Practical Symbolic Interactions in the Shrine of the South: Conversations with a Damn Yankee

Sociological research on symbols associated with the Confederacy has increased exponentially since the terroristic shooting at a historically Black church in Charleston, South Carolina in 2015. Historians have always been involved, but now that sociologists have a stake in the game we need to know more about how people think about and interact with these symbols in the contemporary period. John Cataldi offers insight into the complex dynamics surrounding these contentious symbols in Practical Symbolic Interactions in the Shrine of the South: Conversations with a Damn Yankee.

The impetus for this book stems from the highly polarized debates regarding Confederate symbols that have been raging in the United States for years. Cataldi addresses three primary research questions to advance understanding of the positions people take—leave them alone; take them down; contextualize them—and the motivations behind them:

The research is based on field work initiated in the summer of 2019. Cataldi undertook impressive data collection that involved moving to and integrating into—as best as an outsider can—the city of Lexington and the surrounding Rockbridge County, Virginia area. This site was selected because it is considered the “Shrine of the South” due to its deep connections to high-ranking Confederate officials, namely Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. However, it is clearly unique in important ways.

Data are from participant observation, formal and informal interviews, and archival research. Despite the wide range of methods employed, Cataldi primarily engages with the data from the interviews. More details on what the author observed would have been particularly valuable for addressing question three regarding community member interactions. There is one excerpt from the author's field notes reproduced on the last page of the Conclusion chapter, page 186, that describes an unexpected interaction between two community members. It is one of the most insightful pieces of evidence presented in the book.

Regarding the organization of the book, Cataldi provides useful context in the introduction to orient the reader to some main ideas, including race and collective memory. Chapter One provides an extensive discussion of the methodological approach. The level of detail will be unnecessary for seasoned scholars and too much for undergraduate students but may be welcomed by graduate students. Fortunately, the author provides sufficient re-engagement with the core concepts and theories in the subsequent analytic chapters to allow undergraduate instructors to focus exclusively on the three core chapters describing the results.

One of the key arguments of the book is that positions regarding the Confederate Battle flag are not so strictly structured by race (in this context) as is suggested by previous research. Instead, Cataldi argues there are three distinct “like-minded” groups: the “Reformers,” the “Retentionists,” and the “Forebears.” Reformers are fiercely liberal and denounce the Confederate battle flag regardless of the context. Critically, they deem all those associated with the symbol to be racist, too, and therefore have limited engagement with “those people.” Retentionists represent the other extreme of this dynamic. They center their southern identity and see the Confederate battle flag (and related symbology) as part of that identity. The key for this group, Cataldi asserts, is that the symbol is about more than heritage; it is part of their civil religion. Members of the group also insist that they are not racist, and Cataldi tends to agree. These are the two groups—the Reformers and the Retentionists—that have received the most public attention; yet Cataldi suggests that Forebears are the largest group in the Lexington/Rockbridge County area. Forebears are a mixed bag in terms of political affiliation, but they all share an ambivalent position regarding Confederate symbols that allows for understanding of both the Reformer and Retentionist positions. Each of these groups has its own substantive chapter in which the author offers quotes from a series of respondents associated with each category.

In the end, Cataldi views the Forebears group as a positive example that could help transform contentious debates in the United States on topics ranging from Confederate symbols to abortion, gun rights, and climate change. The message is a simple one—“listen to each other”—but helpful, nonetheless. “We do not have to agree, but we should acknowledge, not cancel, opposing sentiments as being important and significant while trying to recognize alternate points of view if we are to productively engage in social reform” (p. 186).

I raise several points of discussion to consider when engaging with this book. First, I am skeptical of Cataldi's interpretation of respondents he classifies as Retentionists as not being racist. One part of this interpretation relies on a survey question traditionally used to indicate expressions of racism, which focuses on how someone would feel if a relative were to marry a Black person. The point of comparison is intriguing, but I cannot say that I expect the in-person responses are equivalent to what others have found on anonymous surveys. Moreover, his interpretation of the hesitancy and qualifications some respondents offered during their responses is kinder than my own. Whether we view this group as exhibiting some level of racism or not may be moot for the specific conclusions drawn by the author, but the point is worth considering for the sake of broader arguments.

Second, Cataldi offers another useful comparison to survey research conducted by Wright and Esses (2017), but I disagree with his characterization of the research, particularly with how it aligns with the categories he identifies. Wright and Esses categorize White southerners into four groups based on a constellation of attitudes regarding the Confederate battle flag, racism, and southern identity. Cataldi suggests that his Retentionists are comparable to the “Traditionalists” identified by Wright and Esses, but I see a greater overlap between Forebears and Traditionalists. It is difficult to make a direct comparison, but one glaring question that the possibility of comparability raises is: where are the Supremacists from Wright and Esses's work who express explicit racism and support for Confederate symbols? If not the Retentionists, then do they not exist in Cataldi's data? How should we make sense of this distinction?

Finally, the context of this research is important to keep in mind as we consider its implications. Lexington/Rockbridge County is a unique place with regard to Confederate symbols and history. Cataldi is careful to state that the results reflect residents living in the “Lexington-Rockbridge area,” but suggestions that the results contradict national surveys implies a generalizability that is simply not there. The perspective is a new one and is a welcome addition to the field. I am excited to see what comes from this more nuanced understanding of White southern positions on Confederate symbology.