armed forces,

while in Springport, Michigan, only 9.2% expect to do so.

156

.mepmpm omCCp esp CHCpHS Co Cmvpon 0C9

 

wCOHm Cmanm mmoCoCmHMHU pCmoHMHCme 5HHmoHpmempm 0C 0C0 maCp .vaCooCoo ohm COHpmoCUm

 

CmeCCH Com mCOHpmpommxm mm CmmomCH

.mmosom 008mm map prCm op Umpommxm .CmmHCon

.Cmusmo CH mCOHCmm 0C9 mo whoa mep poem on» 59 C00 UmpCCooow 09 C00 5039 I HHmEm 0C0 50C»
.CmHHEHm HHm mew mCzop 0C9 .5HHmoHpmempw .mmHz

ICmeo psm

0C0 I pmec 00 mwoCmCmMMH0 esp 0C0C3
.mCmHvCH .pCoamsm 0C0 meHCUHE .Cmesmo mo mCzop 0C9 Comspmn .Co0Con 0C9 Co

.0C0 mCSop CmmHgoHE 039 cap ComSpmn moCoCmMHHp pCmonchHw 5HH00Hpmempm m mH whoCB

 

 

 

 

 

mCmCCoo
0 m.m m.ms 0.0H 0.0N m.m 0.0N NH I mHHH>000Hm
m.N H.5 5.0H N.0H 0.0N m.N H.5N NH I hmmeOHm
0H00
0 m.NH H.mN N.0 m.NH 0.0H N.0N NH I phoaweHsam
o m.m 5.0H 0.5N H.mH 0.HH 0.5N NH I 000s00
camHHOHa
0 m.N 5.0N 0.HH H.0H 0.5 H.0m NH I memH 0H0:
0 0.HH 5.HN 0.0 H.0N 0.0 H.5N NH I Cacaowe
mCmHUCH
Hoogom
.wC< 02 ConO xhoz wmohom UoECH mmmCHmCm .HHoo .Cw mmmHHoo

 

.mmwspsmosem CH Cacnm
esp Mn vamobmm mm .HOOCom Cme CwHMH mHHH Com mCmHm

.mCBoE HmmHoCHCmINHm 059 CH mCOMCmm

.5H mHDmB

157

The majority of the students in the tri-state corner,
and in the control towns, expect that when they do go to
school, or when they do go to work, they will do so in their
own state. Their expectations and plans are shown in the
following Table 18. Those who expect to enter the armed
forces are included in with the No Applicable and No Answer
column.

These figures are subject to some distortion, since
some of the students who said they planned to go into the
armed forces, either changed their minds in answering this
question, or did not understand the directions. But allowing
for this, the majority seem to think in terms of their own
state as the place to go or to do whatever it is they plan
to do. The Ohioans in both towns seem more willing to cross
the state line (for education) than do either the Michiganians
or the Indianans, and they seem to prefer Indiana over Mich-
igan. The residents of Camden, Michigan are tne next most
ready to cross a state line, and they seem to prefer Indiana
over Ohio. The Indianans are the least ready to leave their
state, whether they live in Fremont or in Wolf Lake. Note,
too, how firmly centered all of them are in the Midwest -
how very few have thought of New England, for example, as
the place to go for an education, and, surprisingly, how
very few have thought of Chicago (included in with the

Other Midwest Category).

 

158

.mCOHpmpCmHCo

mumpm Ho I :mCprpma: vmmmpImpmpm Ho mHQEme poemsem m 0H .msowmsmnp .oHnmp mHCB

map mo Comm Cmmzpcn mmoCmCmmeU psmoHMHCmHm 5HHonpmempm 0C0 oCme Ham

.mHCp on CwHHsHm 0C0 mseCpo esp 0C0 .mm.50 mHmswo enmswm HCo prp 0CHH 03 .0HCENK0
Com .mCmHUCH .pCoEmCm 0C0 CCMHCOHE .Covsmo wCHCmmEoo

"039 Cono 039 0C0 mCBop C00COQ

.mwpmpm

mthp 0C9 mo Como CH wCzop 039 me Cmmzpmn mmoCmCmHMHU pCmonHCme 5HHmoprHpmpm

0C 0C0 mCmCB

.500.0H 0H0000 000000 H00 .H0>0H 00. 000 00 .0H000 0>000 000 0H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mCmCCoo
5.0 0 0 m.m 0 0 5.00 m.m 0.0N NH I 0HHH>000H0
0 m.N 0 0 m.N 0.0 0.00 m.N 0.HH NH I C0000Hm
0H00
0.0H 0 0.H H.m 5.5 H.m 0 N.00 H.m NH I psomeHCmm
0.0 0 0.H m.m 0.H 0.5 0.0 5.00 0.HH NH I 000s00
00 HsoH:
0.HH 0 0 m.N m.N m.N H.N H.N 5.05 NH I 0000 HHos
0.HH 0 0 0 H.m H.0 5.H H.0 H.50 NH I 0000000
mCmHvCH
.mCH oz pmmm s pmmchE
00a 002 00000 New .2 00:00 a s 30 00000 oHso .00Hs .00H

 

wwwdemoCmm,CH,C30£m

.pCmshonsm,xmmm CHICO Hooscm oeIoo 09

pommxm mCBOB mewoCHCm me esp CH mCOHCmm whens mmpspm

.mH mHQmB

159

Where do they see themselves living when they are
"grown"? This question tended to become somewhat confused
with the idea of where they might likg to live when they
were grown. But, as asked, and as explained to them, the
purpose of the question was to find out where they actually
thought they would live. The results appear in Table 19.

The Michigan students, whether on the border or in
the control town, are about the same. A majority expect
to live in Michigan. Hardly any of them expect to live in
either Indiana or in Ohio. Apart from this they indicate a
preference for one of the Western or South Western states.
The Indiana students are a bit different. Slightly less
than one half of the Fremont students expect to live in
Indiana, while more than 60% of the Wolf Lake students
expect to do so. A very few of the Fremont students expect
to live in either Ohio or Michigan, while none of the Wolf
Lake students selected these states. The Wolf Lake students
give the South a slight edge over the West and the South
West, while the Fremont students prefer the latter region
of the country. Ohio differs somewhat from both Michigan
and Indiana. Again, slightly less than one half of the
students living on the border see themselves as continuing
to live in Ohio, while in the very stable town of Ridgeville
Corners the overwhelming majority expect to continue to be
residents of the same state when they are grown up. For
the Pioneer students (apart from the 47% who are "tied" to

the state), the West and the South West is the preferred

160

.mvdeCme CmHHEHm 0 mo 0C6: mCBop Cmpsop me
Ho mCowHCmmEoo 00CH00 Cmnpo mCH .m©.mm mHmswo msmsvm H00 me9 UCCOH 003 CH .mCmeCH

i

.pCosmCm CpHs meHCoHE .C00500 MCHCmQEoo .mHmexm Com
5HCmmHo 0C0 Cm0son 00» Co mCzop esp .Cwad
Cmmzpcp 0Csom 003 moCmCmmmHv pCmonHCme 5HHmoprHpspm H
mCOH>oCm map 0p CmHHEHm mH mHDmp mHCB

.ConOCw mCo Eomm pCmmeme
.A5H.0H "000000 H000 00:00 0H00 020 000
.COHpmeXm mCo CpHB .mCo
.500.0H MHmsvm Hm>mH 00. esp pm chCwm HCo

 

0.0H 0 0 0 0 0 5.00 0 m.m
5.NN m.N m.N 0 N.0H 0.0 5.50 m.N 0
0.0H 0 0.H N.0 0.0H 0.H 0 0.50 0
0.0H m.m 0.H 0.H 5.0H m.m 0 0.Nm 0.H
m.5 0.0 0.0 m.m 0.5 m.N o 0 w.N0
0.NN 0.m 0 0.0 m.mH 5.H 0.m 5.H 0.00

mCmCCoo
NH I 0HHH>000H0

 

NH I CmmCOHm
0H00

NH I pCOQwCHCQm

 

NH I Cmcsmo
000H00Hs

NH I 0004 HHoS
NH I pCoEmsm

sCmHUCH

 

 

0000 0

0002000
00000 .000 .H

.000 00 00000 are 00 00000 0H00 000H00Hs

 

.mmwprmoCmm,CH C30:m.t.@0C30C0: Cmfig
CH m>HH oe pommwm mCOHCom 005 9009 mpmpm 005

sCmHvCH

.0H mHQmB

161

location, as it was for the other students living on the
border, while for the Ridgeville Corner Students there is
apparently no other region of the country which attracts
them at all. It appears, then, as though the students who
live in the exact tri—state corner are more similar to each
other than they are to their counterparts who live deeper
in each of the three states. It also appears that most of
them tend to think of moving, if they are going to move at
all, to the South, the South West and the West, rather than
in any other direction.

I referred earlier to the fact that I had been
seeking, along the borders, evidence which would indicate

similarities from state to state, evidence which would

 

indicate differences in behavior from state to state, and

 

evidence indicating the existence of wallg formed by the
state lines. In this chapter I have already summarized
information pointing to the large number of "localities" in
the area, and to the existence in all three states of what
seems to be a type of state—centered clan-society. What
else can we conclude? So far as similarities are concerned,
a large majority in all of the towns have a twelfth grade
education or less. With the exception of Fremont, Indiana,
the majority of the fathers are either farmers and/or blue-
collar workers of some sort. In our tri—state triangle,
these are, on the whole, non-church people. The area is
essentially Republican. But the fifth graders are not

aware of this fact, and somewhat more of the twelfth graders

 

162

think of themselves as Independents than do their parents.
Otherwise the children mirror their parents' political
preferences throughout the area. A majority of the students
are regularly exposed to the news as presented by the mass
media, and to about the same degree throughout the region.
Finally, all have about the same sort of plans for education
after high school, and all are generally firmly anchored to
the Mid West. These are the essential similarities.

What differences have been discovered? On the border,
Fremont, Indiana, seems to differ from both Camden, Michigan
and Pioneer, Ohio, in at least four ways. (1) There is a
somewhat higher educational level in Fremont than there is
in the other two towns. (2) There is a higher percentage
of non-church people in this town. (3) There is a lower
percentage of farmers and blue collar workers. (A) A
higher percentage of the seniors in this town identify with
the Democratic Party than with the Republican Party. In
both of the Indiana towns there appeared to be a slightly
greater tendency for the mothers to work. But if there is
any state pattern to this, it is, at best, a weak one. The
other difference that may have emerged is that both of the
Ohio towns seem to be more firmly Republican than do the
towns in either Indiana or Michigan.

Finally, what additional evidence, if any, has
been found pointing to the existence of our invisible walls
along the state lines? I believe that here the evidence is

clear. For when we look at where these people work, where

163

they worship, where they plan to go to school and where they
plan to live, we find clear divisions along the state lines.
There appears to be what might be thought of as a rather
narrow area of "cultural turbulence" along the state lines,
but this area vanishes rapidly as one moves deeper into

each state. I believe that the walls, therefore, are even

more evident now than they were before.

CHAPTER V

Survey Results: Knowledge and Behcvior

I wanted to see if, from state to state, the students
kggw different things, and if, in some rather simple and
everyday ways, they gig different things. Realizing that it
is difficult, if not impossible, to separate clearly such

matters from the structure of their attitudes, I shall try,

 

nevertheless, to concentrate on knowledge and behavior in
this chapter, in spite of the fact that the division may be
an arbitrary one. In my l96u study I asked them to identify
the governors of the three states, the senators from all
three states, the congressmen from their states and districts,
their own state representatives, and the mayors of their
towns. Of course, I asked too much, and the area of ignor-
ance was so vast in all three towns that it turned out to
be something of a waste of time. I limited my inquiries
this time, therefore, to the identity of the governors and
their political parties, and to the senators from their
own state along with their parties.

I asked them first, in a fill-in question, to name
the governor of Michigan, and to give me the name of his
party. I have already described the blank looks that the
second half of this question produced among the fifth graders.

Table 20 shows the results.
161»

 

165

.hoohon exp MGOHm pcopH>m m
pamomeume sHHmoapmapmpm
csop Lennon can we: swap cm
.wSmH@QH .ome MHoB mo szop Hoppnoo mse

I800 one mo HHm uH

 

mocohmmmHu gosh ham omega chm: you .ucsom who: neocowmmHHc
on .pm>oaon .mmpmpm ozp hospo 059 :H
wanoflz mo poapm>ow opp pzonm coshomnfl HHm3 mmoH hHmmoHo mm:
. .mcsop mcmchH 039 esp somzpmn mm: .mnomfihmm
.monmpmMMHv pamOHMchHm hHHmoHpmempm kHzo mnp .wuowcom map maos<

 

.mstUsH .pcosmhm Mo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

whocmoo
m.m 0 .0H 5.0m ma I maaa>mwewa
m.m o m.© 0.00 NH I pmeOHm
.00H 0 O o m I hoocowmmq
H.m o 5.5 N.0m NH I phOdwnHamm
0.H O N.m N.om NH I nonsmo
4.0m o m.Hm H.a m I sowsmo
ca agoaa
N.mm 0.d .5 H.m© NH l mxm4 MHOB
o o m.mH 4.0m NH I pcosmhm
b.mw o m.© m.4 m I pcothm
mcmHUsH
mcohz HH< poohmoo named meow: spawn pomapoo hpmmm II

he .mewc¢ oz

.maowg pompo>oc

.poohhoo poqpm>oo

 

mowmpsovom aw azomm «mammavaoprHom nwm
Una .nmenon mo nocao>oo mo COpronHpuoUM

new pocmw>ou

.om mHnt

166

Before looking at the results for the governors of
Ohio and Indiana, I think that we should look at the above
figures. The questionnaire was administered in all of the
towns during the time that Governor Romney was making his bid
for the presidential nomination. He was very much in the
news, particularly in the state of Michigan, but throughout
the Mid West as well. The daily newspapers, the national

newsmagazines, the radio news and the television news shows

 

all carried information about him and about his campaign.
His withdrawal from candidacy occurred afterwards. If we
look at the seniors in the border towns, we see very little
difference - he was about as well known in Michigan as he
was in Ohio and Indiana. Among all of the seniors in the
six towns, the only substantial difference was found in the
control town of Wolf Lake, Indiana. In this town the area
of total ignorance jumped to 23.2%.

With the fifth graders there is a difference. None
of the Ohio youngsters knew anything about Governor Romney.
In Fremont, Indiana, 14% could name him, but less than 5%
knew he was a Republican. In Camden, Michigan, 60% knew the
name of the Governor, but only 9% could identify him as a
Republican. Again, we have rather clear evidence of the
fact that the great majority of fifth graders in this part
of the country function in a cognitive world which does not
include the concept of "political party" — in all probability
a world which does not include the concept of "politics" at

all. The fifth grade results are interesting from another

167

standpoint, as well. He know that a majority of them are
regularly exposed to the mass media. We know that the mass
media covered Romney's campaign, and that he was constantly
identified as the Republican Governor of Kichigan during
that campaign. Yet this information did not get inside the
heads of these children. They must have heard the sounds
and the words, and seen the pictures. But they did not
mean anything to them.

The same question was asked in all six towns about
the governors of Ohio and Indiana. The results appear in
the following two tables.

In the winter of 1968, the governors of Ohio and
Indiana were more "normal" than was Governor Romney of
Michigan. They probably provide, therefore, a somewhat
better test of the spread of this very elementary political
knowledge in each state. None of the fifth graders in Michi-
gan or Indiana could identify the governor of Ohio. In
Ohio almost 13% could identify him, but only 3.2% knew his
party as well. The great majority of the seniors in Ohio
knew both the governor and his party. Somewhat over 40% of
the Michigan seniors on the border could name him, but less
than one half of this number could identify his party.
Practically none of the Springport seniors could identify
him. The knowledge of his identity was slight in both
Indiana towns but about twice as many in Fremont could
identify the governor by name than they could in Wolf Lake.

The people on the border, therefore, seem to know more about

 

168

 

.Uopommxm on prHE mm szome I mmoCoCommHm

pCmoamaCmHm hHHmoHpmempm ohm mCme mCZop CmpCOQ 03» Cono one CpHB eoCmCEoo mH CmoCOHm

Ho Czou wmpCon OHCO me CmC3 psm .moCmCOCwH CHme CH Co memHSOCx CHme CH I CmHHEHm ewe
mCmHUCH .pCoEmCm pCm CmmHCoHE .Cmcsmo .MHompH CmUCon on MCon .CmCe .mEmm me kHHmememm
mCm .CoboBOC .mCzou OHCO 039 mCB .Cmvwon me Eowm maze CmeCCM m>HH 0C3 wCOHme map

on Cme madam wCHConCwHeC m mo C0CCm>ow me pConm whoa BoCx mCBop Copwon me CH mCOHCmm

 

 

on mep poem me m
mwoCoCemmHv pCmoHMHC
:CHCoCm: pH mm thomNm mH pH ooCH

CHpomHmoh
MHm hHHmoHpmempw ohm owCB

.mCmeCH UCm CmmHCoHE CH wCBOp 03p one CH mCOHCwm me Comzpon
.mCSOp me me mo COHmeOH me Co>Hw .mn
m mCHpmowmpCH hHeEmexm mH mHnmp mHCp AHHonpmempm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mCmCCoo

m.m o e.e .00 NH I maaw>mmeas

m.N o ©.mH H.4m NH I CmmCOHm

H.5m o 5.0 N.m m I CmmCoam
OHCO

¢.mo o o 0.4 NH I CCOCwCHCdm

u.mm 0.H 0.4N .mH NH I CopEmo

.00H 0 o o m I Cmosmo
Cm HCOHE

n.0b m.© m.N 0.HH NH I mxmq HHOB

.m5 0 N.0H 0.HH NH I pCoEmCm
maHwCH

muons Haa pomwnoo spams muons spasm pomwtoo spwmm

Co .szmCa oz

.wCOCa C0CCo>om

.pomCCoo C0CCm>om

va C0CCo>oc

 

mmmmpCooCmm CH CBOCm amnhmm‘HmoHpHHom mHm
UCm OHCO Ho C0CCm>oo mo COHpmoHMHpCoUH

.HN magma

169

.Ce Emu CpHB UmsmmEoo
.pCoEoCm

 

.ma.a "amwaeows
.OHCO .mmwmmwm. .NN.¢N "oamo .CmmCOHm Csz UmCmmEoo .mCmHUCH
.m©.He mHmCUm mwmdwm HCo .meHCOHE .CmnEmo CQHS .mCmHUCH .pCoEmCm WCHCmQEoo
.mHm.e ma Hm>ma mo. map pm atmsam was no maHm> smaspap may

.mComHCdeoo UwCHmQ me mo
eoCCp HHm CH mooCoCmmmHo pCmOHMHCmHm hHHmoHpmempm mCm mCme QMCQ UCCOH mH pH nmCmdsoo mCm
Cmowon me wCOHm mCBop mopCp me CmCB .Cm>omCoa

 

 

.CZop HOCpCoo 0C9 CH mCOHCmm me ohm Cme
C0CCm>ow C30 Came psonw pCmCOCwH mCoE Czop CmUCoQ me CH mCOHCmm 0C9 CpHB .pCmCmHHHU
ohm mC30p mCmHUCH 039 0C9 95m

.mGSou OHCO 03p me mCm mm .mEmm esp mum wCSop CmmHCoHE
039 me >HHmoHpmempm .mpomdme HmCo>mm CH mCo mCOH>mCQ me Song mComHHU mHnmp mHCB

 

 

 

 

 

 

mCmCCov

n.0a m.m o O we I mHHH>mmeaa

5.Nb ©.mH m.¢ H.© NH I CmmCOHm

.00H 0 o o m I Cameowm
oaso

m.wo m.a o o we I pwoawquam

J.mo 0.H 0.H m.m NH I Cevsmo

.00H 0 O o m I CmoEmo
cm.wnoas

m.oa 9.4 a.mH a.ms we I mess mace

.mm s.H m.om .mm NH I psosopm

N.Ho o m.a o

 

m I 9CoEmCm

 

mCmHvCH
wCOCB HHC pomCCoo hpwmm

wCOCB prmm pomCCoo mused
Co .CmZmCC oz .wCOCE COCCm>oo .pooCCoo C0CCm>oo va C0CCo>oo

wommpCmoCmm CH Czonm ahphmm HmoHpHHomlmHm
eCwyddeHoCH mo C0CCm>oo mo COHpmoHHHpCmeH .NN oHQmB

170

neighboring governors than do the people living deeper in

the state. One very simple explanation: the highway signs,

welcoming people to each state, usually contain the names of

the governors - the students living close to the border see

these signs.

The governor of Indiana is less well known. The

seniors in Indiana know less about their governor than the

seniors in Ohio know about their's, and the seniors in

Fremont know less than do the seniors in Wolf Lake. Very

few of the Michigan students knew who he was. The Ohio

students did not know either, but the border students in
Pioneer knew more than did the students in Ridgeville

Corners. How does this agree with the idea of the highway
signs in the area of the border? Strangely enough, it is

somewhat easier for the Camden, Michigan students to drive

south to Ohio than to go to Indiana. It will be recalled

that more of their fathers work in Ohio than in Indiana, and
other evidence indicates that they tend to move in that

They, at least, are more apt to see the signs
Only a few

direction.

in Ohio than they are to see them in Indiana.
of the fifth gradensin Fremont, Indiana knew who their
governor was - none knew his party — and none of the fifth
graders in Michigan or in Ohio knew his name.

On the whole, then, the fifth graders in these six
Midwestern towns know very little about who governs their

own states, and they know much less about which of the

political parties are in control. The seniors know about

 

171

both in their own state, but very little about the neigh—

boring states. Governor Romney of Michigan was the

exception and, as a national figure, he was widely known

Finally, Governor Rhodes, of Ohio,

in all three states.

was better known than Governor Branigin of Indiana.

On the national level the United States Senators

are probably better known in their states than any other

elected official. I asked the students, therefore, to

identify their Senators in Washington, and to name their

political parties. The results are summarized in Table 23.

On the part of the fifth graders in all three states:

total ignorance. They have no idea who their senators are.

From the looks on their faces, I am not even sure they

knew what the word "senator" meant. By the 12th grade,

however, this information is, if not widely known, at least

in the air. There may be, too, some indication of a state

The Michigan students stand out as clearly the

pattern.
In Camden and Springport

least well informed on this point.

the "all wrongs" are 80% and 86% respectively. In Indiana

the "all wrongs" are h4% in Wolf Lake, 30% in Fremont. In
Ohio it is cut in half once more, with the "all wrongs"
Obviously,

16.7% in Ridgeville Corners, 15.9% in Pioneer.
on the basis of two towns, no one can infer the existence

of a state-wide pattern. But insofar as these six towns

are concerned, this pattern is evident to a striking degree.

 

.cmmHCOHs

 

.Cobsmo CH wCOHCmm 0C9 mg I CmECOHCH HHo3 9mmmH mC9 I CmC9 UCm .mCmHvCH .9Cosmpm
CH wCOHCmm 039 hp 0m30HH0m .Cm99mE mHC9 Co UoECOHCH 9mw9 mC9 0Co3 .OHCO .CmoCOHm
CH mCOHCom oCH .9CoCmmeC %H9Cm0HmHCme mCm3 0mCC9 HHm 9mC9 CCCOH mm3 9H wC309 CmoCon

moCC9 0C9 CH mCOHCmm mC9 wCHCmmEoo CH .wm9m9m 039 Cm99mH 0C9 CH 9mem 09 wEomm :CCm9
Ipmd mpwpw: a

.OHCO CH COC .meHgon CH mC3o9 039 6C9 CH 90C 959 .UmCNQSOo 0Cm3 mC309
mCmHnCH 039 6C9 CH mCOHCom mC9 CmC3 CCCOH 0Ce3 mooCmC0HMH0 9Cm0HMHCme mHHmoH9mH9m9m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mCmaoo
N.0H m.m 5.0 N.0m m.mN m.mH NH I mHHH>mweHm
o.mH H.© H.m :.HH N.Hm 5.NN NH I CmmCOHm
.00H 0 o o o o m I CmmCon
OHCO
9~
mu N.0m N.0 o m.H H.m H.m NH I pwoameHwam
m.ow N.m w.o 0.H o o NH I Covsmo
.00H 0 o o o o m I Cmesmo
CmIHCon
N.:: m.N o.wH o 0.3 N.0m NH I ome HHos
H.0m N.mN 0.HH o.mH 0 m.mH NH I peoswhm
00H 0 0 0 o 0 m I pcosmps
mCmeCH
mC0C3 wCOCB
wCOCB >9Cmm 90mChoo >9Cmm mmH9Cwm N >9Cmm H
.mC< 05 Co .90mCCoo .9omCC0o .900CCoo .90oCCoo 90oCCoo
.wCOCB HHC C09mCmm 0C0 C09mC0m mCo mCo9mCmm mC09mCmm

HHC

 

mmwm9Ceoth CH C3ozm .m9m9m
C30 CHmC9 Eomm mC09mCmm m: mo mw00H30Cx .MN oHQmB

173

In 1964, in the towns of Mbntpelier, Ohio, Angola,

Indiana, and Reading, Hichigan I found essentially the
same situation insofar as the knowledge of their own US
But in addition I asked them then

Senators was concerned.
Of

if they knew the US Senators from all three states.

course, they did not. So few Michigan students, for example,

{new anything about the US Senators from Ohio or Indiana,

that I did not ask this in the winter of 1968. In 1964 I

did inquire, however, about the identity of the US Repre-

sentatives. At that time I found that 90% of the students

in Readin , Michigan could not name their representative in
This was followed by 58% of the Montpelier, Ohio

Congress.
I did

students and 48% of the An ola, Indiana students.

not ask the same question in 1968. But even though in 1964

I had some doubts about the validity of the Michigan results,
it doesseem as though the Michigan students, on the whole,
are considerably less well informed about such matters than
either the Ohio or Indiana students.

I asked them, too, about the nicknames of the three
states still attempting in very simple and direct ways to
ascertain the extent of the knowledge that each had both

about his own state and about the neighboring states. In

Indiana the correct answer was "Hoosier," in Ohio, "Buckeye."

In Michigan, however, because of the "double nickname"

brought about by rather frequent changes in the license

plates, it was counted as a correct answer if they said "Nol-

verine" 2; some combination of "Water-Winter Wonderland" or

"Great Lake State."

 

174

The results are set forth below.

Table 24. Knowledge of State Nick-Names,
Shown’in Percentages Of Those

 

 

Who Knew.
Michigan Indiana Ohio
Nickname Nickname hickname
Indiana
Fremont - 5 14.3 9.5
Fremont - 12 66.1 83.1 81.4
Wolf Lake - 12 44.2 97.7 69.8
Kichigan
Camden - 5 57.6 3 48.5
Camden - 12 91.8 47.5 68.9
Springport - 12 89.2 12.3 14.4
Ohio
Pioneer - 5 61.3 O 29.
Pioneer - 12 79.6 63.6 93.2
Ridgeville - 12 60. 43.3 100.
Corners

 

So far as the fifth graders are concerned it is
difficult indeed to find any particular pattern relating to
their knowledge of the nicknames of any of the states - even
their own. The children in both Ohio and Indiana know more
about the Kichigan nickname(s) than they know about their
own, probably owing to the license plates. Far more of the
Michigan children know the nickname for Ohio than they do for
Indiana. It all seems to be quite random. The seniors,
however, do know the nicknames of their own state better
than they know the nicknames of either adjoining state.

The seniors in the border towns generally know the nicknames

175

of the neighboring states somewhat better than do the students
living away from the borders. The students in Springport,
Michigan seem to be the least well informed of all about

the nicknames of Ohio and Indiana.

I want now to turn away from what we might roughly
call "knowledge" to that which, also roughly, may be referred
to as "behavior." We know from our own children that count-
less hours are spent listening to the radio. This listening
usually goes on at the same time some other form of activity
is occurring. As they "listen" to the radio, they are usu-
ally doing one or more other things - talking, studying,
dancing, reading, playing games, etc. They listen most
frequently to the tap tunes, and to the chatter of their
favorite disc jockeys. They "hear" in this peripheral way,
short news broadcasts and an endless number of ads, along
with the music and the chatter. If we think of turning the
radio on, and selecting a particular station, as a form of
behavior, then we might want to know if, from town to town,
this behavior varies in any way. Finally, if we think of
our state lines as walls, or as filters, we might wonder if
the behavior varies from state to state. In theory, of
course, we should expect, in any small area of the country,
to find - for each age and interest group - a "favorite"
radio station. Is this the situation in our tri—state
corner? The following table illustrates the choice of the

"favorite" radio station in the six school district.

H—__. _—_H._‘ H M

176

.CCsom eCm3 mmoCmCmmme 9Cm0HHHCme AHHmoHpmH9m9m 0C Censon 6C9 mC0Hm

mC3o9 669:9 6C9 CH .CmmHCoHfi .Cmpsmo CH m9CmnC9m 0C9 EoCH “Comxomw UCm mCHmCmHv.mCmH9m9m

9CmCommH© m9HCd 09 :CH @mCC9: mum .CmmHCoHE .9C0dwCHCmm CH m9CmpC9m 6C5 Cm Hson

CH mC309 039 0C9 m0 C0H9Cooxm meCHm 0C9 C9H3 mCowHCmdsoo mC9 Mo >Cm CH mmoConmev Cost

. 0C eCm3 mCmC9 .Cm>m30C .mCoHCmm 6C9 wC0§< .mC309 Cmemop 6C9 mo meCC9 HHm CH mCOHCmm
6C9 eCm whmnmhm C9MHM 6C9 Com39mn mooCmCmHHHp 9Cm0HmHCme >HHm0H9mH9m9m 0Cm mCmCe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mCeCCoo
m.m 0 5.0 0 0 0 o N.HH N.0m .oN NH I mHHHsmmeHm
m.N m.N m.a o o o m.N o o.mo .mN NH I CmmCon
s.wm O N.m N.m N.m o o o 0.NN .mN m I CmoCOHm
0HCQ
N.0 H.H m.H N.0N 0 m.mm H.m H.H m.mH H.H NH I paedmcham
m.m O O m.m O O O O w.mm h.¢H NH I CmUEmo
m.m¢ .m o H.o o o o o m.mm H.NH m I Cmesmo
CthCoHE
©.¢ w o o 0.4 o m.MH o w.mN N.Hm NH I mme HHoB
a m d a O o n.H o 5.H O N.Hm w. m NH I 9C0Emhm
m Mo 0 O O O O O O w.d 0.Hu m I 9C0Emhb
I. I O O I O I I mCmHeCH
WW. 1. 1. U1 0 win... M “II. Twuk. GO 3.... III
I a N w w a. um. m m N a m. N a m .I 0
U Tu Tu I...“ 8 J T... _ ‘G‘Hl. 0— Mu o- "1.. Ad 0
ago I. as u uum non. nr mw
o J U. w W by Q0 WM. Aug. MU“ T. .Im. mu” A
m m. ”N MAS wmm m w

 

was, . I
e c9CmoCem CH C30Co ~mC0H9m9m 0Hnmm m9HC0>mm. .mN mHgmB

177

Note first how the fifth grades differ from the
seniors in all three of the border towns: one third and
more of the younger children do not yet have a "favorite"
radio station. But by the time they are 17 and 18, 90% and
more in all of the towns have settled on a favorite station.
Second, note that this whole area of the Midwest clearly has
two favorite stations: WOWO in Ft. Wayne, Indiana, and I
CKLW in Windsor, Ontario. Both of these stations feature H
the "top tunes" but the station in Windsor emphasizes the
Detroit sound - the "Hotown Sound" — somewhat more than
does the one in Ft. Wayne. CKLH is in Canada. But it is
just across the river from Detroit, and it was identified
most of the time by the students as being in Detroit. It
is physically in Canada, then, but it is culturally a
part of the Detroit scene and I shall think of it, therefore,
as indicative of a Detroit orientation.

