Rural Sociology 70(3), 2005, pp. 314–335
Copyright Ó 2005 by the Rural Sociological Society
Community, Ethnicity, and Class in a Changing
Rural California Town*
Sergio Chávez
Department of Development Sociology
Cornell University
ABSTRACT This study investigates how community is constructed, maintained,
and contested among diverse residents of a rural town in California’s Central
Valley. Drawing on observations, interviews, and archival material, I examine
the way in which ethnicity and class play a significant role in recasting how
community is organized and interpreted by Mexicans and long-term white
residents. In my field site, Mexicans have long been involved in (in)formal
community-making, yet long-term white residents perceive a ‘‘loss of
community’’ because social relations are no longer structured around an
agrarian culture that at one time reinforced ties through volunteerism and
interaction in local mainstream institutions. This article demonstrates the
continual significance of place and interaction in defining community, but
suggests that immigrants develop communities of need aimed at providing
important social, emotional, and political support absent in mainstream
society. Finally, this study also speaks of the competition for representation
and respectability among rural residents developing a sense of belonging.
‘‘Community’’ is never simply the recognition of cultural similarity or
social contiguity but a categorical identity that is premised on various
forms of exclusion and constructions of otherness
(Gupta and Ferguson 1997:13).
Introduction
In recent decades, the population of Latinos, particularly Mexicans, has
grown in rural areas due to workers migrating in search of agricultural
employment (Allensworth and Rochin 1998; Krissman 1995; Palerm
1991). While at one time Mexican immigrants were seen primarily as
sojourners, today they are rapidly becoming permanent residents who
have a vested interest in the social and economic development of the
communities they reside in (Chavez 1992; Hondagneu-Sotelo 1994;
* I would like to gratefully acknowledge Dr. Max J. Pfeffer and Dr. Karen Watson-Gegeo
for their patience and support in the development of this manuscript. Their mentoring
and commitment to my academic growth are extremely appreciated. I would also like to
thank Dr. Gary Green and the anonymous reviewers for their enthusiasm for my study.
Finally, I am also grateful to Becky Marquez, Suyapa Portillo, Diana Hernandez, and Robin
Kreider for editorial suggestions. Any remaining errors are solely my responsibility. Direct
correspondence to: Sergio Chávez, 119 Warren Hall, Department of Development
Sociology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853; email: src22@cornell.edu.
315
Pfeffer and Parra 2003). Despite the growth of immigrants, they are
seldom recognized as full community members by long-term white
residents of European heritage (Allensworth and Rochin 1998; Grey
and Woodrick 2002; Naples 1994; Palerm 1991). In many cases,
Mexicans are depicted as disengaged from community life, but, as I will
show, they have formed communities of need as a means of providing the
same social, cultural, and economic support found in mainstream
groups and organizations and for reasons related to ethnicity and class.
This paper examines how the notion of community is constructed,
maintained, and contested by both long-term white residents and
Mexicans in a rural California town. Previous studies of rural
communities have highlighted the significance of interaction and place
as defining features of what constitutes community. I find the previous
approach useful, but argue that we must also integrate ethnicity and
class in interactionist formulations as a means of understanding how
subaltern interactions challenge the dominant agrarian view of
community in rural places. At my field site, Mexicans have been
actively involved in both formal and informal community-making.1
However, long-term white residents’ control of social resources and
institutions has allowed them to effectively maintain an idealized
agrarian culture which promotes homogeneity and cohesiveness.
Subsequently, Mexicans have been depicted as disengaged from
community life because they do not subscribe to the dominant narrative of community formation based on an agrarian culture.
I begin by reviewing the literature on rural community studies with
a focus on the significance of interaction and place. Second, I present findings that demonstrate how Mexicans have established their own
forms of community. Third, I present the empirical findings that
illustrate how the dominant narrative of community formation was
historically constructed and how it continues to be maintained by the
dominant group in power. Finally, I show how Mexicans actively engage in contesting the agrarian culture which they argue does not
capture their lived experiences. By situating the lived experiences of
Mexicans against the dominant narrative of community formation, I
show that immigrant members defined community participation based
not only on collective involvement in formal organizations, but also on
the daily routines of survival and the maintenance and preservation of
cultural practices in an environment in which immigrants were seen as
second-class citizens. At my study site, white residents have maintained
1
When speaking of people of Mexican descent at my research setting, I use Mexican
and not Mexican American, Chicano, or Latino because it was the most commonly used
term for self-identification regardless of birthplace.
15490831, 2005, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1526/0036011054831224 by Intel Corporation, Wiley Online Library on [22/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Community and Ethnicity — Chávez
Rural Sociology, Vol. 70, No. 3, September 2005
a remarkable collective memory highlighting the contributions of
white residents, but in the process have depicted Mexicans as disengaged from community life. Understanding why Mexicans were
excluded from the white historical narrative provides important insights
into the process of community formation in diverse rural places.
Community in Rural Studies: A Review of the Literature
The study of community has long captivated the interest of sociologists.
As social life throughout the United States experienced urbanization
and incorporation into the capitalist economy over the past century,
sociologists considered whether intimate social relations in rural places
would be compromised under such changing conditions (Durkheim
1933; Salamon 2003b; Tonnies 1957). As a result, sociologists have
sought to examine the nature of social relations in rapidly changing
societies experiencing economic, political, and social development. Of
particular interest to sociologists has been conceptualizing community
and monitoring its development in modern society.
Some 94 definitions of community have been offered by sociologists
with the unit of analysis varying from families, to groups, and to
populations (Hillery 1955). Generally, however, there has been
a consistent pattern of how community has been defined when
speaking of rural areas. Early pioneers in rural sociology defined
community as an association of people who share common social
interests and who develop a sense of solidarity from their participation
with others in institutions, groups, and farm life (Ensminger and
Polson 1946; Sanderson and Polson 1939). What these conceptualizations of rural and other communities have in common is an emphasis
on interaction and place as the defining features of what makes
community2 (Hillery 1955; Kaufman 1959; Morris 1963; Selznick
1992). That is, people define their community and its parameters
through daily interaction with others in a given local geographical area.
Rural towns have been ideal places to study the formation of
community because in these areas interaction and locality plays such
an integral role in sustaining social relations across generations.
Most recently, Wilkinson (1991) has reinvigorated the interactionist
approach to the sociology of community. In his conceptualization of
community, Wilkinson argues that the two main factors that contribute
to the formation of community are interaction and place. He goes on to
2
In this study, I deal with the interactionist approach to community. However, I
recognize that this is only one of the many approaches to community for there are also
symbolic constructionist (Cohen 1985), structural and human ecology (Hawley 1986;
Young 1999), and political economy perspectives as well (Davis 1992; Molotch 1976).
