WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.339 Have you ever noticed how changing a rule doesn't, 00:00:04.339 --> 00:00:06.799 it doesn't immediately change how people actually 00:00:06.799 --> 00:00:09.580 behave? Oh, absolutely. Like all the time. Right. 00:00:09.779 --> 00:00:12.580 Like, think about this scenario. Say a city lowers 00:00:12.580 --> 00:00:15.419 the speed limit on a major road overnight. The 00:00:15.419 --> 00:00:17.899 official policy is signed. The new signs are 00:00:17.899 --> 00:00:20.640 up. You know, everything is strictly by the book. 00:00:20.760 --> 00:00:22.949 But the next morning... People are still speeding. 00:00:23.449 --> 00:00:26.750 Exactly. Muscle memory just beats the law. Drivers 00:00:26.750 --> 00:00:29.070 coast at the exact same speed they've maintained 00:00:29.070 --> 00:00:31.089 for the last, I don't know, five years. Yeah, 00:00:31.269 --> 00:00:34.030 the ink on the paper dries instantly. But human 00:00:34.030 --> 00:00:36.890 habits, those take a whole lot longer to catch 00:00:36.890 --> 00:00:38.929 up. In the way we actually move through the world 00:00:38.929 --> 00:00:40.789 and interact with each other, that takes even 00:00:40.789 --> 00:00:44.469 longer. So in 1997, a sociologist looked at the 00:00:44.469 --> 00:00:46.869 American South and asked a much heavier version 00:00:46.869 --> 00:00:49.070 of that exact same question. Right, the question 00:00:49.070 --> 00:00:51.490 of timeline, yeah. When the government fundamentally 00:00:51.490 --> 00:00:54.490 changes the rules of society, how long does it 00:00:54.490 --> 00:00:57.170 actually take for human muscle memory to adjust? 00:00:57.409 --> 00:01:00.090 And that is just one of the most profound questions 00:01:00.090 --> 00:01:02.600 you can ask about human behavior, honestly. I 00:01:02.600 --> 00:01:05.799 completely agree. And it brings us to the stack 00:01:05.799 --> 00:01:08.819 of sources we are diving into today. So we're 00:01:08.819 --> 00:01:11.519 exploring a Wikipedia article that details a 00:01:11.519 --> 00:01:15.260 1997 nonfiction book. It was published by Duke 00:01:15.260 --> 00:01:18.120 University Press, and it was written by Frederick 00:01:18.120 --> 00:01:20.420 M. Wirt. A very prominent text in its field. 00:01:20.480 --> 00:01:23.340 It really is. And the mission of our deep dive 00:01:23.340 --> 00:01:26.219 today is to explore this book because it focuses 00:01:26.219 --> 00:01:30.000 on one extremely specific location, Panola County, 00:01:30.019 --> 00:01:34.079 Mississippi. Wirt uses this single county as 00:01:34.079 --> 00:01:36.879 like a localized case study to understand what 00:01:36.879 --> 00:01:39.379 happens to a community after landmark civil rights 00:01:39.379 --> 00:01:41.280 laws are passed. Right. Serving as a case study 00:01:41.280 --> 00:01:43.420 for the entire American South. OK, let's unpack 00:01:43.420 --> 00:01:45.019 this because I want to start right at the cover 00:01:45.019 --> 00:01:47.680 of the book. The title alone completely caught 00:01:47.680 --> 00:01:49.799 me off guard. It is definitely not what you'd 00:01:49.799 --> 00:01:52.060 expect. Not at all. When you pick up an academic 00:01:52.060 --> 00:01:54.579 nonfiction text from a prestigious university 00:01:54.579 --> 00:01:57.439 press about civil rights, you expect a highly 00:01:57.439 --> 00:02:00.040 clinical, maybe even dry title, something full 00:02:00.040 --> 00:02:02.140 of sociological jargon, you know. Oh, for sure. 00:02:02.260 --> 00:02:05.420 You expect colons and very long subtitles. Exactly. 00:02:05.879 --> 00:02:08.719 But this book is called We Ain't What We Was, 00:02:09.080 --> 00:02:11.159 Civil Rights in the New South. And according 00:02:11.159 --> 00:02:13.639 to the source material, we didn't even coin that 00:02:13.639 --> 00:02:16.000 phrase. No, we didn't. It was actually a common 00:02:16.000 --> 00:02:18.139 expression used by the African -American residents 00:02:18.139 --> 00:02:21.949 of Panola County. And what's fascinating here 00:02:21.949 --> 00:02:25.909 is that decision by word is highly deliberate. 