Now let us see if there is any evidence of a state
bias in so far as this simple but widespread form of behav-
ior is concerned. We shall look first at the control
towns. In Wolf Lake, Indiana, one half of the students
selected WOWO. Wolf Lake is clearly subject to the pull of
Ft. Wayne — it is near by, and entirely logical. The
listening habits in Springport, lichigan, are far more
random. There is, however, a clear state orientation. The

largest group listen to one of the two most pOpular stations

178

in Lansing, followed by "other Michigan" stations, and,
finally, by CKLW in Detroit. In Ridgeville Corners, Ohio,
more than one half tune in to CKLN. Otherwise 20% listen
to stations in Ohio, while another 20% listen to TOTO.

In the tri-state corner, the favorite station in all
three towns, and in all three states, is, for the seniors,

CKLU in Detroit. The Michigan town of Camden leads in this Ia
regard, followed by Pioneer, Ohio and Fremont, Indiana. Of 1
those who chose WONG, the largest group, as expected, was

in Fremont, followed by Pioneer and Camden. With the
Fremont fifth graders, WOWO was a run—away favorite,

followed thereafter by Pioneer and Camden.

In Michigan there seems to be a rather clear state
bias in their choice of a radio station. This applies both
to the fifth graders and to the seniors, and it can be
seen, although with different stations, in both Camden and
Springport. The Indiana bias is less clear, but still
present. It is clearly evident in Wolf Lake, somewhat less
so in Fremont. The Ohio students are pulled in the direction
of Michigan, but a rather weak state bias is apparent among
those who do not listen to either the Indiana or the Michigan
stations.

Overall the East-West orientation is rather clear,
with the majority of the students looking (or listening) to
the East rather than to the Nest. We might expect, for
example, to find many more students tuning in to one of the

Chicago stations. Yet, with the exception of a few in

179

Wolf Lake, hardly any listen to one of the Chicago stations.
There appears to be, too, n0 pulling power at all from the
southern radio stations. I believe only one student, a
fifth grader, listed his favorite station as being in the
south — a "cunry wesern" (country-western) music fan who
listened to the Nashville Grand Ole Opry radio station. Of
course it was personally interesting to me to realize how
very few of them listened to radio station HJR in Detroit r
- to the students a dull, uninteresting station; to me, one
of the first-rate stations in America.

In testing for the presence of walls along the
borders, the lgggg evidence - in theory - should be in
regard to the radio listening habits of the students. The
walls would have to be very thick indeed — the filter quite
impermeable — to prevent the passage of radio waves. We
know that it is possible for border walls to be this thick,
with elaborate jamming devices erected for the express
purpose of keeping unfriendly radio messages out. But this
practice is at best rare, and in America unknown. Yet even
here we seem to have detected the presence of border walls -
a tendenc , even though it is rather weak, to tune in a
station in their own state, even though the area is dominated

by the two most p0pular stations, WOWO and CKL‘W.116

 

116Note, however, that the differences, as observed
above, are not statistically significant.

180

moving from such intangibles as radio waves, to
physical objects such as newspapers, do we find that the
state lines make a difference in what the peOple‘gggd? I
asked three questions in an attempt to learn both about
their reading habits and about their general orientation.
These questions were open—ended, and were asked in the
following order. (1) If you had your free choice, which
big city newspaper would you subscribe to; (2) Do your
folks subscribe to a gggly newspaper, and, if so, which one
is it; (3) Do your folks subscribe to a Sunday newspaper,
and, if so, which one?

hith the first of the above questions I was seeking
to find out if there was a state bias in what they "would
read if they could" - if they were completely free to choose.
And I also wanted to know what they thought a "big city"
would be, and to see whether or not they thought of a city
in their own state. The answers to the first of these
three questions are summarized in Table 26.

With the exception of Pioneer, Ohio the largest
single choice of all of the seniors in all of the towns was
the New York Times. This was the "big city" and this was
the newspaper. Thereafter, the next choice by the seniors,
with the exception of Fremont, Indiana, was one of the major
papers in their own state, published in a nearby city. For
Michigan this was either the Detroit Free Press, or the EEEEI

In Ohio it was the Toledo Blade. In Indiana it was either

 

Percentages

1n

 

. Choice of "Big City" Newspaper, Shown

Table 26

JSMSUV
ou JO ‘euoH

tremeH‘UOQBUIuseM
etanees ‘rsn ‘vq
“OSIM JGUQO

'UUIO
‘UEKJQ"8A8IQ

orqo Jeqno

GIBPSIIIH‘UOSHGPP
°xs3 '3 ‘Butsueq
‘UOIN JGUQO

erofiuv
strodeuetpul
PUSH ‘OS
'PUI JGUQO

 

sewt ~ung
eunthg
oBeotqQ

'oqe ‘IIH
xaox mam

apera
OIqo ‘OPSIOL

smeM
ssead GSJJ
'HOIN "1ad

rimmynnmrr

'pUI ‘eufiek 'QE

28.6

33.3

19.

19.
11

Fremont - 5

 

Indiana

5.1
4.6

10.2

501
9.3

8.5
11.6

45.8

13.5

Fremont - 12

181

203

44-2

20.9

Wolf Lake ~ 12

ichi an

48.5

6.1

6.1

9.1
39.3

6.1

21.2

Camden - 5

H’
h
.I.

3.3

1.6

6.5

1.6

4.9

8.2

32.8

1.6

Camden — 12

H O\
m N
H
Lt\
H O
«'2'
O \D
N
O\ O
O O
N H?
O\ \O
O
O N
d r-I
00
O 4’
Ln
0\ N
\O m
m
N
O m
N
H
I
an
4.)
$5 I
(L S-I
s> 8
-H c:
h S
Q. 0
U) HO-I
SI
0

901

2.3
3.3

2.3 47.7 31.8

3.3

6.8

Pioneer - 12

o 3.3 6.7

46.7

36.7

12

Ridgeville —

Corners

 

 

the Fort Wayne News Sentinel or the Journal Gazette. Other
papers are not thought of in these northern corners of
Indiana and Ohio. Only one person, for example, made refer-
ence to the Indianapolis Star, and only one or two mentioned
the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

For the fifth graders the evidence of a state, and
even a local, orientation, is even more clear. In Camden,
Michigan almost half did not answer the question at all, and
I felt as I asked it in that school as though I were back
again with the peasant in the Middle East: "How could you
ever expect gg to answer such a question?" But of those who
did answer, the largest choice was for one of the Detroit
papers. In Fremont, Indiana, roughly one quarter did not
answer. Nineteen percent chose the New York Times. Nine-
teen percent chose one of the Fort Wayne papers, but one
third of the entire class chose another Indiana newspaper.
Many of them chose a weekly paper in Angola, a "big city"
to the children in Fremont, Indiana. In Piggggg, Ohio,
with only 12% not answering, the choice was clearly in
favor of the Toledo Egggg.

In this imaginary question, asking them what they
would do if they could, it seems, again, as though we can
see the enlarging of horizons as we move from the fifth to

the twelfth grades. The state bias is clear in the fifth

grades. It is less clear, but still evident in the twelfth

183

grades. Again, the general East—west orientation is
evident (hardly any southern papers were selected) and,
again, very little attention is given to Chicago, surpris-
ing in view of its proximity and its size. Which papers
are actually received in the homes? The first of the
following tables shows the daily papers, the second shows
the Sunday papers.

First, how are we to explain the difference in
the results as reported by the fifth graders compared to
those furnished by the seniors? Presumably we are asking
different members of the same families the same question.
Yet, both with the daily paper and with the Sunday paper
many more seniors say they receive one in the home than do
the fifth graders. I suspect that there are several
explanations. The seniors, probably knowing they "ought"
to have a paper in the home, may have exaggerated. Along
side of this, some of the fifth graders knew they received
a paper, but — orally - said that they did not know which
one it was, or where it came from. They probably, therefore,
left the question blank. Finally, a number of the fifth
graders inserted the name of a weekly paper, (the Angola

§teuben Republican, or the Pioneer Tri-State Alliance) and

 

in this situation I did not count it. The difference,

therefore, may not be quite as large as indicated in the

above two tables.

184

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. macawou
o m m» o o o o m.mm o m.m NH : maaw>omeam
m mm 0.mH o o m.m ow a.0a o ¢.HH NH I wmoqoam
5.0m o o o a.oa 0 .0m 0 ©.mfi m u wmmeoam
oago
0.0m o 0.00 o o o o 0.4 o as n ppogmeawam
0.0 o o o 0 .ss m.m m.m s.0 Na 1 cmesmo
e.ms o o o o 0.Hm o H.0 o m 1 cm smo
cm anew:
m.o o o s o o o o s.mm NH : mews macs
H.NN 5.H o 5.H o o o o m.m0 NH 1 pcosmpm
5.00 o O m.® o o O O m.mm m I psoEowm
mcmwwsH
VN O O no )8 )GH 8L 3&6 PMd
unu 1 Q n+ AUJ Mast. 7L0 “axle oxen+
qsu U. u. U. nafl tikTL eTL mfieq+ nu”.
Mae 9 e e The o+LTL ave sac; ans
9 J J J onu UFAQU an? o H mm
Tao (L .L D. 0 var. lease
a O ,A I I 3nfiu c 11 IaA
U. T. u I. eaeTL ea unu
um I. 0 D. m Hume AU 8 nolnu
O u. . “e {Ls U. sum not}
0 S T. TL. ZU
O O . BI
U. .Lu
. D.

 

mmmwpnwohom mfl szogm .mosom sfl Um>flooom mammwmwzm: hawmm

.NN oHQmB

185

 

I .mosowmmmflp w oxms ow mocwa opmpm m p
unmeamfiwflm maamofipwflpwpm whoa .pm>m30£ .pmppoa osp wsoam mmocohmmmmv o
esp who: mm ho>m30£ .msmm map mmmz wszop wzmwqu 03p one .

“mason ooMSp Ham SH

:9 .mszop oano 039

1

.pos ww .cwwHSowfl .cwesmu mafia:

.
cowxomw was wcflwsmq mo :pfiphoz map ca ma .cmwfigoflfi .psommsflpmm modem I wszop cmwfisoflz 039

mgp amozpon vsdom who: moosohowwwp psmowmwcwfim

.mfiBOp msp mo GOprQOH onp so>flw .mQ op

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

zpstO: pa mm hapowxo was .ooswowmflawflm Hmoflpmflpmpm how powwow cog: .mabmp m>opm one
. mwmcmoo
on o o o n.0m o m.m NH I mflaw>mweae
o.mm o o o o.os m.s 0.0H ma I homeowm
H.wm o o o m.mm o 5.0 m I wmmaowm
owso
0.0m 0.; 0.4m o o m.mm o as I ptommsflwam
H.0m o o o H.ma H.Hm s.ma NH I emeawo
0.Hm o o o o m.ma .m 0 I cmeswo
aw anofla
0.0m o o o o o :.¢b NH I oxma Mao:
m.m: o o 5.H o m.H m.Om NH I pzosmwm
.Hm O Q o o 0 .0H m I pcosmsm
answeaH
WM 38 DP Tia nEm ~Jfifl PNd
"do use Tre Tau. TLo aTae oiena
sou 7be. nag I;I eIL Mien. hum.
M8 . Q. Trfi. 0.0 DO 881 JS .
8 I ZS n8 8D. 0 u H1
do as so u? o d? eSe
J u nuu 8O c Jn+ +LepA
“was _I a. nuu
H J Turn. 0 S 31.8
0 My; Dun UL SUN ET...‘
a... .3 a. a. £1
ans W. m. TJW

 

mvwwpsmohom CH mzozm «wosom SH bo>woomm whomdmwaozINdpczm

.wm mHQmH

Three cities, one in each of the three states,
dominate the exact tri-state corner: Fort Wayne, Indiana,
Toledo, Ohio, and Detroit, Michigan. The clearest state
bias in the reading habits of the people living in our
circle is shown by the residents of Fremont, Indiana.

If they take any paper at all it is either the News Sentinel

or the Journal Gazette out of Fort Wayne, both daily and I

 

Sunday. There are very few exceptions. The Indiana resi-
dents, then, read Indiana newspapers, and the same situation
applies in Wolf Lake.

Across the border in Ohio, the most popular paper
by far, both daily and Sunday, is the Toledo filgdg, followed
by the Bryan Timgg or by some other Ohio paper. Pioneer,
Ohio is not completely immune, however, from an Indiana
influence. For some 15% of the seniors reported receiving
one of the Sunday newspapers from Fort Wayne, and 11%
received a Fort Wayne daily paper. The Ohio orientation in
Ridgeville Corners is almost 100% with the daily newspaper.
Some 70% reported in that school, however, that they do not
subscribe to any Sunday newspaper at all.

In Michigan the situation is essentially the same,
although, along the border, there seems to be somewhat
more "leakage" from the adjoining two states, coupled with
an even more local, or provincial, view. The largest
daily circulation is of the Hillsdale, Michigan DailyiNews.

Hillsdale is the county seat. Three percent of the seniors

187

in Camden, Michigan said that they received one of the

Detroit dailies, compared to six percent who said they

received one of the Fort Wayne papers. On Sunday the most
popular paper is either the Free Press or the Eggs from Detroit.
But 19% receive a Fort Wayne paper and 13% obtain the Toledo
‘glggg. All of the Springport, Michigan, seniors receive

one of the Michigan papers, the favorite, on Sunday, being

‘ ';“_._i
.2: H A. 5*.

one of the Detroit papers, followed thereafter by the paper
from Jackson, the county seat.

A clear majority, then, in each state, subscribe to
one of their own state papers. On the exact border there
is, again, some evidence of turbulence - ”contamination"
back and forth — but this is slight in all three towns, and
almost non-existent in Fremont, Indiana. In the control
towns the state bias is, as would be expected, overwhelming.

Why do the peOple in each state subscribe to a
paper published in that state? Why do those living north
of the Ohio—Michigan boundary subscribe to the Hillsdale
Daily News or the Detroit Free Press, while those living to
the immediate south of this line subscribe to the Toledo
Elggg? Why do the circulation and advertising managers of
these papers apparently direct their efforts to those who
live in their own states? In Springport, Michigan, there
is active competition for readers and advertisers on the
part of papers published in Detroit, Jackson, Battle Creek
and Lansing. But in our tri-state circle the state papers

seem to be satisfied to work only in their own slice of

188

the pie. There may be any number of reasons. But the
most obvious one is that the state boundaries do set the
limits. They.mgy be crossed — a few people in Ohio read
papers published in Indiana, a few in Michigan do read Ohio
newspapers - but they are not crossed very often.

But what difference does this make? How is this
apt to affect the people? We have to assume that news-
papers do have some effect on their readers. They either
mirror their opinions, or they help to form them, or to
change them, or to strengthen them, or, more likely, simply
to keep them "informed." many subscribe to the Farmers'
Advance, or to the national, rural-oriented‘ggig. (I
should have inquired specifically into this, but I did not.)
They do not subscribe to Communist newspapers, nor do they
receive the Dow Jones Co. Sunday National Observer. People
subscribe to papers and magazines that they feel comfortable
with. They probably seek out, therefore, those papers that
inform them, and that mirror and strengthen their own opin-
ions, rather than attacking and challenging them. In any
event, some kind of a sympathetic relationship will usually
exist.

We have to assume, too, that the Detroit Free Press,
the Toledo glgdg and the Fort Wayne_flews Sentinel do, in
fact, reflect a Michigan, Ohio and Indiana "point of view."
In so far as the coverage of the news is concerned, there

is no question but that each paper concentrates on its own

5::

 

189

city and its own state (in addition, of course, to the
national and "world" news). Editorials in the Detroit
Free Press are not concerned with action taken in the Ohio
or Indiana legislatures, but talk a great deal about
Lansing, Michigan. In this sense, then, there is presented
a state "point of view."

But is this state point of view indicative of a
particular state culture, a state culture which is unique
to each state? I do not know. And a careful, comparative
examination of even these three newspapers is beyond the
scope of this study. We have to be satisfied, therefore,
with something more modest: the knowledge that there is
a state point of view in the coverage of the news. This
means that the residents of each state kggg more about
their own state than they know about the neighboring states.
Readership may be a.lggg into the existence of separate
state cultures — I.§h;§g that it is — but from readership
alone we can not deduce the existence of such cultures.

Is there any other way to tell in which direction
the students (and their families) tend to look, or to
"move"? Do the people who live in the north—western corner
of Ohio, for example, move in a northerly or western direc-
tion as easily and as frequently as they move in an easterly
direction, or do the state lines tend to "fence them in," or,
as we have seen in other ways, "wall them off"? I thought

that one way of getting at this would be to inquire into

 

190

their shopping habits. I asked them, therefore, the
following question: "When you (and your parents) go to
'thecity' to shop, which city do you go to?" The results
appear in Table 29.

In the control towns, again as we would expect, the
vast majority shop in a nearby city in their own state. The
only exception of any consequence to this is the Ohio town
of Ridgeville Corners, where some 16% drive over to Fort
Wayne, Indiana. But even in the border towns the movement
tends to be in the direction of their own state. In Fremont,
Indiana, with the exception of the report by a handful of
the fifth graders, the shopping is done in an Indiana city,
and the favorite city is Fort Wayne. In Pioneer, Ohio,
almost one third of the seniors reported shopping in Fort
Wayne, Indiana, but this choice was second to Toledo, where
almost one half of them went to shop. In Camden, Michigan,
about one fifth of the seniors reported shopping in Toledo,
with another fifth in Fort Wayne. The most popular place,
however, was Hillsdale, Michigan, included in with the
"other Michigan" in the following table. Very few of the
Camden children indicated they went to Detroit. Note, too,
how few said they went to Chicago. Apparently the distance,
along with the sheer size and complexity of these cities,
with their accompanying traffic jams, discourages frequent
shopping trips. Here again, then, we have strong evidence

of a pull in the direction of one's own state.

 

191

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mhmflhoo
o m.MN o o o .00 o s.0H NH I mHHH>omeHm
N.0 H.@ m.4 o o 4.04 m.N N.Hm NH I nmNcOHm
s.m 0.NN N.m o N.m 4.04 N.m N.0 m I smmsomnII.
OHao
0.4 o m.oo o o m.H H.m O NH I whommcHhmm
H.mH 0.H 5.5m 0.H 0.H n.mH 0.4 s.mH
H.NH H.o 0.sm o o o N.0H H.0
o o o 0.HH 0.4 o o N.HN NH I mamH mHos
4.m 5.H 5.H H.0 N.H o o 4.00 NH I paosmsm
m.MN o 0.0 .0H m.o o o H.mm 0 I pcosonm
mcmchH
.mca oz 0Hgo .ona .eeH mHonHHHH OHno emmHon: scaHesH

.maoz nogpo sense nmapo osmoHso .oemHos .pHOtpmm scams .pa

 

mmwmpumosom CH QBOQm .moam op mngs cm
oomHm powwomowm esp mm NNDHO one: mo COHpooHom .oN oHme

192

There may be another way of assessing the pull of
each state on its inhabitants, even of measuring the "loyalty"
that they feel towards their state, in the world of athletics.
If we may think for a moment about the excitement engendered
in Japan by the victory of the women's volley ball team over
the Russians during the Olympic games in Tokyo, we may
glimpse something of what I have in mind. The Japanese, if
we may believe the news stories, became quite delirious with
joy over this victory. In one way or another national pride
is at stake in these contests. Think, in America, of the
constant tally that was kept by the news announcers of the
number of silver and gold medals that were won by American
athletes, and the constant reminders of our competition
with the Russians. Think, too, of the sorrow, and the cha-
grin, at the victories of the Russian hockey team in the
winter games of 1968 — followed, of course, by endless
discussions of the fact that the Russian teams were really
"professionals" compared to our "genuine amateurs."

It would seem that on the state level, too, this
same phenomenon is at work. If my team beats your team,
and we are both from different states, then I am proud.

My state is better than your state. If we think of the

sums of money that are expended in each state to achieve
winning teams, we must realize that something other than

pure sport for the sake of sport is involved. Money is spent
directly by the states and by local units of government

(Oakland, California, Houston, Texas, Winter Haven, Florida)

 

193

to bring teams - and business - to the area and glory to

the city and to the state. There seem to be two principal
ways that this is done: (1) Through the great state univer—
sities and (2) through the professional teams, which, even
though they are plainly "businesses" become identified with
the state or with a particular city. For example, as I write,
in the early part of the summer of 1968, "Michigan" is de-
lighted that the Detroit Tigers - our Tigers - are leading
the league by eight or nine games.117

So far as behavior is concerned (or attitudes?) do
the students in the six towns identify with "their" teams,
both university and professional? I asked them, first,
which of the Big Ten teams they would like each year to go
to the Rose Bowl, assuming that each team were eligible to
go every year. I showed them a list of the Big Ten schools,
when I asked this question. Their preferences are indicated
in Table 30.

Is there a pattern? First let us look at the
control towns. Over 60% in Ridgeville Corners chose Ohio
State University. In Springport, the combined percentages
for both Michigan teams was in excess of 87%. In Wolf Lake
the combined percentages for Indiana and Purdue was 86%.
The control towns clearly show a state bias. Comparable
figures for the seniors living in the border towns were
50% in Ohio, 72% in Michigan and 81% in Indiana. The fifth

grade children, too, clearly favored their own state teams.

A

117And, in the fall, when the Tigers won the World
Series, all of Michigan joined in the celebration - although
not to quite the extent of that reached in Detroit.

 

19A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

msmcsoo
0.0 0.0H 0.00 o o 0.0H 0.0 o o o NH I 0HH0>00000
0.4 4.HH .00 0.N 0.N N.0H 0.N 0.N 0.4 0.N NH I pmchHm
4.0 4.0 0.H0 N.0 4.0H 0.0 o o N.0 o 0 I nmmcowmmm.
H.0 N.0 o o o H.00 0.4N o o 0 NH I psodmandm
0.0 0.HH 0.0 0.0 o 0.00 0.HH o 0.0 o NH I 200500
N.0H .0 o o o 0.00 .0 o H.0 .0 0 I smegma
cwmflgoHs
o N.44 0.N o o 0.4 o 0.N 0.H4 0.4 NH I mamH 0Hos
0.H 0.00 0.H o 0.H N.0H o 0.H 0.04 0.H NH I pqosmtm
m.4 o.mN w.MN o m.4 o m.4 o m.mN 0.0 m I paosmsw
mamchH
m. m. 0.. m 0. 0. m .0... m m 0. 0. u
s J elk as; u 009 o m p. .L
o P 10 11 u 1W W e I. I
0 n e sou. 9 eat I. e u
u a J S as on U 0
S U 0 D0 B B T:
.L. 1. u u S
u E

 

mmwmpCmosom CH szogm

 

NHSOm mmom map 09 smow seam 00 on mmosohomosm

.Om mHnmE

195

How can we tell whether the state university system,
and the great athletic events which they sponsor, foster
loyalty to the state or not? I do not know, for this
situation has developed slowly over the years and, as with
all aspects of our culture, we take it for granted. But I
think that we are on firm ground in assuming that this is
333 way loyalty is developed, and a direct, colorful way at

that.118

In the state of Michigan, if one cheers for the
University of Michigan, he is cheering more directly for
the state than is the person in Massachusetts who cheers
for Harvard. And certainly in the legislatures, it is not
entirely facetious when joint resolutions are passed com-
mending the coaches after a winning season. All of this is
a part of the state system - a part of the state culture.
We do take it for granted. In any event, the students in
our six towns like to see their state teams go to the Rose
Bowl. So, apparently, did the thousands of Hoosiers who

flocked to California last winter to see the University of

Indiana play in the Rose Bowl.

 

118ierriam noticed the same thing in 1931. Speaking
of the connection between civic education and sports, he
stated: "In any case, there has been an extraordinary
development of athletic sports in all European countries,
and, in all instances, this has been associated with the
conception of civic practice. This is as true of Soviet
Russia as of Germany or France. The symbolism of these
occasions is national in character, patriotic exhortations
are usual, and the whole tone of the proceedings is in
keeping with the idea of community spirit and political
cohesion." Charles E. Merriam, The Making of Citizens,
(Chicago, 1931), p. 329. If anything, this connection has
increased over the years, and, with television - in color -
its impact must be enormous.

 

196

So far as the professional teams are concerned,
there would seem to be, on the surface, less justification
for a state identification to be made than there is with
the university teams. The professional teams are business
enterprises, organized, in the main at least, to make money.
Yet if we look at the fanaticism — it seems safe to call it
that - of the Wisconsinites, and in particular of the
residents of Green Bay, we are forced to wonder. Several
thousands sat out in below zero weather to watch their
Packers beat the Cowboys last winter. And the Michigan
sports writers can become terribly upset over the front
office of the Detroit Lions during a losing season. And
all of this is discussed endlessly among the men who gather
every morning for coffee in the restaurants in every small
town in the state. So perhaps even here, too, the identi-
fication is made. The following table shows the favorite
professional football, basketball and baseball teams, as
chosen by thestudents in the six towns.

On the basis of these responses we can see that
with every sport there are more fifth graders who did not
choose a favorite team than there were seniors. The students
were required here to write in their answers; they were not
shown a list of teams. Difficulties in writing and spelling
may account for a part of this difference. But it is quite
likely that at the age of 10, even in a sports-conscious
part of the country, they do not have a favorite. But the

fifth graders also made a rather frequent error. They often

 

 

 

197

whoswoo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o 0.0H 0.04 .00 o 0.0 0.0 0.04 o 0.00 0.0 NH I mHHfismmsHm
o m.N N.m4 0.m0 m.N H.0 H.0 N.m4 o 4.0m 4.HH NH I pmmson
o o 4.04 0.00 N.m N.m 4.0 0.40 o 0.NN N.0 m I smoQOHm
OHSO
0.H O 0.00 N.04 0.0H H.m H.mN m.mm o m.MH H.m4 NH I pnommsHsmm
o 0.H m.m0 0.00 4.0H 0.HH n.4H 0.4N O 0.NN 0.N4 NH I smpsmo
.m 0 4.0m 0.0% H.0 O N.0H 4.0m O 0.04 H.0 m I cmpEmo
cmmwgoH:
0.4 m.N O m.Nm O m.MH 0.0N m.Om 0.HH 0.04 O NH I oxmq WHO?
H.0 0.H m.mm m.am 4.m N.0H .0H H.44 o m.hm 0.0 NH I psososm
o o w.mN N.0N o o m.mN H.Nm o m.mm 0.0 m I psososm
msmesH
his 00 I6 win d0 OS TKO VM min d0 mid
Ugw o_L Tee "do 7:9 000 J_L unu ens e_a tge
I;I uxa 90q+ ecu can. TLs nco sou e.& ole on+
00 an ex me 1d 11 n:% ma JO We UJ
0. .0 Two 8‘ 00 T70 n+9 9‘ 88 SU 000
s.& a u.I «cu a a 00 J t.
non“ sari 1 "m sn+ s J us 0 Head 1
u. “an o s o e
0H0 DAV xx
cam 00%
: II: _
HHmpmmmm HHmppoxmmm HHmnpoom

 

.:3000 000
dwsmswCMIwz,m£p SpHBIMGOHm «mmpflmo>mm 00B 000 mflco
.wommpsmosom 20 £3020 mEmmB Hmnowmmomonm opflno>mm mse .Hm oHan

 

 

198

said that their favorite professional team was one of the
university teams, or, even, their own high school team.
Many of them, therefore, did not know what was meant by the
word "professional."

Otherwise the choices seem clear. If there is a
state bias in Operation, and if the state has one or more
professional teams, then these teams should be chosen over
other teams. If the state does not have a professional
team, then we might hypothesize some form of a regional
bias. Is this the situation? Looking at the seniors, we
find that in both Camden and Springport, Michigan, the
Detroit Lions are the favorite football team. 'We might
think that in Ohio the Cleveland Browns would be the fav-
orite. They are not. Both the Ohio towns chose the Green
Bay Packers. Indiana does not have a professional football
team. We might think, therefore, that they would lean in
the direction of Detroit and Chicago. But they do not. Both
of the Indiana towns chose the Packers. Even in Fremont,
the Lions were chosen by only a few. Perhaps there is a
regional influence at work - the Packers are located in
the Midwest. But it would be safer, I suspect, to think
that they were chosen because they were the champions.

On the basis of the answers, basketball is the
least popular professional sport of the three. Generally
speaking, the most popular professional basketball team
seems to be the Globe Trotters. Ordinarily, most adults
would not have thought of the Globe Trotters in this context,

 

199

since it is a "show" team, and does not compete with the
others at all. But the children, particularly in the fifth
grades, chose it and indicated their choice with a wide
variety of spellings, as witness the following notable
answer: "The Gobin Trobrs." Thereafter, however, in both
Michigan towns, the seniors chose the Detroit Pistons,

and in Camden more of them chose the Pistons than chose

the Globe Trotters. But did the Ohio students choose the
Cincinnati Royals? They did not. Nor did they show much
enthusiasm for the Detroit team, either. In fact, in both
Ohio towns, and in both Indiana towns, the next most popular
choice was the Boston Celtics. Again, it pays to stick with
the national champions.

In Baseball the Detroit Tigers are the clear favor-
ites in all of the towns except for WOIf Lake, Indiana. This
town favored the New York Yankees and the New York Mets, but
these are not shown in the table above. In baseball, then,
there seems to be a regional bias in favor of the Detroit
Tigers. The only clear-cut state bias thereafter appears
to be evident in the Ohio town of Ridgeville Corners,
where 13% chose the Cleveland Indians and the Cincinnati
Reds.

Insofar as professional athletics are concerned,
therefore, we may conclude that the Michigan students
exhibit the most state loyalty. Many of the Michigan stu-
dents favored all three of their teams - the Lions, the

Pistons and the Tigers. 'Otherwise the students throughout

200

the entire area went along with the national champions,
the Packers and the Celtics, if, indeed, they had a
"favorite" team at all. With the exception of Michigan, the
professional teams do not furnish as clear an indicator of
state loyalties as do the university teams.

I shall leave the world of athletics at this point.
In the remainder of this chapter I want to discuss, briefly,
the student response to two other types of questions. Both
are concerned with behavior, in the broad sense - one with
actual behavior and the other with imagined behavior. I
asked all of the students if they discussed politics with
their folks, and if they talked about politics among them—
selves. The questions were phrased in the "often - occasion-
ally - never" manner. There is no need to prepare a table
showing the results. I should have known better! For, in
fact, such a question is quite unanswerable. For the fifth
graders the word "politics" has, at best, a very limited
and vague meaning. And this word does not mean the same
thing to me that it means to the seniors. If I wanted to
know the answer to this question I should have broken it
down into several very specific, clear cut categories. I
might have asked them if they talked about President Johnson,
about school board election, about Governor Romney, about
candidates for public office, about national affairs. But,
phrased as it was, the question was meaningless. A majority
of the students, obligingly, reported rather unanimously

that they did talk about "politics" with their parents and

 

201

with their friends "occasionally." Needless to say, there
was no particular variation from town to town or from state
to state!

Another question, this one related to imaginary
behavior, worked somewhat better. It was a "what if . . ."
question. I asked them which college they would like to
attend if they were free to go wherever they chose. They
need not worry about money, or about their grades in school
- if you could go wherever you wanted to go, which one
would it be? Their choices are shown in Table 32.

The largest number of "no answers" came from all
three of the fifth grades. Again, I had the impression as
I watched the students filling in their answers, that I
had asked them an unfair question - imagine'mg even being
asked to make such a choice! Fifth graders do not think
about this subject. But, of the fifth graders who did make
a choice, schools in their own state were the most popular.
The Michigan fifth graders strongly preferred a school in
the state university system. The Indiana fifth graders
chose a private school in their own state - most frequently
Tri-State College in neighboring Angola. In Ohio the
largest single group selected one of the state universities.

In the control towns the seniors clearly chose a
school in the state university systems of all three states.
In the border towns the choice was similar - stronger in

Camden, Michigan and in Fremont, Indiana, weaker in

 

HHIIIIIIIIIIIII M.

