This chapter addresses the myth that rural regions are unsustainable due to challenges with economies of scale and the perception that rural life must be “subsidized.” While urban life is commonly viewed as dynamic and efficient, rural life is often considered a waste of resources. These views cause skepticism about investing in, and supporting, rural life more robustly. There are several problems with the myth of rural unsustainability. First, it neglects urban–rural interdependence and the fact that cities are subsidized by rural provision of food, energy, fibers, and other natural and processed resources. Second, the myth discounts the decades-long tradition of utilities and common carrier regulation in the United States. Economic regulation, which was more substantial prior to the deregulatory era since the 1980s, was designed to help facilitate geographic convergence, guard against concentration of resources in mega-cities, create a cohesive national economy, and make the distribution of resources and opportunities across landscapes more equitable. The chapter interrogates the concept of economies of scale, explores overlooked urban dependency, and reviews legal history and legislative debates surrounding transportation and telecommunications regulation, such as through the Interstate Commerce Commission, to make the case that rural communities should and can be sustained, and are thus “sustainable.”

This chapter challenges the myth that rural communities lack racial diversity and that “rural” is synonymous with “white.” The chapter addresses in particular the misconception that, where rural regions do overrepresent white people, there is something natural or innate about the connection between rurality and whiteness. The chapter uses a critical-legal lens to examine the history and modern conditions associated with rural landownership and livelihoods. This analysis helps illustrate, in the words of Jess Shoemaker, “how rural landscapes got so white.” Certain experiences of the Gullah-Geechee people of South Carolina offer a case study for exploring heirs’ property, racial discrimination, and other mechanisms used to contribute to rural racial minorities’ land dispossession. The discussion demonstrates how property law, federal interventions, and other areas of law have facilitated the construction of rural regions as disproportionately white and racially stratified. Once again, the analysis reveals how rural America is a manmade project of public creation, rather than the product of benign or natural forces.

Inquiries into rural conditions are sometimes viewed as not worth pursuing in the first place. This chapter takes on “foundational myths,” or assumptions that make “rural” seem uncompelling as an investigative lens. The myth of rural hyper-simplicity suggests that rural challenges can be solved with easy, one-size-fits-all interventions, such as rural residents relocating. Conversely, the myth of rural hyper-complexity suggests that the rural United States is so vast and diverse that to pursue analyses beyond specific regions is an exercise in futility. Finally, the myth of rural immateriality suggests that “rural” is not an interesting or relevant lens, as other analytical frames (such as a population’s race or national origin) are more explanatory. The chapter addresses these myths by offering a definition of “rural” that incorporates intersectionality theory, highlights common challenges associated with population sparseness and remoteness from urban centers, and reveals rurality’s salience to law. This chapter introduces the concept of “urbanormativity,” or the treatment of rural conditions as deviant or incomprehensible. The chapter summarizes scholarly explorations of urbanormitivity in rural sociology and law and rurality. It seeks to establish that rural conditions are complex, but they have common themes that are capable and worthy of being understood and addressed.