00:02:26.129 --> 00:02:28.889 It tells us so much about his methodology right 00:02:28.889 --> 00:02:31.629 out of the gate. Oh, so? Well, by elevating a 00:02:31.629 --> 00:02:34.669 local colloquial phrase to the cover of an academic 00:02:34.669 --> 00:02:38.729 text, the author is refusing to impose an entirely 00:02:38.729 --> 00:02:41.830 top -down external narrative on the community. 00:02:42.169 --> 00:02:44.650 Ah, OK. He's letting them speak for themselves. 00:02:45.129 --> 00:02:47.189 Precisely. He is centering the perspective of 00:02:47.189 --> 00:02:49.349 the people who actually lived through the history. 00:02:49.770 --> 00:02:51.509 The residents themselves are highlighting that 00:02:51.509 --> 00:02:54.229 their situation had, in fact, genuinely improved 00:02:54.229 --> 00:02:56.370 following the enactment of civil rights laws. 00:02:56.550 --> 00:02:58.530 It's like an internal declaration of progress. 00:02:58.770 --> 00:03:00.729 Exactly. They are owning their own narratives 00:03:00.729 --> 00:03:02.729 of change. But I do want to push back on that 00:03:02.729 --> 00:03:05.330 just a little bit, because progress is a very 00:03:05.330 --> 00:03:07.169 loaded word, don't you think? Oh, absolutely. 00:03:07.310 --> 00:03:10.250 It's incredibly subjective. Right. When the residents 00:03:10.250 --> 00:03:12.870 say, we ain't what we was, they are claiming 00:03:12.870 --> 00:03:16.669 a change. Sure. But how much of that change is 00:03:16.669 --> 00:03:18.949 structural versus psychological? And that is 00:03:18.949 --> 00:03:21.569 the exact tension Wirt is exploring. Because 00:03:21.569 --> 00:03:23.969 the timeline of his research makes this incredibly 00:03:23.969 --> 00:03:27.129 complicated. This 1997 book is actually a sequel 00:03:27.129 --> 00:03:30.030 to his earlier work. Yeah, he wrote a previous 00:03:30.030 --> 00:03:31.689 book called The Politics of Southern Equality, 00:03:31.810 --> 00:03:34.750 which was published back in 1970. So he writes 00:03:34.750 --> 00:03:37.689 the first book right on the heels of the major 00:03:37.689 --> 00:03:40.930 civil rights legislation of the 1960s. And then 00:03:40.930 --> 00:03:44.449 he waits 27 years to publish the follow up. which 00:03:44.449 --> 00:03:47.129 is a massive amount of time in modern academia. 00:03:47.990 --> 00:03:50.669 But that 27 -year gap is really the engine of 00:03:50.669 --> 00:03:53.189 the entire study. Is it really enough time, though, 00:03:53.210 --> 00:03:55.689 to measure meaningful cultural change? Because 00:03:55.689 --> 00:03:57.409 I was trying to visualize this for our listeners. 00:03:57.449 --> 00:04:00.530 OK, let's hear it. To me, the 1970 book feels 00:04:00.530 --> 00:04:03.849 like the blueprints of a newly built house. The 00:04:03.849 --> 00:04:05.849 architects draw it up. The government approves 00:04:05.849 --> 00:04:08.550 the permits. The laws are passed. The blueprints 00:04:08.550 --> 00:04:12.129 are finalized. I like that analogy. Thanks. But 00:04:12.129 --> 00:04:14.789 the title of this 1997 book, We Ain't What We 00:04:14.789 --> 00:04:17.550 Was, that represents the actual people moving 00:04:17.550 --> 00:04:19.350 into the house and trying to figure out how to 00:04:19.350 --> 00:04:21.269 live there together. Arranging the furniture, 00:04:21.350 --> 00:04:23.910 dealing with the neighbors. Exactly. So my question 00:04:23.910 --> 00:04:26.629 is, since the first book was written in 1970 00:04:26.629 --> 00:04:30.970 and this one in 1997, does this 27 -year gap 00:04:30.970 --> 00:04:33.870 essentially function as a sociological where 00:04:33.870 --> 00:04:36.139 are they now? That's a really good way to put 00:04:36.139 --> 00:04:38.720 it. Or is 27 years just a drop in the bucket 00:04:38.720 --> 00:04:40.879 when we were talking about centuries of entrenched 00:04:40.879 --> 00:04:44.120 behavior? Well, it is a phenomenal question because 00:04:44.120 --> 00:04:46.779 in the grand scope of history, sure, 27 years 00:04:46.779 --> 00:04:49.379 is brief. Right. It's just a blip. But in the 00:04:49.379 --> 00:04:52.779 realm of observational sociology. A quarter of 00:04:52.779 --> 00:04:55.220 a century is precisely what you need to filter 00:04:55.220 --> 00:04:57.860 out the noise of immediate reaction. Oh, interesting. 