 

202

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wsmnnoo
.0H m.MH .0H 0.0 .00 m.m o NH I mHHflboprm
4.HH 0.NN 4.HH 0.0 .0N o 0.N NH I nmeOHm
N.0 o H.0H 0.0 0.NN o N.0 0 I wmmeowm
0030
0.4 0.0H 0.H 0.0H H.0 .04 0.H NH I peedmcHndm
0.4 4.0H 0.0 0.0 o m.44 0.0 NH I sesame
H.0 o .0 H.NH o 4.00 H.0 0 I sesame
em agoHa
N 0.0 0.HH .0 .0 0.N 0.4 0.N0 NH I mamH 0H0:
m.w 0.HH 4.m 0.HH H.0 4.m n.mN NH I psosmsm
o o o H.00 o o 0.4H 0 I pgoEmsa
msmHUQH
VIM Bum max/NI. d0 .0 Id HO 8...... HT.
”do was anus has run. u.a and u.I unu
su pm I13 o¥L nq t. _LI to IP
Me 1U? . I are 9A A0 AM A?
3 Hana Tee .4 . a . a . . . . e
Tao sou . ans one mn+ _ u
1 SB /\ Jr. ed a S S. Se
QTL an. u ”at. as .Ans .A .x
H 00 WK d? PP ZS SQ SS 8.
o 0 0 0. d0 00 00 00 03
A . 1H0 Hoo mic mn+ mn+
0 “.04. m; a o

 

mowmpsmosmm :0 szomm
4&0 0» wopswb 0009 00002.00 op mosh,meomMLofl
ppm; 0009 wadmuHmsm>0CD so mmmHHoo mo ooHoso .Nm lome

203

Pioneer, Ohio. The preference was clearly in favor, however,

of a school in their own state and, of these schools, the

majority favored one of the state universities rather than

a private school. I was not surprised by this choice on

the part of the seniors in Michigan and in Indiana, but I

thought that more of the Ohio students would select a

private school in their own state, in view of the large N
number of well—known small schools in that state. fl

Certainly if this question had been asked of a
similar group of students in New England, the responses
would have been different. There we would expect, at
least, that the largest number would have selected one of
the well known private schools: Harvard, Yale, MIT, etc.

But in the Midwest, and in these three states, the "prestige"
schools are public, not private, and the high school students
in all three states think first of their own state univer-
sities. Certainly this must be one lead into the "state
cultures" of this region.

As soon as we leave the Midwest we see that the
choices fall off very sharply. Note how few, for example,
chose aerhool in New England. California, however, proved
to be rather popular. The reasons for this are probably
obscure. The west coast is "attractive." I know that some
very good students chose schools in this state. But it is
not clear from the answers by any means that only the "best"
students made this choice. I have the impression, and it

is only that, that the appeal of California is based, in

204

part at least, on the attractiveness of the turmoil on some
of the campuses, in particular at Berkeley. Several of the
students, for example, wrote such phrases as "Protest —
Yeah!" after writing, and often misspelling, the word
"Berkeley." ‘We might speculate that if the same question—
naire were to be administered in the summer of 1968, that a
similar group would choose Columbia. Hardly anyone made
this choice in the winter of 1968.

This leads us into another aspect of small town
life - perhaps of American life — which was not directly
investigated at all: the allied subjects of rebellion
(usually non-political), violence, cruelty and hatred. I
wish that I might have inquired into this. But it would
have required a different technique. It is worthy of study.

For over the years, as I have observed small town
behavior, I have been impressed with how much of this form
of behavior there is. Of course, "cruelty" is present
everywhere; it is "visible" to a marked degree in the small
town. It seems to hover below the surface. It lurks in
the background. It seldom breaks out in any clear-cut form.
But traces of it can be seen, on the part of the players,
in the city league soft ball and basketball games. These
are often very savage - minor wars. It can be seen in
bowling tournaments. It is evident in the sudden, explosive
reaction of rural people to those they view as "beatniks"

and "college types." It is present in tense public meetings

Ear—1.2::

205

dealing with school problems and taxation issues. It can

be "felt" in coffee shop discussions about rioters and civil
rights. It is present on the drag tracks and at high school
football games between rival towns. It is manifest in all
of these ways. Indeed, it is a miracle that it is contained
as well as it is.

Was this type of behavior evident in any of our six
towns? It was. I have mentioned the formation of the vigi—
lante groups in and around Camden, Michigan. In Camden also,
precautions were taken by the school authorities before one
of the basketball games, when word was received that a group
of adults were planning a brawl after the game. In Wolf
Lake, Indiana I was told that the John Birch Society was
strong in the area. I was also told by the school author-
ities that the main problem at basketball games (the Wolf
Lake team was an excellent one in the winter of 1968) was
the unsportsmanlike conduct by many of the adults - the
adults were the problem, not the students. In all of the
towns, much of the morning conversation in the little
restaurants, as the men discussed the games of the night
before, was sprinkled with bitter and derogatory comments
about the coaching, the officiating, the playing. Again,
this is impressionistic evidence, picked up accidently and
randomly in the course of my visits. I cite it here simply
to indicate that lfle - even small town life in the Midwest -
is not completely idyllic. I should have looked further into
the "dark side" — the savage side of civilized life in Mid

America.

206

Summagy:

In this chapter I have attempted to answer two ques—
tions: (1) Does knowledge of political matters vary from
state to state, and (2), in certain simple ways, do the
students and their families g9 different things — does

their behavior vary from state to state?

A_‘.

The answers to both questions are clear. We have
found, first, that the c0gnitive world of the fifth graders
in these small Midwestern towns — and this is quite uniform
from state to state — does not include the concept of
"political party" nor, in all probability, does it include
the concept of "politics." The seniors, however, are
familiar with these concepts and we have found that the
students living along the borders know more about political
figures than do the students who live in the control towns.
In relation to knowledge, too, we have found that the Ohio
students seem to be the best informed. The Michigan students
are the least well informed.

Secondly, we have found that there are state-based
differences in what the students do. They subscribe to
state newspapers. They shop in cities in their own state.
They are clearly sympathetic to "their" state university
athletic teams, and, in Michigan, but not in the other two
states, they are sympathetic to "their" professional teams
as well. They also indicate a clear state bias in their

choice of colleges and universities. Along the border they

207

do not indicate any particular state orientation in their
radio listening habits. But with this one exception they
show a state tie on all of the items tested, and this

orientation does not vary noticeably from state to state.

CHAPTER VI

Survey Results: Self Perceptions, and

Qpinions of the Three States

In this and in the next chapter I shall be concerned

with that part of the study which deals more specifically

with what is traditionally called "attitudes" and "opinions,"

rather than with "knowledge" and "behavior." In this chapter

I inquire into the following:

1.

Self perceptions: How do the students view
themselves?“ To what extent are the students
"anchored" in society? Do they see themselves
as residents of a particular state? Do they
think of themselves as citizens, or as Americans,
or as members of political parties, etc.? And,
in relation to all of these questions, is there

a difference as we move from state to state?

Valuation given to_present borders: Would the
students approve or disapprove of changes in
the political borders in such a way that the
states would be "abolished"? How would they
react to border changes in the tri-state region
which would have the effect of moving their
town to another state? Or of giving some of
their land to another state? Which of the other
two states would they choose to become a part
of, if they had to make the choice? And, again,
is there a difference as we move from state to
state?

Evaluations and comparisons of their states with
others: How do they see their states in compar-

ison with other states? Is their state the same,

better, or worse, then others? How do they rate
their own state in relation to the other two
states in the area? Do they think their own
state is a good one? And, as in the above two,
are there state patterns and differences?

208

A;
_.).---

‘IZT

:2:

LE

209

I used a number of devices to get at this matter of

attitudes and opinions - to see if they thought differently

from state to state, both on the questions as outlined above

and, in the next chapter, about national issues and about

politics on all levels of government. The measuring devices

are described below.

1.

The Twenty Statements Test, in answer to the
question Who AmlI? ’I gave the fifth grade
teachers in the Border schools, and the senior
government teachers in all of the schools, a
supply of 3 x 5 cards, each with the caption
"Who Am 1?", followed thereafter by twenty
blank spaces. I asked them to have their
students fill these cards out a day or two
before I arrived to administer the full ques—
tionnaire, and to do it, if they could, without
informing the students that an "outsider" was
interested in their answers. Each teacher was
given exactly the same set of instructions.
With two exceptions this worked well. The
exceptions were Springport, Michigan and Wolf
Lake, Indiana.

A Map Game, which I developed and which I
p aye in all of the schools and with all of

the classes. I was forced to omit, however,
about two thirds of the senior class in Spring-
port. An overhead projector is used, and the
game consists in removing state boundaries from
a map of the United States, rearranging them in
certain ways, and then seeing how they react to
the idea of a boundary change which would throw
their town into another state. The students
mark an answer sheet. This game worked well.

Direct questions - asked in connection with the
basic questionnaire, dealing with a variety of
subjects. The questions were asked of all the
students in all of the towns.

 

210

A. A version of the Semantic Differential - used
only with the sehiors, not with the fifth graders.
I showed them a word or a phrase - some 33 items
- on the overhead projector. They marked their
reactions to each item on three bi—polar, seven
point scales. The scales were weak - strong,
unfair - fair, passive - active. This worked
well. It is quick. Even so, it tends to be
fatiguing and I suspect that it is more reliable
at the beginning than it is at the end.
Faced with the question "Who Am I?" — a simple, but
baffling question — a person may answer in one of two ways.
He may say "I am a man," "I am a teacher," "I am a Rotarian."
Or he may say "I am sad," "I am happy," "I am lonely." In
the first place he says who he is in relation to the society
in which he functions and to social groups. He looks "out."
In the second place he describes himself, his state of mind,
his disposition. He looks "in." We may say, therefore, that
his answers are_positional or that they are idiosyncratic.
We may score his answers simply by counting the number of
positional statements, to arrive at a locus score. If a
person only fills in six of the blanks, and they are all
positional statements, his locus score is 6. If, however,
he fills in all twenty spaces, but only three of them are
positional answers, his locus score is 3.119
One advantage of this very simple test is that it

helps to produce a picture of the individual as the individual

119For information pertaining to the Twenty Statements
Test see Manford H. Kuhn and Thomas S. McPartland, "An Empir-
ical Investigation of Self—Attitudes," American Sociolo ical
Review, Feb., 195h, pp 68-76, and Manford H. Kuhn,"SEI§:_—'
Attitudes by Age, Sex and Professional Training," Sociological
Quarterly, Jan., 1960, pp. 39-55-

211

sees himself. It is a test, therefore, of self perception.
It does not furnish him with information. It seeks only
what is present in his mind. Of course, there are disad-
vantages, too. Who we are, or who we see ourselves as
being, depends in part on‘flhggg we are when the question is
asked. Hence, if in school we are asked the question we

tend to say, among other things, that we are students. If

we were asked the same question while at a beach party
during the summer vacation, we might not give the same
answers. 'With this explanation, then, and with these
cautionary remarks, let us see how the students in the six
towns answered this question.

Locus scores were arrived at for each of the students
(0 -20) and, for each class, a bar graph of percentages was
prepared. The profiles appearing below show the "shape" of
the locus scores in the different schools and grades. The
locus score is one measure of the individual's social
"anchorage." It is an indication of the extent of his inte-
gration into the society. Low score - poor integration;
high score - good integration. It should be noted, however,
that the possibility of high scores is dependent upon the
existence within the society of a large number of social
groups. In a highly complex society such as our own the

number of possible group identifications is very high.

212

 

30%r
203
10%:

 

 

O
O l 2 3 1+ 5 6 7 8 9 lOlllZl3lLI151617l8l920

Figure 7. Locus Score: Springport, Michigan
12th Grade.
30%_.
20%-
L
10%r
01 L_Ll j

 

 

 

O 1 L L l l I _n L L . 0 04 00

o 1 2 3 I. 5 6 7 8 91011121314151617181920
Figure 8. Locus Score: Camden, iichigan
12th Grade.

30%
20%
10%

30%
20%

10%

213

 

LJLJ_LI mr-I_LLL1L1__I

O l 2 3 1+ 5 6 7 8 91011121311I1516l7l81920

Figure 9. Locus Score: Pioneer, Ohio,

12th Grade.

 

 

_l LJLI I anJDJJ

 

O l 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920

Figure 10. Locus Score: Ridgeville Corners,

Ohio, 12th Grade.

30%
2075

10%

214

I j

_

b

—

 

 

111 l . I 1 . fl 1 1 1 J_l
O l 2 3 1+ 5 6 7 8 91011121314151617181920

Figure 11. Locus Score: Wolf Lake, Indiana,

30%
20%

12th Grade.

 

10%

 

 

 

 

 

 

011. 213 1415 l6L7J8 9101112 Ell-:15 1617181920

Figure 12. Locus Score: Fremont, Indiana,

12th Grade.

215

30%
20% .
10%

I“!

o 12 3 z. 5'6'7'8'9'101112131415'1617'18'19'25

Figure 13. Locus Score: Fremont, Indiana,

5th Grade.
”I in
20%-
10%;}
o ' W M . ..

I I I I I I I I I I I I I;
0123456789mnmnnbmmmmw
Figure 14. Locus Score: Camden, Michigan
5th Grade.

 

 

 

 

 

 

30%I
20%-

10%
o

 

 

IIIIIL .gII‘IIIIIIJfiJ
0123456789EHRBMHEUBHW

 

Figure 15. Locus Score: Pioneer, Ohio,
5th Grade.

 

216

In less complex societies this situation does not
obtain. Try to imagine this question being asked of Austral-
ian Bushmen, or of the ancient Celts. If they could answer
it at all their only answer might be, "I am of the people."
Locus score: one. Yet these people are completely inte-
grated into their society. They are perfectly socialized.

By itself, therefore, a low score does not indicate alien-
ation, or a lack of integration, or anything else. The
score has to be understood in relation to the nature of the
society. It was for this reason above all that I wanted to
question the Amish children. I suspect that their scores
would have been very low. But the meaning of such scores
would not be the same as would similar scores from the
public schools. The closed society of the Amish is utterly
different from the open society of the public schools.

The profiles do not differ radically from town to
town, or from the fifth to the twelfth grades. There are
minor differences. Perhaps the fifth grade in Camden,
Michigan and the twelfth grade in Ridgeville Corners, Ohio
are a bit different. For the fifth grades the highest degree
of social anchorage appears to be in Fremont, Indiana. The
least is in Camden, Michigan. In the twelfth grades we
would be hard put to find a distinctive "state" pattern.

The Michigan towns are somewhat alike. So are the Indiana
towns. The Ohio towns are not. But Springport, Michigan is

also similar to Pioneer, Ohio.

217

The three border towns are roughly alike. Looking at
the seniors with the lowest scores (0 - 1) we find the largest
number in Fremont, Indiana, the smallest number in Camden,
Michigan. If we look at the other end of the scale (10 ~ 20)
we find the largest number in Fremont, Indiana, the fewest
in Pioneer, Ohio. Is there much difference from state to
state in the degree of social integration? With the possible
exception of Ridgeville Corners, Ohio, there does not appear
to be, at least on the basis of these locus scores or these
profiles. Perhaps the most surprising aspect, in looking
at all of the profiles, is the fact that there is not more
difference between the fifth and the twelfth grades. On the
basis of locus scores alone there does not seem to be much more
social anchorage at 17 than there is at the age of 10.120

But it is when we leave the raw scores and being
to look at the specific answers, that we are able to learn
more about the social worlds of these students. I examined
the answers as though I were moving from the center of a
small circle made up of the most concrete and immediate
primary group of all - the family - out through a series of
concentric circles, each of which is both more remote and

more abstract. I moved outwards from the family, to the

120In testing for statistical significance I grouped
the locus scores into four categories: (O,l,2,3,h) . . .
(15,16,17,l8,19). There were no statistically significant
differences found in any of the comparisons - the seniors
within each state, and in the border towns, were (statisti-
cally) similar insofar as their locus scores were concerned.

 

218

church, the school, the local community, the state, the
nation, the "world," and finally to race or ethnic groups,
to social class and to political party. Do the students in
our three states, perceive themselves, without being asked
specifically, as "Americans," as "Hoosiers," as "members of
the working class" or as "Republicans"? The following table
shows the percentages of those who identified themselves

in one or more of these ways.

The questions were asked of the students while they
were in school. As expected, therefore, many of them iden—
tified themselves in one way or another as students. In the
twelfth grades, where "being a senior" is indeed very impor-
tant, the largest group who identified themselves as students,
or as school-affiliated persons, was in Camden, Michigan,
the smallest, 63%, in Pioneer, Ohio. Perhaps the Michigan
students as a whole were a bit more conscious of this fact
than were the others, but there is no clear-cut state pattern.

Throughout the entire area the students, both at the
age of 10 and at the age of 17, are conscious of family
membership. The twelfth graders in Pioneer, Ohio were the
sole exception. Again, there is no state pattern per se.
There is likewise no particular state pattern in their
awareness of church affiliation. In Ridgeville Corners,
Ohio, over 96% identified themselves as "Christians," or
"Lutherans," or "Catholics." This was most unusual, although

it does tie in with the information that was reported earlier

219

pmapfim

wwdm EH GOH O
. H .msosnoo oHHH>m . 3 amp 9 m
0.30 m saw I mQBOp 0H00 0 p pmpm o:

smHHdowm was 00 95090 p 0300 mm: mosmsmMMHe map was moHpmH
wwmmoxo .mstsmnEmE 300530 00 mcomemQEoo map c0 moosmhmmch psmonHcmwmswmenp mo hum :H
HBmxHH who; msmnB .mmsssosoo mm} COHpmHHHmmm mumpm mm 0mm om mcomHs 003:0 0am NGOHpmH
venom moonmsmMMHU psmoHMstHw hHHonpmwpmwm.os chm; amaze .mHnwsmnEms n m 039 mo 039
IHHMMN wpwpm "cosmonwswwm HmoHanpmpm pom 009mmp mums mmHnowmpmo m>on

)rlll

 

 

 

 

mhmflhmo m
I H>m 0H
.0 o 0.0H o H.4N 0.0 4.0 N.00 0.00 4.H4 NH 0.HH?
4 HH 0 .0N o :4 0.4 0.N 0.00 0.0H H.0 NM I 0.0.0.30...
o o N.0 0.0 4.0 o N.0 0.00 4.0 0.00 OHao
a
0.0 o 0.0 o N.40 o 0.0 0.00 4.0H .0N NH I 080%
o 0.H 0.H 4.0 4.0N 0.0 .0H N.00 .0H. 0.00 NH I $0.
0 .0 II HH
0 N o 0.N o 0.N N.NN 0.0 .00 0.0 H 00 0 smmHnoHE
o o 0.0 o 0.0N 0.4 0.4 0.00 0.0H 0.H0 NH I 3E
N.0 0.H N.0 o 0.00 0.0 0.0 H.Ns 0.HN 0.0N NH I E
e o o o o o o 0 II D.COEQ’HHH
0 o OH 0 00 o 0 00 0H 04 0 8080
dd 08 H M N 8 ST S 0 fl
m. m... m. m... 0 w m
[01. use 0. m m. . m. w M .L
M. TL u T. u. .A
m.

 

.muwmpsmosmmIsH mzosmIdmompmosa mmnp op nmsmsm
CH wpscvspw map 00 mums mQOHpmoHMHpnmnH :NH Ed 0:3: .mm mHnt

220

about church membership in that town. But in most of the
towns considerably less than one fifth saw themselves in
this manner, and this is quite uniform from state to state.

As we move away from such primary groups as family,
church, school, and out into the political community with
its various levels, where the students might and presumably
should see themselves as "Camdenites," "Michiganians," and
"Americans," we find that it is not until we arrive at the
national level that many make this identification. I was
particularly interested, of course, in seeing how many of
them thought of themselves as residents of a state. With
the sole exception of the Camden, Michigan fifth graders,
where one fifth or more identified themselves as "a Nfichigan
boy," etc., hardly any of them thought of it. I certainly
expected more "Hoosiers," and more "Buckeyes."

They are conscious, however, of being "Americans,"
or "citizens." This awareness increases between the ages of
10 and 17, from an average in the fifth grades of 13% to an
average of h0¢ for the seniors. There is a variation among
the border towns in this regard, but the control towns also
vary. As with so much of these data, there does not appear
to be any pattern which would serve to differentiate one
state from the other. All of the Fremont, Indiana students
are high in their consciousness of citizenship. Yet if we
look at Wolf Lake, which is rather low, we can not infer any

"Indiana pattern." If we use this awareness as one sign of

 

221

loyalty, then we can infer about the same degree of loyalty
in all school districts to both the state and to the nation,
with one or two rare exceptions.

With the broader community of the "world" and with
such abstractions as race and social class, the percentages
are all very small. Literally no one thinks of themselves
as members of a social class. A few identify themselves as
"white" or as "German—Americans." The highest percentage by
far in this regard was the senior class in Pioneer, Ohio
with 25%. Otherwise the percentages are all 10% or less.

In any large city we would expect a totally different re-
sponse. I suspect, in fact, given the population make up

of these towns, that even 10% is surprisingly high — probably
due to some awareness of the racial strife which has marked
American life during the last few years.

Do they think of themselves as Democrats and
Republicans? Clearly not. We know that Ridgeville Corners,
Ohio, is the "most Republican" of the towns. Yet not one
high school student identified himself as a member of a
political party. In Pioneer, Ohio, 11% made this identifi—
cation. Otherwise, where it was mentioned at all, it was
under 10%.

We have to remember that we are discussing their
gelfeperception. There is a danger here. For we may tend
to conclude that since they do not mention "political party"

or "state" that these are unimportant to them. This may be

 

222

true. But we are not warranted in reaching this conclusion.

If we could speak to the trout (as the young King Arthur was

so delightfully able to do in The Once and Future King) we
might find him not consciously aware of the fact that he

lived in the water. He might not write "I am a water dweller."
But that would not mean the water was unimportant to him. He
lives in it. It is essential to his being. But he is not
aware of it.

In 1964, in Angola, Indiana, Montpelier, Ohio and
Reading, Michigan, I went at this matter in another way. I
asked them if they consciously thought of themselves (often -
occasionally - never) in a number of ways. I used such cate-
gories as "Americans," "Michiganders," "Midwesterners," etc.
This differs radically from the "Uho Am I?" question, since

it furnishes them with information, and then asks them about

 

it. The results appear in Table 34.

Compared to the "Who Am I?" answers, we can see that
the results are totally different for such categories as the
states, class membership and religious affiliations. They
are quite similar, however, as regards "Americans" and
"students." In 1968 no one identified himself on the Who Am
I? question as being a Northerner or a Midwesterner. The
students did not think of themselves as residents of a geo-
graphic "region" of the country. Yet in 1964 when they were
specifically asked if they thought of themselves in this way

a substantial number in all three towns said they did -

occasionally.

 

 

223

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«N as am Imw mm as
1mm me am am mm ma
1m. oa cm s ma mb
Imw mm ow on Hm 0

ON on dm mm #m CH

d ON mu 5 md 4d
Im. mm as ea am ms

ono
mwmwmwmm .mqummazos
hoboz mmooo downbl. . nopoz mmooo nopmo

.: .2 3 am
90 maHpmHHSO
ma mm mm mmmao Hmwwwm
m .HO mhwflfiwz
N mm mu mpooozpm
Hoogom swam
a: m4 ma mnocnmpmwzdmm
ma um :m wumnnmnpnmm
m Né w¢ mcmcmwomm.
wstfino
whovqmwfinows
4 mm no mcmowho8¢
), II.
«zaHazH mm
.aqoaza
hm>oz mmovo copmo .11

 

 

 

 

‘1‘4

 
   

om0> @WEG

 

M.m:o omao
0:3.mazoa mouse map ca mucoosum Mo 0 wpqoohmm

 

.sm magma

224

In 1968 I asked two of the senior classes, at the
very end of my questioning, if they thought of themselves
consciously as residents of their own state. This was done
in Ridgeville Corners, Ohio, and in Springport, Michigan.
In the Ohio town 63.3% said that they did. In the Michigan
town 40% said that they did. Yet on the Who Am I? question,

in the same towns, 6.9% and 0% identified themselves in

 

this manner. It would seem, therefore, that if we arouse
their thoughts - if we ask the specific question — we obtain
one set of answers, whereas if we simply try to find out
what is "there," and how they "see themselves" we obtain
another. Both must be considered.

There is, of course, another aspect to the answers
given to the question "Who Am I?" which I have not analyzed,
and which is somewhat aside from my main interest. The
students are anonymous, and the picture that emerges is not
one of uniform happiness by any means. I was interested
above all in locus scores, derived from positional statements.
I wanted to know if they thought of themselves as "Republicans"
or "Democrats," "Michiganians" or "Ohioans." I did not count,
therefore, statements such as the following: "I am unhappy,"
"I am sad," "I am mixed up," "I am confused," nor did I count
such anguished answers as the single entry on one card which
said "I am not dum." Would it be possible to arrive at some

sort of a "happiness index" and then see if this varied from

 

state to state? I expect that it would. But there is no

225

reason to expect it would vary much from school to school.
Of course, I have not attempted it. Nevertheless it is a
sobering experience to read the answers given by several
hundred young people to this question. The answers are
revealing. And even where, as in Camden, Michigan, a group
of "wise guys" tried to "yuk it up" and to give "funny"
answers, the humour seemed to turn hollow — the bravado

failed - and a deep type of nervous uncertainty appeared.

(Note: I have included in the Appendix a list of some of
the more "notable" answers given to this question.)

I shall turn now to the information which was obtained
from the map game. The first step in this game is to show
the class a map of the United States on an overhead projector,
with all of the state borders as we presently know them. I
explained that the map looks "right" to us - that this is
our country and that this is how it "ought" to look. But we
know that it has not always looked this way. It has changed
through 23mg. Therefore, if it has changed in the past, it
might be possible for us to imagine more changes in the future.
we might, some time in the future, want to change it deliber—
ately, in order to make it more "efficient," or to make it
more "workable," or to make it "better" in some way. We
then start this process by removing, with the use of overlays,
all of the state borders and asking the students to think of

how they would like it if we had "just one big country,

 

226

without any states at all." If this happened, and one were
then asked where he lived, the only answer he could give would
be, "I live in Camden, America — and my zip code is . . ."

The students are then asked to approve or disapprove, on

a seven point scale, of this reorganization of our country.
This was followed by a question asking them if they would be
upset, if the country were actually changed in this way.

Table 35 shows the percentages of those who expressed
the strongest possible disapproval (on the seven point scale)
of such a sweeping reorganization of our country. It also
shows the percentages of those indicating that they would be
upset by such a change.

In the fifth grades the strongest disapproval was
shown in Camden, Michigan. In the twelfth grades the strong-
est disapproval was shown in Ridgeville Corners, Ohio. There
is no particular state pattern, however. In any event, the
great majority in all of the towns did not think much of this
idea - practically no one approved of such a change.

I then went through the same process twice more, each
time "dividing" the country a little more: first on the
basis of the four main census regions, and secondly on the
basis of nine geographic regions. Each time I would ask
them to approve or disapprove, and then to indicate whether
they would be upset or not if the country were actually
changed in this manner. I then suggested to them that perhaps

it would make more sense to think of smaller, more "logical"

 

227

Table 35. Reaction to Reorganization of
‘Nation bngemoval of All Internal
BorderslgShown‘in‘Percentages.

Strongest Possible Yes, They Would

 

 

Disapproval Be Upset

Indiana

Fremont - 5 57.1 71.4

Fremont - 12 76.3 62.7
Michi an

Camgen - 5 87.9 84.8

Camden — 12 82. 90.2

Springport - 12 83.9 83.9
Ohio

Pioneer - 5 51.6 51.6

Pioneer — 12 68.2 77.3

Ridgeville — 12 86.7 93.3

Corners

 

changes - changes that would be more "possible." I pointed
to the New England states and suggested that we might try

to consolidate three or four of them, or we might eliminate
such oddities as the "handle" of Oklahoma, etc. ‘95 we might
think of changes in our "own back yard" - in the borders of
our own states. I then showed them a map of the three states
of Indiana, Ohio and Michigan, and asked them whether they
would approve or disapprove of any border change the effect
‘Qf_which would be to throw their town into another state, and
showed them a rearrangement of the borders in such a way as
to make Camden a part of Ohio, or of Indiana, Pioneer a part

of Michigan or Indiana and Fremont a part of Michigan or of

228

Ohio. In the towns gygy from the border I asked them to
indicate their approval or disapproval of a border change
the effect of which would be to transfer a ten mile wide
strip of "their" state to another state. The results are
shown in Table 36.

As is evident, the disapproval is strong. The
thought of "their town" being transferred to another state,
and of them, therefore, becoming "Michiganians" rather than
"Hoosiers" is not a welcome one. My original supposition
was that the border towns would resist this sort of a border
change more than would the control towns, and that for the
control towns it would not make quite as much difference if
a strip of land ten miles wide were transferred to another
state. But, with the possible exceptionof Wolf Lake, Indiana,
there appears to be very little difference indeed. In
Camden, Michigan, 13% of the seniors strongly approved of
such a change. A handful in the other towns also indicate
their approval. This part of the questionnaire was given at
the very end of a tightly packed hour. As expected, there
were a few "wise guy" answers from all of the schools. In
Camden, Michigan, in the last few minutes, this group began
to get restless. I suspect, therefore, that this accounts

for most of the "strong approval" answers that were given to

 

this question.
It is interesting to compare the reaction of the

fifth graders in the above two tables. In all three of the

 

fifth grades the percentages of those who strongly disapproved

229

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.ummmmmn- I
. . whosnoo

m.m O O O b 0 OH .Om NH I oHHH>meHm

o m.a o m.N H.0 4.HH N.NN NH I mmwmmmm.

o o o o N.m :.o N.00 m I mmmmmmm.
owno

5.0 O O N.m O 5.0 d.ub NH I phomwafihmm

H.mH O O m.® O m.@ w.mb NH I mousse

.m 0 O O o O .50 m I so Emu
cm snow:

©.¢ m.N m.N m.© 0.HH m.oH m.mm NH I mxmq MACS

4.m o e.m o m.m N.oa o.ss Na I pcosmns

w.¢ m.¢ o o o m.m N.os m I paoamns
msmfiwsH

m+ ml
m>oamm< N+ H+ 0 HI NI m>osdmmmflm

 

.wowmpcoohmm Ga qzomm

mm ease: scan to ampmpm nmsmoca on m>oa wasps
mfiso .Hm .HO

moflamvs50m opmpm mo coapmNHsm poem on sofipommm

 

.mpmpm hoapoc¢ op so>wo

agedw

 

.sm magma

230

increased when "their town" was threatened. The seniors,
however, are more consistent.

I also asked them to tell me which of the other two
states they would choose to become a part of, if the borders
were in fact going to be changed and they had the opportunity
(in a plebiscite) to indicate a choice. Their choices are

shown in Table 37. W
. II

Table 37. The Choice of States, if the Borders
Had to be Changed. Shown in Percentages.

None, or
Michigan Indiana Ohio No Ans.

 

Indiana
Fremont - 5 52.4 42.8 4.8

Fremont - 12 62.7 35.6 1.7

Wolf Lake — 12 60.5 37.2 2.3
Michigan

Camden - 5 27.3 72-7

Camden - 12 26.2 68.9 4.9

Springport - 12 38.7 48.4 12.9
Ohio ‘

Pioneer - 5 61.3 38-

Pioneer - 12 34.1

5
Ridgeville - 12 66.7 33.
' Corners

Do these three states have different images, differ-
ent reputations? Yes, of course they do. But do the people
living in the tri-state area "see" the states as sufficiently

different so that — if they were forced to choose — they

231

would choose one of them over the others? Or are all three
of them equally regarded? Of these three states, is there a
"best" state?

