Blog

What’s Up with All the Cutesy-Wootsy Small American Towns?

Across the United States, many small rural and mountain towns have adopted a carefully curated charm that feels both nostalgic and quaint.

Although these picturesque settings are appealing to some, this process often results in a loss of distinctive character.

Instead of reflecting a town’s authentic history or culture, visitors are presented with an idealized, commercialized, and homogenized version of a bygone village—one crafted to meet the expectations of tourists.

In the process, the very authenticity that once defined these places becomes diluted, replaced by a sanitized experience that prioritizes down home country aesthetics over genuine local culture.

This situation raises numerous questions.

WHAT CHARACTERIZES SUCH PLACES?

Typically small in size and population, these locations often revolve around a main street, with retail offerings designed to attract weekend and holiday tourists, generally from middle-class backgrounds and larger urban centers.

Here one or two restaurants (one of which may be a diner) serving traditional American fare with an occasional health-conscious twist do business.

Alternatively, or in a complementary fashion, these establishments seem to address Millennial and Gen Z food tastes, blending trendy, urban-inspired food ingredients (e.g., avocado, kimchi, kombucha, sriacha, truffle oil, etc.) with a local flair (e.g., heritage chicken raised from a local farm). The “general stores” offer sandwiches, soups, and salads with quirky, regionally inspired names, and artisanal local products.

Sometimes these towns even boast a high-end restaurant run by a “celebrity chef” who has ostensibly “escaped” the big city. Reservations for these venues (sometimes specializing in a farm-to-table approach to food preparation) are often booked weeks in advance, adding an air of exclusivity to the experience.

When describing dishes, staff might enthusiastically explain that the mac and cheese comes with a local twist, as if the addition of artisanal cheese reinvents the menu item.

Further down the street, visitors might find antique or vintage shops selling shabby chic furniture, and perhaps even a boutique clothing store, art gallery, or bookstore. A real estate office may be tucked away among these shops, advertising second homes to urbanites looking to escape their “stressful” city lives.

The town may even have an “up and coming” art scene, lending credence to the location’s cosmopolitan appeal.

Meanwhile, on the outskirts of town, more traditional small-town commercial establishments may still persist—perhaps a Dollar Store, a supermarket, a gas station, a Veterans of Foreign Wars post, or an auto body shop. These businesses stand in stark contrast to the curated vibe that dominates the town’s main street.

WHY & HOW DOES THIS OCCUR?

Big and small towns confront economic downturns—businesses close, unemployment rises, and younger residents leave seeking opportunities elsewhere.

Each of them deal with this challenge diffierently. Faced with few options, small towns may turn to tourism as a lifeline. The strategy is simple: attract visitors (and their disposable income) by emphasizing the town’s aesthetic appeal.

Local governments, business owners, and external investors work together to reposition these towns as desirable tourist destinations.

These towns become marketable products, their cultural identities commodified for economic survival.

At the heart of this shift is a complex deliberate interplay of aestheticization, gentrification, and commercialization, and branding.

Facades of selected retail operations are spruced up or replaced. The boarded up buildings may be torn down, and  the gritty, lived-in character of a place changes to something that seems almost too polished.

In many ways, the town becomes a kind of set design, crafted to attract tourists rather than reflect the lives of those who remain.

Meanwhile sometimes these tourists, attracted by the town’s newfound charm, begin to move in, (perhaps buying vacation properties nearby), and real estate prices (and rents) rise, making it increasingly difficult for long-time residents to remain.

WHY MIGHT THIS CHANGE BE GOOD THING?

Economic development in small towns can create new jobs that allow locals to remain in their communities and improve the overall quality of life.

Service jobs in hospitality, construction, and landscaping may proliferate, providing diverse opportunities for residents.

For skilled professionals like mechanics, doctors, and lawyers, growth in local businesses could mean new clients and business expansion.

With an increased tax base, towns could invest in much-needed infrastructure updates, from roads to schools, which would benefit the entire community.

Economic development might also provide seniors with a financial cushion as they transition into retirement, offering them a chance to sell farmland or other assets for a comfortable nest egg.

But all that glitters is not gold.

WHY MIGHT  THIS BE BAD?

This shift brings with it pressures to cater to the new crowd, who may have vastly different expectations and tastes than the original residents.

Beneath the surface, the towns often feel hollow. They’re no longer communities in the traditional sense; instead, they are curated experiences, designed to attract outsiders.

Meanwhile, many long-time residents of these towns, some with conservative political attitudes aligned with the MAGA movement, contrast sharply with urban visitors. This tension can predictably create some underlying friction.

The small-town charm and friendliness may sometimes feel forced or manufactured.

The sameness of these kinds of towns contributes to a considerable amount of homogenization where over time and with sufficient exposure, these towns all begin to look and feel alike.

Upon closer inspection, what initially seems charming can come across as overly contrived and staged.

The result is an experience that sometimes borders on the saccharine.

Many towns, while visually appealing, can feel hollowed out, catering more to the tastes of outsiders than to those who have lived there for generations.