15490831, 2005, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1526/0036011054831224 by Intel Corporation, Wiley Online Library on [22/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
316
317
state, ‘‘Social interaction delineates a territory as the community locale;
it provides the associations that comprise the local society; it gives
structure and direction to processes of collective action; and it is the
source of community identity’’ (Wilkinson 1991:13). For Wilkinson and
other sociologists who study the community from an interactionist
perspective, intense and sustained interaction are essential for developing a common identity because it is through this process that
people learn about one another and develop an awareness of each
other’s struggles, hopes, and fears.
Salamon (2003b) has also taken an interactionist view in her study of
agrarian communities in the Midwest. According to Salamon (2003b:5)
agrarian communities are ‘‘cultural systems densely connected by social
networks that link families in functional and emotional ways.’’ The
agrarian community is premised upon the fact that social relations are
tied together by multigenerational families living in close proximity,
who own their property, and are tied to farming. Moreover, families
whose lives revolve around the agrarian ideology support the idea of
gemeinschaft, or close knit collectives of people who depend on each
other for social, political, and economic livelihood (Naples 1994, 2000;
Salamon 2003a). These beliefs, according to Salamon (2003b), translate into a more cohesive and productive community, one in which
social relations are nourished through frequent interactions between
residents, leading to increased social capital.3 Previous research has
demonstrated that social capital is important because as a social
resource, it is embedded in community networks that build solidarity
and trust which are, in turn, essential for building stable environments
and bridging relations among diverse community members (Eckstein
2001; MacTavish and Salamon 2001; Putnam 1996; Putnam 2000;
Salamon and Tornatore 1994). Salamon (2003b) suggests that we are
currently entering a postagrarian transformation in the Midwest in
which close social relations, which were characteristic of agrarian
communities, are being replaced by informal social ties because
residents’ lives are less tied to the local place that they inhabit. What
emerges is tension between oldtimers and newcomers who share
different worldviews of what constitutes community. For oldtimers,
community continues to be shaped by place and interaction defined
around agrarian ideals based on gemeinschaft, whereas newcomers
challenge this mode of social organization.
3
Putnam (1996:34) defines social capital as ‘‘features of social life–networks, norms,
and trust–that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared
objectives.’’ For an overview, discussion, and critique of the concept of social capital, see
also Portes (1998).
15490831, 2005, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1526/0036011054831224 by Intel Corporation, Wiley Online Library on [22/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Community and Ethnicity — Chávez
Rural Sociology, Vol. 70, No. 3, September 2005
Critics of the idealized representation of agrarian studies have argued
that since the 1930s, these studies have constructed a nostalgic view of
rural life that privileges the cohesiveness and relations that govern rural
social life (Rossi 2001; Tauxe 1998). Moreover, critics argue that these
studies have romanticized and exaggerated the presence of such virtues
as family stability, neighborly helpfulness, Christian morality, hard work,
and patriotism in rural places (Tauxe 1998). As a result, community
studies have tended to create a simplified understanding of community
and did not adequately account for the history of ethnic and class
conflict, marginalization, and resistance that are ingrained in constructions of community (Alleyne 2002; Belsky 1999). I will show that
other forms of belonging are compromised when we focus solely on
gemeinschaft as the underlying basis of social relations in a community.
Recent economic restructuring and the influx of immigrants into
rural places has disrupted previous patterns of social relations among
tightly-knit homogenous populations (Naples 1994). Although workingclass groups and minorities have a long history of involvement, they
continue to be perceived as ‘‘socially disengaged isolates’’ who do not
care about the welfare of the neighborhoods where they live (Newman
2001:175). Therefore, when ethnic minorities are present in towns and
cities, long-term residents perceive a ‘‘loss of community’’ because they
depict ethnic minorities as socially disconnected from civil society (Neal
2002; Rossi 2001).
In this paper, I examine how community is constructed by Mexicans
and long-term white residents in an agrarian town in California’s
Central Valley that I shall name Yodoy.4 Additionally, I consider how
power differentials and diversity in the town’s interactions have resulted
in the privileging of the dominant community field at the expense of
what Mexicans have contributed. As a side note, I recognize that
community is an elusive concept with varying definitions that are
situationally defined, but I focus on community because it was such an
important part of what citizens readily discussed in both public and
private spheres in Yodoy (Bell and Newby 1971; Gardner 2004; Selznick
1992). As Bell’s (1992) ethnography of Childerley demonstrates,
community continues to be an important source of social identity
structured around ideas of gemeinschaft for people living in the
countryside. The transformation of the countryside, however, by
increased migration has strained the social organization of community,
prompting us to ask: What are the implications of rising ethnic and
4
The names of all places and individuals have been changed to maintain the
anonymity of participants. Additionally, I deliberately left out the name of the local history
book and its authors to prevent the identification of the town.
15490831, 2005, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1526/0036011054831224 by Intel Corporation, Wiley Online Library on [22/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
318
319
class differences in rural places for community formation? How do
perceptions of community change with increased diversity and conflict?
For the purposes of this study, I define class as ‘‘the condition in
which a number of people share common life chances insofar as those
are determined by their power to attain goods, services, and income in
the market place—specifically in labor, credit, and commodity markets’’
(Walton 1997:247). In turn, I see these life chances as not only the way
people organize themselves to access social resources in the market
place, but also at the level of the neighborhood, town, and community.
Moreover, I see ethnicity and class as being inextricably linked and
forming a sense of social identity that defines people’s attachment to
others, particularly through the construction of social boundaries
(Barth 1969; Menchaca 1995). Nagel (1994:154) eloquently captures
my position on ethnic boundaries when she states, ‘‘Ethnicity is created
and recreated as various groups and interests put forth competing
visions of the ethnic composition of society and argue which rewards or
sanctions should be attached to which ethnicities.’’ Thus, in my study,
ethnicity and class are factors (not problems) which lead to diverse
locally oriented action which contributed to creating community in
ways that are meaningful to people’s livelihoods. What better place to
understand how ethnicity and class informs the construction of
community-based identities than in rapidly changing rural California.
The Study
Data and Methods
This study is based on ethnographic field research that I conducted
from September of 1997 to July 1998. For this study, I consulted primary
and secondary information from a variety of sources during the first two
phases. The first phase of the study consisted of reviewing secondary
resources that included newspaper clippings about the town, the 1990
and 2000 U.S. Census data, books on the history of the town and region,
public reports, and letters written by the town historian. This initial
phase of data collection was conducted to understand the important
events that shaped long-term residents’ understanding of place and the
growth of ethnic diversity in the region. During my examination of the
town’s historical archives, I came to realize that volunteerism and
participation were important obligations that long-term white residents
saw as key to the reproduction of social relations and developing a sense
of community. An important secondary resource was the local history
book written by the county and town historian. This book vividly
illustrated the agrarian culture which shaped local relations. Its message
was simple but effective; the town was represented as a cohesive place
15490831, 2005, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1526/0036011054831224 by Intel Corporation, Wiley Online Library on [22/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Community and Ethnicity — Chávez
Rural Sociology, Vol. 70, No. 3, September 2005
where neighbors cared about one another and were actively involved in
town affairs. While not all residents subscribe to the nostalgic feeling,
the book, nonetheless, reaffirms the dominant view of community,
and neglects the contributions of Mexicans.