00:04:57.980 --> 00:05:00.420 What kind of noise? Well, when a massive legislative 00:05:00.420 --> 00:05:03.379 shift occurs, the immediate aftermath, which 00:05:03.379 --> 00:05:06.379 Wirt would have observed around 1970, is often 00:05:06.379 --> 00:05:09.639 characterized by shock. There's intense resistance 00:05:09.639 --> 00:05:12.839 or rapid, unstable adjustments. So people are 00:05:12.839 --> 00:05:14.660 just reacting. They aren't really settled into 00:05:14.660 --> 00:05:17.490 a new normal yet. Exactly. If you only study 00:05:17.490 --> 00:05:20.649 a community in 1970, you are studying the shockwaves. 00:05:20.850 --> 00:05:23.149 You're measuring the explosion, not the new landscape. 00:05:23.209 --> 00:05:26.269 That's spot on. But 27 years, that constitutes 00:05:26.269 --> 00:05:29.709 a full human generation. A child born when the 00:05:29.709 --> 00:05:32.089 first book was published is an adult by the time 00:05:32.089 --> 00:05:35.290 the second book comes out in 1997. Wow, yeah. 00:05:35.449 --> 00:05:38.050 They're voting, working, maybe raising their 00:05:38.050 --> 00:05:40.610 own family. Right. It allows a researcher to 00:05:40.610 --> 00:05:43.730 see beyond the legislative shock and observe 00:05:44.530 --> 00:05:47.910 actual settled societal shifts. The dust has 00:05:47.910 --> 00:05:49.930 settled. The rules have been normalized. And 00:05:49.930 --> 00:05:52.310 now you can measure what actually stuck. Precisely. 00:05:52.430 --> 00:05:54.569 OK, so let's look at what actually stuck in Panola 00:05:54.569 --> 00:05:56.889 County, because here's where it gets really interesting. 00:05:57.009 --> 00:05:58.629 It definitely gets a bit uncomfortable here. 00:05:58.670 --> 00:06:01.310 It does. It presents a really uncomfortable reality. 00:06:01.529 --> 00:06:03.910 If the residents agree that things ain't what 00:06:03.910 --> 00:06:06.569 they was, meaning things have structurally improved, 00:06:07.009 --> 00:06:09.410 we have to look at what stubbornly stayed the 00:06:09.410 --> 00:06:11.550 exact same. Right. What resisted the change. 00:06:11.670 --> 00:06:14.300 Yeah. And Wirt argues that that African Americans 00:06:14.300 --> 00:06:17.040 absolutely gained more rights. There was tangible 00:06:17.040 --> 00:06:20.879 progress. However, his central thesis is that 00:06:20.879 --> 00:06:24.259 true cultural integration did not occur. The 00:06:24.259 --> 00:06:27.240 laws changed, but the source material explicitly 00:06:27.240 --> 00:06:29.240 notes that black and white residents continued 00:06:29.240 --> 00:06:31.699 to maintain highly race -segregated religious 00:06:31.699 --> 00:06:34.199 practices and friendships. And this brings us 00:06:34.199 --> 00:06:36.660 to the great paradox of integration, as outlined 00:06:36.660 --> 00:06:39.120 in the text. We have this tendency, especially 00:06:39.120 --> 00:06:42.000 when looking back at history, to conflate legal 00:06:42.000 --> 00:06:44.920 equality with social unity. Yeah, we treat them 00:06:44.920 --> 00:06:47.740 like they're the same thing. Exactly. But words 00:06:47.740 --> 00:06:50.600 research forces us to untangle those two concepts. 00:06:51.100 --> 00:06:53.740 Gaining rights is a structural legal victory. 