On the basis of this one bit of evidence we may
conclude that Michigan is the "best" of the three, Ohio is
second, Indiana is last. The Indiana students clearly chose
Michigan in preference to Ohio. The seniors in both towns I
chose Michigan by a wide margin. The fifth graders on the fl
border were less definite, but were still in favor of Michigan.

In Ohio two out of the three voting groups clearly chose Mich-
igan over Indiana. The seniors on the border, however, pre—
ferred Indiana. The Michigan students, both on the border

and in the control town, clearly voted for Ohio rather than
for Indiana, and the fifth graders were much like the seniors
in this regard. The preference for Ohio was more marked on
the border than it was in Springport}21 Michigan, then,

seems to be the most favored - the most frequently chosen.

Finally, all of the students agreed that as a prac-
tical matter, ggy border change would be very difficult indeed.

I asked them to reflect on their own feelings and then asked

121As noted at the outset of this chapter, however,
the Springport, Michigan results must be viewed with consid-
erable skepticism, since I was only able to test about one
third of the senior class with the Map Game. The seniors in
Springport were broken up into what amounted to "slow" and
"rapid" classes on the basis of academic performance. In
order to test all of the seniors I had to administer the
questionnaire three times in that school. Two of the classes
were noticeably slower in their responses than was the other.
The Map Game, therefore, was not played with the "slow"
students.

232

them to think about those areas of the world where borders
have been changed, usually through force, (the Near East,
Asia, etc.), and then decide whether such changes are diffi-
cult and painful, or not. Over 90% in all of the schools
agreed that any change at all would be very difficult -
that the borders, once established, become "fixed" and that
people resist changes in them. Theiifth graders were nodding i
vigorously as they checked the "yes" column in answer to M
this question. And as a matter of fact the fifth graders
groaned loudly when it was suggested to them that by a simple
change of the lines on a map, they could be "turned into"
Michiganians, rather than Buckeyes, etc. Ten year olds do
not hide their feelings!

But does this apparent choice of Michigan as the
"preferred" state hold up in other ways? I asked all of
them, in another part of the questionnaire, to evaluate
their own state, in relation to other states by indicating
whether their state was better, the same, or worse. Four
supposedly atypical states were selected for this purpose,
and four typical states were chosen. The "unusual" states
were Texas, California, Mississippi and Florida. The
"ordinary" states were all Midwestern: Michigan, Indiana,
Ohio and Illinois. I asked the Ohio students, for example, if
they thought their state was better, the same, or worse than
Michigan or Indiana. The following table shows how the stu-
dents "see" their own state in comparison to California and

Mississippi, and then how each sees his own state in comparison

to the other two in the tri—state area.

Table 38-:Qontinued

 

 

INDIANA MICHIGAN OHIO

Bet. Same Worse Bet Same horse Bet. Same Iknse
23. 66.7 9.5 42.8 42.8 9d
23.7 59.3 15.3 49.2 33.9 13$
23.2 53.5 23.2 48.8 39.5 93

78.8 15.2 3. 84.8 9.1 3.

57.4 31.1 11.5 50.8 19.7 29$

29.2 64.6 4.6 33.8 58.5 6.2

51.6 45.2 3.2 41.9 41.9 16.1

47-7 47.7 2.3 75. 18.2 4.5

30. 66.7 3.3 13.3 83.3 3.3

233

 

 

 

 

Corners

Table 38. The Evaluation of Their Own State in
_Belation to Others, Shown in Percent—
ages of those who Answered.

CALIFORNIA MISSISSIPPI
Bet. Same Norse Bet. Same Worse

Indiana

Fremont - 5 9.5 38.1 47.6 38.1 33.3 26.6

Fremont - 12 30.5 23.7 42.4 76.3 18.6 5.1

Wolf Lake - 12 25.6 13.9 60.5 83.7 16.3 0
Nichigan

Camden - 5 18.2 39.4 42.4 78.8 15.2 3.

Camden - 12 26.2 14.7 59. 83.6 11.5 4.9

Springport — 12 24.6 33.8 40. 69.2 24.6 4.6
Ohio

Pioneer - 5 12.9 29. 58.1 29. 61.3 9.7

Pioneer - 12 31.8 15.9 50. 79.5 11.4 9.1

Ridgeville - 12 20. 36.7 43.3 73.3 16.7 10.

 

234

I expected that on the whole they would rate their
own state‘pglpy California, gpng Mississippi, and the same
as, or slightly better than, either of the neighboring two
states. With the atypical states, it worked about as I had
expected. The largest group in all of the schools thought

their own state was worse than California. Wolf Lake, Indiana

exhibited what seemed to be the strongest "pro-California"

sentiment, while the weakest was probably in Springport,
Michigan. A majority of the students clearly thought that
their own state was better than Mississippi. The fifth

graders in Fremont, Indiana and in Pioneer, Ohio are exceptions
to this however, and we can presume that this stems from a

lack of information on their part — or, perhaps, from a lack

of indoctrination.

In the tri—state area itself, it seems that the
strongest feelings are evident on the border. In Michigan,
for example, the Springport students seem to view their state
as about the same as both Indiana and Ohio. But the Camden,
Michigan seniors think their state is better than both Indiana
and Ohio, and the Camden fifth graders are even more vigorous
in their pro—Michigan sentiment, more, in fact, in their
judgement of Indiana and Ohio than in their judgement of
Mississippi. The Camden seniors are more realistic — they do
see a difference between Indiana and Ohio, on the one hand,

and Mississippi on the other.

235

In Ohio the seniors in Ridgeville Corners seem to
think that their state is much the same as both Indiana and
Michigan. On the border, however, the pro-Ohio sentiment
jumps up. They rate their own state somewhat better than
Indiana, but markedly better than Michigan. The fifth
graders on the Ohio border think their state is better than
Indiana, and the same or better than Michigan.

In Indiana there seems to be something of a state—
pattern. The seniors in both Wolf Lake and in Fremont seem
to think that their own state is essentially the same as
Michigan, better than Ohio. The percentages are quite close
in both towns. The Indiana fifth graders seem to see it in
much the same way - with their own state similar to Michigan,
better than Ohio.

In the map game, Michigan seemed to be the "most
favored" state. Does this agree with the results from the
above set of questions? First, pro-state sentiments seem to
grow stronger as we approach the border area. Is this logical?
I suspect that it is. If we think for a moment of interna—
tional borders, for example, the Mexican-American border, or
the Peruvian-Ecuadorian border, or the French-German border,
we know that people living on Opposite sides of these lines
are more conscious of their nationality. They tend, there-
fore, to feel superior, or to be jealous of the persons on
the other side. But in either event, they are apt to have
more clear cut opinions concerning the "others" since they

see more of them and think more about them and about their

236

particular location. This same tendency may in part be at
work on the state level in our own country. At least we
should not be surprised if it were so. This appeared to be
true in both Ohio and in Michigan. It was not evident in
Indiana.

Secondly, the Michigan students, on the border, seem
to have a higher opinion of their own state than do the Ohio
or the Indiana students. The fifth grade in Michigan was -
literally - jumping up and down with a feeling of superiority
over both of their neighboring states. Is a feeling of
superiority a sign, an indicator, of loyalty? It may be.
Perhaps it ppghp not to be. But that is not the question.

Third, if I say that I am the "same as X," but "better
than Y" what I may be saying is that "X is good - as good as
I am, and that we are both better than Y." If this is true,
then what the Fremont, Indiana seniors have in effect said is
that Michigan is a good state - as good as Indiana - while
Ohio rates somewhat below both of them. And the Wolf Lake
seniors have agreed with them. The Pioneer, Ohio seniors,
on the other hand, are saying that Ohio and Indiana are both
good states, but Ohio is clearly better than Michigan.
Ridgeville Corners, however, deeper in the state, is saying
that Ohio is about the same, so far as they can tell, as both
Michigan and Indiana. Now, does Pioneer's rating of Michigan
stem from a feeling of superiority, or from a feeling of
jealousy? We do not know. But we do know that the Pioneer

seniors reacted the same way toward Michigan in the Map

 

 

237

Game — preferring to belong to Indiana if they had to make a
choice rather than to Michigan. But, with this one exception,
again it seems as though Michigan were the "most favored"
state. It is ossible, too, that Michigan shows the highest
degree of state loyalty, but this will have to be explored
further.

One other device was used in an attempt to measure
their overall regard - their "feelings" - for their state.
With the semantic differential I sought their reaction to
the name of their own state. Thus, the Michigan students
reacted to the word "Michigan," the Indiana students to the
word "Indiana," the Ohio students to the word "Ohio." I
did not administer this part of the questionnaire to the
fifth graders.

A typical scale - this one happens to be for Camden,
Michigan - would be as follows:

-3 -2 —1 0 +1 +2 +3
weak 1.7: O 1.7: 313:_3.3: 8L3:78{3 strong
unfair 1_1.7: O : O : 8:3: 6.7:15;_:65. fair
passive 1.7: O : O :_313; 8.3:11.7:70. active

As used in the schools, the scales did not have numerical
values for each of the scale positions as shown above. We
can readily see, however, that in the Camden, Michigan school
the scale is heavily weighted toward the right hand side, and

the students are saying that Michigan is very strong, very

 

238

fair and very active. The following table has been prepared
by adding the percentages found in the two most extreme
right hand positions in each of the schools.

As we can see, the students in all of the schools have
a very positive reaction toward their own states. On the
basis of this table it would seem as though the Ohio students
in both Pioneer and in Ridgeville Corners have the most favor-
able image of their own state. They are followed thereafter
by the Michigan students and then by the Indiana students.
There are differences, but they are slight. In short, the
students, with the possible exception of Fremont, Indiana,
think of their states as being very strong, very fair and
very active. If we use this as a measure of state loyalty,
or as one indicator of it, we would have to conclude that
the Ohio students were the most loyal - but that all of the
students in all of the states exhibit marked loyalty to
their own states.

We began this chapter with a set of questions.
How have they been answered? First, there seems to be little
or no difference in the way the students see themselves as we
move from state to state. They exhibit essentially the same
degree of social anchorage. They do see themselves as stur
dents, and as Americans or citizens. They do not see them—
selves as.Michiganians, Hoosiers or Buckeyes. Yet when
they are ggfigg if they think of themselves in this and in

other ways they say that they do.

239

.00
4.6N

.om
4.0m

.00
m.©w

n.mm
m.m©

N.NN
N.NN

H.©n
m.oh

H.mm
N.Hm

m.bb
cow

N.NN
0.0m

mumshoo oaafi>oweam

somsoam
owno

 

phomwswhmm

 

mowemo

camagoaz
mama macs

 

pnosopm
mstUsH

 

 

mbwpo< hash machpm
OHmo

obflpod hash mcowpm

m>fipo< wash wnoppm

 

 

«ZdHQZH 24UHmon
.msompfimom.oamom
kwflpmuo>mm,pmozklm39mnp mo moNNPGNQNom cm macaw

 

.HNHQthoMMfiD,owpsmEom may mn,woadmwozlmm .mmem
ego pawn» yo mama one on soapommm namespm

 

.mm mHnt

240

Second,-insofar as their reactions to proposed changes
in the internal borders of the nation are concerned, there
seems to be, from state to state, a rather uniform rejection
of such proposals. They also exhibit a rather uniform re—
luctance to have their town "moved" to another state. There
is some indication that Michigan might be the "most favored"
state - the state that is most highly regarded. And there
seems to be some — slight - evidence that the Michigan
students are somewhat more loyal to their state than are the
other students to theirs. There is also some evidence that
as we approach the border, the feelings about the states
become more sharply defined.

Third, there is rather general agreement in all three
of the states that their own state was not as good as Cali-
fornia, was better than Mississippi, and was the same as, or
better than, the bordering states. But in thinking about their
own states, it is quite clear that the students have very
positive views and, with the possible exception of Ohio, there
appear to be no clear-cut differences from state to state. It
is possible that there were rather weak state patterns at work
in Ohio and in Indiana, in the evaluations of their states.
But on the whole the data does not ShOW’What appear to be
significant state wide differences, at least in relation to
the questions that were asked and the measuring devices that

were used.

CHAPTER VII

_§urvey Results: Attitudes Toward Politics

_gnd Government in the Three'States

In this chapter I shall seek to determine if there

are attitudinal differences in relation to politics and

.gpvernment as we move from state to state. I want to know

if the students in the three states think the same - or

differently — about the following subjects:

1.

The Government and Those Who Govern

Our National GBvernment, and the President
of the US.

Our State Government, the Individual Governors,
and "State Officials."

Our Local Government.

The United Nations Organization.

.Ihe General Subject of Politics
Politics.

State Politics.

Political Parties.

Politicians.

 

ggy National Issues and Programs
Space‘Program.

Civil Rights - Anti-Poverty - Urban Renewal.
Federal Aid for Highways.

Federal Aid for Education.

The Vietnam War.

Key State Issues and Prqgrams
State Parks.

State Highways.

State University Systems.
State Income Tax.

State Sales Tax.

State Aid to Education.

241

 

242

5. The Police
Perceptions of Local, County, State and
Federal police agencies, plus specific
views of Their Own State Police.

It has been noted earlier that I used a version of
the Semantic Differential as a means of measuring attitudes.
Except for the last section of this chapter all of the
information has been derived from an analysis of the infor-
mation obtained in this way. I chose this device for three
reasons. (1) It is easily explained and easily understood.
(2) It makes possible a rather rapid accumulation of a
substantial body of data - and my time with the students was

limited. (3) The Semantic Differential measures not only

"attitudes," but the'flimensions" of attitudes: the evaluative

 

factor (unfair — fair), the potencx factor (weak - strong),
and the activity factor (passive - active). Only the seniors
were tested with this device. Time did not permit its use
with the fifth graders.

In the sections that follow I employ both tables
and graphs. A brief explanation of the method of preparation
will help with the interpretation. The students were asked
to rate "Our National Government" on the three bi-polar,
seven point scales. The scale below shows how the seniors in
Camden, Michigan responded. Percentages are shown.

weak _1_9_.'9_:_O__: 1.1: 1._7:_5.0:_1_8_._2:_6_O_._O_ strong

unfair 16:]: O {_§;2:_5.0:10.0:23.3:30.0 fair
passive ._8.3: O : O : 6LZ:11.7:21.7:45.O active

 

243

It would be possible, of course, to show all of the
scales in this way. If this were done precise comparisons
could be made. It is sufficiently accurate, however - and
far less tedious - to present the results in tabular form.
Each set of scales was viewed as if they were three point
scales, rather than seven point ones. It is possible to

think of them thusly:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l_ I F _
weak : }, : : : : ‘ strong
unfair : : : : : 4p_. fair
passive I : ; : : : : active

 

The two-space area on the left then becomes that area in
which strongly negative opinions are expressed (insofar as
"weak," "unfair," and "passive" are viewed as negative
qualities) while the two-space area on the right becomes
that area in which strongly positive opinions are expressed.
The center area may then be thought of as the area of weak
Opinions, or of no opinions at all. One advantage of this
scale is that it does measure the "no opinion" area - a very
important matter. I have combined the center positions,

then, into a "weak, or no opinion" area. The tables then

take the following form:

 

E: --_-.——_1-

 

244

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly Area of Weak Strongly
Negative or No Opinion Positive
wklunflwpas wk/stgiun/flipas/ac st ‘fair1 ac

In this manner as many schools as we have may be
readily compared. Otherwise, graphs may be drawn. I did
this twice, in order to show particularly sharp opinions,
and in doing so I plotted all seven points. The "no opinion"
area shows up very clearly on the line graph, as, of course,
do attitudes that are strongly held by large numbers of
individuals.122

With this explanation, then, we can turn to a
consideration of the attitudes and opinions of thelstudents
about "government" and about "those who govern." Table 40
reflects the attitudes of the seniors toward "Our National
Government." .

It can be seen that on the whole the students have
a very positive view of government on the national level.
Those evincing the most consistently favorable view are from
Ridgeville Corners, Ohio. The least favorable views are
held in Camden, Nflchigan and in Pioneer, Ohio. All of the
students see the government as very strong, and, to a somewhat

‘*

122A full explanation of the semantic differential
and its uses appears in Charles E. Osgood, George J. Suci,
Percy H. Tannenbaum, The Measurement of Meanipg, (Urbana,
Illinois, 1957).

 

 

245

039 mo manna Ham macaw 6:509 opmz.mooamhommfic
.psohommfiv who; mszop OHQO 03p on» .hsafiswm who:
essences 0:» map Edamoapmapmpm

.ea:om who: woosmamMMflo psmoHMwsmflm haamofipmfip
Ihmmaoo sesame 05p mo hem sfl endow moocoMoMMHo pcmoflmws

.ompwop 90: mm; hopowm

pomONMHGNHm hHHNoprwpmpm he
mGSOp was
.:0Hmcweflo m>wpms

6pm

 

 

Epw>flpom was

upon 0 p wno

I. NUCH 039 can unmawsfim ohm: mszwm

Hm>m map mo meme msomflhmmsoo
.cowmcofiwo wqomp

mam saamoapmapmp

CH .hobmzoa

memwz one so maoma
m 06H 0H0: Ohmfifi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wnmspoo
N.00 0.0® N.00 m.m 0.0H m.m O O O mHHH>mMUHm
m.m© 0.0N 4.0m 0.4N H.m¢ H.m H.m m.nN m.: womsoan
- oars:
m.Hm ©.m© 4.0m H.mH 0.NN 0.0 O.m m.h m.b phommnwhmm
. m.mm m.mh 4.mH m.MN ¢.w m.m b.0H 0.0H no em
a 8 award:
0.0m N.NN N.NN o.HH N.0H N.Na m.N m.N m.N mama mace
H.wm N.05 n.0m N.0H b.mH N.0H N.NH H.m ¢.m pcosmp .
wsmfiesA
m>wpom hflmm NUOMpm om\mmm M\ds pm\£3 o>wmmmm. hammss Mme: I.
opwpwmom soasfimo 02 no o>flpmwoz
hamsoppm xmoz mo mmh4 EHNGOApm
.emnezmo4 0:3,omOSBIMo wowepsooemm em szonm .thpomEGAo>ow

 

Hmeoapmz ego: cameos mnoaemm Hooeom swam mo mmesprpa .oe magma

246

lesser extent, as very active. But is it "just" - is it
"good" - is it "fair"? The evaluative factor of their
attitudes varies — from a high of 90% in Ridgeville Corners,
Ohio, who think it is very fair, to only 29.6% in Pioneer,
Ohio. The difference is substantial. In Pioneer, Ohio
almost as many of the students think the government is very
unfair as it is very fair. It would not be proper, on the
basis of this single survey, to categorize any one group as
"cynics" on the one hand, or as "enthusiasts," or, perhaps,
"patriots," on the other hand. Before any such conclusion
could be reached we would have to study the school, or the
community, over an extended period of time and in many
different ways. But on the basis of phis survey and in

relation to phis_question it would appear as though the

 

students in Pioneer, Ohio were the most cynical, the most
skeptical, of the national government. Interestingly enough,
those who view the government in the most enthusiastic and
supportive manner - Ridgeville Corners - are also from the
state of Ohio.

Does there appear to be a state pattern of any sort
in the responses? In Ohio there is certainly not. There is
some difference, too, between the Michigan towns, in all
three dimensions. The Indiana towns, on the other hand, seem
to be quite similar. we shall see if this pattern holds up

as we examine other levels of government and their opinions

 

247

on other matters. And we shall also see if Pioneer, Ohio
continues to be the home of the "cynics," Ridgeville Corners,
Ohio continues to be the home of the "patriots."

The students were also asked to evaluate President
Lyndon Johnson in the same manner. The results appear in
Table 41 which follows, as well as in the graphs.

First, more students expressed weak opinions - or
no opinions - about the President than they did about the
national government. Second, more students in each of the
schools (with the single exception of Wolf Lake, Indiana)
thought that he was strong and active than weak and passive.
Third, a rather surprising number in all schools viewed him
as very unfair.

How are we to explain such conflicting opinions -
within each school - of the President of the United States?
Can it be explained on the basis of party affiliation? Not
very well. For we have to remember that when the students
were asked to name "their" political party, the largest
number of Democrats was found in Fremont, Indiana, the
largest number of Republicans was found in Ridgeville Corners,
Ohio. Yet Ridgeville Corners has the least strongly negative
opinions about the President, on all three dimensions.
Fremont, Indiana, is second in this regard. In Camden,
Michigan there were about as many Democrats as there were
Republicans, but in that town 40% viewed him as very unfair.
The denunciation of the President, on the basis of his "fair-

ness" was almost as vigorous in Camden, Michigan as it was in

 

 

 

248

.eopmop no: we: soamnmswe hpw>wpom m

 

.moma 2H .

MO 03303 0£P $003909 0OGOH0%HHU pfiMOHMHCWHW HH00flQOHP090 m

EHHsHpsmmwo one: maze» on» gotten one wzoa<
one: mszou case 039 one .psosommao who: mszop swwwnowz 039 one
o>apssHm>o esp ow .nmbozo: .moosonommflo pumoamfiswflm Eda

“scamcoewc wQONmexmoz map mo msomaammSoo esteem one

I

pcoamam one cmww
we: who

HHEflw 0H03 05309 QCMHU

I

nofiz .cooEw
My SNSOSpHm .oswm mam
H 03p map .pomam
.AaHquSIafim Hwfle
moflpmwpwpw mo popes:
ho hum Ca neocohommwo

Hv GONmsoEflo
a who: whose

smo
EHHmoflpmfipmpm on one: ohmfip mnzop ssmfiosH 03p map mo sowpmmoxo oamsflm op wmwswflw

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

an ape;
fiI.
whose
5.00 0.0m 5.04 0.0N H.oo m.md 5.0 0.0H 0.0H oaafi>mmwfim
N.m¢ N.NN N.m¢ m.mN H.:m 0.4N N.NN N.m¢ m.Hm poocoan
cane
m.m¢ ¢.©m 0.0m w.¢N 0.5m N.mH b.0a N.HN N.qN paoamsfipom
m.mm o.HN N.NN N.NN N.NN 0.0N N.©N 0.04 N.HN am as
amides
m.©m 0.4m 0.Nm N.MN N.0m N.MN N.NM m.dm N.#4 oMMQ MHOB
N.dm ©.mm H.44 m.mN H.0m 4.5m 0.5H 0.NN b.mH psosmhm
mom
o>wpom Lama .ws0hpm ofi\wmm M\dd pm\x3 o>wmwma. nwwmss Mme: wvnH
m>fipwwom sofisflmo oz to oeflpmwmz
hawoospm xmoz mo Noam anooapm

 

.noamzmsm,oma.om0£9,mo momdpsoo
Ihom cw axonm .somsmOh aoeshq,psoeflmoam.
mchmzoe whoasem Hooaom swam mo movzpfippd .Hq magma

249

 

-3 -2 -1 O
0 +1 +2
lOIIIIIIIIIIII+?
90_ I__1wk-lt
I.--m.| Ian-pk

I.........I pan-an:

 

 

80—-

70..

 

60—
5o—
40— \
30..
20-—

10-—

 

 

 

 

0

Figure 16. Perceptions of President Johnson, Camden,
Michigan, 12th Grade.

250

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
loOIIIIIIIIIW'"
. ,wlI-fl.
90 — L.__—.l Uh-f‘l'r
__ I ......... I pawn.

80—

 

 

 

70—
60—
50—
40—
30-
20-

10-

 

 

 

 

0

Figure 17. Perceptions of President Johnson, Springport,
Michigan, 12th Grade.

251

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
I l l l l l l l l ' ' '

I—_.I ull- 31'-
I. _ _ .I un-fdr

I .......... I pas-w.

100

 

T

90
80

[IT

 

 

7O
60

I

 

50*-
40-
30..

20—-

10——

 

 

 

 

0

Figure 18. Perceptions of President Johnson, Fremont,
Indiana, 12th Grade.

Figure 19.

252

-2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

 

lOO_l-13IIIIIII
9o—
80—
70—-
60—.
50—
1.0-—
30—
20—-

lO—-

 

 

I l I I
I—4 wII~$+.

l---_I Ian-fair

I.........I pas-m.

 

 

 

 

Perceptions of President Johnson, Wolf Lake,

Indiana, 12th Grade.

253

 

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 2
10 IIIIIIIII 3.3.3

H WK‘ ‘+.

90__ l__——J UTA-f0)?
_ L.-........l pas-ad.

80——

 

 

70-
60—-
50"
40"
30-
20—-

10"

 

 

 

 

Figure 20. Perceptions of President Johnson, Pioneer,
Ohio, 12th Grade.

254

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
lOO_IIIIIIIII

I—_I um- 51'.

 

90— L-_..I un-fair
_ L.........J pu~xt

80*-

 

 

70""
60—
50—
40—
30—
20-—

10'—

 

 

 

 

0

Figure 21. Perceptions of President Johnson, Ridgeville
Corners, Ohio, 12th Grade.

255

Pioneer, Ohio (43.2%) and in the latter town the Republican
students outnumbered the Democratic ones by two to one.
Clearly, therefore, some factor other than simple party
preference is at work.

Again, we would be hard put to find a clear cut

state pattern to the responses. On the graphs, for example,

aw
Pioneer, Ohio and Camden, Michigan resemble one another, i

w
more than either one resembles its own state counterpart. a

How about our "cynics" and our "patriots"? Pioneer, Ohio
does continue to evince cynicism in relation to the President,
but, in varying degrees, so do some of the others. Ridgeville
Corners, Ohio, however, continues to be — on the whole -
strongly supportive, although even here the large number of
weak opinions about his "fairness" may indicate the presence
of considerable doubt.

How did the high school seniors react to the phrase
"Our State Government"? We can see this in Table 42.

On all three dimensions their general reactions are
clearly positive. If we look at the strongly positive
column we can see that for all three attributes Ridgeville
Corners, Ohio, is by far the most supportive of their state
government, while Pioneer, Ohio is the least enthusiastic.
The "patriots" and the "cynics" are consistent. The other
four towns do not differ greatly, yet I believe that the two

Indiana towns evince somewhat more positive feelings toward

 

256

vm:HSpmpmv mm: pa .Am>o30£
Inmsfic m>fipmzam>m asp new Mano venom who: mmocmhmm
wan Ham ca mmcfipfippm mo muowmcoEwn mouse map

 

 

chwm osu Spa: hmaafiam
.cowmomsflv mflnp 90% m

was pcmoawwcwwm saamo
.HOH 0UGE 0H0: moawvflhu

Hpmapmpm
woman Mo mpmoa

.oano .mhocmoo maaw>omvfim mo azop on» ma swap pnmscno>ow mumpm Mo :mmmnnamm: map 950 m
Hmofipmmxm whoa magmmao ma .owso .hmmoowm mo 530» nmvhop map manmp o>onm . n
m« .wczop oflzo ozp m£p_mo coapmmoXm m

wnu ca venom on :wo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mhmchoo
N.00 0.0m ¢.mm m.m 5.0 5.0 O m.m O mHHH>mwvwm
m.mm b.h¢ 0.4m ©.mm o.wm n.mm H.0 ©.ma w.o pmmnodm
oaso
N.00 o.mm N.m© N.NN m.dm w.mm 0.0 0.0H o.m phomwofiham
. . . . . m.mm n. a. o.m smegma
0 mm 0 0m 0 mo 0 0m n on o 0 cm whowz
m.so 4.50 0.05 «.mm N.0m N.0H o.a m.m 0.; mama mac;
0 o o o o o o o 0 Pg OfiumoH
a mo H 00 a 00 m um o Om m mm : m 4 m m o mammmaH
m>wpom Aflmm wwonpm ofl\mmd M\dfi pm\x3 w>fimmmm, gamma: xmmz
‘ coanwmo oz so mbwpmwmz
wwwwwwmm name do mane masconpm

 

.bmhmzm:< omavmmomH Mo mmwmpcflw
Inmm,:min30£m .pnmschm>o comp .
amazes whoaqmm Hoosom am no maespappa

    

 
 

.Ne magma

 

257

their state than do the two Michigan towns. When we look

at the left hand side of the scale, in the strongly negative
column, the chief difference, as we would expect, is seen in
Ridgeville Corners. Hardly any of these students hold
strongly negative views. But otherwise they are much the

same. Few hold strongly negative views of their state

-n.__

government.

L‘..-{ ‘-

Now, how do these students view the governors of
their own states? In Michigan the students were shown the
name "George Romney," in Ohio, "James Rhodes," in Indiana,
"Roger Branigin." The names were not preceded by the word
"Governor" so it is possible that some of the students did
not know they were rating their own governor. It is more
likely, however, that even though they could not identify
the governor of their state (during the earlier questioning)
they did recognize his name when they saw it. The following
Table #3 shows how they reacted.

We know that Governor Romney of Michigan is the best
known of the three governors. I expected, therefore, that
the Michigan students would consider him extremely strong,
fair and active and that they would have more strongly posi-
tive feelings toward him than the students from Ohio and
Indiana would have toward their governors. Yet this does not
seem to have occured. The Ohio students in Ridgeville
Corners have very positive feelings toward their governor.

They stand out, again, as being the most supportive. On this

 

.pwfixm pomp woo
thaw pomoamfiowfim kHHmoHpmempm map now manwmqommmn 09¢ a
on swoonp nm>mv goahm>ow hams» UAmZOp munmoSpm cmwwaofiz 0:» mo m3ma> wmmmmmmmmmn= map mms
map .mmpmmp meowmnmefie map.oo anon mo .mwommwmsp . . . a Hama
am owno. homnOHm omoZpon com momwoaH psoth om .cmwa o . . .
pcmwfimwcwmm hHHonpmfipmpm mhm3.onmnp pop .Ofiso .mwmmmmm. .s «z. awosdo omozpmn moose
.psosmhm newton map wooad .haamoflpmwpmpm vowmmgao mdBou ma .
039 on» who: no .oxflam ohms mason ommflaowz
lawman; map so .amwmmoaz .nmeemo use owgo .
vow cmwfinofiz .cmosmo omozpmn .pm>wzo£ .vGSOH on 3
.mxwam haamowpmflpmpm on on vosom who: .owso .hwooofim . .wmowon map woo
.wmawsflm who? mason mumfioaH 039 one .wQBOp owno 03» on» vow mason zwwwnoaz.ozp who hw<
Undom who: moocmwoMMHo pcwowmwowwm haamoapmfipmpm .cowmqosfiv mcowpwlxmoz map m m
MHmMIAfimMG5 onp pom com nowmnoawo wqopumlxmmz esp

 

 

 

258

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

pom wows who: mosmowmfiowflm wmomeMWHo
wwwcpoo
0.05 4.mm o.ow :.mm 0.0H 0.0N o o o mHHfi>mmch
mém WE N23 ion 93 0.3 md 93 in“ 898$!
owno
0.00 e.me m.me m.om e.om 0.5m 0.5 n.0a H.ma pnommaawdm
. . m o.m¢ 0.0m ¢.mm 0.0N 5.0m o.mm 5.Hm smosmo
0 cm s 0 cm anew:
womm H.wm ®.wd n.0m ©.H¢ N.#¢ mod 0 ©.® mxmq MHOB
o o o 0 Ho +~ 00d: 0. mo NQOH pacemh
a we m Ne w me m cm a m o m momquH
0>Hpom wfiwm \wwohpm ofi\mmm, M\ds pm\M3 m>flmmmmx hemmed xmoz
m>apawom cowowmo oz to m>flpmwoz
hawamhpm mama mo owed hawaoppm

 

.umhozmfln dag owaPimo mommpnoopwmn
a“ szoam .mpmmm ham 0 noowm> w p
ewmzoa whoacmm Hooaom : am mo mmespwupa

 

.me manwe

 

259

question the Pioneer, Ohio students do not appear to be the
cynics theywere on the previous questions. If anyone could
be so classified it would probably have to be the students in
Camden, Michigan, where 35% thought that Governor Romney was
highly unfair. The largest "no opinion" areas were found in
Fremont, Indiana, Wolf Lake, Indiana and Pioneer, Ohio. But
in the "strongly positive" column the figures are much the
same for all of the towns, with the exception, as noted above,
of Ridgeville Corners, Ohio.