To understand the significance of participation for the 10 months of
the study, I also attended school and town meetings, the Neighborhood
Watch Program, the annual community dinner, and several senior
citizen luncheons. I documented the purposes of the meetings, who
attended, and whenever possible I took verbatim notes. Given the white
residents’ widely held view that Mexicans were not involved in
community affairs, I tried to understand why this was the case. I
conducted in-depth interviews with farmers and farmworkers, town
leaders, school officials, and social service providers. During interviews
residents were asked about their perceptions regarding the increase of
diversity in town and how this affected how they viewed their neighbors.
The interviews provided insight on how perceptions of community
differed given people’s length of stay, immigration status, class, and
cultural backgrounds. I conducted almost 20 in-depth interviews with
residents in their homes, the school, and public places. The interviews
averaged one and a half hours each, and were tape recorded and
transcribed. Another 25 interviews were conducted informally with
residents where handwritten notes were taken. All observations and
interviews were eventually typed and then coded to analyze common
patterns and themes. I gained access to both long-term white and
Mexican residents through my volunteerism in school activities,
community celebrations, and public meetings where I identified key
informants who helped to establish contacts with other residents. My
bicultural and bilingual skills helped to assure that I could easily engage
in conversations with both recent immigrants and long-term residents
of diverse backgrounds. Mexican residents were interviewed in Spanish
to ensure comprehension and to facilitate full expression. Finally, two
masters in science theses, previously based on related research in the
town, were consulted that found similar patterns of racism, segregation,
and the erasure of Mexicans as community participants.
Description of the setting. According to the 2000 United States Census5
of the 1,776 residents living in the zip code that encompasses Yodoy,
more than half of the population is of Mexican origin. The Census
indicates that one-third of the overall population in the area is ‘‘foreign
born,’’ and that half of all Mexican households speak Spanish as their
5
Unless otherwise indicated, all data was derived from the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau.
The 1990 Census was only used as a point of comparison to current median household
income and poverty levels.
15490831, 2005, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1526/0036011054831224 by Intel Corporation, Wiley Online Library on [22/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
320
321
primary language (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Interestingly, the town
has a high turnover rate in terms of residency: 12 percent of the
population over the age of five years resided in a different county in
1995, and 15 percent of the ‘‘foreign born’’ population came to the area
between 1990 and 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000).
Long-term white residents, who comprise most of the elderly
population (11 percent) are of German, Irish, English, French, and
Italian descent, according to the 2000 Census. Most long-term residents
have at one time or another been involved in farming and have spent
their life in Yodoy, but are today retired. In recent years, Yodoy, like many
other rural places in the U.S., has experienced the growth of the elderly
population and its economy has declined due to farm concentration and
business closures (Salamon 2003a). According to the 2000 Census,
agriculture (22.6 percent) followed by education and social services (16
percent) are the largest industries employing persons over the age of 16.
The 1999 median household income for residents of the area ($37,167)
is lower than the state’s overall median ($47,493), but the poverty level
was modest at 10 percent, considering that most families derive their
income from wage-labor in agriculture (U.S. Census Bureau 2000).
Although Mexicans and long-term white residents live in proximity of
each other, the social space of Yodoy is one marked by the creation of
social boundaries. Each group lives in distinct areas of the town, and for
the most part, white residents and Mexicans seldom interacted with
each other. Long-term white residents lived near the public library,
volunteer fire department, and Community Center (which also hosts
the Neighborhood Watch Program, Senior Citizen Luncheons, and the
Advisory Committee meetings) and used these spaces to reinforce their
agrarian views of social relations. In contrast, Mexicans live in closer
proximity to the local elementary school (which ran such activities as
Parent Teachers Club, English as Second Language classes, and other
informal volunteer activities), and they were more likely to participate
in this institution. Long-term white residents frequently complained
that Mexicans were not actively involved in promoting a sense of
community which they believed undermined the close social relations
which once marked this agrarian town. However, Mexicans were not
absent in creating community; their participation simply did not
conform to the dominant view of how community ought to be
accomplished, as we learn from the following section.
Mexicans’ Contribution to Community Making
The collective actions of Mexicans aimed at improving their socioeconomic status has long existed as part of their economic and cultural
15490831, 2005, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1526/0036011054831224 by Intel Corporation, Wiley Online Library on [22/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Community and Ethnicity — Chávez
Rural Sociology, Vol. 70, No. 3, September 2005
livelihood. Since the turn of the twentieth century, voluntary
associations have been an integral part of Mexican’s incorporation
into U.S. society (Orozco 1994; Pichardo 1992). In the 1930s, Yodoy’s
region saw the establishment of the Comite de Campesinos (Comite) whose
function was to provide protection for Mexicans living abroad
(Rodriguez 1993). The Comite helped integrate immigrants by providing access to healthcare, employment, and housing; promoting ethnic and cultural festivities; and organizing against exploitation in the
workplace (Pichardo 1992). While the Comite was an active organization
in Yodoy, it was never mentioned as an organization that provided
important services to the community nor as an organization that
created loyalty and mutual obligation among residents. The presence of
the Comite was important for a town that has historically marginalized
the political status of its nonwhite citizens. Griselda Cervantes, for
example, recalled that historically, ‘‘Nobody was allowed to be in
[community] programs if you were not a citizen. You could not practice
your rights as a member of a community to serve your community or
represent a group.’’ Many Mexican residents asserted that they were
willing to become part of formal social organizations, but there were
barriers that prevented them from exercising their rights as community
citizens. Additionally, recent Mexican immigrants were less likely to be
involved in formal social organizations because of their undocumented
status, lack of English competency, or simply because these organizations did not cater to their needs. Nonetheless, community for
Mexicans was constructed through participation in an organization that
they saw as important to their well-being in U.S. society.
Numerous other examples can be found in which Mexicans are
actively involved in promoting communities of need both formally and
informally. For example, Soto-Alberti (1992) found many of Yodoy’s
Mexican American and Mexican immigrants actively giving time to the
town. He found that many of Yodoy’s Mexicans were involved in
organized extracurricular activities for youth at school and the local
Catholic church. Moreover, Mexican women were active leaders as they
served valuable roles in the Parent Teacher Club and Comite. In other
instances, they cooked for fundraising events and designed costumes
for Mexican festivities. In my observations at an English-as-a-secondlanguage night class for immigrants, I also found that low-income
women discussed state and local politics; taught each other the ins and
outs of social service agencies; and created networks that helped to
strategize ways to help raise money in the school. Mexicans were also
actively involved in the maintenance of the local park where they held
soccer tournaments as a means to promote a sport that they saw as
closely tied to their Mexican national identity and as a means to expand
15490831, 2005, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1526/0036011054831224 by Intel Corporation, Wiley Online Library on [22/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
322
323
their ties amongst themselves and those they competed against.