00:06:54.259 --> 00:06:57.439 It means access to the ballot box, public spaces, 00:06:57.779 --> 00:07:00.199 employment, and education. Basically the public 00:07:00.199 --> 00:07:02.319 square. Right, the public square. But cultural 00:07:02.319 --> 00:07:05.180 habits, trust. intimate community bonds like 00:07:05.180 --> 00:07:08.160 religion and friendship, those operate on a completely 00:07:08.160 --> 00:07:10.660 different, much slower timeline. But I'm kind 00:07:10.660 --> 00:07:12.399 of hung up on the mechanics of this. I mean, 00:07:12.620 --> 00:07:15.180 how does a sociologist in 1997 even go about 00:07:15.180 --> 00:07:17.740 measuring something as subjective as a segregated 00:07:17.740 --> 00:07:19.740 friendship? It's definitely trickier than counting 00:07:19.740 --> 00:07:22.980 votes. Right. A law is on paper. You can see 00:07:22.980 --> 00:07:25.139 if a school is integrated. You can see if a workplace 00:07:25.139 --> 00:07:29.509 is integrated. But friendship? Trust. How does 00:07:29.509 --> 00:07:32.509 an academic definitively prove that a culture 00:07:32.509 --> 00:07:35.170 remains divided on an intimate level? Well, it 00:07:35.170 --> 00:07:37.430 requires observing the spaces where the state 00:07:37.430 --> 00:07:41.269 has absolutely no jurisdiction. Wirt looks specifically 00:07:41.269 --> 00:07:43.230 at religion and friendship because those are 00:07:43.230 --> 00:07:45.790 the ultimate voluntary associations. Oh, I see, 00:07:46.069 --> 00:07:48.129 places where you choose to be. Exactly. You can 00:07:48.129 --> 00:07:50.350 pass a law that says two men of different races 00:07:50.350 --> 00:07:52.529 must be paid the same wage at the same factory. 00:07:52.920 --> 00:07:54.720 You could pass a law that says their children 00:07:54.720 --> 00:07:56.639 must be allowed to attend the same school. The 00:07:56.639 --> 00:07:59.639 state can enforce the public square. Yes, but 00:07:59.639 --> 00:08:02.720 the state absolutely cannot pass a law that requires 00:08:02.720 --> 00:08:05.500 those two men to trust each other or to share 00:08:05.500 --> 00:08:07.600 their deepest spiritual beliefs in the same church 00:08:07.600 --> 00:08:10.660 or to spend their weekends together. Wow. So 00:08:10.660 --> 00:08:13.620 the lack of shared private spaces is the metric. 00:08:13.920 --> 00:08:16.439 If the public spaces are forced to merge, but 00:08:16.439 --> 00:08:18.600 the private spaces remain stubbornly separate, 00:08:18.680 --> 00:08:20.819 that proves the culture hasn't actually integrated. 00:08:21.100 --> 00:08:24.279 That's the core of his argument. Those private 00:08:24.279 --> 00:08:27.009 spheres. are where people retreat for comfort, 00:08:27.449 --> 00:08:29.990 for shared identity, and for safety. And they 00:08:29.990 --> 00:08:32.190 require vulnerability. Right. They are governed 00:08:32.190 --> 00:08:35.110 by internal human emotions, not external state 00:08:35.110 --> 00:08:37.570 mandates. So I want to throw a hypothetical at 00:08:37.570 --> 00:08:39.509 you for you and the listener to think about, 00:08:39.850 --> 00:08:42.190 because this paradox makes me really question 00:08:42.190 --> 00:08:44.909 how we define success in this context. OK. Let's 00:08:44.909 --> 00:08:47.789 hear it. Is the fact that friendships and church 00:08:47.789 --> 00:08:50.850 services remain segregated in Panola County a 00:08:50.850 --> 00:08:53.269 sign that the integration laws somehow failed? 00:08:53.739 --> 00:08:56.100 That's a heavy question. Or does it just define 00:08:56.100 --> 00:08:58.220 the absolute limit of what the law is capable 00:08:58.220 --> 00:09:01.000 of doing? Like, maybe the law's only job is to 00:09:01.000 --> 00:09:03.240 open the door to the dining room. It can't force 00:09:03.240 --> 00:09:04.899 you to sit down at the dinner table together, 00:09:05.000 --> 00:09:07.779 and maybe it shouldn't even try. Based on Wirt's 00:09:07.779 --> 00:09:10.779 findings, it is an illustration of the limits 00:09:10.779 --> 00:09:13.519 of the law, rather than a failure of it. The 00:09:13.519 --> 00:09:15.679 limit, not a failure. That's a crucial distinction. 