Letter From thenLower Rightnby John Shelton ReednHow to Get Along in the South: AnGuide for YankeesnRight now, down here, we seem to benexperiencing an influx of Northernnmigrants. There are so many of them,nand misunderstanding is so frequent,nthat I fear a new wave of sectionalnhostiHty may be shaping up. I offer asnevidence the fact that some of my lessntolerant brethren have taken to referringnto Northerners as ‘”rhoids” —nshort for hemorrhoids, from a rudenjoke with the punch line (approximately):n”If they come down and stayndown, they’re a pain.”nBut these new invaders are friendliernthan the last bunch, and some of themnapparently want to fit in. So I surmise,nat least, from the fact that the Universitynof North Carolina at Charlottensponsored a very well attended adultneducation course last spring on “ThenSouth for Non-Southerners.” (Thisngoes to show how thoughtful we arendown here, by the way. When I livednin Boston and New York I don’t recallnanyone offering a course on the Northnfor non-Northerners, although I couldnhave used one a few times.)nIf I were running that course, Inthink I could boil it down to elaborationnof a single theme, and I offer it tonreaders of this magazine at no charge.nReed’s Rule for Successful Adjustmentnto the South is simply this: Don’t thinknthat you know what’s going on.nWilliam Price Fox puts the basicnproblem well: “No lie, the averagenYankee knows about as much aboutnthe South as a hog knows about thenLord’s plan for salvation.” Thingnabout the hog, though, is that hendoesn’t think he knows. Believing thatnthey know what’s happening is probablynthe most common mistake Northernersnmake. Most other problemsnstem from that. Heck, half the hmenSoutherners don’t know what’s goingnon here—why should someone whonjust unloaded his U-Haul?nOddly, real foreigners often seem tonhave an easier time of it than folksnfrom Wisconsin or Massachusetts ornCalifornia. Brits and Germans andnJapanese and Kuwaitis are likely tonrecognize that things in the Southnaren’t what they’re used to and can’t benmade that way by complaining loudly.nMoreover, Northern migrants oftennethnocentrically insist that we meannwhat they think we said instead ofnmeaning what we mean. ChoongnSoon Kim, author of An Asian Anthropologistnin the South (I’m not makingnthis up), observes that Southernersnvery seldom say what they mean. Henfinds us, in a word, inscrutable.nMaybe Northern migrants shouldnjust accept that fact, as Kim does. Butnif you insist on trying to understandnSouthern conversation, here are a fewnexamples that may be helpful.nSurely most of you all have beennwarned that “You all come see us”ndoes not mean that you all shouldnactually drop in. That should be Lessonn#1 in any Introductory Southernncourse. An intermediate course,nthough, would teach that one thing itnalmost always does mean is “Come seenus if you have to for some reason”—nalthough that usually goes without say­nBOOKS IN BRIEF—ECONOMICSning. And an advanced course wouldnteach the student that sometimes itnactually does mean you all shouldndrop in. Depending.nSimilarly, “Where’s your husbandntoday?” can be, as in the North, nosinessnplain and simple—or, from anmale, a cautious inquiry before makingnsome moves. In the South,nthough, it can also be just a politenexpression of interest in your kinfolks:nThe questioner may not really care.nSee? These things are not simple.nTake the question “What church donyou go to?” Many newcomers find itnoffensive when brand-new acquaintancesnask that. They assume that it isnthe prelude to some serious witnessing,nand it may be. On the other hand,nit can also be just a conventionalnpleasantry, like “What do you do?” (anquestion Southerners sometimes findnoffensive) or “What’s your sign?” (anquestion I always answer “No Trespassing”).n”What church do you gonto?” can also be an insult, especially ifnthe emphasis is on the word “you.”nResponsible Technology: A Christian Perspective, edited by Stephen V. Monsma, GrandnRapids, MI: Eerdmans; $12.95. Six thoughtful Protestants join together in the spirit ofnJacques EUul and E.F. Schumacher in “reflecting upon modern technology and itsnimplications for the Christian life.”nThe Myth of the Plan: Lessons of the Soviet Planning Experience by Peter Rutland,nLaSalle, IL; Open Court; $26.95. A Harvard economist explains why the Soviet economynhas foundered and why things won’t get better until Communist leaders abandon thencentralized planning essential to their political power. The analysis, heavily dependent uponnHayek and Mises, turns not only against the Politburo but also against American and WesternnEuropean bureaucrats who pay the Soviets the compliment of imitation.nConsuming Fears: The Politics of Product Risks, edited by Harvey M. Sapolsky, New York:nBasic Books; $18.95. Six authorities on food marketing outline the political struggles touchednoff by scientific research into the possible health risks of popular foods and additives. Notncontent with protecting us from cigarettes and pesticides, nutrition-minded zealots werentrying to redefine beef, eggs, and milk as controlled substances until the Reagan Administrationndecided not to make cocaine pushers share their cells with cows.nMayflower Madam: The Secret Life of Sydney Biddle Barrows by Sydney Barrows withnWilliam Novak, New York: Arbor House; $17.95. The world’s oldest profession managednwith today’s business techniques. The author speaks contemptuously of “the moral code ofnBourgeois society,” but the immoral code of the haut monde does not seem to have elevatednher perspective.nExchange and Power in Social Life by Peter M. Blau, New Brunswick; Transaction; $14.95.nA timely reprint of a classic study investigating the patterns of monetary and nonmonetarynexchange that create—and undermine—social order, from marriage to political parties.nParticularly valuable is Blau’s explanation of why egalitarian ideologies attract frustratednacademics in a business-oriented culture like America’s.nThe Anatomy ofPowerhy John Kenneth Galbraith, Boston: Houghton MifRin; $7.95. Anleading liberal economist examines the roots of power—personality, property, and organization.nAside from a few insights borrowed from Joseph Schumpeter and James Burnham, thenanalysis is both superficial and misleading. Like most academics, Galbraith knows little aboutnpower, except how to abuse it.nnnJANUARY 1987 / 43n