Moreover, they participated in the maintenance of the park despite
the fact that the town’s service district (which provides fire protection,
water supply, and recreation and parks) was in charge of its
maintenance (O’Connell 2001). Their participation in the local park
and the school allowed them to gain symbolic ownership of the
community which angered many long-term white residents.
While I observed these instances of community making, almost no
resident I spoke with considered Mexicans as contributing members of
the town; instead, they were depicted as uncaring citizens. Nonetheless,
Mexicans were actively involved in constructing community in ways that
did not align with the dominant narrative. That is, Mexicans were
creating community in ways that promoted their ethnic and class
differences which some white residents saw as threatening to the
agrarian culture of the town and to American values. For example,
when the elementary school received the California Distinguished School
Award in 1998, Mexican parents were elated that their school had
received the award for its academic achievement and parental
involvement. Yet white residents ignored this significance because they
argued that the school implements bilingual education and Mexican
rather than American cultural values. In contrast, a long-term Mexican
resident and teacher at the school commented that white residents
‘‘don’t value showing the Mexican flag or speaking Spanish. They don’t
show respect. They do not think it is important’’ (O’Connell 2001:79).
In fact, O’Connell (2001) also found that when community celebrations at the school occurred, Mexican parents decorated the school
with only Mexican flags and colors. Given the actions of Mexican
parents, long-term white residents believed that Mexicans ‘‘weren’t
promoting America. They’re transplanting Mexico here’’ (O’Connell
2001:90). Furthermore, white resident leaders asserted, ‘‘They’re in our
country. They need to learn to do things our way, learn our language’’
(O’Connell 2001:90). Because Mexicans did not subscribe to the white
residents’ definition of culturally appropriate civic involvement, they
were perceived by white residents as disengaged citizens as one
undocumented worker laments:
There are people [Mexicans] who like to help. Because they
want to help. They are people who like to work. They [white]
Americans want to discredit us. Sometimes, white Americans do
not like us very much.
Although Mexicans were actively involved in the town, long-term white
residents frequently invoked a nostalgic agrarian view of community in
15490831, 2005, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1526/0036011054831224 by Intel Corporation, Wiley Online Library on [22/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Community and Ethnicity — Chávez
Rural Sociology, Vol. 70, No. 3, September 2005
which they defined the parameters of what constituted community, and
also created a local discourse of Mexicans as passive citizens.
A Community of Discontent: Looking at the Past Nostalgically
In the past decades, Yodoy has experienced major changes that have
transformed social relations including: the growth of the Mexican
population; the loss of social groups and institutions; and white flight.
For many long-term white residents, dealing with change remains
especially difficult as old ways of organizing social life in an agrarian
sense ceased to exist and their town no longer looked like it once did.
However, long-term white residents compensate for what they perceive
to be a ‘‘loss of community’’ by commemorating those accomplishments of white residents that lead to an idealized agrarian view of
community.
In the 1990s, the local historians wrote the history of the town
focusing on the contributions of elite white residents. Other scholars
have documented a similar process of privileging elite histories in rural
California (Fujimoto and Carter 1998; Menchaca 1995). The local
historians’ narration of the town focuses on the importance of civic
involvement and social responsibility in promoting neighborliness. For
long-term white residents, social responsibility has been defined
according to one’s involvement in the School Board, the Parent
Teachers Association (PTA), Masonic Lodge, Farm Bureau, Boy Scouts
of America, and the Rotary International Club. White residents’
involvement in mainstream organizations was officially recognized as
the means by which to become a responsible and respected citizen.
While many of the organizations were no longer active or their
presence had drastically declined by the time I had conducted the
study, volunteerism continued to be necessary for the maintenance of
social relations and local resources. The following excerpts from the
local newspaper in 1998 speak to the continued importance of
volunteerism:
Thanks to those who kept their stores open, who cooked
food for the fire department and other volunteers, and who
helped out their neighbors in other ways [during flood].
The [Yodoy] cemetery holds its first cemetery clean up . . .
volunteers needed.
The teen center desperately needs adult volunteers help to
supervise recreational activities and crafts.
Given the importance of volunteerism to the maintenance of the
town, each year the Community Center holds an annual dinner to
15490831, 2005, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1526/0036011054831224 by Intel Corporation, Wiley Online Library on [22/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
324
325
honor neighborliness and to publicly acknowledge Yodoy’s active
citizenry. I attended the event in February of 1998, and despite a severe
thunderstorm which threatened to close roads, there were still at least
100 persons in attendance, each paying $10 for dinner and music. On
the day that I attended, only three Mexicans were there, and despite the
host’s urging to sit next to ‘‘strangers,’’ they continued to sit together
next to the exit door. Sitting in the rear of the event symbolized the
social positioning of Mexicans in the town. Moreover, they sat in the
back of the room because, in many cases, Spanish was unofficially
prohibited from being spoken in events organized by white residents
(O’Connell 2001). After dinner was served, a speaker chronicled the
economic, social, and political struggles the town had undergone, and
then acknowledged the significance of neighborliness in overcoming
adversity. Once the history was told, the volunteer fire fighters and
Advisory Committee were acknowledged, of which neither had Mexican
representation. On this particular night, the Reuse Store, which sells
used clothing to keep the public library open, was publicly acknowledged for having raised over $100,000 since 1986. The dinner, an
important social event where locals interact, showcases how Yodoy’s
citizens are actively involved in the town and creates a positive sense of
place. The absence of Mexicans from this event suggests to long-term
white residents that Mexicans do not care about the community and
establishing social ties with others. Mexicans were not acknowledged for
their contributions because of the lack of communication across ethnic
and class boundaries and, most important, because what Mexicans did
in the community was treated as trivial.
The Significance of Social Responsibility
As the historians’ accounts and the annual dinner illustrate, social
responsibility through participation is crucial for becoming an accepted
community member, and long-term residents see attendance at these
events as a way to bring people together. In interviews with long-term
white residents, their sense of community was often evoked through
their memory of participation in formal organizations. Alice Johnson,
a former business owner, spoke of the importance of such social groups:
We had 4-H and we all worked in 4-H. There were also Boy
Scouts. There was all other kinds of things so they kept you
busy. There was a Lions Club and it was very active. The
Churches were very active. I think that there were more things
back then. The school did not have to entertain the youth . . .
you have to realize though that when you have Boys and Girls
Scouts and 4-H and that type of thing then you have things to
15490831, 2005, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1526/0036011054831224 by Intel Corporation, Wiley Online Library on [22/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Community and Ethnicity — Chávez
Rural Sociology, Vol. 70, No. 3, September 2005
continually do. That is what helps bring a community together!