00:09:16.009 --> 00:09:19.429 It is. The legal mandates were designed to dismantle 00:09:19.429 --> 00:09:22.350 institutional barriers and they largely succeeded, 00:09:22.490 --> 00:09:24.690 which is the very reason the residents could 00:09:24.690 --> 00:09:27.870 confidently say, we ain't what we was. The legal 00:09:27.870 --> 00:09:31.190 floor was raised. Exactly. But human sociology 00:09:31.190 --> 00:09:34.070 is fiercely protective of its private spheres. 00:09:34.789 --> 00:09:37.450 The law altered the structure of Panola County, 00:09:37.450 --> 00:09:41.389 but it could not rewrite the intimate interpersonal 00:09:41.389 --> 00:09:43.899 fabric of the community. Which makes me wonder 00:09:43.899 --> 00:09:46.360 how other experts in the field reacted to this 00:09:46.360 --> 00:09:48.899 because if I am reading a book where a sociologist 00:09:48.899 --> 00:09:51.820 claims he has mapped the absolute limits of cultural 00:09:51.820 --> 00:09:54.519 integration based on observing friendships in 00:09:54.519 --> 00:09:57.419 a single Mississippi county, well, I have to 00:09:57.419 --> 00:09:59.620 imagine other academics immediately sharpened 00:09:59.620 --> 00:10:01.480 their knives. Oh, they certainly did. You can't 00:10:01.480 --> 00:10:03.759 make claims that massive without someone questioning 00:10:03.759 --> 00:10:06.460 your methodology. And the academic reception 00:10:06.460 --> 00:10:08.659 of this book is just as revealing as the book 00:10:08.659 --> 00:10:11.960 itself. The source material outlines critiques 00:10:11.960 --> 00:10:14.740 from several university professors, and it essentially 00:10:14.740 --> 00:10:16.779 turns into a debate about the fundamental limits 00:10:16.779 --> 00:10:18.820 of sociological research itself. I was looking 00:10:18.820 --> 00:10:21.100 at the review from Richard L. Engstrom at the 00:10:21.100 --> 00:10:23.740 University of New Orleans. Ah, yes. Engstrom 00:10:23.740 --> 00:10:26.779 had some very specific thoughts. He did. He read 00:10:26.779 --> 00:10:29.639 the book and noted that Wirt's analysis was strongest 00:10:29.639 --> 00:10:32.159 when he was looking at economic and educational 00:10:32.159 --> 00:10:36.440 changes. But Engstrom explicitly called the book's 00:10:36.440 --> 00:10:40.039 political coverage weaker. Which is a very interesting 00:10:40.039 --> 00:10:42.500 critique and I have to admit I don't fully understand 00:10:42.500 --> 00:10:45.039 it We literally have voting records. We have 00:10:45.039 --> 00:10:48.659 election results How is political change harder 00:10:48.659 --> 00:10:51.580 to measure than educational change seems counterintuitive, 00:10:51.580 --> 00:10:53.940 right? Totally shouldn't politics be the easiest 00:10:53.940 --> 00:10:57.340 thing to track over a 27 year period Well, if 00:10:57.340 --> 00:10:59.500 we connect this to the bigger picture, it makes 00:10:59.500 --> 00:11:02.139 a lot of sense on the surface. Yes, you can count 00:11:02.139 --> 00:11:05.539 balance But we have to consider what local county 00:11:05.539 --> 00:11:07.700 politics actually look like, particularly in 00:11:07.700 --> 00:11:10.240 the post -Jim Crow South. OK, so it's not just 00:11:10.240 --> 00:11:13.000 about who won the election. Not at all. Economics 00:11:13.000 --> 00:11:15.539 and education generate highly transparent paper 00:11:15.539 --> 00:11:18.419 trails. A researcher can track high school graduation 00:11:18.419 --> 00:11:21.259 rates, median income levels, property ownership, 00:11:21.820 --> 00:11:24.340 business licenses. Those are concrete, undeniable 00:11:24.340 --> 00:11:26.440 metrics. Right, concrete metrics of structural 00:11:26.440 --> 00:11:29.470 progress. But again, a mayoral race or a city 00:11:29.470 --> 00:11:32.230 council election is also a concrete metric. Someone 00:11:32.230 --> 00:11:35.009 wins, someone loses. Someone holds the title, 00:11:35.190 --> 00:11:38.110 yes. But does the title hold the actual power? 