So far as the three governors are concerned, therefore,
there is a large area of "no opinions" — perhaps the students
did not rec0gnize the names as being their governors, or
perhaps they simply do not know anything at all about their
governors. I think that the latter is more apt to be true.
Of those with opinions, the majority view all three governors
as strong, fair and active. And, even though Romney is the
best known, all of the students in the three states seem to
think about the same, with the exception of the "patriots" in
Ridgeville Corners. They think that "James Rhodes" is very
strong, very fair and very active. I suspect that they think
this because he is the governor, and not because they have
specific knowledge about him. In their mental world "Gover-
nors" are strong, fair and active. But in the mental world
of students in Pioneer, Ohio, a few miles away - and in the

other towns — "Governors" are not viewed in quite this way.

 

260

In any state we have to assume that the Governor is
the best known of the elected officials. But governors come
and go and their personalities vary. Strong, colorful gover-
nors, such as Governor Romney and former Governor Williams of
Michigan leave their mark on the state government. At the
same time they reflect the political culture of a given state
and they shape it. And yet they are birds of passage. More-
over, even the strongest of them do not "run" their states.
The day to day business is carried out by the bureaucracy -
by the "state officials." Another lead into the nature of
the political culture on the state level, therefore, might
be found by inquiring into the perceptions of "state officials."
If there is a tradition in the state of corruption, of harsh-
ness, of arbitrary action, of indifference, of inefficiency,
this tradtion.might be evident if we ask the students to
judge the bureaucrats. I inquired into this, and Table ha
shows the results.

First, the "no opinion" area is large. Second, the
least cynical, the most positive views are held, as we might
now expect, in Ridgeville Corners, Ohio. Third, the most
cynical towns, if there are any at all, are Camden, Michigan
and Pioneer, Ohio. Fourth, there are no clear—cut state
patterns to their responses, although the Indiana students
seem to be slightly more positive, over all, than do the

Michigan students.

 

261

 

.ompwmp poo who: macawsmsfl
msomfihmmeoo vowwmz map mo

o 039 hospo one
how :a UGSQM who; moosowoMMflo psmoflMfis

.GOHmsmEflU AHmMIAHmMQ

5 on

p :0 moms who: Sofia:

mam zaamofipmfipmpm oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mwmswmo
n.ou s.mm v.00 m.mm o.o¢ m.mm o o o oaamwmlmmm. L
N.Nm 0.0; 0.0m H.:m N.m4 4.0m u.mH m.mH h.mH howsowano
0.0m 4.0m m.Hm o.¢s o.mm ¢.N: m.d 0.0 m.4 pwomwsfihmm
O o mAN O o o c o o o o o cmfigmo
mm o o: 0 cs m as o as o OH s ma 5 Ha mammmmmz
H.mm 0.H: N.Hm m.a¢ s.mm N.4s o 0.; 0.4 memo mac;
k.ms o.es 5.Ns m.0m a.0m s.mm s.m a.m 5.H pammwmnuu.
msmfivaH.
o>wpom nflmm mochpw ow\nmm. M\dz pm\M3 o>fimmmm, Afimmq: zoo:
m>wpfimom sowsfldo oz no m>Hpmwoz
hawsohpm xwoz mo mmw4 zawsowpm

 

.bohmzms< on; mmoghlmm
homopsoouwm cm ozogm zumemofimmo oumpflk
wohmzoa whoflomm Hoonom Awwm mo mmvSDpr<

.ss magma

 

262

If we consider for a moment the two states of Michigan
and Indiana, and think of the popular stereotypes of each in
relation to such matters as corruption, patronage and the
"good government" tradition, we will remember that they are
commonly thought to be poles apart. If these stereotypes
have any basis in fact at all (and there is clearly a factual
difference as regards patronage) there should be actual dif—
ferences in the way the bureaucracies operate. If the citizens
are at all aware of this, then the differences should show up,
particularly on the evaluative dimension. Residents of
Michigan should think that their state officials are at least
very "fair" even though they might not view them as strong
and active. Residents of Indiana should think that their
state officials are less fair. Yet if anything, it seems to
be the other way around.

Why? First of all I suspect that we are here, as
elsewhere, fishing in a large pool of complete ignorance:
we are asking questions about matters which have never been
thought of by the students before. Secondly, I suspect that
even though there are differences in the patronage systems,
that the students are not taught anything about this in school.
Third, I think that most uns0phisticated young people, on
the "average" subject, no matter where they are, tend to
think that what "is" is what "ought" to be. And, fourth, I
suspect that, even though there are differences, the average

citizen in Michigan still gets about the same kind of

 

263

treatment at the hands of his state officials as does the
average citizen in Indiana. In any event, the perceptions
of their "state officials" are much the same from state to
state. Adults might react differently. But the high school
seniors did not.

If the students view the situation as it "is" as
how it "ought" to be (and of course they are taught this in
the public schools) it makes it peculiarly difficult to
obtain meaningful comparisons. Indiana residents, for
example, do not know how Michigan citizens are treated by
their state officials. They only know how they are treated
by their own officials. Thus, we can not ask them to
compare two different sets of officials — we can only ask
them about their own. On the federal level, however, we can
make more meaningful comparisons. This is a built-in diffi-
culty which has not been overcome, at least to my satisfaction.

I shall look next at their perceptions of local gov-
ernment. They were shown the phrase "Our Local Government"
and asked to rate it on the three seven-point scales.

Table 45 summarizes their attitudes.

The students in Ridgeville Corners, Ohio are still
the most positive, the most supportive, of this level of
government. The local government is not thought to be quite
as strong as other levels of government, but they still
consider it to be very fair and very active. Pioneer, Ohio
seems to be quite cynical (or are they realistic?) about

their local government, and, to a somewhat lesser extent, so

 

264

 

 
 

.ultnhmezou wwewon who no mcomazmasoo yahoo map an 902 p: .mcmaomH .pmoswmm mcoa< .quop
cmoemo coo39mn canon onm3 moosmwmmmwo 9nmoflzflswflw Hamofl9mw9m9m noon 9

. m aefim mhm3
09:0 039 m£9 smm39mn Uszom mwm3 moocmhmMMfio 9nmoHMflstm zHHm0H9mH9m9m wmedm wm9 so
ms309 msmHosH 039 mn9 .hmHHSHm mnm3 ma309 smwflsowz 039 m:9 noawsmefio wmemem zHHmofl9wfl9m9m
.mqomawmdaoQ tmnpo who no mmm.qfi venom mzmz mmonnmmmwe pemmHma m5 am: one no
95m .msmm m£9 haamofl9mfl9m9m ohm3 ws3o9 wsmfivsH 039 on9 commomsflo som9o Momma so£9 who3
.aoameoSHe wflmoawamwe: we» now new sowmeoaae mcowpmuxmo: one wmmm saamoapmapmpm
woomflhmasoo omuflmm .oowmcwsfic some so Ussom mnm3 moooopmmmfio 9smowmfis wan o memos
.msowwcmsfio omw£9 $39 mo some do ms309 Kan Ham how 9mafim moms mwm3 mocmowmfis . M

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wnmcme
0.0m 0.0m 0.00 0.0m 0.0N a.5m o o o maamwwummm.
5.NN m.om m.mH «.me m.oe 0.Hs H.4m w.mm m.m4 pom: 09:0
m.5m 0.0: m.m~ m.ms o.me s.me 5.09 H.0 m.mm pneumawwam
o o o o o o o o 0 Hum am
a 3 s 3 0 am 5 R o 3 a .2 m as o om m mm Imlblem EOE
0.0s m.ss m.¢m ~.ss a.w4 s.mm m.a a.s 0.HH mews macs
.mm o d . o o . . m. b. H PfiOEmhfi
o o o m 5m m mm m 0m 0 as a HH m m mamHnsH
m>w9om mama lwdop9m om\mmm M\ds 9m\M3 o>ammmm. kwmmsz xmo3
o>fi99mom soaswzo oz no o>fi9mwoz.
szson9m xmoz mo mmuz zdwsoh9m

 

 

o wowm9smo
them :9 a3onm =.9cosspo>©w Hmoon hawk
chases mwowcom Hoonom gwwm mo woespwppa

 

.md magma

265

does Camden, Michigan. But aside from this, the views from
state to state are much the same. Again, there is a large
area of weak opinion about this matter.

But again we seem to be faced with a contradiction of
sorts. For it is hard to see how anyone could seriously
think that the governments of any of these six towns could
be called "strong." They might indeed be "fair" and they
also might be "active" — at least in certain minimal ways in j?
relation to essential services, but they simply are not
"strong."

Again, how can this be explained? How is it possible
that no one, for example, in Ridgeville Corners, Ohio, rated
"Our Local Government" as weak? And this in face of the fact
that Ridgeville Corners is barely able to exist as a commun—
ity? I think that in part we have to go back again to the
idea of a large pool of ignorance, and to the notion that
what "is" is what "ought" to be. But we also have to consi-
der the fact that the phrase "Our Local Government" is quite

different from the phrase "The Local Government in Ridgeville

Corners, Ohio." The former phrase tends to start us thinking
in the abstract, as we may have been taught in school about
"national, state and local government." It would be quite
possible, then, to think that "local government in general"
is strong, and to mark the scales accordingly. At the same
time it would be possible to think that the government of
1

"my own town" was weak. It is possible, therefore, that the

Ridgeville Corners, Ohio students read the question differently

266

from the students in Pioneer, Ohio. Possible — but unlikely.
But if I were to repeat the experiment, I would choose the
more concrete phrase.

I also asked for their reactions to the phrase "The
United Nations Organization." I considered this to be a
semi-supra-national "government" and thought that it would,
in addition, provide us with clues as to the degree of
isolationism or internationalism that might be present in
the three states. Table A6 shows how they reacted to the
United Nations.

Ohio is again the home of those who think the worst
of it, and those who think the best of it. Otherwise there
does seem to be some uniformity in the responses. Both of
the Indiana towns generally rate the UN below the rating
given by the Michigan towns. The Michigan students think
that it is stronger and more active than do the Indiana stu-
dents. There is somewhat less difference on the evaluative
dimension, however. On the basis of this very limited sample
it would appear as though the most consistently internationally-
minded students were to be found in Michigan. Indiana is some—
what less so. And Ohio is split into what would almost ap—
pear to be two separate, warring camps on this issue.

Now, as can be seen from the preceding figures and,
more easily, from the bar graphs below, Ridgeville Corners,

Ohio stands out as the most unusual of the six towns, insofar

as their attitudes towards "government" are concerned. Their

267

.owzo .

A00009M a“

s003909 00m .owno
zaamow9wfi
umswsu09mv mm3 99 Moon
0&03 moosmhmmmwo 9am
swwwnoflz 039 one

.n00:09m
909m 93m

E3 a: to a.
0mm .msmHUsH .
.mxwam mammowpmapmpm an
on map mace
oaowcmwm sHHmoapmwpwpm

.mosmowmwsmwm Hmofi9mw9m

.mc309

0H> 0>H9
}
9:08

mmwc one

.waomwhmm80o 039 mo Ham :9 00
.cmwagows .
mam 2003909 0
03 .wcmflvsH .

0090mmfl0 039 how 9:50000
sovemo 0mm 09:0 .wmmsofim

sSOH 0&03 neoconmkmfio
9soemhz vow :wmwnoflz

OHQO 039 0:9 mo sowflhmmsoo 029 CH

 

mnmoamfiswwm
.cmesmo 9mg»

.h030303 .0G50M
.mmHHEflw 0&03 ws309 msmflooH 039 0:9 pom ms309
9m 90m 009m09 mm3 soamsosflo hwmzlwflmmns one

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. mwmswoo
o 05 0.00 m.mm m.mm 0.0N 0.04 5.0 o 5.0 maawswwewm
4.00 o.mm 4.0m s.0m m.5m N.0H m.ms 5.5: m.Ho wmmqommlx.
09:0
N.H5 N.¢5 0.00 5.mm N.HN 0.NN o.m «.4 0.0H phodwewwdm
5.Hm 5. m 5. m . . . . . . am am
0 o 0 0m 4 mm o om m ma 0 0H a ma mmmmmmmm.
H.4s s.o¢ H.4s m.5m 0.H: m.mm «.ma 0.HH «.mm oxen maoz
N.4m 5.No «.5; 0.mm m.0m 5.mm 0.0 m.o 0.mH pummwmpnn
mswmcsH
0>Hmom QHWM wdon9m 0w\mmm\ M\dd 9M\x3 mpmmmwm. hmmmsd xm03

 

wswpamom

ooflsazo oz ho
hammop9m

xmmz m0 mead

0>H9mw0z
szn0h9m

 

.m0n03wsz 0:3.omoaamm
mowM9cmohm ca 930 .msoa m 09H: m 9

manages whoacmm Hoonom a am to mmeppwppa

 

.0; magma

 

268

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ussammwmm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_.Springp0rt,

 

Michigan

 

 

 

H__H§EH!HHMHIH

: Wolf Lake ,

 

 

 

 

 

8O__Frem0nt,
-lOO Indiana Indiana
+100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80 Pioneer, __ Ridgeville Cors.,
_ ' Ohio
-100 Oth
Weak-Strong UnfairTFair
Dimension Dimen51on
- f Government as
Figure 22. Perceptions of Three Levels 0 Graphs Show

- on and as Unfair-Fair.
ggigefitageg of Those Students Who Expressed

Strongly Negative and Strongly Positive
Opinions.

 

269

attitudes are consistently and strongly positive in relation
to all three levels of government. Fewer of them view the
local government as strong, but Eggg view it as weak. And
very large majorities view all three levels of government as
"very fair." Government for them, therefore, appears to be
viewed as strong and legitimate.

There is a wider range of opinion in all of the other
five towns. Itcan be seen quite clearly, however, that all
of them think that the national government is the strongest,
followed by the state government and finally by the local
government. In Springport, Michigan, Fremont, Indiana and
Wolf Lake, Indiana, the national government is also thought
to be the fairest of all three levels of government. But
in Camden, Michigan the state government is thought to be
more fair than the national government.

In Pioneer, Ohio the state and the local government
are both thought to be more fair than the national government.
But with the possible exception of Pioneer, these figures
seem to indicate a high degree of support for the government
which, particularly on the national level, is viewed as both
strong and legitimate. And the Indiana students seem to be
the most consistent in this regard.

We can turn now to a general consideration of their
attitudes regarding "politics." Table 47 shows how they

reacted to this word.

 

 

270

:0m

9:0owMH:w90 z
:00390: 0::0m 0:03

k$300990.3090 0:
9:092 039 0:9 9::

 

.:0>030:
.mwam o

.h0vmon 0:9 w:0H< .

.Hm @3309. mdwflUCH O39.

HH0099099090 0: 0:00
000:0:0mm90 9:0owMH:w90 zHH0099099090

 

9:09800 90:90 0:9 M

0 HH0 :H 95m
.:0fi0:0890 w:o

 

 

.0::0M 0:03 000:000
0:309 09:0 039 0:9 00
0:9 .:090:0EH0 hammlhwm

0000 pamowmaawam
.hmmmwo 0:309
9:: 0:9 :o
.00L00mm0 000:0:09990
.00309 0900 039 0:9
:90Ix003 0:9 :0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.:090:0890
:wmmlhwmm:: 0:9 :09 0:0 :090:0890 w:0:90nx003 0:9 :0m 0008 0:03 00:009HH:wH0 MO 09009
0:0:woo
m.m0 5.0: m.mm 5.0 5.00 5.0 0 0.0 o maaa>mweam
0.m0 m.5m n.05 0.NN 5.Hm 0.09 0.HH 0.00 0.HH wwmcommmm.
0.00 «.mfi N.00 m.0m 0.5m 0.00 o.m m.km o.m swoawaawam
o o 0 o o o 0 o o so am
5 00 m mm o 05 0 mm 0 0m 5 09 a m 0 0m 0 m mmmmmwmm
9.05 0.Ha 5.05 n.0H 0.04 0.09 0.0 o.ma 0.4 00¢: mac;
0 c o o 0 o o o o Pgoepr
m 50 0 mm m 95 0 00 e 5e 5 mm a m 0 mm H m mmmwwmw
0>9900 :90“ m:0:90 00\0mm M\:: 90\x3 0>9000Q‘ mamm:: x003
0>H H00 :09:9mo oz :0 03990002
hawwmp9m :003 M0 00:: ham:0:9m

 

.00:030:¢ mm:
000:9 m0 0mmw:0oh0m,:w :30:m, :.00a9mH0m=

0000309 0:09:00 H00:0m :Mwm mo 000399994 .5: manme

 

271

Large majorities of all of the students felt that
politics was both very strong and very active. Again,
Ridgeville Corners, Ohio, stands out as the group with the
most positive views. But many of the students - and this
seems to apply to all six towns — appear to have had trouble
in deciding whether it was fair or unfair. There is a large
area of weak and no opinions on the evaluative dimension,
even in our otherwise positive town of Ridgeville Corners,
Ohio. Otherwise Pioneer, Ohio views politics with the
greatest degree of suspicion, while Wolf Lake, Indiana seems
to have the least suspicion. If we exclude the atypical
town of Ridgeville Corners, we find that an average of 27%
of all of the students think that politics is very unfair -
29% consider it to be very fair. The remainder have little
or no opinion about the matter.

I also wanted to know how they viewed politics in
their own states. They were asked respectively, therefore,
about "Michigan politics," "Indiana politics," and "Ohio
politics." Their reactions can be seen in Table 48.

The "no opinion" area is large - on all three dimen-
sions - and it is appreciably larger than it was in relation
to the single word "politics." There are, however, far
fewer strongly negative opinions, so that while they might
view "politics in general" with considerable suspicion, they
seem to view politics in their own state in a much more

favorable light. In the strongly positive column they seem

 

 

272

0:009:00800 0
:909I:H0m:: 0

00 0
00 0

0 5:0 :9 0:00

 

 

 

.:0H0:0EH

M 0:03 000:0:0mmw0 9:0oflmH:m00 hHH0099099090 oz

0 000000 :0:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.:0H0:0EH0
0: 0:0 :0:0:0sw0 0:0:90Ix003 0:9 :0: 000: 0:03 00:00:09:000 :0 09009
0:0::0o
m.me 5.04 5.00 5.0m m.mm m.mm o 0 0 0HH9>00000
0.0m m.ms 0.00 0.0m 0.00 m.0m 0.0 0.0 0.0 :00eowmmm.
o.mm 0.0m 0.04 0.m0 0.50 H.mm 0.: 0.0 0.0 4 0000000000
0 o o o o o o o 0 am am
5 3 m R 5 a 5 3 m a 0 0m 5 0 m 2 o S almlPtm 232
4.50 m.oo H.0m m.mm m.5m m.5m o m.m 0.4 0x09 maoz
0 0 o o o o o o o pgosmtfln
a as 5 04 H as 5 ms 0 0m 0 00 m o: 0 0 a 0 00000091
0>9900 :009 m:0:90 00\00Q M\:: 90\x3 0>9000m» :00::: :003
0>H99000 :09:Hoo oz :0 0>990w0z
ham:0:9m M003 :0 00:0 haw:0:9m

 

 

00:0309 0:00:00 H00:0m : Hz H0 000599990

.md 0H909

273

to think that their own state politics is both less strong
and less active than "politics in general" but they view
it as more fair, and this tendency is uniform in all six
towns. If we compare the percentages of those who view
their own state politics as very fair we do find a sort of
state pattern to the responses. The Michigan students are
the most suspicious of their own state politics, followed by
the Ohio students. The least suspicious are the Indiana E
students. Each time, too, the students on the border seem
to be more suspicious than the students in the control towns.
Again there is a seeming paradox. For in relation to the
popular stereotype it would seem as though the Indiana stu-
dents should be the most suspicious, the Michigan students
the least so. And yet the very reverse of what we might
expect has occured.

The students were also asked to judge "Political
Parties." Table 49 shows how they did this.

Again, the no opinion area is large, particularly in
regard to the parties as being fair or unfair. As a group,
the Indiana students appear to hold the most consistently
positive views. The Michigan students seem to be the least
positive. The Ohio students are divided once more between
a fairly cynical (on the evaluative dimension) Pioneer, and
a supportive Ridgeville Corners. Most of the students, and
this again is uniform from town to town, view the political
parties as both strong and active. They are less sure about

their fairness, but of those who hold opinions, the majority

see them as being very fair.

27h

.:0w::002 .:00E0o 0:0 ommb .:00:0Hm :003909 :0 .ommo .

:003909 90: pan .0:000:H .p:os0:h 0:0 :0ww:owz .:00E0o :003p0p 0:30: 0:03 000:0:0MHH0
p:0ofimw:mwm hwa0owpmap0nm .:00:on 0:9 w:oa¢

 

 

 

 

:00:0Hm 0:0 0:0:0:H .p:os0:m

.0:3ov 0:0:0:H 039 0:» :00390: no: 9::

.0:3op 00:0 03» 0:9 :003p0p 0:0 0:309 :0wfinofiz 039 0:9 :003909 0::om 0:03 000:0:09900 9:00

n:::00:m saamoHpmapmpm

.:ofim:0efi0 0::9 :0: 0008 :0:p 0:03 0:000:0QE00 00::0:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.:0H0:0sw0
0>H900I0>H000m 0:: :a 0:00: 0:03 000:0:0mmw0 p:0o:ma:wfim hHH0oflpmfip0pm .0:o:0:08:0
H0:H0:pwpp0 0:: mo 00::p HH0 :o 0:30» saw 0:p :0: 000: 0:03 00:00H:::mwm :0 00009
m:0::oo
5.00 0.0: 0.00 m.m: m.mm 0.0: o 5.0 o 0aaa>0mcam
H.0m m.om m.00. H.0m n.0m H.ma m.© o.mm m.: :00:oam
0::0
N.0: 0.0m n.00 N.0N “.00 a.mm o 0.0: o.m p:oamc::am
o.m0 0.Hm 0.00 m. m 0.H: o.mm m.mH 0.Hm 0.:H :0ms0u
m :0 ::002
0.00 0.H: H.0b 0.00 0.mm m.ma o 0.0 0 0:0: :Hoz
N.Hn m.ma 0.00 m.mm m.sa 0.00 H.m 0.0H 0.H 0:050:m
0:0Hm:H
0>wp00 :00: .m:o:pm 00\00Q M\:: pm\x3 0>Hmm0m. :fl0m:: x003
0pfipamom :oa:::o oz :0 0>Hp0wmz
haw:o:pm :00: mo 00:4 haw:o:pm

 

.00:030:000:3 000:9!Mo

00w0p:00:0m,:fl :3osm. =.m0wu:0m H00HpMH©mw

00:0306 0:00:0m Hoosom swam mo 000dpfipp¢

.0: 0HQ0B

 

275

Finally, the students were asked to react to the
word "Politicians." Their attitudes are summarized in
Table 50.

According to the popular stereotype the politician
is a hearty back-slapper who engages in shady deals in
smoke filled rooms. He may be strong and he is certainly
active, but his ethics are highly questionable. Are the
students in these six small towns the victims of this
stereotype? And do the students in the different states
think differently about this matter?

In Pioneer, Ohio they seem to be victims of the
stereotype - they have a dim view of "politicians." They
also have a rather dim view of them in Camden, Michigan
and in Fremont, Indiana. These are the three border towns.
But, so far as the evaluative dimension is concerned, none
of them could be classified as particularly enthusiastic,
not even Ridgeville Corners, Ohio. Throughout the entire
region, too, the weak opinion area is large, particularly
in regard to the fairness factor. But again we seem to be
faced with a slightly more supportive view of politicians
in Indiana than there is in Michigan, while Ohio continues

to be the home of the extremes.

277

Agey National Issues and Programs

Do the students in the three states have essentially
the same views of major national issues and programs, or do
they think of them in different ways? I shall begin my
examination of this subject by looking at their views of the
Space PrOgram. Do they view it in a strongly positive man-
ner - as strong, fair and active? I hypothesized that they
would think of it in this way, and that there would be very
little difference between the towns. This seems to have been
borne out, as shown in Table 51.

Very few of the students hold negative opinions
about this program. The great majority do have opinions
about it - even about its fairness - and most of their views
are strongly positive on all three dimensions. Ridgeville
Corners, Ohio seems to be the most enthusiastic about it.
Pioneer, Ohio appears to be the least enthusiastic. But there
is little difference between them, or between either of these
two towns and the other four.

This program, particularly in its early stages,
completely captured the American imagination. The astronauts
became leading American heroes. The publicity, the tele-
vision coverage, and the entire drama connected with the
blast off and continuing long after each astronaut was fished
from the sea was both deeply moving and effective. This
early excitement had passed by the winter of 1968, when I

conducted this survey, but the program was still viewed with

 

278

 

.0:00H:0aaoo 0:» mo z:0 :: 0::o: 0:03 000:0:0HMH0 p:0ofiMH:wH0 zaa0owpmflp0p0 oz
.0Hn0u 0>on0 0:: mo :ow0:0sw0 :w0mn:fl0m:: 03p :om 0008 0:03 00:0owmfi:mfim Mo 09009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0:0::oo
0.00 0.00 0.0© 0.0H 0.0N 0.0H o m.m o 0HHfl>0w0Hm
n.m0 N.mo m.on n.0m m.nm m.bm H.0 m.¢ m.m :00:oan
0:50
m.ms N.HN 0.N: N.HN s.mm 5.00 m.: o.m o.m 0:0000::00
0.mm 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.ma m.m m.m m.m o.m :0ms0p
:0 H5002
:.mm 0.0m H.mm m.m 0.0H 0.0 m.m o m.m 0x0q maoz
o.mm m.mo 0.Hm m.mH m.mm 0.5H 0.H m.o 0.H p:os0:h
0:0m0fiH
0>wpo0 :H0m w:o:pm ofi\00m m\:: pm\x3 0>fl000® :H0::: x003
0>Hpflmom :oH:::o oz :0 0>wp0m0z
haw:o:pm £003 :0 00:0 mam:0:pm

 

.00:030:z ozz,0momH.
mo 0000p:00:0m0:w :3ozm 3.50:wo:m 0uwmmu.

00:0309 0:0:000 Hoosom 0 :0 :0 mmsspammm .:m 0:00:

279

enthusiasm. Who, then, could possibly view such a prOgram
as very unfair? I suspect that it could only be done by
two rather rare groups of people. (I) The complete cynics,
and (2) the highly sophisticated who think in terms of
national priorities and national needs.

For example, the much—discussed and highly contro-
versial multi-million dollar National Aquarium may be
thought of as a magnificent accomplishment. Or, in relation E;
to our crushing urban problems, it maybe thought of as a I
needless and arrogant expenditure of public funds for what
amounts to nothing more than a toy - a beautiful, but unfair,
frill. The magnificent basketball stadium at the University
of Michigan may be viewed in the same way. It is splendid.
So, I am told, is the Astrodome, in HouSton. But, in light
of our total needs, gggt we have upholstered chairs and
expensive carpeting in order to watch games? Probably not.
We probably should have spent these huge sums of money in
other ways. In this way these projects - and the Space
Program (apart from the defense argument) — might be thought
of as being "unfair" - not in themselves, but in relation
to our national needs. It was not thought of in this way,
however, in our six towns. And of those few who did view
the space program as very unfair, the probabilities are
great that they were utter cynics, rather than politically

sophisticated individuals.

279

enthusiasm. Who, then, could possibly view such a program
as very unfair? I suspect that it could only be done by
two rather rare groups of people. (I) The complete cynics,
and (2) the highly sophisticated who think in terms of
national priorities and national needs.

For example, the much—discussed and highly contro—
versial multi—million dollar National Aquarium may be
thought of as a magnificent accomplishment. Or, in relation
to our crushing urban problems, it maybe thought of as a
needless and arrogant expenditure of public funds for what
amounts to nothing more than a toy - a beautiful, but unfair,
frill. The magnificent basketball stadium at the University
of Michigan may be viewed in the same way. It is splendid.
So, I am told, is the Astrodome, in Houston. But, in light
of our total needs, mggt we have upholstered chairs and
expensive carpeting in order to watch games? Probably not.
We probably should have spent these huge sums of money in
other ways. In this way these projects — and the Space
Program (apart from the defense argument) - might be thought
of as being "unfair" - not in themselves, but in relation
to our national needs. It was not thought of in this way,
however, in our six towns. And of those few who did view
the space program as very unfair, the probabilities are
great that they were utter cynics, rather than politically

sophisticated individuals.

 

280

I turn next to a cluster of programs and issues
which might be expected to be less widely known than the
space program, but which ought, at least, to show if there
are differences of opinions from state to state: the civil
rights movement, the anti—poverty program and federal aid
for urban renewal. Now it is certainly true that the "civil
rights movement" is considerably broader than either of the
others - it is not as specific a national "program" — but
the three do form a cluster which can arouse sharp differ-
ences of opinion. The following table has been prepared in
a different way — I have omitted the no opinion area and I
show only the evaluative dimension — but from it we can see
how the students thought about these three issues.

So far as the Civil Rights Movement is concerned we
can see that in four of the six towns those who think it is
very unfair outnumber those who think it is very fair.

With the exception of Pioneer, Ohio, however, the differences
are small. Fifty percent of the students in Pioneer think
that it is very unfair. From this I conclude that these
students are actually saying something like this: "They"
(the Negroes) want too much, they want it too quickly, and
they don't care how they get it. Moreover, "they" (the
politicians and the government) are being weak-kneed about
it, are "giving in" to them and, therefore, it is "unfair."
In Ridgeville Corners, Ohio, on the other hand, they do not
think this way. Ohio continues to be the stae of divided

opinions.

 

281

 

.0mp :00 0::0000 .0:000:0:p
:00:00m :00300: 0:0 .00:0
1000000 .

0:0 :0w0:00z .
0:00000:w00 0000

00 ma 0
0:500 0:03 000: p .0 pm

#:00000:mam.00000

 

.oamb 0:00:00: :0 0300: 0
.:00:00m 0:0 .0:000:H .