Beneath the interpersonal encounters, there may also be a quiet tension from locals who rely on the influx of tourist dollars while simultaneously resenting the changes it brings.

This tension reflects a deeper question: what is being sacrificed in the pursuit of charm and economic development? As towns reshape themselves to fit an idealized image their distinctiveness can erode, making them feel more like themed attractions than genuine communities.

WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT?

Although these towns offer economic benefits by drawing in tourists, it is essential to consider the long-term implications of their curated environments.

This situation raises several key questions:

  • Was there a distinct and authentic community life before the economic downturn?
  • What defined this earlier period?
  • In the past, were these towns vibrant places to live, work or play?
  • Were these town’s histories idyllic (perhaps the majority of the residents held racist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory views)
  • What aspects of the past are worth preserving?
  • How can these towns balance tourism and economic growth while fostering a unique identity and authentic community life?
  • How can economic development of the location prioritize sustainable high quality jobs?
  • How can economic development avoid unitended consequences like rising living costs or overdevelopment?
  • What are the available options for building a sustainable economic future?

If there was a sense of community. The question then becomes: Is the economic boost worth the sacrifice of identity? And how sustainable is a model that relies on surface-level appeal while potentially alienating the very people who gave these towns their original soul?

Although answers  to these questions are not immediately clear, it is essential to remain wary of environments, rural or urban that prioritize charm over community and appearance over substance.

Photo credit

Photographer: Steve Shook

Greetings from Catskill Mountains, New York – Large Letter Postcard

Appreciating Turk’s POLITICAL CRIMINALITY: THE DEFIANCE AND DEFENSE OF AUTHORITY

Among my favorite nonfiction scholarly books is Austin T. Turk’s Political Criminality (1982). This volume presents a well thought out analysis of why individuals resort to crimes against states (and other similar entities) and how they respond. At its core, it is an exploration of power dynamics, with a focus on political deviance and the state’s response to threats to authority.

Turk, one of my undergraduate and graduate student mentors, was a deep thinker and proflic writer. He had an important influence on my ideas about political crime, and was the author of the foreword to my Controlling State Crime (1995/2000).

Political Criminality, like Gurr’s Why Men Rebel, is one of the primary works that shaped my understanding of how to construct explanations of political crime, and it served as the inspiration for my Dynamics of Political Crime (2002) and An Introduction to Political Crime. (2012).

More about the book.

Political Criminality—like Turk’s  earlier work, Criminality and Legal Order (1969)—synthesizes a vast array of scholarship on criminology, political violence, and conflict, bringing these strands of thought together into a meaningful and cohesive whole.

Political Criminality,  consists of five well-sourced chapters, and in addition to its deep theoretical content, Turk’s writing remains remarkably accessible. He sought to provide a “general introductory analysis” of the relationship between political criminality and political policing, but his work goes far beyond an introductory overview. At its heart, Turk’s conflict theory of political crime is concerned with the relative power between competing actors. As Turk asserts, “Having power in a social relationship means having some relative control over the resources available to persons in that relationship” (p. 14). This central tenet of his theory is critical for understanding how the law and criminal justice system are employed to maintain social control and political power.

One of the most compelling aspects of Political Criminality is Turk’s examination of how states use legal systems to criminalize certain actions as a means of maintaining authority and suppressing dissent. He explores how these laws shape public opinion regarding dissenters and so-called lawbreakers. In doing so, Turk touches on a wide range of political conflicts, from assassinations to wars, offering a comprehensive look at the many forms political defiance can take. He was one of the first scholars to delve deeply into how states strategically employ the criminal justice system to reinforce power structures and suppress challenges to authority.

However, despite the groundbreaking nature of his work, few of the tenants of Political Criminality have been empirically tested. This could be due in part to the interdisciplinary nature of Turk’s theory, which spans the fields of criminology, political science, and sociology. The lack of empirical attention might also reflect a broader trend in academic scholarship, where interdisciplinary theories sometimes fall between the cracks of disciplinary boundaries.

Even though empirical testing is lacking, Turk’s work remains highly relevant, particularly given the current global political climate, where activists struggle for attention and power, and states continue to use legal mechanisms to suppress dissent and maintain control. Political Criminality offers a timeless framework for understanding the complex interplay between power, law, and crime.

The book is an important cornerstone of my approach to scholarship. Turk’s ability to synthesize a large body of scholarship into a cohesive and accessible explanation is something I have strived to emulate in my own work. Though the book may not have garnered the empirical attention it deserves, its intellectual rigor and interdisciplinary approach ensure that it remains a crucial text for anyone studying political crime and state power.

The Power of Language in Criminal Justice

Language (more specifically the labels, terms, and words we use) plays a critical role in shaping how we understand and engage with the world. The words we use not only shape the subject matter we talk about, but also carry political weight, that affects  perceptions and reinforces power dynamics. In this context, debates about terminology are not just academic exercises—they have real consequences for how issues are framed and addressed in policy and practice.