The Boy Scouts helped bring the community together.
Group organizations, such as the Boy Scouts and 4-H, were a great asset
to long-term white families and helped reinforce bonds of solidarity,
trust, and mutual obligations, so important in the development of social
capital to promote gemeinschaft (Putnam 2000; Salamon 2003a). For
example, the Boy Scouts, active for more than 50 years in Yodoy, helped
build the Community Center that today provides a public space for
white residents to interact and form a bounded sense of community.
These social groups either no longer exist or have become less active,
and white residents in my study perceived Mexicans’ unwillingness to
volunteer to be one factor in the demise of these organizations. White
residents resented Mexican immigrants for not sharing their same ideas
and visions of community formation necessary for regenerating the
community based on an agrarian cultural framework. Mexicans who
were currently settling in the community were not seen as ‘‘ideal
neighbors’’ or residents. Instead, white residents believed that Mexicans
did not participate or care about the community, a perception based on
their absence and lack of effort in white social institutions and groups.
A former 4-H leader discussed her frustration when working with
Mexican families who resided in labor camps:
I encouraged them [Mexicans] to come out, but I don’t think
[they] ever had any experience, but I don’t know why it is that
way but in the majority of the kids you have to really keep after
them, to make them really responsible, you have to work with
them to make them responsible (Soto-Alberti 1992:167).
Being ‘‘irresponsible’’ and ‘‘uncaring’’ became constructs that were
readily used by white residents to refer to recent Mexican immigrants
who did not strive to become active in the community. Neil Dow,
a retired farmer, suggested why he believed Mexicans did not get
involved:
[W]e had a Mexican working on our farm. I got to know the
[Mexican] foreman really well and he said, ‘‘You know the
difference between you guys and us guys?’’ He says, ‘‘That you
can help each other out whereas the Mexicans don’t want to
put out that effort.’’ Now whether that is really true or not I
don’t know. If someone needed help here, you got it.
Neil, as did many long-term white residents, felt that Mexicans had
not learned to work cooperatively. Moreover, Neil also suggested that
prior to the settlement of Mexicans, neighbors could always count on
the assistance of one another. Long-term white residents not only
15490831, 2005, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1526/0036011054831224 by Intel Corporation, Wiley Online Library on [22/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
326
327
complained about a decline in public participation as measured
through one’s volunteerism, but also perceived that the community
had declined in moral character. White residents frequently mentioned
that the decades of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s were times of
widespread trust as evident by the statements such as ‘‘people and
neighbors were closer’’ and ‘‘people did things together.’’ The sense of
solidarity was based on congregating in public spaces that have since
disappeared. Long-term white resident, Neil Dow, commented on the
importance of locally owned stores as gathering places:
Everyone liked to go to Charlie’s because it was a meeting place.
Charlie’s hardware store had a gas stove and he would put
firewood during the winter months so we could hang out. Some
of the farmers would come and tell more lies than you can shake
a stick at. The people were closer. I miss that hardware store . . . .
Today there are no longer meeting places like there was.
Neil’s wife, Nora, also lamented about how much the community had
changed in recent decades. Nora explained, ‘‘My husband and I were
really happy living in a small community. Everybody watched everybody
else’s children.’’ Today, however, Neil and Nora know few people in the
community, at times feel trapped because of the absence of long-term
white friends, and no longer feel connected to place as they once had.
Similarly, Mike and Sherry, a retired farmer and nurse, respectively, also
recalled the fond memories of raising their family in Yodoy. During the
interview, they recounted all of the activities their children participated
in. But as the interview progressed, their enthusiasm turned somber,
especially when they described their daughter’s return to Yodoy where
the neighbors that once helped raise her were no longer present.
Whereas safety and neighborliness once marked social relations, today
long-term white residents perceive fear which they blame on the Mexican
population. The following narratives by white residents capture this fear:
It was typical rural living. There was next to no crime . . . . There
was no prejudice or bigotry. Anyway, we all got along fine. We
didn’t know even what the word drug was. Nothing like what
comes into play today in town. It was a very simple time.
My husband and I were really happy living in a small
community . . . . Everybody watched out for everybody else’s
children. Therefore, if you went to a meeting or a 4-H event, we
were involved and parents from the community were there. We
really enjoyed that and felt safe.
Mexican youth were blamed for the rise of gang activities and drug use,
a perception that mostly long-term white residents shared and Mexicans
15490831, 2005, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1526/0036011054831224 by Intel Corporation, Wiley Online Library on [22/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Community and Ethnicity — Chávez
Rural Sociology, Vol. 70, No. 3, September 2005
saw as racist accusations. Increased crime rates and abuses of social and
educational services are frequently perceived as social problems that
immigrants introduce to the mainstream population (Gutiérrez 1995;
Naples 1994; Pardo 1998; Vila 2000). Additionally, town leaders,
comprised primarily of long-term residents, in most public meetings
spoke more about containing youth and regulating their behaviors and
less about providing social resources for youth to be actively involved.
Given white residents perceived sense of fear, most elderly white
residents recalled the days when Mexicans were an obedient labor
force. Shirley, a retired nurse, echoes this sentiment in the following
comment:
All they wanted to do was come up here and work and make
money. They could then take some money home to their
families in Mexico. And . . . they didn’t go into town and didn’t
cause trouble. On Saturday, when they got paid they would buy
everything up in the surplus store to take back to Mexico.
The subsequent example, on the one hand, illustrates that Mexicans
were embraced as cheap transnational laborers necessary for agricultural production. On the other hand, white residents have ambivalent
feelings about the social integration of Mexicans. Takaki (1993) notes
that throughout the American southwest, Mexican migrant laborers
were welcomed so long as they were only ‘‘birds of passage.’’ In Yodoy,
white residents realized that Mexicans were inevitably settling permanently into U.S. society, and this caused major changes to the cultural
fabric of the town. The following comment illustrates long-term white
residents’ perceived sense of community loss:
We are in a position right now where we can grow . . . and still
maintain the rural character that we all love about [Yodoy] . . . .
But we must be aware of what’s happening to small town in the
U.S.A. We are losing them. We all need to get involved and get
involved in our community (as stated in the local history book).
The loss of ‘‘rural character’’ in the above passage can be interpreted as
the agrarian culture in which dense social networks, that helped to
connect families in emotional ways was beginning to diminish. The
question that frequently circulated in town was, ‘‘Why did Mexicans not
strive to become part of the dominant community?’’ As we have seen,
Mexicans did not strive to become part of the dominant community
because the organizations did not supply basic social and cultural needs
for which immigrants yearned. Therefore, they constructed their own
15490831, 2005, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1526/0036011054831224 by Intel Corporation, Wiley Online Library on [22/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
328
329
forms of community parallel to what white residents had long
established. The definition of community was, in fact, seldom an
accepted way of life; even among Mexicans, there was constant tension
as to what community meant.