00000000

:00E0o .:00:0: 0:: w:00<
.m:3op 0:000:H 03: 0:: :00300: :0 .0:3op
0:00000 #:00000:m00 0000000000000 0: .:o0m:0E00 :0001:000:

>ap0m0: 0:9

p:oE0:h :00300:

.0x000 5000009000090 0: op 0

. :00300: 0:500
0:300 00:0 039 0:9 :0w0:002 03: 0:
5 0:9 :0

:zo0 0:03

.:0m0:00z
.:0>03o:

.00G0L0HM0U

.3 0:0 00:0

000:0

.0000: 0000111111

.0:000:H
.0:03 000:0:00000

“PGOEQHW

P $003909
.H030G0m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0
00000 000 000 000000: 0000 0000000 000000 000 00: 0000 0003 0W00MWWWMWM00mm0M0mow 000
. 000 :0 :0 :0 0:0 :00 :0:
Hwhmfimkz OP EOHPmeh SH .wHOO£Um mfiv HO KHW HWM fiH «wwwth wm3 :GOHEHWO 02: MO mmkd $38
0:0::oo
0.0 0.00 o 0.00 0.00 0.00 000mwmmmmm.
. . . :000
m 00 o 00 0.00 N.m0 0.00 m 00 000 0000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000000000
00m 0 o o o 0 £0 E“
m 00 0 00 0 3 0 00 .0 3 00$me
0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000 0000
m.© m.0m m.m 0.0m m.mm N.Nm p:o:0:n
0:000:H1
:000:D Mu0> :00: >:0> :000:D 0:0b :00: 0:0> :000:3 000> :000 0:0>
0030:0m :0::D S0:wo:m 0:0s0>oz
:00 000 00:000: >0:0>o:100:< 0:0 00:w0m 00>0o 0:9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.:00m:z,mmm> mflw

00000 000030: 0000000 000000 0 00 :0 000000000

0 00w0p:0o:0

   

.Nm 00:09

 

281

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.00:0:000MW
.111111 0 00
. .:00E00 0: 0
W000 005.. .GQMHHSOHHH. 0:003. 0000.0
0 :0 :500 . .00 .:00:00 :0 0300> 0>0p0 . 30 0:500 111111!
.mmmmmmm.W003pwm 0mmowwmmm0.mmmmmmm.0:0 .m:000:0 .mmmammm.:003ponn5mw>w:0m .0:000:H .pmmmwmw
1:00000 0:00000:w0m 0000000000000 .00000 0000000000000 00 00 W3 00 0:500.0:03 000:0 00
0:0 :0w0zu0z..:00e0o .:00wop.0:p w:00< .m:3op 00:0 030 0:9.mm30w :0000005 030 0:p.:MMMW0m
00000000000 0000000000000 .0030: 0000000 030 000 000¢000 :0 0 000:1:00000 0:: 00 0
0:50 0:03 000:0:0 0 :000 0:000 0000000000000 0: :000:0E.0 . . 0:000 00 00000
0 00.0 p .0. . 08 0:03 00:0000. 0d
:09:0 :00 000 00:0000 £003 0:00000 :85000 0:: :00 00 030:00 :00:0 :00 0.
. . . .0000050 :0000 0:0 :00 :0:W0mm oz 00 00:4 0:0
00:0000: on :000000: :0 .0000:00 0:0 00 x00 000 :0 .:0m:00 003 ::00 . : 1
01 0:0::mo
0
. . 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000 0.0
O 0 O on O o MobN “00.5.0le I
m.hm o.mm 0.0m N.m0 0 0m 00:0
. . :omw:0:mm
0.m0 m.:m 0.NN 0.00 0 0m 0 mm 0 :0080
0.0 m.mm 0.00 0.00 0.0m n 00 :0000002
0 o O r
0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0m 0 mm 0000 :0 0
0.0 3.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 00111:...mmmm0:
:000:DIH:0> :000 0:0> :000:0 000> :000 0:0> :000:0 0:0> :000 0H0>
0030:0m :0Q:D E0:mo:m 0:080:02
00: 000 0000000 000000010000 00: 000000 00000 00:

 

 

 

 

 

 

0:01m:0:0maoo

 

1

 

.000:00,0000,000
:000fi0:0>,0:000000 #:0ae,onz,00000t00 m0w0p:00:mm

.0800w0:m,0p:0>0ml0p:¢ 0:0 mpSM0m

00>00 000000: 0000000 000000 0000 :0 000000000

.Nm 00900

282

The only other town where there were more favorable
than unfavorable opinions was Camden, Michigan. Fremont,
Indiana is very closely divided. The other towns lean in
the direction of Pioneer, Ohio. Of course, there is another,
and an obvious, reason for this. The "Civil Rights Movement"
is easily and usually confused with the whole problem of
rioting and violence. Many peOple in these small towns
are frightened. Their enforcement and protective apparatus
is weak and they feel as though they were sitting ducks for
any stray and random group of rioters that might choose to
speed through their town. This fear may be quite irrational,
but that is beside the point. Fear, then, probably accounts
for much of the negative opinion on this problem. There do
not appear to be sharp state differences in this matter.

The Anti—poverty Program is generally viewed in a
favorable light. Ridgeville Corners, Ohio is again the
standout on the positive side. Thereafter it seems to be
most favorably viewed by the Indiana students, followed by
the Michigan students and then by the students from Pioneer,
Ohio. Leaving aside the town of Ridgeville Corners, there
is an over all average of 23% who think the Anti-poverty
Program is unfair. Why would one fifth of all of the
students think this? It is possible that political party
preferences might be at work - in some dim and unformulated
way. It is also possible that this feeling might reflect a
kind of vague and unformulated "Protestant ethic" which

holds that the poor are poor because they are lazy, and

 

283

expresses itself in the notion that "if they only wanted
to work, they could." Perhaps. But on the basis of what
we seem to know about these towns, both of these factors
should be visible in Ridgeville Corners, Ohio. And yet
in that town, no one thinks the Anti-poverty Program is
unfair. Perhaps, therefore, it is useless to grope for an
explanation. The fact is, too, that an overall average
(in the six towns) of 51% think that it is very fair.

When it comes to assessing Federal Aid for Urban
Renewal we encounter a very large area of weak and/or
no opinions. The majority of the students have not
thought about this subject. Of those with opinions, however,
most see it as very fair. Pioneer, Ohio is once more the
exception on the negative side, Ridgeville Corners, Ohio is
the exception on the positive side. The Michigan and the
Indiana students are much alike.

I also asked the students about two other issues.
One hasaroused much argument, the other has not. The first
was the question of Federal Aid to Education, the second
was the matter of Federal Aid for Highways. The latter seems
to be widely accepted as a legitimate federal activity. But
when it comes to the national government participating in
the process of education a whole host of fears - at least
until quite recently — are aroused. The argument is made
that federal money will lead to federal control, and that
if we accept the money we also will soon have to accept

the dictates of the federal government in vital matters of

 

284

curriculum and administration - both of which are best left
in local hands. This argument, in its most virulent form,
becomes the "Little Red School House Syndrome." One of the
issues, therefore, is relatively value-free, the other is
not. Do the answers given by the students show any awareness
of underlying differences between these two issues? And,

on the matter of education, are there any apparently state-
based differences in their attitudes?

I did not prepare summary tables on these two issues.
But in examining the scales it is clear that most of the
students thought that both of the federal aid programs were
very strong. The students in two of the towns seemed to
favor the idea that federal aid to education was stronger
than federal aid for highways. The other four towns thought
that the highway program was stronger, but none of the dif-
ferences were very large. So far as the evaluative dimen-
sion was concerned, the towns were split fifty—fifty. Both
programs were thought to be, generally, very fair but three
of the towns thought that federal aid to education was
somewhat more fair than was federal aid for highways.

On the negative side there were very few students
who thought that either program was very unfair. Their
views are much alike. The only possible exception to this
was found in Pioneer, Ohio, where 18.2% thought that federal
aid to education was very unfair, while only h.5% thought
that federal aid for highways was unfair. In Camden, Mich—

igan, the reverse situation obtained. In that town 10%

 

285

thought that federal aid to education was unfair, but 20%
thought that federal aid for highways was unfair. In all
six towns there was a large area of weak opinions. I could
detect no particular state patterns in their responses.

We come finally, in this section, to a discussion
of the students perception of the Vietnam War. How do the
students view the war, particularly on the evaluative
dimension, and do they see it differently from state to
state? Their answers are revealed in Table 53, as well as
in the graphs, where I have plotted all seven points of
the unfair-fair scale and the weak-strong scale.

As can be seen, on this matter the students do have
opinions. These scales do not have large "no opinion"
areas. On the whole the students view the war as very
strong and as very active. This is quite uniform from
state to state, and is as I expected.

It is the evaluative dimension, however, which
claims our attention. Before I conducted the survey I
expected that on the whole the students would view the war
as basically fair — a nasty but necessary war. I based
this expectation on the fact that these were unsophisticated,
rural-small—town Midwesterners who would think that the
government probably knew best. But in this I was mistaken.
For there are large numbers in all of the towns who believe
that the war is very unfair. The most remarkable shift -

completely unexpected - was in the town of Ridgeville

.mnsop hmchon can

u
wooed mononoHMHv on» hlimmmmwom wpnmcdpm hocnon oawb own Ho mzofi> obwaMMMowmpnomwmww
.nmwaaodz .nocsmo cum owno .nomQOflmmcooMpon cam .MMMOpMMommmwwammm mwMMfiWWWHUWH .pcosmam can
undom mn03.mmoqonommwc pnmowmwmowm mmMMwwmwwno 03» amp ho.mmsop mcmwnc. 03p map cmozpon
pmmwMMMHfimSMMWEMwwmmwmflnoMMponp WMozpmn codow who; mooconogmwc undefiwwc am maamofipmfipmpm
.maomaamQSOo cwnflmm anOhnp mflmhamnw nowoao on cmpomwpdw mm: was» cam cowmsmefiv hwm%
thamwds exp #09 endow one: moosmnommwu unmoHMH:Mflm maamofipmfipmpm .qowmqoswU mMHpomlmbwm mm
use now no noamsoefic muonpmlxmos on» pom endow who: mooGoAmMch pamOHMH: Wm HHmOflpmfipwp
.mnowmcwsflv mops» Haw mom can mason xwm Ham how mums one; oocmowwwc Hm mo mpmos

 

 

 

286

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oz
j l i mnonnoo
o.oofi m.mm o.oofi o s.mm o o m.mm o mHHa>mweam
N.ss m.ma m.Hm o.m H.ma H.0 o.ma m.mo H.0 camcommmm.
s.om H.ma m.mm o.m 5.0H m.s 0.0H m.mo H.0 ptommcandm
o o o o 0 Na...“ Nu. m. m \Lc cmvawo
m mm 0 cm s cm s a s o o m o mmwmmmwm
5.00 H.Hm n.0m m.o o.mm o.¢ m.m m.mm 0.4 oxmq mac:
m.Hm «.ms m.wm e.m 0.HH m.m H.m o.mm e.m pcosomm.
mcwwan
0>Hpom Lfimm muonpm om\wwm M\d§ pw\£3 o>fimmmm nfimmss xwoz
mbflpwmom cownfimo 02 no m>wpmmoz

hawnonpm

xmmz Mo mend

 

 

Figure 23.

287

100 l'? [-g [-1 0 +1 +2 +3
__L.—.ka-fl. Illlllllr

90 __I..-- .4 nun-fair

 

 

 

80-—
70‘—
60-—
50-—
1+0—
30'-
20'-

lO-

 

 

 

 

O

Perceptions of Vietnam War, Camden, Michigan,
12th Grade.

ch—

288

100 [-3 -2 -l 0 +1 +2 +3
""lllllllll

*4 wit-Sf.
90... L---.l all-fair

 

 

 

80

I I I

70

I

60

l

50"
#0“-
30‘—
20-

10"

 

 

 

 

0

Figure 2b. Perceptions of Vietnam War, Springport,
Michigan, 12th Grade.

100 U-% i-g .-1 0 +1 +2 +3
llllllllI

__|_.__l wit-31‘.
90 _ L___I tan-fair

 

 

 

80-—

70'-

 

60-—
50'—’
#0“-
30“
20-—

10*-

 

 

 

 

0

Figure 25. Perceptions of Vietnam War, Fremont, Indiana,
12th Grade.

290

 

100

90
8O

 

7O

 

60
50"
40—-
30“
20—-

th'

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 26. Perceptions of Vietnam War, Wolf Lake, Indiana,
12th Grade.

291

-3 -2 -l O +1 +2 +3
""' IIIIIIIIv

— L—J WK~‘f.
90.. Lu".-. Ian-fair

 

lOO

 

 

80-—

70-

 

60-
50"
hO-—
30——
20-

10‘—

 

 

 

 

0

Figure 27. Perceptions of Vietnam War, Pioneer, Ohio,
12th Grade.

100

Figure 28.

9O
8O
7O
60
5O
40
30
20
10

O

292

 

-3 -2 -l 0 +1 +2 +3
1 I

 

 

L... 12.22... HUN TI
P
u.
L...
L-u-
F—
L——
F“ \

\

\
F" \‘

\

F- \
r- \ x/
‘— \v//’\\\‘/’/

 

 

 

Perceptions of Vietnam War, Ridgeville
Corners, Ohio, 12th Grade.

 

293

Corners, Ohio. In the light of their past positive opinions,
and their generally supportive attitude, I was not at all
prepared to see that 53% of them think the war in Vietnam

is very unfair.

Perhaps on this issue there is something of a state
pattern to the responses. Both of the Ohio towns have
strongly negative views about the war. Indiana seems to be
the most positive, and Michigan falls somewhere between Ind—
iana and Ohio. Of course, the other fact that deserves com-
ment is the fact that on this issue the Opinions are so
sharply split. For after all, in three of the towns (Camden,
Michigan, Fremont, Indiana and Wolf Lake, Indiana) one half
of the students think the war is very fggg. We have, there-
fore, on both sides, very vigorous opinions as to the

justness of this war.

Key State Issues and Programs

In Michigan the students were asked to rate the fol-
lowing on the three dimensions of the Semantic Differential:
"Michigan State Parks," "Michigan State Highways," and the
"Michigan State College and University System." The students
in Indiana and in Ohio did the same thing, with the name of
their own state appearing each time. The following table

shows the percentages of those who rated each of these items

 

29A

as being very strong. The table is limited, therefore, to

the strongly positive responses, and shows only the potency

factor.123

Table 54. Attitudes of High School Seniors
Towards‘StatefiParks,’Highways
and UniversitIES. Shown in_Per—
centages of Those Who View Them
as "Very Strong.fifl-

 

 

State State State College and
Parks Highways University System
Indiana
Fremont 76.2 5b.2 62.7
Wolf Lake 60.4 h8.8 67.h
Bichigan
Camden 66.7 31.7 66.7
Springport 59.1 69.7 66.6
Ohio
Pioneer 31.9 79.5 68.2
Ridgeville9 53.3 63.3 56.7
Corners

 

Tests of significance were made for all six towns in
each of the above items. Statistically significant differ—
ences were found for State Parks and for State Highways,
but not for the State University Systems. The latter was
not tested further.

In relation to state parks, statistically significant
differences were found between the two Ohio towns, not be-
tween the two Michigan towns or the two Indiana towns. In
comparing the border towns it was determined that the nega-
tive views of the students in Pioneer, Ohio, accounted or
statistically significant differences in the comparisons.

In relation to the state highways, statistically signi-
ficant differences were found between the two Michigan towns
and the two Ohio towns, but not between the two Indiana
towns. Statistically significant differences were found in
fill of the comparisons of the border towns.

1231n relation to matters such as parks, highways
and universities, it was observed that when the students
thought they were strong they also thought that they were
fair and active, and in much the same manner. It suffices,
therefore, to consider only the potency factor in order to
understand their opinions.

 

295

The students who seem to have the most positive view
of their own state parks are from Indiana. Fremont, Indiana
is very near to the Pokagon State Park, a large and well-
known park in northern Indiana. This may have prompted the
high percentage (76%) in that town. The Michigan students
are quite similar in their views to the Indiana students,
but they may be slightly less positive. The Ohio students
clearly have the least positive view of their park system.

In relation to their state highways the most con—
sistently positive views seem to be held by the Ohio stu—
dents. The Michigan students vary, with only 31.7% in
Camden, Michigan thinking that their highway system is
very strong, compared to 69.7% in Springport, Michigan.

The Indiana students are consistent and they do not think
as much of their highway system as the Ohio students think
of theirs.

The state college and university systems are viewed
the same from state to state. In fact, with the slight
exception of Ridgeville Corners, Ohio the figures are
strikingly similar. An average of 6L.7% in all six towns
view their own state system of higher education as very
strong. The range of opinion on this question was very
narrow.

Now what does this mean? Are there, in fact,
differences in the "strength" of these institutions from

state to state? Should these "differences, even assuming they

 

296

were very large, show up in student attitudes about their
own state? Should the students think as they do?

First, it is very difficult indeed to obtain mean-
ingful comparative figures on any of these matters. I show
in Table 55, however, information concerning the state park
systems in the three midwestern states and, for comparative
purposes, I also show a very "weak" state (Arizona) along
with a very "strong" state (California).124

It can be seen from Table 55 that California and
Arizona are vastly different in so far as their state park
systems are concerned. On the basis of expenditures, area
and usage, we might conservatively estimate that the Cali-
fornia system is ten times as strong as the Arizona system.
In the Midwest the differences are not that great, but there
are clear differences, nonetheless. If we think of area
and expenditures in relation to usage, we should have a fair
measure of the strength of a given park system. On this
basis Michigan has the strongest park system. It is the

largest of the three and it is far better financed than the

lthS Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
§tatistical Abstract of the United States, 1967, p. 208.
This Shows a number of figures concerning the state parks as
Of 1962. From this information, along with population
estimates for the same year, and figures concerning the
area of the states, I then derived the figures shown in the
table. I consider these figures, as well as the subsequent
figures pertaining to both highways and universities to be,
at the best, nothing more than very rough approximations.

 

297

 

 

 

 

 

 

om. o.moa >00. and mfisAOMHHmo

mo. m.oa soooo. s meoaana

4m. o.wmm moo. HHH Oflno

as. o.msa moo. as camwnoaz

Hm. m m.mo moo. mm mcmfian

mxnwm soapmadmom mpmpm

ounpm no mo owmpcmonom wxamm opmpm op mmmn<
megapfiscomxm mm macaw .mxnmm copo>oa opmpm mo moh< xnmm
mpfimmo pom map op unopflmfi> mumpsm mo ommpsoonom mo .02

 

Neda qwenwm mpmpm mew. .mm magma

298

on the basis of the figures, the Ohio system would appear to
be grossly overcrowded. I conclude, therefore, that this is
the weakest system of the three. The states may be ranked,
in relation to their park systems, then, in the following
order: Michigan, Indiana and Ohio.

Does the above ranking correspond at all to the
opinions of the students as reported above? In part it
does. The Ohio students had the least positive view of
their park system. The Indiana students seem to have over-
rated theirs, while the Michigan students may have under-
rated theirs. But in both of these states large majorities
thought that their systems were very strong.

When we turn to the highway systems we encounter an
even more serious problem in deciding how to judge their
"strength." The states vary in size and in population, as
well as in the internal distribution of the population.

Robert Friedman has warned us repeatedly of the difficulties

and hazards in this type of comparison.125

 

125"State Politics and Highways," in Herbert Jacob
and Kenneth N. Vines, eds., Politics in the American States,
(Boston, 1965), pp. All — hi6. iHe notes{_however, that
while it is difficult to judge quality on the basis of
expenditures and other usual measures, that professional
highway engineers seem to "know" without hesitation which
are the best systems and which are the worst ones. (fn 3,
p. hi3). Unfortunately, the list of the best and the
worst did not appear in the article.

 

299

In spite of the hazards, however, we shall employ
the per capita spending as one pointer, at least, in
attempting to measure the strength of the highway systems
in the three states. Comparative figures appear in the

table below.126

Table 56. Per Capita Highway Expenditures

 

 

1958—62 1962 1966

__ Average
Indiana $ 66.51 $ 49.19 $ 59.00
Michigan 53.90 60.97 53.00
91132 52.40 53.73 66.00

On the basis of these figures alone we can not tell
which of the systems is the best. The overall averages
show that Ohio and Indiana are practically identical in
their per-capita spending. Michigan is slightly below both
of them. Yet Indiana is by far the least pOpulous of the
three states and one does not have to drive very far on
Indiana highways to know that they are not as good as the
highways in either Michigan or Ohio.

It will help a good deal, therefore, if we can
think of the per capita spending in relation to both state
size and state population. These three factors are shown

in Table 57

126The 1958-62 average comes from the US Bureau of
the Census,_§overnmental Finances in the United States, 1958-
63, as reportedwbyHobert S. Friedman, op. cit., pp. h32-3.“
The separate figures for 1962 appear in the Statistical
‘gpstract, 195g, p. 425. The 1966 figures were from the 1967
edition of the Abstract, p. #27.

 

 

300

Table 57. Per Capita Highway Expenditures
_;niRe1ation to State Populatibn
and Size.

 

 

 

Per Capita 1966 Pop. Size of State,
Expenditures Estimate in Square Miles
1958—66 Ave. (10008)
Indiana S 58.20 h,918 36,291
Michigan 55.95 8,37A 58,216
Ohio 58.05 10,305 41,222 in
T
Indiana and Ohio are roughly the same size. If they 5‘

spend the same per capita, but if Ohio's population is more
than twice as large as Indiana's, then it stands to reason
that the Ohio system is a better one than Indiana's. Michi—
gan is the largest of the three states, but its population
is not as large as that of Ohio. On this basis, then, and
with full appreciation of the hazards, we might rank the
state highway systems as follows: Ohio, Michigan, Indiana.

There is little doubt, at any event, that of the three

Indiana has the worst system.127

127The Lansing State Journal, on July 9, 1968
carried an AP story datelined at Kalamazoo, Michigan where~
in the manager of the Automobile Club of Michigan "sharply
criticized Indiana highway authorities following a 17-mile
July 4th holiday traffic jam along a feeder highway linking
Indiana and Michigan freeway systems." He was quoted as
saying, "We have deplored the dereliction of duty in
(Indiana's) not meeting national concepts of a high-speed,
interstate freeway for the past several years." He also
said that "the State of Indiana should not protect the
Toll Road by refusing to enlarge the connecting highway.
Michigan's freeway system is completely toll-free."

 

301

Again, how did the perceptions of the students
correspond with the facts, insofar as the facts can be
known? As with the state parks, perceptions of the highway
systems seem to have some connection with the factual
situation. The Ohio students seem to view their system as
the strongest - and it appears to be. The Indiana students
seem to view their system as uniformly weaker than Ohio,
at any event, and it seems to be so. The Michigan students
are divided - some think their system is very strong,
others do not. In two out of the three states, then, the

perceptions do seem to accord with the reality.

I thought that it would be easy to obtain comparative

figures for the state university systems. It is not.
Different sources report different figures and it is most
difficult to disentangle local expenditures from state
expenditures. The following Table 58, however, shows the
per capita spending on all education in the three states in

1962 and 1966.128

Table 58. _Per Capita Spending of States
oniEducation

 

1962 1966
Indiana 8 135.92 3 196.00
Michigan 138.64 206.00
Ohio 107.94 157.00

128The information was obtained from the_§tatistical
Abstract, 1964 and 1967.

‘—-_— -A.._-

I5. _£'

 

302

In each of the years reported above Michigan spends
the most, Ohio the least. Indiana spending is close to,
but less than that of Michigan. But since these figures are
for over all expenditures on education we can not determine
from them alone very much about the university systems. I
found it necessary, therefore, to go to a standard college
guide book and on the basis of the figures reported therein, U
in the description of each school, determine the number of
students in each state who attend the state colleges and
universities.129 \
With this figure I could then calculate the percent-

age of the entire state pOpulation which was enrolled in

the university system. This information is shown below.

Table 59. State University and College

 

 

 

‘gnrollments
Total Enrollment Percentage of
1965 State Population
Indiana 81,692 1.6
Michigan 142,1A1 1.7
Ohio 81,318 0.8

The percentages, of course, are small. It can be
seen, however, that both Indiana and Michigan clearly out-

rank Ohio, and that this corresponds to the per capita

—.

1291 employed the 1966 edition of Lovejoy's College
Guide (New York, 1966) for this purpose. The figures, there-
fore, are presumably from the year 1965. All of the state
systems have expanded since that time. We have to presume
that the figures are accurate, although from my personal
knowledge of some of the smaller private schools I know that

they are not. They tend to be exaggerated.

 

303

spending measure as shown above. If we also consider the
junior colleges as a measure of state concern for higher
public education along with the above figures on spending
and on enrollment, I think that we can safely conclude that
the ranking of the states in this matter will be as follows:
Michigan, Indiana and Ohio, with Ohio clearly below the
other two.

Does this correspond with the perceptions of the
students in the three states? Only slightly. It will be
recalled that the students had very similar opinions in all
three of the states about the strength of their own state
university systems. Large majorities viewed them all as
very strong. And of course all three of these systems gag
strong if we were to compare any of them to the university
system of Ndssissippi, for example. Differences g9 exist
in these three state systems, particularly in Ohio, but
the differences are not as apparent in student attitudes as
were the differences in the park systems and the highway

systems.130

130One interesting problem throughout this entire
section has been the matter of disentangling my own opinions
and prejudices - my own state bias - from the data. At the
outset of the investigation I "knew" that Michigan had the
best roads, the best parks and the best university system
of the three states. I was quite certain that this was so.
I expected, moreover, that in all of these matters Michigan
would be far ahead of Indiana. In this sense, the results
have been somewhat shocking — "we" do not seem to be all
that much better!

 

 

 

 

 

304

In each state the students were also asked to judge
two different methods of taxation, and, finally, the question
of state aid to education. All three of the states levy a
sales tax. In Indiana the basic rate is 2% of retail sales.
In Ohio the basic rate is 3% but food is excepted. In
Michigan the basic rate is 4%. Indiana and Nichigan also
have a state income tax. Ohio does not. In Michigan this
tax is a new one; it became effective in October, 1967.
Table 60 shows how the students thought about these three
issues, insofar as the evaluative dimension of their atti-
tudes is concerned.

In all of the towns but one more of the students
rated the state sales tax as very fair than very unfair.
The exception is Wolf Lake, Indiana. In all of the towns
there was a substantial "no opinion" area, the largest
being in Ridgeville Corners, Ohio, the smallest being in
Wolf Lake, Indiana. Opinions are rather sharply divided in
each town, but the greater number seem to favor this method
of taxation. There are no clear cut state differences in
this regard.

The situation is different in relation to the state
income tax. In Michigan this tax is clearly seen as being
very unfair. In Indiana it tends to be viewed positively -
as a fair method of taxation. In Ohio the opinion is split
- it is strongly opposed in Pioneer, it is mildly favored

in Ridgeville Corners.

 

 

 

305

u

 

 

 

 

.cwmwnoflz 62m ow CH whoacom o
mmmHUQH cm mLOflcmmnwgp.l newnOQ mMp op cmnp :nflmm ones:
.oEmw 659 who: .cmwwzofiz .chEmo cam .oamo
[no pcosmnm Comzpmn Una .mamHUGH apnoEmnm cam cm
.mmfic pmwofimwcwwm haamoflpwfipmpw nocnon esp wsoa<
venom mnma wmocmnmeeae pamoamacwam sHHwoapmapmpm
cmwwnofifi 039 amp mo nomfinmasoo map CH @258“ who: moosmnoMMHc p
.xmp oEoocH oumpm amp cnmzop mopdpwppm new oUmE onoz o

u no soapmmoxm map ma
.nooQOflm 95m
manna; .cocsmo nmozpmn
.WQBOp oamo 03» exp moospop
.mczop mmchQH oz
amofimfi

 

 

mm amp escoc
.onommnoa
.oazo

a opmpm one Bmfi>

Ill-I'll!"

p .mcmflcsH .psoEonm
.nmmcowm Una msmfionH

endow one: mouse

.ho>o30£

p can QH no .mssop
swam haddoflpmfipmpm
endowmwnwflm mo memes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mnoqnoo
.0 m.ms 0.0H m.mm m.ma s.om mafia>mmeam
a HH N.Nm 0.0m s.HH o.mm ¢.6m camcoam
oweo
6 6H m.Hm o.sm o.ma n.0m o.sm pnoawaanam
O OH s.ao m.mm n.6H 0.0m m.mm emesao
. emmasomm
8.0 m.mm 0.NN m.mm w.aa o.em mama macs
m o m.mm m.mm o.mm a.mm m.ms paoswca
gamma: mcmwwcH.
. hfimm hHde AH
mho> kno> hnm> D kHMM MWMMGD MWM%

 

 

 

 

coapmodpm on vޢ mpmpm was mEoonH mpmpm xme woamm opwpm

 

.nfimmmb.muo>lccm Lamb mam WW

EWLB,3om> 0:3,omoshi90 mowmpnmonmm,omp weanmwsqm

nowpmoswm op mwm mammm cam compmxmeymo mcoflpgm
manages whencmm Hoosom mama to mwespappa. .oo magma

306

So far as state aid to education is concerned, the
students quite uniformly view it as very fair in all six of
the towns. There is no particular state pattern to their
responses. The very fair percentage is the highest in
Ridgeville Corners, Ohio, but this is the town which views
most issues positively and their position here is consistent
with their previous views.

These views are not particularly surprising and they
tell us very little, it seems to me, about the state polit-
ical culture. Or, perhaps put another way, they may tell
us about the state political cultures, but these cultures
do not seem to differ greatly in this three state area so
far as these questions are concerned.

The citizens in all three of the states are used to
the sales tax. I thought, perhaps, that the Michigan stu-
dents would think it the most unfair, since the basic rate
is the highest in that state. But this factor does not
seem to show up in their attitudes. It is generally agreed,
too, that a sales tax is politically feasible, even though
it is actually an unfair tax for people in the lower income
brackets. I did not expect this fact to be appreciated,
however, and apparently it was not.

So far as the income tax is concerned, it appears
most likely that the strongly negative views in Michigan
reflect the fact that this is a brand new tax and that the
students have heard their parents grumbling about it. In

another year or two this might well be different. In

 

307

Indiana, where the tax is established, it was generally
viewed positively - as a fair means of taxation. The Ohio
students have not experienced this tax themselves. It is
clear that in Pioneer, Ohio they do not want to, while in
Ridgeville Corners, Ohio, the great majority do not know

whether it is fair or not.

m.

In relation to state aid to education, the Michigan

students should have viewed this more positively than the

15:. a“ 1.1; .a\\

students in Ohio and Indiana. They are presumably not aware
of this, however, as the views in this regard do not differ

from state to state.

The Police Question

In the final section of this chapter I shall con-
sider student attitudes towards "the police" as these atti-
tudes were revealed through answers to a series of questions.
In the first part of this section I go back, again, to the
fifth graders, along with the seniors, and in the last part
I present data on the state police as revealed only by the
seniors on the semantic differential scales.

In all six schools I posed the following series of

questions to both the fifth graders and the seniors:

1. If you were to steal a car in another state
and transport it back home, you could be
arrested by the FBI, by the State Police, by
the County Sheriff, or by the Local Police.

If this were to happen, from which agency

would you expect to receive the fairest
treatment?

308

2. If this did happen, which of the four agencies
do you think might be most easily bribed?

3. If an adult were involved, and if he was arrested
by the State Police in your state, do you think
that bribery would be impossible, barely possible,
quite possible, or very possible?

In Table 61 we can see their answers to the first of these
three questions.

The fifth graders in all three states are all differ—
ent. In Camden, Michigan, they think the County Sheriff
would be the fairest. In Fremont, Indiana they chose the
State Police and in Pioneer, Ohio they chose the FBI. None
of them thought their own local police would be the fairest.
The seniors were different. With one exception they rated
the FBI the fairest. The exception to this was in Pioneer,
Ohio, where the local police was chosen by a wide majority.
If we translate this into their trust of different levels
of government, we would have to conclude that the federal
government was the most fair of all three (or, in this case,
four) levels of government. On the basis of our previous
findings, concerning their views of government, this is
quite consistent. It will be recalled that in Pioneer, Ohio,
the seniors expressed considerable distrust of the federal
government, and now, in this question, they are saying that
the local government is the fairest. Most of the students,

however, thought that the federal government was very fair,

and they are expressing the same view here.

 

309

 

.pp cmpomamm mpnoczpm

mo noppnomonm mapmmmpm w .maomeSpnomns .Usm =cownmso: :Edaoo monoanMHc o: m mflZop

03p ommzp :H ppm .oopOSO m mst op Eozp cmpcms H compo .sssaoo =oosonoMMHm 02: m o>ms

pom was mafimGQOppmosv ha zwmosmnommwc ham mp chomp xswmp p.coc o3 Hp meB: psmvSpm mno

an cmxmw mm: H ms30p mmmnp CH pmnp mp wasp pom nommmn ens .mnmgpo map app: mapmnmmsoo
pom one wschsH .oxmq maoz use capo .mnmcnoo oHHH>mwva 80pm wamzwcm onp memm m CH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mnmcnoo
s.om 0.0N 0.0N o m.mN NH I maap>mweam
m.N H.8m m.mp m.N m.ON NH I newscam
o 0.0N H.0H :.© d.md m I pomsoam
capo
m.a s.sN s.n N.0N m.mm NH I pnoawaacam
o o.ma s.sa m.mN s.sm NH I mousse
o o.m N.Ne N.aN m.om m I smegma
ammanopz
N.sm 0.5 o.s o.a N.¢e NH I mean macs
s.H m.0m m.ma m.ma m.sm NH I pcosona
o m.mm m.m H.mm 0.8H m I pcosmnn
mamHUQH
nmzmc< 02 no mofiaom mmpnonm mopaom
.oosopmmem oz Hmooq hpcdoo opmpm Hmm

 

mmmmpsmopom.sw macaw
wpsoEpmopeytpmmnHm.= mmp m>Moomm,oco
UHSoB hocowd pamEmonomcm 3mg sows? scum. .Hw mapme

310

But I am even more interested in their views of
their own state police. If we compare the figures for the
seniors we find that the Michigan students from both towns
are practically identical and that they rate their state
police next to the FBI in fairness. The students in Indiana
do not do this. In Fremont, Indiana the state police are
rated the lowest in "fairness." The Ohio students are even
more harsh in their treatment of their own state police.
They are rated on the bottom, and by a very large margin.
There appears to be, then, a high degree of trust of the
state police in Michigan, less in Indiana and the least in
Ohio. In this matter there seems to be a rather clear
state pattern. But this does Egg correspond to previously
reported findings concerning the fairness of the state
governments.