The Misunderstanding of Terms

It’s tempting to attribute misunderstandings surrounding the labels, terms and words we and others use solely to differences in age, culture, education, gender,  ethnic/racial background, national origin, but the issue is far more complex. Disagreements about words and terms occur in numerous contexts, and these disputes can arise for various interrelated reasons. These include, but are not limited to:

Lack of Knowledge or Expertise: In many cases, people do not know the correct definitions of terms. This may due to poor or a lack of education or exposure to specialized fields. Thus misapplication of terms in this case, reflects a lack of literacy in the subject matter, and is unintentional.

Overconfidence in Misunderstanding: Sometimes, individuals are aware of the proper definitions but choose to disregard them. This may stem from an overconfidence in their own understanding, laziness, or a refusal to acknowledge expert knowledge.

Political Sensitivity and Correctness: Occasionally people (e.g., activists)  adopt popular terminology in an effort to be politically sensitive (i.e., correct) or to align with current societal trends. This approach, while intended to reduce offense, can introduce ambiguities or further complicate discourse, particularly when the new terms lack consensus or clarity.

Influence of Non-experts: Amateurs may have the power to shape discourse through public platforms. Meanwhile experts either lack the same opportunities or choose not to engage. As a result, the terminology used by non-experts may gain traction, even when it conflicts with established definitions in various fields.

Carelessness: Occasionally, people use terms incorrectly out of carelessness or convenience. Until they are corrected or experience embarrassment, they may not see a need to learn the correct terms. This casual approach can perpetuate misunderstandings.

The Politics of Language

In short, terminology is never neutral; it typically reflects and reinforces power dynamics. Those in positions of authority, influence or power often determine which terms are accepted within a field or context, while marginalized individuals and groups may struggle to have their preferred language recognized and used. In the field of criminology and criminal justice, for example, word choice is particularly significant, as it shapes the narratives (i.e., the stories we tell ourselves and others) surrounding criminal behavior, justice, and punishment.

For instance, consider the terminology used to describe individuals in the correctional system: convict, prisoner, inmate, and incarcerated person. Technically these terms are not interchangeable—they carry different connotations (among different groups) and often reflect differing ideological perspectives. Although many academic criminologists may collapse the terms convict, prisoner and inmate, people who are incarcerated and correctional personnel may see important distinctions among these labels. Meanwhile many prison activists feel that terms like prisoner or inmate are dehumanizing, thus they often push for language that they argue humanizes those in the criminal justice system (i.e., person centered language). The struggle over which term to use is not just a linguistic debate, but a reflection of deeper disagreements about the nature of the criminal justice system itself.

Language in Academic Publishing

The power of language is not just manifested in in public discourse, or in the classroom, but extends to scholarly work as well.  Ideally, peer reviewers and editors play a gatekeeping function, ensuring that authors use terms in a precise and appropriate manner, and that any misapplications are corrected before publication.However, despite this vetting mechanism, terms that are poorly defined or misapplied occasionally make it into published works.

Not only does this create confusion, but this is particularly concerning in criminology/criminology, where academic research attempts to inform public policy. When key terms in criminological literature are used ambiguously or incorrectly, it can distort public understanding and policymaking. For example, the interchangeable use of rehabilitation and reform in discussions about correctional practices can lead to mixed messages about the objectives of criminal justice interventions.

Language and the Criminal Justice System

How does this debate play out in the dominant branches of the criminal justice system?

In the field of corrections, the debate over terms such as convict, prisoner, and inmate typically highlights the tensions between activists and criminologists. Activists often advocate for language that reduces stigma, while criminologists, for the sake of clarity, historical continuity, or conformity to legal definitions, may adhere to more traditional terminology.

Similarly, in policing, terms like cop versus police officer can carry different connotations. Depending on the context, the term cop might be seen as informal or even derogatory, while police or law enforcement officer carries an air of professionalism. Yet, some activists and community groups may prefer terms like cop to criticize traditional narratives about law enforcement.

In juvenile justice, terms like juvenile delinquent versus youth in conflict with the law are often part of deeper ideological positions about how young people in the system should be viewed and treated. The former label carries a punitive connotation, while the latter suggests a more rehabilitative approach.

Addressing Misunderstandings and Moving beyond language politics

Language is more than just a means of communication—it’s a reflection of power, politics, and ideology. In fields like criminology and criminal justice, the choice of terms can have profound implications for research, policy, public perception, and practical application.

Where does this put us? Both people must remain vigilant in their word choices, fully understanding that terminology shapes not only debates but also the reality experienced by those affected by these terms. Academic institutions, peer reviewers, editors of scholarly publications, and educators, and students, in particular should prioritize linguistic precision, ensuring that terms are well-defined and used consistently. Additionally, all entities should remain open to re-evaluating established terms, particularly as society evolves, new information is gathered, and new perspectives emerge.

It’s not enough to merely correct misunderstandings or enforce rigid definitions. The goal should be to foster clarity, fairness, and a genuine commitment to justice. This means acknowledging the power of language and using it responsibly to shape a more just and equitable world.

Photo Credit

Title: Dictionaries

Photographer: eltpics

@HanaTicha