Talking Back to the Agrarian Narrative of Community
Yodoy’s Mexicans are diverse in terms of immigration, tenure, and class
status. Therefore, I have sought to differentiate between segments of
the population as a way of understanding how Mexicans are actively
constructing a sense of community based on these social locations.
Long-term Mexican residents who owned their homes and spoke
English realized that, in general, all Mexicans were portrayed negatively
by white residents, so it was their task to change the way they were
perceived. Doña Valenzuela, a long-term Mexican resident who readily
participates in Community Center activities such as the Neighborhood
Watch, Advisory Committee, local park, and cemetery clean-up day
activities, was granted the honorary status of ‘‘good citizen’’ by white
residents for her active engagement. Her close neighbor, Don Ramon,
a 50-year-old Mexican who was born and raised in town, was also active
in both formal social organizations and the school. Don Ramon’s
activism within the town was quite intriguing. One day he walked to the
north end of town and swept the gutters along the main street to
prevent clogging during the rainy season. When I met Don Ramon, I
asked why he had swept both ends of the street, he claimed, ‘‘[I]t shows
that Mexicans don’t give up easy. To prove to [white] Americans that
not only can they do something [i.e., volunteer], but so can we.’’ Giving to
one’s community is important because he believed that it is ‘‘important to
do little things such as pick up trash’’ to make the town look more
‘‘beautiful.’’ At the time of the interview, he was so enthusiastic about his
accomplishments that he dashed to his room and came back with at least
half a dozen certificates which documented his volunteerism to the town.
Mexicans such as Doña Valenzuela and Don Ramon see Yodoy as their
hogar (community) because they have a vested interest in ensuring that
the town is well maintained and that they portray positive images of
Mexicans as caring citizens. Their efforts aimed at integrating Mexicans
into the broader community field failed because class and ethnic
boundaries that defined white-Mexican relations prevented the widespread recognition of Mexicans as caring citizens.
Mexicans who lived in labor camps, however, did not see the town as
their hogar. During a labor camp visit, I met Jose Cortez, a 45-year-old
immigrant laborer who shared a single room with five other
undocumented men. Jose had spent 10 years in the U.S. but disliked
15490831, 2005, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1526/0036011054831224 by Intel Corporation, Wiley Online Library on [22/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Community and Ethnicity — Chávez
Rural Sociology, Vol. 70, No. 3, September 2005
Yodoy because of the poor conditions in the labor camp. When I asked
him if he would eventually settle in Yodoy, he took me to his kitchen
and poured me a glass of polluted water that served as the source of
drinking water for all tenants. He interpreted the lack of safe drinking
water as an example of the disrespect that migrant farmworkers in the
U.S. received. Although they had complained to the landlord, nothing
was done to ameliorate the situation. As a result, Jose felt like a secondclass citizen and realized that people who were undocumented were
invisible in the eyes of the community. Jose and other camp residents
frequently gathered outside of his residence where they channeled
their frustrations by conversing with each other as a way of asserting
their discontent with their lives as transitional residents. For these
workers, the only social networks that they established were with other
kin and camp residents, which led to an alienated feeling in the
community.
Other Mexican farmworkers who lived in dilapidated housing
similarly showed their discontent with the core of the community.
During a visit to a farmworker residence, I met the Sanchez family who
rented most of the available rooms in a converted motel. Miguel
confided that whenever the school asked him for his services, he was
more than willing to help, but he explained that, as a farmworker, he
often worked long hours so that by the time he arrived home he was just
too exhausted to do community work. Like Jose, Miguel felt alienated
from the core of the town. He gave me a tour of his residence showing
me the overflowing dumpster swarming with flies. He then showed me
the puddles of water that lay in the driveway where his children played.
All of these neglected housing conditions led the brothers to develop
an anti-Yodoy sentiment. By speaking about their marginalized
experiences, Miguel, his brothers, and other camp residents were
simultaneously crafting a sense of dignity in an environment that
otherwise saw them as invisible. Mexican immigrants who were recent
arrivals in the U.S. and lived in labor camps frequently complained
about feeling marginalized from the core of the town. Angelica Montez
remarks on this feeling of marginalization:
When I lived over there [pointing to the labor camp] and I
used to come over here to [River elementary school] it was
really hard for me to go to the library. I couldn’t go [because] I
did not have the privilege. The reason I couldn’t go was
because it was after school and the [school bus] would take us
automatically where we lived . . . I didn’t really know the library
like I do now. I could never go because my parents used to get
home really tired . . . . The kids that live over there [labor
camp] don’t get to go to the library.
15490831, 2005, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1526/0036011054831224 by Intel Corporation, Wiley Online Library on [22/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
330
331
While white residents frequently complained about Mexicans’ lack of
social responsibility, class and ethnic exclusion prevented immigrants
from buying into white residents’ idea of community. For Mexican
labor camp residents, lack of transportation made it difficult for them
to have access to community-based resources. Moreover, as Angelica
explained, many recent immigrants seldom went to the library because
they worked long hours, were unfamiliar with the way the library system
works or, in her words, they ‘‘do not have the privilege.’’ Mexican youth
frequently experienced xenophobic episodes that relegated them to
second-class citizenship. For example Beatriz Huerta, a 15-year old
Mexican teenager who came without documents to the U.S. when she was
nine, asserted that in school she and other ‘‘Mexicans’’ were constantly
told by white youth and second-generation Mexicans to ‘‘Go back to
Mexico’’ or were seen as ‘‘illegal aliens’’ because of their undocumented
status. Despite feeling alienated, Angelica claims that the labor camp
created its own sense of community through the sponsoring of baptisms,
weddings, and sharing of food during times of economic struggle that
helped to create reciprocal relations within the labor camp. Angelica
asserted that even though she was poor, seldom did she feel it because she
grew up in an environment where people cared about and looked out for
each other. Additionally, she felt that travel to and from Mexico allowed
her to develop friendships and a sense of belonging through transnational mobility. By developing a transnational community, immigrants
were able to escape the daily routines of proletarian labor and to establish
social ties to contest the social and racial exclusion so frequently
experienced by immigrants in the U.S. (Goldring 1998; Rouse 1991). As
a result, recent immigrants who lived on the margins of town were more
critical of the way long-term residents, both white and Mexican,
privileged the notion of community, for they did not see it as being
inclusive of everyone’s experiences. Thus, what we find in Yodoy is that
community exists, and it is indeed an outcome of place and interaction,
but what determines whether people accept it as a form of social
organization depends on the ethnic and class nature of the relations
embedded in the networks that comprise a collective of people.