00:11:38.549 --> 00:11:41.279 Oh. OK, I see where you're going with this. The 00:11:41.279 --> 00:11:44.340 nuances of local political power, who actually 00:11:44.340 --> 00:11:47.580 pulls the strings, how informal influence operates, 00:11:47.759 --> 00:11:50.399 how backroom deals are made, those rarely show 00:11:50.399 --> 00:11:52.779 up on a spreadsheet. Right, or subtle forms of 00:11:52.779 --> 00:11:55.100 voter intimidation or economic pressure that 00:11:55.100 --> 00:11:57.940 might persist under the radar. Exactly. In small 00:11:57.940 --> 00:12:00.320 -count sociology, the people making the actual 00:12:00.320 --> 00:12:02.539 decisions are not always the people sitting in 00:12:02.539 --> 00:12:04.960 the official chairs. That is a really sharp distinction. 00:12:05.240 --> 00:12:07.419 The numbers in education tell the whole story, 00:12:07.820 --> 00:12:09.899 but the numbers in local politics might only 00:12:09.899 --> 00:12:12.879 be telling half the story. Exactly. That informal 00:12:12.879 --> 00:12:15.419 power dynamic is incredibly difficult for an 00:12:15.419 --> 00:12:17.860 external researcher to definitively track and 00:12:17.860 --> 00:12:21.320 quantify, even over 27 years. So, Ingstrom's 00:12:21.320 --> 00:12:23.620 critique highlights the inherent difficulty of 00:12:23.620 --> 00:12:25.980 trying to empirically measure political power 00:12:25.980 --> 00:12:28.500 in a localized setting. That makes a lot more 00:12:28.500 --> 00:12:31.039 sense now. But then we have the critique from 00:12:31.039 --> 00:12:34.590 Am Permeloff of Auburn University. And she brings 00:12:34.590 --> 00:12:36.710 up a totally different point of friction regarding 00:12:36.710 --> 00:12:39.190 the methodology. Yes, she looked at the scope 00:12:39.190 --> 00:12:42.210 of the claims. She actually praised the Panola 00:12:42.210 --> 00:12:44.970 County content, though. She called it fascinating 00:12:44.970 --> 00:12:47.590 and worthwhile reading and even agreed that the 00:12:47.590 --> 00:12:50.529 county serves as a metaphor for change throughout 00:12:50.529 --> 00:12:54.480 the South. But, and this is a big but, she criticized 00:12:54.480 --> 00:12:58.440 the book for failing to adequately document southern 00:12:58.440 --> 00:13:01.139 -wide interpretations. This touches on the classic 00:13:01.139 --> 00:13:03.759 tension between microhistory and macrohistory. 00:13:03.820 --> 00:13:06.559 Right. How far can you actually stretch a single 00:13:06.559 --> 00:13:09.200 data point? Right. The best way I can conceptualize 00:13:09.200 --> 00:13:11.659 Parmalov's critique for you, the listener, is 00:13:11.659 --> 00:13:14.000 to think about it like reviewing a single specific 00:13:14.000 --> 00:13:16.779 restaurant in one town. Oh, I like this. So imagine 00:13:16.779 --> 00:13:19.679 you eat at this one spot and then use that single 00:13:19.679 --> 00:13:22.460 meal to declare what the entire country's food 00:13:22.460 --> 00:13:24.919 scene is like. Great details on the one spot, 00:13:24.980 --> 00:13:27.379 but maybe a huge stretch to apply it everywhere 00:13:27.379 --> 00:13:30.179 without more data. Is that essentially what she's 00:13:30.179 --> 00:13:32.759 accusing Wirt of doing with his sociology? That 00:13:32.759 --> 00:13:35.860 is a highly accurate way to frame it. Permaloff 00:13:35.860 --> 00:13:39.320 is validating the depth and the quality of Wirt's 00:13:39.320 --> 00:13:42.639 micro study. She agrees that his deep observation 00:13:42.639 --> 00:13:45.779 of Panola County is genuinely valuable. But she's 00:13:45.779 --> 00:13:47.879 saying he went too far with his conclusions. 