Table 62 shows their answers to the second question.
It is clear, in the first place, that the vast majority of
the students, both fifth graders and seniors, think that
the FBI and their own state police are not subject to bribery.
The only exception to this is in Fremont, Indiana, and this
only appears in relation to the state police, not in relation
to the FBI. Even the students in Pioneer, Ohio, who seem to
have the most question about the fairness of the federal

government, agreed with this.

 

311

.monopmMMHv wwmp new panooom ooflaom Hmooa map can mmfinozm mpGSoo map wcficamo
Ices .nmwflcoflzr.:mpsmu up moudpfippm psopommHv on“ .owgo .nmmnon sum .mcmHUQH .pcoSmnm
soospmp pom pap .nmwflmowa .soUEmu paw owzo .aooQOHm cooSpop use .msmwucH .pcoEmnm can
Sawflnoflfi .soUEmo comspmp ccsom who; moothommpn pcmoflMflcwwm Aaamofipmflpmpm .mGBOp hmchop
ozp mcpnwmsoo CH .wcsop camamowz 03p map semapop pom pup .mQBOp owso 03p map was mazop
msmpesH 03p map soospop neoconommflc pumofimficwww AHHmQprflpmpm mam: chomp .mnOHnom map pom
.mnOHsom map was mnocmpm spMHQ 03p noozpop moocmanMHp psmomesmflm maamoppmwpmpm one: onmnp
mHoozom Lennon esp mo mmnmp Ham up pmnp Undom mp3 pH cosmopwfismflw now mcflpmop cH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mnoqnoo
o e.os n.6H m.m m.m NH I mHHHsmeeHm
m.N 0.00 o m.o o NH I nmmaOHm
o H.mm m.mm o d.® m I nemGOHm
OHLO
H.m s.ms H.¢H H.m H.m NH I unedmeHcmm
O 0.9m m.om m.© 0.4 NH I coUEmo
o m.mH m.mn o H.0 m I sopsmo
camHsoHn
o H.mm m.®m O m.m NH I oxmq mac;
0 0.:m m.mfi 0.HH o NH I psosoam
m.¢ H.mm m.mm o.mH w.4 m I pmosoam
mnmefiH
nmsmsm oz mowfiom wmwnosm oofiaom III
HmooH spades mpmpm Hme

 

.momMpCoonomCM spomm wwopmpm mflwmmm pmgm
om pmmwz Nonmmg pcoEoonomcm Emu nopam. .mo mapwe

312

The students seem to be saying that if bribery is
to occur, it will probably occur on the local level - the
county and the city - rather than on the state and national
level. And of the two local levels, it is more apt to take
place in the local community rather than in the county. In
every one of the towns more than one half of the seniors
pointed to the local police as, in this sense, the most
corrupt. The students who thought this was Egg; possible
are from Ohio.

In Pioneer, Ohio, we have a curious situation. On
the first question the students in that town said that the
local police would be the fairest. On this question they
say (90%) that of the four agencies the local police would
be the easiest to bribe. Is this HEX they think it would
be fair? Is fairness equated with leniency and the possi—
bility of corruption? It may be, but I do not know. In
any event, the students in all of these towns have been
taught something during their lifetime about one agency of
their local government. They were not taught this parti-
cular matter in school — they have "absorbed" it as a
result of the informal socialization process into the
culture which surrounds them. What they have been taught
in this informal way may be true. But I do not know that,

either. I do know, however, that in most of the towns,

 

313

when this question was asked, there was much laughter when

the local police was mentioned. Most of them have not been

taught to respect the local policeman, and that fact, at

least, is clear.131
The answers to the third question are summarized in

Table 63. In our hypothetical problem, what do the students

think about the possibility of bribing the state police in F

their own state? Few of the seniors think it "very possible."

an .n‘l:‘..l— m...

Some of the fifth graders in Fremont, Indiana think that it
might be, as did a few in Camden, Michigan. But the per-
centages are small and they are the exceptions in this
category. In the "quite possible" column the Indiana stu-
dents lead all of the others, and this is consistent from
town to town as well as in the fifth grade in Fremont, Indiana.
The Michigan and the Ohio students are much alike, and both
are well below Indiana. From the above, and from the
remainder of the figures, I think that we can conclude that
the Indiana students tend to be the most suspicious of the
honesty of their state police. It is somewhat misleading,
however, to phrase it in this way. Because on the whole

large majorities in all of the states think that bribery is

131The information in the above table was not
obtained in such a manner as to permit the application of
Guttman scaling. It would be of interest on another
occasion, however, to do this. For it appears as though
the person who might say "yes" to the possibility of bribing
the FBI would also say "yes" in relation to the other three
levels. The break points, I believe, would be quite clear.

g
| 1

'4

'I

I_l

.5

...
I

.monm oanCo on pCOCwConCp COHpmoCd mHCp Co ovspprm CH ooConoHHHc 0C HHHmeCommo mH

onon .wmmws nono CH .prHHm we: .pCmOHHHCmHm HHHmoHpmempm oHHCB .ooConoHHHU on one:

.OHCoo.nmoC0Hm @Cm mCNHnCH .pCoEonm Cmozpop ComHnmmsoo esp Ho COHpCoQXo onCHm on Csz

mCoanmCEoo on Ho HCw CH UCCOH one: mooConomme pCCOHHHCme HHHCOHpmempm 0C .mnOHCom

. on Ho momeprm on wCHnmmSoo CH .OHCO .nooCOHm CH no .mCeHeCH .pCosonH CH poC p39

CmmHCoHE .Covsmo CH mnOHCmm on UCm mnoemnm CpHHH on Coozpon mooConoHHHp pCmoHHHCme
a“HHso4.”.6..oI..H.pmpm one: onon mep meHEnopoU pmnHH mm: pH ooCCOHHHCme now wCHpmop CH

 

 

 

31A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mnanoo

o H.m H.HH m.Hs o.os NH I oHHHsoeeHs
m.N o m.s N.mo 0.HN NH I nooson

O N.m O 0.Hb m.mN m I nmoCOHm

oHso

o H.m m.mH H.NH m.0m NH I pnosmanem

o m.m H.0 0.0H H.Hm NH I mosses

o H.0 H.b N.HN b.me

O O N.MN m.mm ®.ON NH l 0x64 MHOS

o m.o m.ON m.0m 0.NN NH I pCoEonm
w.d m.¢H m.mN H.mm 0.0H m I pCoEonm
I. mCmHmmH
.mCH oHnHmmom oHpHmmom oHpHmmom oHpHmmomEH

oz Hno> opHCO HHonmm

 

.momeCmonmmICH.Csosm .ooHHomxopmpm,oQM
wprHnm Ho knHpHHHHfiHmwom on Ho pCoEmmmmWfl .mo oHpmH

315

either impossible or barely possible. It will be better,
therefore, to phrase the statement as follows: The majority
of the students in all of the states have positive views of
their own state police, but, within this positive framework,
the Indiana students are somewhat more suspicious than are
the students in either Michigan or Ohio.

Should the students in Indiana be more suspicious?
Are they correct in thinking that there is a slightly better
chance to bribe a member of the Indiana State Police than
his counterparts in Michigan or in Ohio? On the basis of
the popular stereotypes and common reputations, yes, they
are correct. But is there any empirical evidence? He
might deliberately speed through the three states and find
out. It would be a novel way to gather data.

Finally, I used one other device to ascertain their
attitudes concerning their own state police. As a part of
a series of statements about their own states they were
asked to react on the semantic differential to the phrase
"The Michigan State Police." And in Indiana and in Ohio
the proper state names were inserted. Table 6A shows how
the students in each state reacted.

Measured in this way it is quite clear that the
large majority in all three states have strongly positive
views of their own state police — the students think that
they are strong, fair and active. Is there a distinctive

state pattern to these responses? There does not seem to

 

316

ozp mo mmhnp Ham manna: vGSom who: moonmhoHMHU pamOHMHcmHm kHHmoHpmfipmpm
op oopoonnsm Comp mm: :OHmcoEfiU hammlhflmmnd one

 

 

.mczop hovhop map mo msomflhmmsoo on» ma p0: pan .mopmpm

.mflmhamsm hmmoao

.mqofimcoEHo 039 90:90 esp mom Undom who:
moan pan .cowmcmsfiv muonpmlxmoz map pom Uncom who: moocoAmMMHo pcmofiMcham baamoflpmwpmpm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oz .mqofimcmeflo moasp Ham so mHoonom xflm Ham pom moms pwaflm mam: mocmoHMchHm mo mumma
whocpoo
0.00 m.mm 0.0m 0.0H m.mH m.mH o m.m o mafia>mweam
©.mm ¢.m¢ 0.0m m.HH N.nm H.m o m.nm o gooqoan
oano
m.Hm N.db m.hb m.OH N.HN m.wa o.@ o.m o.m phomwcwhmm
0.05 n.0m m.mh v.0H 0.4m m. H a. m. H m.m so am
m m o cmmwnmfiz
d.m© b.mm o.om o 0.5 0.: o.¢ m.o o.¢ oxmq “do;
5.50 @.mm m.mo m.mm m.mm H.NN m.m m.mH m.m pcosmum
mamwwsH
m>wpom hfimm wdoppm ofi\wmm m\ds pw\M3 m>Hmmmmx hawks: xmms
m>flpfiwom coacflmo oz so o>Hpmwoz
hawcohpm xmo: mo mead hawqoppm

mowmpsoopmm.awlc30£m
on» hnlwoMSwmfla

 

.Uohmzmc«,osa,omofifitflw
.Hwfipcopommfim,owpcmaww
.moaaom,mpapm mam.
UAmSOB whowaom Hoonom swam mo moudpfipnd.

.do magma

 

317

be. ;fli§hig each of the three states the students view their
own state police differently (on the evaluative dimension).

The Ohio students seem to think that their state po-
lice are somewhat more strong and active than do the students
in the other two states. This is rather curious since the
Ohio State Police do not have the same extensive police
powers as the other two agencies. In this sense they are
Egg as strong nor are they as active as the state police in
either Michigan or Indiana. The Michigan students are quite
consistent so far as their perceptions of strength and
activity are concerned but they differ in regard to their
"fairness." The Indiana students vary. In Fremont,
Indiana, the state police is not thought to be nearly as
strong or as active as it is thought to be in Wolf Lake,
Indiana. On the evaluative dimension there is no consensus
from state to state. About all that we can conclude, then,
is that the Ohio students think that their state police are
very strong and very active and that, in relation to the
other two states, they are probably not correct in thinking
this way. We can also conclude that along the border, in
each of the states, there is considerably more skepticism of
the state police than there is in the control towns.

How can we summarize what we have done and what we

have found? We must remember that on most of the issues

the students generally have positive views. Where differ—

ences have been found - and there have been some - they

have usually been small and they are differences within an

 

318

area which is generally positive in nature. In a sense,
then we are faced with the problem of looking at a mountain
range and saying that Mountain A is lower, or higher, than
Mountain B. But we do not know exactly how much higher it
might be, nor, more importantly, do we know the actual
height of the mountain itself. We can see only the peaks of
the mountains.

In view of this, I believe that the most useful
device we can employ is to think of a continuum of great
but unknown length, ranging between two extremes which we
might simply call the "least positive"emd the "most positive."
On the far left, the least positive end, there would be a
cluster of opinions that would be strongly negative - highly
antagonistic and deeply hostile. On the far right, the
most positive end, there would be a cluster of strongly
positive opinions - wildly enthusiastic and supportive.
Somewhere between these two Opposite poles there will be a
segment along which we might be able to arrange the students
from the different states. In this way we may be able to
say that on a given issue the students in Indiana seem to
have the most positive views, followed in descending order
by the students from Michigan and, finally, by the students
from Ohio. We will then be ranking the states along a

least positive - most positive continuum, but will not be

trying to show how widely they differ. And it must contin-

ually be kept in mind that most of their views are positive

and that phe differences are usually slight.

 

319

In this way we can see that on many of the issues the
Ohio students are divided. At the outset of this chapter I
labeled the students in Pioneer, Ohio, the "cynics" and the
students in Ridgeville Corners, Ohio, the "patriots." These
categories have held up, but they seem on the whole to be
more applicable to national problems than they do to state
and local ones — wdth the exception of the Vietnam war,
when the Opinions in both of the Ohio towns coalesce. The 3
students in Indiana and in fiichigan seem to be more consis—
tent in their views than do the students in Ohio. It
appears, therefore, to be somewhat easier to detect state
patterns in both of these states than it does in Ohio. In
the two states of Indiana and Michigan, I think that the
Indiana students clearly tend to view more of the issues

in a more positive manner than do the Michigan students.

CHAPTER VIII

Conclusion and Summary

We have been standing, in effect, at the intersection
of the borders of the states of Indiana, Michigan and Ohio
and have been looking, from that spot, at each of them. i-
Now, at the end of the investigation, what have we found — g
and what have we not found - about the political cultures
of these three states?

It will be recalled that in the first chapter I
presented a series of hypotheses built around the basic
notion that in certain specified ways the political culture
of Michigan might be called "liberal" while the cultures of
Indiana and Ohio might be called "conservative." The
thought was that these cultures might be detected in the
attitudes of the high school students (and, to a lesser
extent, in the attitudes of the children in the fifth grade.)

On the whole, these hypotheses were not borne out.

It will further be recalled that at the beginning of
the study I also asked three direct questions: (I) Are the
people in the three states similar, and are the towns and
the counties involved in this study comparable units?

(2) Do the people think and act differently in the three

states, and, in particular, do their views of government

320

321

and politics differ from state to state? (3) Do the state
lines constitute invisible barriers or walls, so that the
pe0ple are divided or separated in ways that they would not
be if the lines were not there? We are now in a position
to answer these three questions.

In the first chapter I quoted Patterson who sug-
gested that there might be at least four "correlates of }
politico-cultural variability" among the states. He 3
suggested that these might possibly be causative factors in “
promoting differences between the states. In other words,
,3; there are differences in the political cultures of states,
the differences might be due to one or more of these factors:
(1) Group differences, (2) Social and Economic Forces,
(3) Historical patterns of settlement, and (4) Variations in
"institutional impact." I shall look at each of these
"correlates" in turn.

Patterson's "group differences" encompass the usual
ones of "education, ethnicity, race, religion, sex and
social class." Each of these factors was examined and with
one possible exception it was found that the three border
towns, and the three control towns, were essentially the
same in all of these ways. The exception might be the con-
trol town of Ridgeville Corners, Ohio. In this town there
is clear evidence of a difference in religion and, perhaps,
in ethnic origin. The seniors in the high school of Ridge-

ville Corners are more religious than any of the others and

322

the strength of the German Lutheran Church in that area
testifies to the place of their origin, even though this
was several generations removed in time. With this one
exception, however, there were no group differences worthy
of the name.

From our observation point on the borders, too,
there appear to be no basic differences from state to state f
insofar as social and economic forces are concerned. In t
"urbanization, industrialization, population movement,
affluence and economic growth," all of the towns are alike.
The border towns, and the control towns as well, are all
essentially static. They all have similar problems and
prospects. They are all roughly the same economically and
socially.

In the immediate tri—state corner, too, there
appear to be no differences in "historical patterns of
settlement," and, if there are variations in "institutional
impact" from state to state (and there may well be, of
course) I was not able to detect them.

.If the political cultures of the three states differ,
therefore, the above "correlates" can not be used to explain
the differences. For these three states, or, more accurately,
these sections of the three states, are essentially alike in
all of the above respects. The answer to our first question,
therefore is clear: the units are comparable, and the

People are in most ways alike.

 

323

The above are possible causes of variations in state
political cultures. But what are the ways in which the
states might vary, if in fact they vary at all? Again I
shall refer back to Patterson who suggested that the polit-
ical cultures might vary in the following ways: (1) Basic
attitudes, (2) Political identification - degree of state
pride, feeling of loyalty toward state, etc., (3) Political
participation - the extent of participation, the way it is
encouraged or discouraged, (A) Political style, and,

(5) Political socialization.

Three of the above items may be disposed of rather
quickly. First, pplitical socialization. Insofar as this
study is concerned, the process of political socialization
was found to be essentially the same from State to state.

If the informal process (as carried on unconsciously in the
home and in other primary groups) is essentially a reflection
of the groups themselves, and if the groups are much the
same, as noted above, it follows that the process would be
similar from state to state. In like manner, the formal
process, as carried on by the schools, was found to be

about the same in all of the schools that were studied.
There are no basic differences in what the schools require
of their students: the state-based requirements of the
public schools are much alike in these three states.

But the emphasis, in the above paragraph, is on the
word "process." The way, or the method, of political

socialization — both formal and informal - is similar in all

 

32#

three states. It should be pointed out, however, that the
content of what is taught does vary from state to state.
The Michigan students study Michigan history and Michigan
government. The Indiana students study Indiana and the
Ohio students study their own state. The process may be
the same, but they study different "histories" and different
"governments." And it has to be assumed that an Indiana— ?
based family, for instance, transmits certain pro-Indiana j
sentiments through the informal process of socialization as
well. Thus, though the process may be the same in all three
states, the end result differs according to the state of
residence, and according to the degree of anchorage that a
given family has to a particular state. In this sense,
then, these three states do differ insofar as political
socialization is concerned.

I turn next to the matter of_political participation.
This‘mgy vary from state to state. It may be encouraged in
one state and discouraged in another. It may be easier to
take part in politics in Michigan than it is in Indiana or
in Ohio. But this study has not detected any such differences.
Each of the mayors in each of the border towns expressed
essentially the same point of view. Each had similar prob-
lems. Each was faced with an apathetic citizenry. Each
indicated that more people should be interested in taking
part in the government; each wished that more people would

do so; each tried to interest others. On this very local

325

and intimate level, therefore, and in this closely limited
section of the country, no differences appeared to exist
from state to state.

This study likewise did not reveal any differences
in the_political styles of the three states. It will be
recalled that Daniel Elazar referred to Indiana and to
Ohio as having (overall) Individualistic Political Cultures,
whereas Michigan was thought to have a Moralistic Political
Culture. And John Fenton, in discussing the political
parties of these three states, thought of Michigan as having
"issue-oriented parties" as compared to the "job—oriented
parties" in Ohio and Indiana. Moreover, Fenton referred to
the "corruption" in Indiana politics. All of this relates
to the matter of political style. These two authors,
therefore, are in substantial agreement, and both see
Michigan as somehow different from the other two states.

I tend to agree with both Elazar and Fenton and I think

that in certain broad and very general ways these terms

do apply to the political parties and to the political
cultures of these three states. But_§his study will neither
refute nor support this point of view. For in judging a
number of matters, including "State Officials," "State
Politics," and "Political Parties," (as measured by the
semantic differential on the evaluative factor) it was
found that the students in all six of the towns thought
essentially alike. This is not to infer that the states -

and the parties - do not differ as Elazar and Fenton (and I)

 

326

think they differ, but it is simply to point out that if
they differ, the students in these six towns do not seem to
be aware of it.

The two remaining items in Patterson's list — basic
attitudes and political identification - are more trouble—
some. I shall first discuss the question of political
identification. When the students were asked, by their
teachers, to respond to the question "Who Am I?" it was
found that they all responded in essentially the same way
from town to town and from state to state. The basic locus
scores did not vary with the state of residence. The stu—
dents did identify themselves as "Americans," or as "citi-
zens" but this did not vary from state to state either.

It was, however, the principal way in which they expressed
a political identification. Very few identified themselves
as Michiganians, Buckeyes or Hoosiers — less than 10% of
the seniors in all six schools. And literally no one iden-
tified themselves as members of a given political party.
But when they were specifically ggkgg if they thought of
themselves as "Michiganians," for example - or, for that
matter, as "Democrats" - they tended to say that they did.
On the basis of this evidence, therefore, the states (and,
even more so, the political parties) are of low salience
compared to the overriding importance of "America," and

this pertains equally to the students in all three states.

 

327

But even though they are of low salience, the states
ggg highly regarded by the students. This was indicated in
a number of ways. The clearest indication was shown in their
reaction, on the semantic differential, to the name of their
own state. All of the students thought that "their state"
was very strong, very fair and very active. The differences
were not great, but the Ohio students seemed to have the
most positive views of their own state, followed by the
Michigan students and then by the Indiana students.

But even though they all have very positive views
of their own state, they are not blind to the advantages of
other states. The seniors, for example, tended to think
that California was better than their own state, and this
Opinion did not vary from state to state. In judging
neighboring states, however, there was a difference. The
students in the border towns tended to think that their
state was better than either of the other two states,
whereas the students in the control towns saw their state
as about the same as the other two states. The Michigan
students seemed to evince the strongest pro-state feeling
(or feeling of superiority) followed thereafter by the
Ohio students and then by the Indiana students.

State identifications were also clear in relation
to athletics. This was more true, however, of the state
universities than it was of the professional teams located
in each state. In each of the states clear majorities

would like to see one of "their" football teams go to the

 

328

Rosebowl each year, and the states are essentially similar

in this regard. The Michigan students, however, were the

only ones who indicated a rather clear preference for "their"

professional teams — in football, basketball and baseball.

The students in the other states seemed to favor the national

champions, regardless of which state they came from.

But the matter of "identification" has proved to be
troublesome and perplexing throughout this entire study.
How can we measure "state pride," or a feeling of "state
loyalty"? Grodzins did not know how to do this, and I am
verymuch aware of the fact that I do not know how either.
There is something elusive about it. In each state the
students think that their state — while perhaps not the
"best" in the country - is nevertheless "very strong, very
fair and very active," and they hope that "their" team
goes to the Rosebowl. And from this and from a number of
other indicators we infer that they are proud of their state
and that they are loyal to it. Perhaps they are. Moreover,
when I come to summarize the findings relating to their
behavior and to their expectations, we shall find other
indicators of a sense of "attachment" to, or "identification"
with, a particular state. But how "much" loyalty do the
Michigan students have, and do they have "more" or "less"
than the students in Indiana or in Ohio? I think that
these questions can not be answered with any degree of

assurance at all.

 

329

We come finally to the matter of_pasic attitudes.
Have we found that the basic attitudes of the students
differ from state to state? Or, again to be cautious, have
we found that they differ in this tightly limited border area
of the three states? Speaking generally, we can say that
their basic attitudes are quite similar. In looking at all
of the data it would be difficult to say that on any given 3‘
item there was a "Michigan point of view" which could be %
clearly distinguished from an "Indiana" or an "Ohio" point 9%
of view.

But having made this general statement, it is also
true that the students do not have identical opinions in
the three states: some differences were detected. There
may be, in fact, some indication of the existence of Hatcher's
"subtle X" in Ohio, and Martin's "Indiana idea." It was
found, for example — and this is the principal difference
- that the two towns in Indiana seem to hang together on
more items than did the towns in either Michigan or in Ohio.
In this sense, then, there might be something of an "Indiana
idea," or, perhaps better, an "Indiana point of view."

There was another difference, too. On the basis of
_knowledge, as measured by their ability to name the governors
of the three states, and the senators from their own state,

along with their political parties, the Ohio students proved

to be the best informed. The Michigan students were the least

 

well informed. These differences were statistically signifi-
cant, and in the study made in 196A it was also found that

the Michigan students were the most poorly informed.

330

What does this mean in relation to the political cul—
tures of these three states? Are the Michigan citizens more
apathetic? Are they less interested in politics? Is there
a difference in the socialization process? And what does
this have to say - if anything - about the idea of a
"Moralistic Political Culture" in Michigan, or the possible
existence of "issue—oriented political parties" in that f‘
state? I do not know the answers to these questions, but
merely raise them as possible fruitful avenues for further
research.

All of the students generally have positive,
supportive views of government, and this applies to the
national, state and local levels. But within this generally
positive framework differences could be detected from state
to state. The Indiana students expressed the most consis—
tently positive views of the national government, followed
thereafter by the Michigan students. The views in the two
Ohio towns differed widely. But among the towns on the
border it was clear that the most positive views were held
by the Indiana students, followed thereafter by the Michigan
students and, last, by the Ohio students. These differences
were statistically significant.

No particular differences were found in their

attitudes toward the state government, with the single

 

exception of the border town in Ohio where they were skep-

tical of its fairness. In relation to the local government,

331

the Indiana students, as a group, held the most positive
views and, on the border itself, the Indiana students were
clearly more optimistic, at least on the evaluative factor,
than were the students in either Ohio or Michigan. It was
noted, however, that there was a much larger "no opinion"
area in relation to the local government than there was
concerning either the state or the national government.
This was rather uniform from state to state with the single
exception of the control town of Ridgeville Corners, in
Ohio.

In considering their reactions toward "those who
govern," it was found that in all six towns there was much
skepticism concerning President Johnson. All of the border
towns were more skeptical than were the control towns, but
on the border itself the Indiana students held the most
positive views, followed thereafter by the Michigan students
and, last, by the Ohio students. In judging their own gover-
nors, the Indiana students, again, were found to have the
most positive views, followed thereafter by the Ohio students
and last, interestingly enough in view of his national
reputation, by the Michigan students.

Few differences of importance were found when the
students were asked to judge such matters as "politics,"
"state politics," "political parties," and "politicians."
Likewise, their views toward a number of "issues" - both
national and state - did not vary widely. All had essen-

tially the same positive view, for example, of the Space

 

332

Program. On lesser known subjects there tended to be a
large, and rather uniform, "no opinion" area. There was,
however, much doubt expressed throughout the entire area,
about the fairness of the Vietnam War, and here the Ohio
students stood out as the most skeptical.

All of the students thought that their own state
university system was very strong, but they did express 1’
different points of view concerning their highway systems 5
and their own state parks. The Ohio students seemed to
express the most positive views toward their highway system,
and the least positive views toward their state parks.

These views seem to accord with the reality of the situation.
Both the Ohio students and the.Michigan students thought
that the state income tax was unfair, and this probably
reflects the fact that in Michigan this tax is a new one

(and therefore unpopular) while in Ohio the tax is unknown.
In relation to the police, all of the students generally
believe that the least corruptable agency is the FBI, and

the most corruptable is the local police department.
MOreover, they all think that the liklihood of bribing their
own state police is rather slight.

There is, then, much similarity in their basic
attitudes. This was expected, in view of the tight limit-
ations imposed by the study. But there are also some
intriguing, even though minor, differences: (I) the Ohio

students are the best informed; the Michigan students are

333

the least well informed; (2) there does seem to be a fairly
consistent "Indiana point of view;" (3) the border towns may
be ranked as to skepticism or cynicism, with the Ohio students
being the most skeptical, followed thereafter by the Michigan
students and, finally, by the Indiana students. On the basis
of the popular stereotypes of the three states my expectation

was that the Indiana students would demonstrate the most

I ‘t‘vn -.u.——.._._
’ .

cynical attitude. My findings, therefore, are completely
at variance with my expectations and I think that this
should be carefully considered in any future discussion of
the "Moralistic" political culture of Michigan as compared
to the "Individualistic" political culture of Indiana.

We have now examined the five ways in which Patterson
suggested that the states Egggg vary. In Summarizing them
we can answer, in part, my second basic question: .29 the
people think and act differently in the three states? We
have found the following: (1) There are some differences
in basic attitudes. (2) The people do identify with their
states, but we can not determine the "degree," nor can we
determine how much this varies from state to state. (3) From
the standpoint of political participation, the states seem
to be much alike. (4) The political styles in the three
states seem to be similar. (5) There are state-based differ-
ences in political socialization, even though the basic

process is similar in all three states.

334

Additional evidence relating to differences in actual
behavior will appear in the discussion of the "wall" effect
of the state lines themselves, and it is to this subject that
I now turn. Do the state lines constitute invisible barriers,
or walls, which divide or separate the people who live in this
area? Yes, they do.

The interviews that were conducted in the three border
towns have provided clear evidence of the fact that the people
simply do not know one another. The mayors, the bankers, the
editors, the school officials and the police chiefs are all
unacquainted with one another from state to state - yet all
are widely acquainted with their counterparts in their own
states. Did the surveys in the public schools furnish any
additional evidence of this effect? Again, the answer is
yes.

Directly on the border there was detected what might
be called a rather narrow area of cultural turbulence, with
some flow back and forth. But on the whole it can be said
— even on the border - that substantial evidence was found
of the existence of state—based families spanning at least
three generations. These families use doctors from their
own state, and their children are born in their own state.

They shop in their own state. They are employed in their
own state. If they are connected with a church, they worship
in their own state. They read state newspapers and, if they

had their choice of any newspaper, they would subscribe to a

 

335

newspaper from their own state. They expect to be educated
in their own state schools, and, if they had their choice of
any university or college, they would select one in their
own state. Moreover, when they are "grown up" they expect
to live in their own state. Finally, of course, they attend
schools that were built by state-based contractors; they

are taught by teachers who were educated in that state; and

:Ldn‘- r-

they compete against other schools in that state. i
In one way, however, they are the same. The students I

in the three border towns do listen to the same radio stations.

The wall, or the "filter" constituted by the state lines is

not sufficiently thick, or high, to affect their listening

habits. I thought that I had detected a slight state bias

here, too, but the differences proved to be not statistically

significant. With this one exception, however, the state

lines do seem to create substantial barriers - effectively

separating the people who live in this tri—state area.
I have now answered each of my three basic questions:

(1) In this border area of the three states the people are

similar and the units involved in the study are comparable.

(2) Much of their behavior is state—based and some differences

in attitude toward government and politics have been detected.

(3) The state lines do act as walls - separating the people

from one another.

we may also summarize the findings in this way: Some

 

minor differences were detected, but the attitudes along the

state borders are essentially the same. There are state-based

336

differences in behavior - the states seem to determine what
the peOple.gg in a number of different ways. There is some
evidence, even though it is minimal, of the existence of
distinctive state political cultures, but this is more
evident in Indiana than in either Michigan or in Ohio.

I shall new comment on another matter. At the
beginning of the study I made a rather logical and simple
assumption. I assumed that I could study three neighboring
border towns, each located in a different state, and that I
could compare student attitudes in an attempt to get at the
question of state political cultures. But to be doubly
sure, I selected a control town in each state. I assumed
that if the students in the two Michigan towns, for example,
expressed similar views, that I might then be tapping a
"Michigan point of view." In fact, this did happen, although
as noted it was more frequent in Indiana than in the other
two states. But my basic assumption proved to be not only
simple, but somewhat simple-minded as well. For the border
itself proved to be more of a distorting factor than I had
expected, and, in view of the findings, it seems something
of a miracle to have found any "state patterns" at all. In
other words, because one of the towns was a border town,
another factor entirely was introduced which sharply reduced
the liklihood of finding similar views within each state.