Discussion and Conclusion
The literature on rural community studies has shown that interaction
and place are integral for defining community (Wilkinson 1991) and
that community continues to be an important source of social identity
(Bell 1992). The findings presented in this paper support the idea
that interaction and place are indeed factors that help create a
sense of belonging among residents in Yodoy. However, I have also
15490831, 2005, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1526/0036011054831224 by Intel Corporation, Wiley Online Library on [22/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Community and Ethnicity — Chávez
Rural Sociology, Vol. 70, No. 3, September 2005
demonstrated that various fields of interaction emerge, which exist as
an alternative to the dominant agrarian vision. This study suggests that
even when Mexicans do not buy into the dominant agrarian view of
community, they construct their own sense of belonging by forming
communities of need that provide the same social, emotional, and
political support found lacking in mainstream society. Hence, the end
result is not the social disintegration of community which many white
residents claimed, but the reinvigoration of community in which
Mexicans fought for the legitimacy of representation and respectability
of their accomplishments.
In Yodoy, Mexicans were actively engaged in crafting both formal
and informal communities of need. They were involved in voluntary
associations, the school, the Catholic Church, Parent Teacher Club, the
park, and the Comite. Involvement in these activities helped Mexicans
develop their own sense of community which was often mobilized
around ethnic pride. However, their efforts were often dismissed because
community continues to be anchored in agrarian ideals namely, the
privileging of family farm life in which social relations among townspeople were defined by longevity, homogeneity, and proximity. Additionally, white residents’ control of community-based resources allowed
them to officially ascribe themselves the label of ‘‘neighborly,’’ ‘‘caring,’’
and ‘‘actively engaged citizens.’’ In contrast, Mexicans were categorized as
‘‘uncaring citizens’’ who did not strive to develop trust, cooperation, and
mutual respect necessary for the reproduction of community ties because
of their lack of involvement in mainstream organizations and social
groups dominated by long-term white residents. Additionally, white
residents’ control of local resources, such as the publication of the local
history book and annual dinner, helped to effectively erase Mexicans
from the history of the town despite the fact that they were now
demographically the majority in most of California’s rural landscape.
Despite the fact that Mexicans created their own sense of community,
there were also differences in the way it was manifested and interpreted
according to class, citizenship, and length of residency in the town. For
long-term Mexicans, working with white residents was important to
overcome the label of ‘‘socially disengaged citizens,’’ which had become
a signifier for being Mexican. These Mexicans were actively involved in
not only developing a community that reflected their interests but also
bridging to the white population. In contrast, recent Mexican immigrants were discontent with the formation of community because of
their second-class status in town. They, nonetheless, created a sense of
belonging amongst themselves and other recent arrivals which allowed
them to survive economically, politically, and culturally in a place where
they felt marginalized. What emerged was the dispersal of communities
15490831, 2005, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1526/0036011054831224 by Intel Corporation, Wiley Online Library on [22/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
332
333
throughout the geography of this small town competing for widespread
representation. Currently, the agrarian organization of community
continues to dominate the town’s official memory but struggles to gain
popular support among the diverse Mexican population.
The findings that I have presented in this paper have implications for
social capital. Social capital, defined as the networks, norms, and trust
that provide access to social and economic resources, have been shown to
be an important mechanism which eases the transition of immigrants in
U.S. society (Massey 1987; Pfeffer and Parra 2003; Portes and Sensenbrenner 1993; Zhou 1992). These networks, in turn, help facilitate
access to employment, housing, and other resources necessary for integration. Immigrants who are integrated in ethnically based social
networks are, in many instances, bounded by solidarity and trust which
help to create a sense of community. While research has shown that
ethnically based social capital can limit access to resources outside group
boundaries, this study demonstrates the antecedents that give rise to
ethnic group mobilization in the first place. Finally, this study suggests
that in conducting research in rural places inhabited by racial and ethnic
minorities, we must seek to include the efforts and ‘‘voices’’ of all citizens
in our understandings of community and development initiatives.
References
Allensworth, E. M. and R. Rochin. 1998. ‘‘Ethnic Transformation in Rural California:
Looking Beyond the Immigrant Farmworker.’’ Rural Sociology 63:26–50.
Alleyne, B. 2002. ‘‘An Idea of Community and Its Discontents: Towards a More
Reflexive Sense of Belonging in Multicultural Britain.’’ Ethnic and Racial Studies
25:607–627.
Barth, F. 1969. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference.
Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Bell, C. and H. Newby. 1971. Community Studies: An Introduction to the Sociology of the Local
Community. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Bell, M. M. 1992. ‘‘The Fruit of Difference: The Rural-Urban Continuum as a System of
Identity.’’ Rural Sociology 57:65–82.
Belsky, J. M. 1999. ‘‘Misrepresenting Communities: The Politics of Community-Based
Ecotourism in Gales Point Manatee, Belize.’’ Rural Sociology 64:641–666.
Chavez, L. R. 1992. Shadowed Lives: Undocumented Immigrants In American Society. Fort
Worth, Texas: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Cohen, A. J. 1985. The Symbolic Construction of Community. New York: Tavistock Publications.
Davis, M. 1992. City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles. New York: Vintage Books.
Durkheim, E. 1933. The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Free Press.
Eckstein, S. 2001. ‘‘Community as Gift-Giving: Collectivistic Roots of Volunteerism.’’
American Sociological Review 66:829–851.
Ensminger, D., and R. A. Polson. 1946. ‘‘The Concept of Community.’’ Rural Sociology
11:43–51.
Fujimoto, I. and M. Carter. 1998. ‘‘Getting to Know the Central Valley.’’ Davis, California:
California Institute for Rural Studies.
Gardner, R. O. 2004. ‘‘The Portable Community: Mobility and Modernization in Bluegrass
Festival Life.’’ Symbolic Interaction 27:155–178.
15490831, 2005, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1526/0036011054831224 by Intel Corporation, Wiley Online Library on [22/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Community and Ethnicity — Chávez
Rural Sociology, Vol. 70, No. 3, September 2005
Goldring, L. 1998. ‘‘The Power of Status in Transnational Social Fields.’’ Pp. 165–195 in
Transnationalism from Below, Comparative Urban and Community Research, edited by
L. Guarnizo and M.P. Smith. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Grey, M. A. and A. C. Woodrick. 2002. ‘‘Unofficial Sister Cities: Meatpacking Labor
Migration Between Villachauto, Mexico and Marshalltown, Iowa.’’ Human Organization 61:364–376.
Gupta, A. and J. Ferguson. 1997. ‘‘Culture, Power, Place: Ethnography at the End of an
Era.’’ Pp. 1–29 in Culture, Power, Place: Explorations in Critical Anthropology, edited by
A. Gupta and J. Ferguson. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Gutiérrez, D. G. 1995. Walls and Mirrors: Mexican Americans, Mexican Immigrants, and the
Politics of Ethnicity. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Hawley, A. H. 1986. Human Ecology: A Theoretical Essay. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hillery, G. A. 1955. ‘‘Definitions of Community: Areas of Agreement.’’ Rural Sociology
20:111–123.
Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. 1994. Gendered Transitions: Mexican Experiences of Immigration.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kaufman, H. F. 1959. ‘‘Toward an Interactional Conception of Community.’’ Social Forces
38:8–17.
Krissman, F. 1995. ‘‘Cycles of Poverty in Rural California Towns: Comparing McFarland
and Farmersville in the Southern San Joaquin Valley.’’ Presented at the conference on
Immigration and the Changing Face of Rural California, June 12–14, Asilomar,
California.
MacTavish, K., and S. Salamon. 2001. ‘‘Mobile Home Park on the Prairie: A New Rural
Community Form.’’ Rural Sociology 66:487–506.
Massey, D. 1987. ‘‘Understanding Mexican Migration to the United States.’’ American
Journal of Sociology 92:1372–1403.
Menchaca, M. 1995. The Mexican Outsiders: A Community History of Marginalization and
Discrimination in California. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.
Molotch, H. 1976. ‘‘The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place.’’
American Journal of Sociology 82:309–332.
Morris, F. 1963. ‘‘Toward an Operational Definition of Community.’’ Rural Sociology
28:117–127.
Nagel, J. 1994. ‘‘Constructing Ethnicity: Creating and Recreating Ethnic Identity and
Culture.’’ Social Problems 41:152–176.
Naples, N. 1994. ‘‘Contradictions in Agrarian Ideology: Restructuring Gender, RaceEthnicity, and Class.’’ Rural Sociology 59:110–135.
———. 2000. ‘‘Economic Restructuring and Racialization: Incorporation of Mexican and
Mexican-Americans in the Rural Midwest.’’ Working Paper 7, La Jolla, California: The
Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, University of California San Diego.
Neal, S. 2002. ‘‘Rural Landscapes, Representations and Racism: Examining Multicultural
Citizenship and Policy-Making in the English Countryside.’’ Ethnic and Racial Studies
25:442–461.
Newman, K. S. 2001. ‘‘Local Caring: Social Capital and Social Responsibility in New York’s
Minority Neighborhoods.’’ Pp. 157–177 in Caring and Doing for Others: Social
Responsibility in the Domains of Family, Work, and Community, edited by A.S. Rossi.
Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
O’Connell, D. J. 2001. ‘‘Aqui Somos Pobres, Alla Somos Ricos Language, Education and
Social Reproduction: Neocolonial Strategies in the Reproduction of Inequality.’’ M.A.
thesis, University of California Davis.
Orozco, C. E. 1994. ‘‘Beyond Machismo, La Familia, and Ladies Auxiliaries: A
Historiography of Mexican-Origin Women’s Participation in Voluntary Associations
in the United States, 1870–1990.’’ Renato Rosaldo Lecture Series Monograph, Mexican
American Studies & Research Center 10, 1992–93:37–77.
Palerm, J. V. 1991. ‘‘Farm Labor Needs and Farmworkers in California.’’ Sacramento,
California: Employment Development Department.
Pardo, M. 1998. Mexican American Women Activists: Identity and Resistance in Two Los Angeles
Communities. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
15490831, 2005, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1526/0036011054831224 by Intel Corporation, Wiley Online Library on [22/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
334
335
Pfeffer, M. J. and P. A. Parra. 2003. The Limits of Social Capital for Immigrant Integration in
Rural Communities. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociological
Society, July/August, Montreal.
Pichardo, N. A. 1992. ‘‘The Establishment and Development of Chicano Voluntary
Associations in California, 1910–1930.’’ Aztlan: A Journal of Chicano Studies, Fall 1988–
1990 19:93–116.
Portes, A. 1998. ‘‘Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology.’’
Annual Review of Sociology 24:1–24.
Portes, A. and J. Sensenbrenner. 1993. ‘‘Embeddedness and Immigration: Notes on the
Social Determinants of Economic Action.’’ American Journal of Sociology 98:1320–1350.
Putnam, R. 1996. ‘‘The Strange Disappearance of Civic America.’’ The American Prospect
24:34–48.
———. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Rodriguez, C. 1993. ‘‘Chicanos in Politics: Learning to Participate and Organize.’’ Pp.
75–94 in Healing Multicultural America: Mexican Immigrants Rise to Power in Rural
California, edited by H.T. Trueba, C. Rodriguez, Y. Zou, and J. Cintrón. Washington,
DC: The Falmer Press.
Rossi, A. S. 2001. ‘‘Contemporary Dialogue on Civil Society and Social Responsibility.’’ Pp.
3–72 in Caring and Doing for Others: Social Responsibility in the Domains of Family, Work, and
Community, edited by A.S. Rossi. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Rouse, R. 1991. ‘‘Mexican Migration and the Social Space of Postmodernism.’’ Diaspora
1:8–23.
Salamon, S. 2003a. ‘‘From Hometown to Nontown: Rural Community Effects of
Suburbanization.’’ Rural Sociology 68:1–24.
———. 2003b. Newcomers to Old Towns: Suburbanization of the Heartland. Chicago and
London: The University of Chicago Press.
Salamon, S. and J. B. Tornatore. 1994. ‘‘Territory Contested Through Property in
a Midwestern Post-Agricultural Community.’’ Rural Sociology 59:636–654.
Sanderson, D. and R. A. Polson. 1939. Rural Community Organization. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.
Selznick, P. 1992. The Moral Commonwealth: Social Theory and the Promise of Community.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Soto-Alberti, C. 1992. ‘‘Evaluation of a 4-H Youth Development Program in Conjunction
with Adult Night School: Benefits to the Hispanic Clientele.’’ M.Ed. thesis, University
of California, Davis.
Takaki, R. 1993. A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America. Boston: Little, Brown
and Company.
Tauxe, C. S. 1998. ‘‘Heartland Community: Economic Restructuring and the Management
of Small Town Identity in the Central U.S.’’ Identities 5:335–377.
Tonnies, F. 1957. Community and Society: Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. Translated and edited
by C.P. Loomis. East Lansing: Michigan University Press.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000 Summary File Summary File 1 and 3. Retrieved June
20, 2003 (http://factfinder.census.gov).
Vila, P. 2000. Crossing Border, Reinforcing Borders: Social Categories, Metaphors, and Narrative
Identities on the U.S.-Mexico Frontier. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Walton, J. 1997. ‘‘Cannery Row: Class, Community, and the Social Construction of History.
’’ Pp. 243–283 in Reworking Class, edited by J.R. Hall. Ithaca and London: Cornell
University Press.
Wilkinson, K. P. 1991. The Community in Rural America. New York: Greenwood Press.
Young, F. W. 1999. Small Towns in Multilevel Society. Lanham: University Press of America.
Zhou, M. 1992. Chinatown: The Socioeconomic Potential of an Urban Enclave. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
15490831, 2005, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1526/0036011054831224 by Intel Corporation, Wiley Online Library on [22/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Community and Ethnicity — Chávez