00:13:48.279 --> 00:13:51.139 Yes, she is warning against the scientific danger 00:13:51.139 --> 00:13:54.039 of extrapolation. Just because Panola County 00:13:54.039 --> 00:13:57.279 experienced this very specific paradox of public 00:13:57.279 --> 00:14:00.139 integration and private segregation can work 00:14:00.139 --> 00:14:03.200 definitively prove that every other county experienced 00:14:03.200 --> 00:14:06.200 the exact same mechanisms. Right, because a county 00:14:06.200 --> 00:14:08.360 in Mississippi might have a completely different 00:14:08.360 --> 00:14:10.700 cultural ecosystem than a county in Virginia 00:14:10.700 --> 00:14:14.259 or a parish in Louisiana. Exactly. The vast, 00:14:14.620 --> 00:14:17.279 incredibly diverse American South isn't a monolith. 00:14:17.419 --> 00:14:20.519 She is arguing that the book lacks the broader 00:14:20.519 --> 00:14:22.740 comparative data needed to make sweeping claims 00:14:22.740 --> 00:14:24.559 about the entire region. And the subtitle of 00:14:24.559 --> 00:14:26.360 his book is literally Civil Rights in the New 00:14:26.360 --> 00:14:29.120 South, not Civil Rights in Panola County. Right. 00:14:29.259 --> 00:14:31.039 If you claim your book speaks for the entire 00:14:31.039 --> 00:14:34.179 South, other academics will demand the documentation 00:14:34.179 --> 00:14:37.169 to back up that massive geographical claim. Which 00:14:37.169 --> 00:14:39.070 is entirely fair. If you put it on the cover, 00:14:39.190 --> 00:14:41.129 you really have to prove it. But what strikes 00:14:41.129 --> 00:14:43.629 me is that even with these heavy methodological 00:14:43.629 --> 00:14:46.809 critiques from Engstrom and Permaloff, the academic 00:14:46.809 --> 00:14:49.210 community didn't discard the book. No, not at 00:14:49.210 --> 00:14:51.370 all. Like Glenn Feldman from the University of 00:14:51.370 --> 00:14:53.809 Alabama at Birmingham reviewed it and called 00:14:53.809 --> 00:14:56.970 it interesting and useful as well as valuable. 00:14:57.259 --> 00:15:00.639 It seems like the raw data work collected, the 00:15:00.639 --> 00:15:03.600 actual on -the -ground observation of this community 00:15:03.600 --> 00:15:06.860 over almost three decades, was deeply respected, 00:15:07.120 --> 00:15:09.179 even if they debated his broader conclusions. 00:15:09.639 --> 00:15:12.399 Honestly... That is how rigorous academic discourse 00:15:12.399 --> 00:15:14.320 is supposed to function. A study doesn't have 00:15:14.320 --> 00:15:17.200 to be perfect to be profoundly valuable. Right. 00:15:17.220 --> 00:15:20.519 It starts the conversation. Yes. Even if the 00:15:20.519 --> 00:15:22.620 political analysis is slightly weaker due to 00:15:22.620 --> 00:15:25.120 the invisible nature of local power, and even 00:15:25.120 --> 00:15:27.159 if the southern wide interpretations aren't fully 00:15:27.159 --> 00:15:30.000 documented with comparative data, Wirt's core 00:15:30.000 --> 00:15:32.559 observation remains a vital contribution. He 00:15:32.559 --> 00:15:35.580 managed to capture that profound, often uncomfortable 00:15:35.580 --> 00:15:38.820 disconnect between legislative success and genuine 00:15:38.820 --> 00:15:41.289 cultural unity. You force people to look past 00:15:41.289 --> 00:15:44.289 the finish line. Yes. We love to think of history 00:15:44.289 --> 00:15:46.850 as a neatly wrapped package. The civil rights 00:15:46.850 --> 00:15:49.149 bill gets signed, the ribbon gets cut, the systemic 00:15:49.149 --> 00:15:51.649 problem is solved, and society collectively moves 00:15:51.649 --> 00:15:54.549 forward. But Wert's work proves that the signing 00:15:54.549 --> 00:15:57.029 of the bill isn't the finish line at all. It's 00:15:57.029 --> 00:15:59.509 just the starting gun for a much longer, much 00:15:59.509 --> 00:16:02.470 more complicated race. A race that requires a 00:16:02.470 --> 00:16:05.139 completely different set of tools to run. When 00:16:05.139 --> 00:16:07.240 you study a community and find that they have 00:16:07.240 --> 00:16:09.720 achieved measurable economic and educational 00:16:09.720 --> 00:16:13.059 progress, but still instinctively retreat to 00:16:13.059 --> 00:16:15.259 segregated corners for their spiritual and social 00:16:15.259 --> 00:16:18.600 lives, well, it forces us to reevaluate what 00:16:18.600 --> 00:16:21.250 it truly takes to build a cohesive society. It 00:16:21.250 --> 00:16:23.909 demands that we ask hard questions about trust, 00:16:24.450 --> 00:16:26.950 vulnerability, and the limits of state intervention. 