This study, then, could be viewed from an entirely
different perspective: as a study of the "border effect"

on political attitudes - a matter of great interest, all

 

337

apart from the question of political cultures. For it seems
quite clear that the students living on the borders, in all
three of the states, do have different views compared to
those who live away from the borders. Almost without excep—
tion the students on the borders are more skeptical - even
cynical - of government and politics than are those who

live elsewhere. This skepticism was most evident among the r“

Ohio students, followed thereafter by the Michigan students

Lu -‘r—t up -‘

and, last, by the Indiana students. While a number of these
differences were not statistically significant, many of them
were. But the border students also expressed what seemed to
be a greater degree of state pride, or loyalty. This was
brought out in the map game and in their comparisons of
their state with other states: the border students were
more "loyal" than were the students in the control towns,
and this was evident in all three states.

Why should the border students be proud and skeptical
at the same time? Actually it is rather logical. First,
unlike the students in the control towns, the students on
the borders are constantly aware of "state lines" - of the
fact that just a mile or so away there is a "different"
state. Sheer proximity, then, makes them think of other
states. The students in Camden, Michigan, can not help but
think of Ohio. But the students in Springport, Michigan,
hardly ever think of it. Ohio is simply not a part of their

world. Hence when they are asked, they respond by saying,

 

338

"Yes, Ohio is about the same as Michigan." But in Camden,
Michigan, the response is quite different: "Michigan is
better."

Secondly, their skepticism probably stems from the
fact that the borders have provided them with a different
kind of experience and a different sort of knowledge about
the world. If the Michigan and Indiana students want beer
and fireworks, both are available "across the border." If,
in a traffic violation in one state, they can get back
"across the line" they know that nothing will probably
happen to them — and they are correct. If they want to
"beat the sales tax" in one state they can do so by "crossing
the line." The borders make themselves felt in countless
ways — even state borders - and, often, in ways that generate
feelings of cynicism toward government and politics.132

I shall make one final comment. I am left at the
end of this study with a nagging feeling of frustration.
For the study has been something of an exploration without

discovery. In a way I have answered my questions, but my

questions seem to have been inadequate. I wish that I

132The "border effect" has been noted by others,
particularly in relation to national boundaries. Speaking
of the separating factor of Boundaries, Jones states, "It
is the boundary that impinges on life . . . Few natural
obstacles restrict the movement of persons, things, and
even ideas as completely as do the boundaries of some states."
Stephen B. Jones, BoundaryyMaking: A Handbook for Statesman,
lieaty Editors and Boundary CommisSioners, (Washington,
Carnegie Endowment for‘IhternationaI’Peace, 19A5), p. 11, as
quoted by Ladis K. D. Kristof, "The Nature of Frontiers and
Boundaries," Annals of the Association of American Geogra-

RkE—IE’ sept" 1959’ pp. 269-2820

 

 

339

might have examined, specifically and concretely, the

political cultures of the three states. Instead I have tried

to see if there are "differences" from state to state. There

are some, even in this tightly restricted area. But if I

were to be asked to describe the political culture of Indiana

I could not do so. That would be the work of another study

entirely. In this sense, then, this study must be thought FT
of as another in the long line of studies which are entitled A
"Toward a theory of . . ." whatever it is we are interested
in. I have never found such studies to be very satisfactory.
I think that it would be pleasant to come right out and

state the theory - to describe the cultures. This, regret-

fully, I have not done.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

 

Abbott, Ethelyn Theresa. Michigan Histogy Stories.
Hillsdale, Michigan: Hillsdale SChool Supply Co.,

1936.

Ade, George, ed. Hoosier Hand Book and True Guide for the
.fieturning Exile. Chicago: Indiana Society of'

Chicago, Private Printing, 1911.

Ade, George. I Knew Him When - A Hoosier Fable. Chicago:
Indiana Society of Chicago, Private Printing, 1910.

Alkins, William Avery. Pride In Our State — We Hoosiers!
New York: Newcomen Society, 19L7.

The Politics of

Almond, Gabriel and James S. Coleman, eds.
Princeton

the Developing Areas. New Jersey:
UniversityPress, 1960.

Ardrey, Robert. African Genesis. New York: Atheneum, 1961.

Robert. The Territorial Imperative. New York:

Ardrey,
AtheneumPress, 1966.

Aumann, Francis R. and Harvey Walker. The Government and
Administration of Ohio. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell

Co” E36.

Bailey, Bernadine. Picture Book of Michigan. Chicago:
Whitman and Co., 1950.

_This Is Our Michigan. Battle Creek,

Baird, Willard.
FederatedPuinCations, Inc., 195A.

Michigan:

Bliss, Marjorie. Egchigan: Past and Present. 1962-1963
Series, Classroom 10 TV CounciI,Michi an State
University, East Lansing, Michigan, 19 2.

Essentials of Americanization. Third

Bo ardus Emory S.
g ’ University of Southern

Edition. Los Angeles:
California Press, 1923.

340

 

341

A Self-Appraisal.

Carmony, Donald F., ed. Indiana:
Indiana University‘Press, 1966.

Bloomington, Indiana:

Carpenter, Allan. Indiana - From Its Glorious Past to the
Present. Chicago: *Childrens Press, 1966.

Michigan - From Its Glorious Past to the

Carpenter, Allan.
Chicago: Childrens Press, 1964.

Present.

Carpenter, Allan. Ohio - From Its Glorious Past to the
Present. Chicago: Childrens Press, 1963.

Collins, William R. Ohio,_The Buckeye State. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, 2nd ed., 1962:

Doob, Leonard W. Patriotism and Nationalism - Their
Psyphologicai'Foundations. Nengaven: Yale

UniversityiPress, 1964.

Dye, Charity. Some Torch Bearers in Indiana. Indianapolis:
Hollenbeck Press, 1917.

From Generation to Generation. Free

Eisenstadt, S. N.
Macmillan Co.,

Press Paperback edition. New YOrk:

1964.

Elazar, Daniel J.
States. New YOrk:

American Federalism: A View From The
Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1966}

Elazar, Daniel J. The American Partnership. Chicago:
University of—Chicago Press, 1962?

The Child and Society, The Process of

Elkin, Frederick.
Newaork: RandomHOuse,I1960.

Socialization.

Fenton, John H. Midwest Politics. New York: Holt,

Rinehart andIWinston,I966.

MichiganLgA Centennial History of the

Fuller, George N. ed.
Chicago: LeWis Publishing

State and Its People.
Co., 1939.

Greene, Alexander. Ohio Government.
Hall, Inc., 1961.

Greenstein, Fred, I. Children and Politics. New Haven:
Yale Universitwaress, 1965f~

New Jersey: Prentice-

Grodzins, Merton. The Loyal and the Disloyal. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1956.

Gunther, John. Inside U.S.A. New York: Harper and Bros.,
1947.

A r. .mna.._1__‘..._. __
‘ 3

 

342

Hatcher, Harlan. _Ihe Buckeye Countgy. New York: G. P.
Putnam's Sons, 2nd ed., 19A7.

Hayes, Carlton J. H. Essays on Nationalism. New York:

Macmillan Co., I926.

Hess, Robert D. and Judith V. Torney, The Development of
Political Attitudes in Children. Chicago: Aldine

Publishing Co., 19671

Hopkins, Charles Edwin. ‘tho: The Beautiful and Historic.
Boston: L. C. Page andCo., I931.

Hyman, Herbert. Political Socialization. Glencoe: The

Free Press, 1959-

Jacob, Herbert and Kenneth N. Vines, eds. Politics in the
American States. Boston: Little, Brown, 1965.

Johannemann, Sister M. Thomas. A Study of Objectives and
Trends in the Teaching of Citizenship inElementary

Schools. Washington: The CatholicUniversity of“
America Press, 1942.

Kallen, Horace M. Culture and Democracy in the United States.
New York: Boni and—Liveright, 192A.

Key, V. O. _§outhern Politics. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,

Inc., 19A9.

Kluckhohn, Clyde. "The Study of Culture," in Sociological
, Lewis A. Coser and Bernard Rosenberg, eds.

Theo
New York: MacMillan Co., 1957.

Lane, Robert E. and David Sears. Ppblic Opinion.
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 196A.

New Jersey:

Leibowitz, Irvin

g. ‘gy Indiana. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 19 A.

Leiserson, Avery. "Political Systems of the World," in
AGOvernment and Politics, Alex N. Dragnich and John

C. Wéhlke, eds.IINew‘YOrk: Random House, 1966.

Lewis, Ferris E. M State and Its Sto . Rev. Ed., Hillsdale,
Michigan: HiIIsdaIe ScHOOI Supply Co., 1953.
Lowe, Berenice Bryant and Leland W. Singer. .flello Michigan.

Syracuse: L. W. Singer Co., 1939.

 

3A3

Mansfield, Harvey C. "The States in the American Systems,"
in .The Forty—Eight States: Their Tasks As Poliqy
.Makers and‘Administrators. *New York: 8th American

Assembly, 1955, pp. 13439.

Martin, John Bartlow. _Indiana: An Interpretation. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1947.

_Ihe Making of Citizens, A Comparative

Merriam, Charles E.
Chicago:

_§tudy of.Methods of Civic Training.
University of Chicago Press, 1931.

.Michigan: A Guide to the Wolverine State. Compiled by
IWOrkers of theWriters’Program of the WPA in the

State of Michigan. New York: Oxford University

Press, 1941.

Newcomb, Delphine. .Exploring Michigan. Chicago: Follett

Pub. Co., 195A.
Efichigan's Thirty-Seven Million Acres of

Newnom, Clyde L.
.Qiamonds. Detroit:

Osgood, Charles E., George J. Suci and Percy H. Tannenbaum.
_Ihe Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University of

IlIinois Press, 1957.

International

Pye. Lucian w. "Political Culture."
*New‘York:

Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.
Macmillan, 1968, V6I1712, pp. 218-224.

Riley, James Whitcomb. Songs 0' Cheer. Indianapolis:
Bobbs~Merrill Co., 1883.

Rose, Albert H. _tho Governmenty State and Local. Dayton:

University ofIDayton_PPess, 3rd ed., 1966.
Seeley, John R., et. al. gpmmunity Chest: A Case Study in

Philanthro '. Toronto: University ofPTOronto
W

Shafer, Boyd C. ,Nationalismy Myth and Reality. New York:
Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1955.

_Indiana State and Local Government.

Sikes, Pressly S.
Principia Press, 1940.

Bloomington,Indiana:

Tarkington, Booth. .Ihe Gentleman from Indiana.
Scribner, 1919.

New York:

The Book ofIMichigan Co., 1927.

 

344

Journal Articles

Easton, David and Jack Dennis. "The Child's Image of
Government," The Annals of the American Academy of

Political and Social Science, V61. 361, September,
1965 , PP- 40-57.

Easton, David and Robert D. Hess. "The Child's Political
World;'Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 6,

August, 1962, pp. 229—266.

Jennings, M; Kent and Richard G. Niemi, "The Transmission of a
Values from Parent to Child." American .

Political
. Political Science Review, Vol. LXII, No. 1, March,

1968, pp. 169—184. ;
ill

of Frontiers and Boundaries,"

of American Geographers,

Kuhn, Manford H. "Self-Attitudes by Age, Sex and Profes-
sional Training," The Sociological Quarterly,

Vol. 1, No. 1, January, 1960, pp. 39-55}
Kuhn, Manford H. and Thomas S. MCPartland. "An Empirical
American Socio-

Investigation of Self-Attitudes,".
logical Review, Vol. 19, February, 195A, pp. 68:76.

Patterson, Samuel C. "The Political Cultures of the American
States," Journal of Politics, Vol. 30, 1968, pp.
187-209.

Sigel, Roberta. "Assumptions About the Learning of Polit—
ical Values," The Annals of the American Academy of

Political and Social Science, Vol.361, Sept., 1965,
pp. 1‘9.

Kristof, Ladis K. D. "The Nature
Annals of the Association

V61. A9, September, 1959,

National and State Government Publications

.Americanization Conference: Proceeding_. Held Under the
Auspices of the Americanization Division, Bureau of
Education, Department of the Interior, May 12-15,

1919. Washington: GPO, 1919.

__ounty and City Data Bookyl9ély U. S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census. Washington: GPO, 1968.

Michigan Economic Expansion Department. This Is Michigan.
Lansing, Michigan, 1964.

 

345

Ohio Development and Publicity Commission. .tho: An
Empire Within An Empire. Columbus, Ohio, 1944.

 

Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1964. U. S.
’Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Washington: GPO., 1965.

 

Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1967. U. S.
‘Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
Washington: GPO, 1968.

 

Miscellaneous Sources

 

Detroit Free Press, May 12, 1966.

Lansing State Journal, April 28, 1968 and July 9, 1968.

Stevens, Arthur R. "Political Culture in the Tri-State
Area of Michigan, Indiana and Ohio." Mimeographed
paper. Lansing, Michigan: Department of Political
Science, Michigan State University, 1965.

Wall Street Journal, December 5, 1967.

 

GENERAL REFERENCES

Books

Almond, Gabriel A. and Sidney Verba. The Civic Culture.

Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University
Press, 1963.

 

Barker, Roger G. and Herbert F. Wright. The Midwest and
Its Children: The Psychology of an American Town.
New‘York: Row, Peterson and‘Co., 1954.

 

Berkson, Isaac B. Theories of Americanization, A Critical
Study. New York: Teachers College, Columbia
University, 1920.

Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller and
Donald E. Stokes. The American Voter. New York:
Wiley and Sons, 1967.

Converse, Philip E. "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass
Publics." Ideology and Discontent, David E. Apter,
ed. New York: Free Press OfIGIencoe, 1964,

D'Antonio, William V. and William H. Form. Influentials in
Two Border Cities: A Study in Communipy‘Decision—
Makihg. Notreihame: University of'Notre Dame
Press, 1965.

 

Gorer, Geoffrey. ,Ihe American People, A Study in National
Character. Rev. Ed. New‘York: W. W. Merton and
Co., 1964.

Gordon, Milton M. Assimilation in American Life. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1964.

Green, Bert F. "Attitude Measurement." Handbook of Social
Psychology, Gardner Lindzey, ed. Cambridge:
AddisonJWesley Publishing Co., 1954. Vol. 1,
pp. 335-369.

Grodzins, Morton. "Centralization and Decentralization in
the American Federal System," in A Nation of States,
Robet A. Goldwin, Ed. Chicago: Rand McNally and
Co., 1961.

346

 

347

Kilpatrick, James J. The Sovereign States. Chicago:
Henry Regnery Co., 1957.

Lee, Gordon C. Education and Democratic Ideals: Philoso—
_phical Backgrounds of Mbdern Educatibnal Thought.
New York: Harcourt,Brace and World, Inc., 1965.

Litt, Edgar. The Political Cultures of Massachusetts.
Cambridge: MIT Press, 1965.

National Education Association of the US. _Tpe Purppses
of Education in American Democracy. Washington:

NEA, 1933. F

l

 

National Education Association of the United States. The
,American Citizens Handbook. washington: NBA, 1951.

National Education Association of the US, The Central Purpose 1
of American Education. Washington: 'NEA, 1961.

The Permanent Ade. Edited by Fred C. Kelly. Indianapolis:
Bobbs—Merrill, 1947.

Pierce, Bessie Louise. Civic Attitudes in American School
_Textbooks. Chicago: University ofIChicagoIPress,

lgjfi 0

Pool, Ithiel de Sola, Robert P. Abelson and Samuel Popkin.
Candidates, Issues and Strategies: A Computer
Simulation ofIthe 1960 and 1964 Presidential
ElectiOns. ‘Rev. ed. Cambridge: ’MIT Press, 1965.

 

 

 

 

Riker, William H. .Qemocracy_in the United States. New
York: Macmillan Co., 1953.

Roche, John P. The Early Development of United States
CitizenShip. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press, 1949.

 

White, Leonard D. The States and the Nation. Baton Rouge:
Louisiana UniverSity Press, 1953.

 

Wrightstone, J. Wayne and Doak S. Campbell. Social Studies
and the American Way of Life. New York: ROw,
Peterson and‘Co., 1942.

 

w'wv—V-
' I: . _.. -, .. H—m ."W can--_- ~ “MW-~w # ~

 

348

Journal Articles

Barnett, John V. "Indiana Teaches Politics to School
Children." National Municipal Review, Vol. 45,
June, 1956, p. 304.

Bjorklund, Elaine M. "Ideology and Culture Exemplified in
Southwestern Michigan," Annals of the Association
of American Geographers, Vol. 54, June, 1964,
pp. 227-241.

Easton, David and Jack Dennis. "The Child's Acquisition of
Regime Norms: Political Efficacy," American
Political Science Review, Vol. 61, MarCh, 1967,
pp.2sas.

Elkin, Frederick. "Socialization and the Presentation of
Self," Marriage and Family Living, Vol. 20, Nov.,
1958, pp-320-325.

Froman, Lewis A., Jr. "Personality and Political Social—
ization." Journal of Politics, Vol. 23, May, 1961,
PP- 341-352.

Graham, Michael. "Crowds and the Like in Vertebrates,"
Human Relations, Vol. 17, No. 4, November, 1964,
PP- 377-390.

Greenstein, Fred I. "Personality and Political Socialization:
The Theories of Authoritarian and Democratic Charac-
ter," Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science, VOl. 361, September, 1965,
pp.Sl-95.

 

Greenstein, Fred, I. "Sex-Related Political Differences in
Childhood," Journal of Politics, Vol. 23, May, 1961,
pp. 353—371.

Keesecker, Ward W. "State Laws Requiring Teaching of
Citizenship in the Schools," School Life, Vol. 24,
January, 1939, pp. 112-113.

Langton, Kenneth P. "Peer Group and School and the Political
Socialization Process." American Political Science
REVIEW, V01. LXI, I10. 3, septa, lgéT, pp. 751-3738.

Levin, Martin L. "Social Climates and Political Socialization."
Public Opinion Qparterly. Vol. 25, Winter, 1961,
pp. 596—606.

 

 

 

349

Litt, Edgar. "Civic Education, Community Norms and Political
Indoctrination," American Sociological Review,
V01. 28’ FGb. 1963’ pp. 69‘730

"The Most Important Task," National MUnicipal Review,
V010 1+5, Ida-y, 1956, pp. 212213.

Orren, Karen and Paul Peterson. "Presidential Assassination:
A Case Study in the Dynamics of Political Sociali—
zation." Journal of Politics, Vol. 29, May, 1967,
pp. 388'h040

Campbell, Donald T. and Robert A. Levine. "A Proposal for
Cooperative Cross-Cultural Research on Ethnocentrism."
,The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. V, No. 1,
March, 1961, pp. 82-108.

Tannenbaum, Percy H. and Jack M. McLeod. "On the Measurement
of Socialization," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 31,
Spring, 1967, pp. 27-37.

Westley, William A. and Frederick Elkin. "The Protective
Environment and Adolescent Socialization." Social
Forces, Vol. 35, March, 1957, pp. 243—249.

"Whose Hoosiers," Economist, Vol. 189, November 1, 1958,
p. 417.

 

APPENDIX A

 

APPENDIX A

The Questionnaire

Preliminary Note: The survey research was not conducted by
means of the usual standard questionnaire. Iden—
tical questions were, of course, asked. But for
a variety of reasons, involving time, as well as
the threatening nature of a large questionnaire
administered to many students who are functionally
illiterate, the students were given a series of
rather simple answer sheets. The questions were
then presented to the studants both orally and by
means of an overhead projector. The answer sheets
are not reproduced below. The questions, however,
were as follows, and they were asked in the order
shown.

 

Part I: They were asked to respond to the question "Who
Am I?" The children wrote their answers on
mimeographed 3 x 5 cards with spaces for a maxi-
mum of twenty answers. This part was administered
by their classroom teachers, and took place a few
days before the main questionnaire was given.

Part II: The following questions were asked:

1. The Governor of Michi an is: (Supply name and name of
political party.

2. The Governor of Ohio is: (Supply name and name of
political party.)

3. The Governor of Indiana is: (Supply name and name of
political party.)

4. The United States Senators from your state are: (Su -
ply names and names of their political parties.

5. Massachusetts is called "The Bay State."
Michigan is called: (Supply the nickname of the
state.)
Indiana is called: (Supply the nickname of the
state.)
Ohio is called: (Supply the nickname of the state.)

350

351

6. Do you have a favorite radio station? (Space provided
for No or Yes. If Yes, give name of station and
state in which city and state it is located.)

7. If you could subscribe to any "big city" newspaper you
wanted to, which one would it be? (Identify by
name and state where published.)

8. Do your parents regularly receive at home a daily
newspaper (or papers)? (Space provided for No
or Yes. If Yes, give name and state where
published.)

9. Do your parents regularly buy a Sunday newspaper?
(Space provided for No or Yes. If Yes, give
name and state where published.)

 

10. If you and your parents wanted to go to "the city" to
do some shopping, which city would you go to?
(Space provided for name of city and state.)

11. Do you have a favorite professional baseball team?
(Space provided for No or Yes. If Yes, furnish
the name of the team.)

12. Do you have a favorite professional basketball team?
(Space provided for No or Yes. If Yes, furnish
the name of the team.)

13. Do you have a favorite professional football team?
(Space provided for No or Yes. If Yes, furnish
the name of the team.)

14. Do you consciously think of yourself as a Michiganian
- Hoosier - Buckeye? (The question would vary
with the state of residence. Space provided for
Yes or No.)

Part III: The following questions were asked:

1. Are you a male or a female?

2. How old are you?

3. In what state were you born?

4. How far away from your present home were you born?
0 - 20 miles?
20 — 50 miles?
50 - 100 miles?

100 - 500 miles?
500 or more miles?

10.

ll.

12.

13.

352

How many of your grandparents live (or lived) in this
state?

How many of your first cousins live in this state?
None?
Just a few?
The majority?
All of them?

In how many different states have your lived? (NO
vacations.)

Which one of the following do you think you will do
after you leave high school?
Four year College or University?
Junior College?
Business of Trade School?
Armed Forces?
Seek Employment?
Other?

In what state do you expect to go to school or to
seek employment?

How soon do you expect to be married? (Asked only of
the seniors.)
Within the next year?
Within two or three years?
Within four or five years?
Do not know?
Never?

In what state do you expect to live when you are
"grown up"?

How much formal education has your father had?
O - 4 years?
5 - 8 years?
9 - 11 years?
High School graduate?
Some College?
College Graduate?
Post Graduate?
(Not Applicable, or Do Not Know.)

How much formal education has your mother had? (Same
choices as given above for father.)

 

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

353

Your father's occupation is:
Farm
Factory-shop
Combination factory—farm
Business man
Professional man
Clerical
Unemployed
Retired
Other
(Not applicable)

Your mother's occupation is:
Housewife
Factory-shop
Office
Store, etc.
Teacher
Other
(Not applicable)

Your father normally works in:
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Other state
(Not applicable)

Your mother normally works in: (Same choices as given
above for father.)

Which of the following would apply to you and your
family's connection with a church?
No connection
Slight connection
Active in church
Very active in church

In what state is your church located?
Indiana
Ohio
Michigan
(Not Applicable)

How many extra-curricular activities do you take part
in? (Such as drama, athletics, schoolpaper, band,
student government, etc.)

None
Few
Many
Very Many

 

21.

22.

23.

24.

25o

26.

27o

28.

29.

354

Do you think that you are in the upper or the lower
half of your class, so far as your marks are
concerned?

Upper
Lower

Compare your state to Texas. Do you think that your
state is:
Better than Texas?
Same as Texas?
Worse than Texas?

Compare your state to Illinois. (Same responses as
in #22.)

Compare your state to California. (Same responses as _
in #22.) '

Compare your state to Mississippi. (Same responses
as in #22.)

Compare your state to Florida. (Same responses as
in #22.)

Indiana students: Compare your state to Ohio and to

 

Michigan.

Ohio students: Compare your state to Indiana and

 

Michigan.

Michigan students: Compare your state to Indiana and
Ohio. (In each case the responses would be the

same as in #22.)

Here are the Big Ten Football Teams. Year after year
which one would you most like to go to the Rose

Bowl?

Illinois Minnesota
Indiana Northwestern
Iowa Ohio State
Michigan Purdue
Michigan State Wisconsin

If you stole a car in another state and brought it
into your own state you could be arrested by
the FBI, the State Police, the County Sheriff
or the Local Police. From which one would you
expect to receive the fairest treatment?

FBI

State Police
County Sheriff
Local Police

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

355

In the last question — which one do 0 ' 'g
be most easily bribed? y u think m1 ht
FBI
State Police
County Sheriff
Local Police

In the last question — if an adult were arrested by the
State Police in your state, do you think that
bribery would be:

Impossible?
Barely Possible?
Quite possible?
Very possible?

SO far as political parties are concerned, your parents 1
are:
Both Democrats
Both Republicans
Democrat - Republican
Democrat — Independent
Republican - Independent
Both Independent
Other
Don't know
(Not applicable)

So far as political parties are concerned, you are:
Democrat
Republican
Independent
Other
Don't know

DO you discuss politics at home with your folks:
Often?
Occasionally?
Never?

Do you talk about politics with other people your
own age:
Often?
Occasionally?
Never?

We know that many people in America do not bother to
vote. At election time — so far as you know -
do your folks:

Usually vote?
Occasionally vote?
Never vote?

Don't know?

 

356

37. In any election do you think that you usually know

pow your folks vote? (For whom, or for what?)
es

No
38. Do you usually listen to a radio news broadcast?
No

39. Do yo? usually watch a news show on TV?
es
No

40. Do yo? usually look at a daily newspaper?
es
No

41. Do you usually read one of the newsmagazines?
Yes
No

Part IV: Each of the following items was rated by the
students on three bi-polar, seven-point scales -
the Semantic Differential. The scales were la-
beled weak — strong, unfair - fair, passive -
active. It will be noted that there is one

neutral item and two "nonsense" items included in

the list. This was to provide a change of pace.
The questions were also asked in "groups" of
eight or nine, with a brief pause between each
group. These questions were not asked of the
fifth graders. Pre-testing shawed that they
were capable of responding, but time limitations

and fatigue prevented their use during the actual

investigation.
1. John Doe.
2. The Anti—poverty program.
3. The Civil Rights Movement.
4. The Space Program.
5. Medicare.
6. The Vietnam War.
7. The United Nations.
8. Politics.

9. Bowl of Soggy Cornflakes.

 

357

 

 

10. Harry Truman.

11. Dwight Eisenhower.

12. Barry Goldwater.

13. Lyndon Johnson.

14. Our National Government.

15. Our State Government.

16. Our Local Government.

17. Superman.

18. State Officials.

19. State Income Tax.

20. State Sales Tax.

21. State Aid to Education.

22. Federal Aid to Education.

23. Federal Aid for Highways.

24. Federal Aid for Urban Renewal.

25. Politicians.

26. Political Parties

Aichigan Students Ohio Students

27. Michigan Ohio

28. Michigan State Ohio State Police
Police

29. Michigan State Ohio State Parks
Parks

30. Michigan Ohio Highways
Highways

31. Mich. St. Coll. Ohio St. Coll.

and Univ. and Univ. Sys.
Sys.

Indiana Students
Indiana

Indiana State
Police

Indiana State
Parks

Indiana Highways

Ind. St. Coll.
and Univ. Sys.

 

 

358

32. Michigan Ohio Politics Indiana Politics
Politics

33. George Romney James Rhodes ROger Branigin

Part V: The Map Game. The overhead projector was employed,

with a set of transparencies made up with a series
of overlays. The students responded on answer
sheets to the questions. The script is set out
below.

1. Show outline map of United States, with all state bound-
aries indicated.

Comment: As you know this is a map of the United States.
It looks perfectly normal to us. We are used to seeing -
it this way. But it has not always looked this way - in A
fact this map is not a complete map of the US since it

does not show the two newest states, Alaska and Hawaii.

Through time, then, the map of the United States has

changed its shape and its appearance.

 

Suppose now that we were in a position to change it
some more - to make it "better" or "more logical" or
"more efficient" or something of that sort. Suppose
that we simply eliminated all of the states and started
out to rearrangehit as we wished. To begin with we
would have but one huge country — without any states or
any other kinds of divisions.

2. Show outline map of US only — state boundaries removed.

Comment: This is how it would look. All of the states
are gone. All of the people would simply be "Americans."
There would be but one big national government - in
Washington if we wanted it to remain there - plus the
cities and the towns. If anyone wanted to know where
you were from you would simply say "I live in Angola,
USA." (Or Reading, Montpelier). This, plus perhaps
your zip code, is all that you would "be."

,Question: Would you approve, or would you disapprove
of'such an arrangement? Mark your answer sheet as
instructed. Whether you approved of it or not, do you
think that if the country were actually changed in this
manner that it would upset you? Mark sheet again.

359

Show outline with 4 main census regions.

Comment: Suppose we realized that the country was too
large to handle simply as one unit. SO the suggestion
is made to divide it into four sections or regions
based more or less on the population. The country might
then look like this. You can see that all of us living
in this part of the country would then be called "North
Centralites."

Question: Now - three questions. First, do you think
that this arrangement is better or worse than #1? Mark
sheet. Second, would you approve or disapprove of such
a rearrangement of our country? Mark sheet. Third,
whether you approved of it or not, do you think that if
the country were actually changed in this manner that
it would upset you? Mark sheet again.

Show outline with 9 geographic divisions.

Comment: Now let us divide it up again. This time we
wiII do it on the basis of logical geographic areas. It
now might look like this - with nine divisions ranging
from the New England Division to the Pacific Division.
All of us in this part of the country would then be
known as "East North Centralites."

AQuestion: Now - four questions. First, do you think
that this arrangement is better or worse than #1? Mark
sheet. Second do you think this arrangement is better
or worse than 2? Third, would you approve or disap-
prove of such a rearrangement of our country? Mark
sheet. Fourth, whether you approved of it or not, do
you think that if the country were actually changed in
this manner that it would upset you? Mark sheet.

Return to the outline map with all of the state bound-
aries on it.

Comment: Well, if we continued to divide it up we might
just as well go back to the original states we started
with. So perhaps the thing to do is to think about

some of the smaller changes we might make. (Point to
following:) We might straighten out the borders of Idaho.
We might combine Delaware with New Jersey. We might
combine Rhode Island with Connecticut. We might eliminate
the "handle" of Oklahoma. It might be easier to make

this type of change than it would be to change the

whole appearance of things.

 

360

Show tri—state area of Michigan, Indiana and Ohio - first

on national map, and then enlarged by themselves, with
borders as they are.

Comment: (At this point the comment will vary for each
of the three towns - Angola is used here as an example.)
But instead of thinking about states that are far away
let's look right here at home to see if even this kind

of a change would be ver practical. Here is where you
live right now. (Point. Now let us, for some reason,
move the border around. If I move it this way you peOple
in Angola no longer live in Indiana, you live in Michigan.
If I move it like this you live in Ohio. If we do this
(move) you are no longer Hoosiers, you are Michiganians.

Or if I do this (move again) you are no longer Hoosiers,
you are Buckeyes.

_Question: Would you approve or disapprove of any border
change the effect of which would be to place your town
in another state? Mark sheet. If for some reason the
border pad to be changed, which of the other two states
would you choose to become a part of? Mark sheet.

Finally, as a practical matter, do you think it would be
easy or difficult to make an change at this point in

time in any of the borders 0' any of our states? Mark
sheet.

 

 

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

l§pme Responses by Fifth Grade Children
_po the Question V 0 Am ?"

I am a stunendt. gm
I am a behaved child. ;
I am a paper paser outer. A
belver in god.

I am kind.

I am good.

not dum.

swinger.

a nice keep girl.

a Sunshine girl.

a girl friend to another girl.

frard of the dark.

a girl whose favorite food is green beans cooked in butter.

a master tomy pets.

perrty skiney.

a human bean.

a small thinker.

a mamel.

I like hores.

animal lover (many of these).

361

 

362

I'm a friend to anmials.

brow eyed, brow haird.

a war Hater.

I congalate kids when they win.
kind of hevy.

ash blonde hairied.

wear a size 5% shoe.

4 ft 11 in.

I am dum.

figer, 36,24,36.

I like dogs, I like pigs, I like girls, I like Meny skirts.

I dont no when I was born.

HICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

N H W ‘ill HAHN H

 

Y1293103332619