00:16:27.070 --> 00:16:29.230 Exactly. So what does this all mean? What does 00:16:29.230 --> 00:16:32.769 this highly localized 1997 study of a Mississippi 00:16:32.769 --> 00:16:35.610 county actually mean for you, the listener, today? 00:16:35.730 --> 00:16:37.590 That's the real question. If we pull together 00:16:37.590 --> 00:16:39.970 the timeline, the academic debates, and the central 00:16:39.970 --> 00:16:42.490 paradox of where it's work, the main takeaway 00:16:42.490 --> 00:16:45.370 is a powerful reminder about the nature of change. 00:16:45.850 --> 00:16:47.929 You can change the laws of a land relatively 00:16:47.929 --> 00:16:50.529 quickly. With the stroke of a pen, a government 00:16:50.529 --> 00:16:53.649 can secure vital rights, open doors to economic 00:16:53.649 --> 00:16:56.929 progress, and mandate educational shifts. And 00:16:56.929 --> 00:16:59.409 that structural change is absolutely essential. 00:16:59.570 --> 00:17:01.570 It is the very foundation that allowed the residents 00:17:01.570 --> 00:17:03.570 of Panola County to look at their lives and declare, 00:17:03.929 --> 00:17:07.210 we ain't what we was. Right. But the structural 00:17:07.210 --> 00:17:10.369 foundation is not the house. Cultural integration, 00:17:10.950 --> 00:17:13.750 the bridging of religious practices, the forming 00:17:13.750 --> 00:17:17.390 of genuine cross -cultural friendships, the actual 00:17:17.390 --> 00:17:20.109 intimate knitting together of a community's heart, 00:17:20.710 --> 00:17:23.970 that is a much deeper human endeavor. It is a 00:17:23.970 --> 00:17:26.869 slow generational process that legislation alone 00:17:26.869 --> 00:17:29.859 simply cannot force. The law can dictate how 00:17:29.859 --> 00:17:31.920 we behave in the public square, but it cannot 00:17:31.920 --> 00:17:34.359 dictate who we choose to love, trust, and worship 00:17:34.359 --> 00:17:36.579 with in our private lives. It requires a different 00:17:36.579 --> 00:17:38.980 kind of work entirely. It requires individual, 00:17:39.319 --> 00:17:41.299 intentional vulnerability. It really does. And 00:17:41.299 --> 00:17:43.200 as we conclude our exploration today, I want 00:17:43.200 --> 00:17:45.799 to leave you, the listener, with a final thought 00:17:45.799 --> 00:17:48.480 to mull over, taking Word's historical framework 00:17:48.480 --> 00:17:50.660 and applying it directly to your own present 00:17:50.660 --> 00:17:52.859 reality. Oh, this is going to be good. Think 00:17:52.859 --> 00:17:56.240 about this. If Frederick M. Wirt were to come 00:17:56.240 --> 00:17:59.200 to your city today, right now to write a book 00:17:59.200 --> 00:18:02.440 about the gap between your community's legal 00:18:02.440 --> 00:18:06.240 equality and its actual lived cultural integration. 00:18:06.960 --> 00:18:09.480 What exactly would he find? Wow. Look at your 00:18:09.480 --> 00:18:11.380 own neighborhood, your own workplace, your own 00:18:11.380 --> 00:18:14.440 places of gathering. Are we right now in our 00:18:14.440 --> 00:18:17.140 own lives confusing shared legal rights in our 00:18:17.140 --> 00:18:19.880 public spaces? with true cultural unity in our 00:18:19.880 --> 00:18:22.079 private spheres. That is exactly the kind of 00:18:22.079 --> 00:18:23.720 question that forces you to look at your own 00:18:23.720 --> 00:18:25.700 backyard a little differently. Thank you so much 00:18:25.700 --> 00:18:27.599 for joining us for this Deem Dive. Keep looking 00:18:27.599 --> 00:18:30.220 closely at the rules, keep questioning the reality, 00:18:30.420 --> 00:18:32.200 and keep interrogating the world around you. 00:18:32.359 --> 00:18:33.140 We'll catch you next time.