Voluntary regions and the case of Las Vegas

ABSTRACT

A shifting American cultural geography, stemming from clustering of like-minded people, has been much-discussed in recent years. The “voluntary region”, proposed by Wilbur Zelinsky in his path-breaking The cultural geography of the United States, is a regional construct relatively unexplored by cultural geographers that may help in their contributions to such conversations. As described by Zelinsky, voluntary regions are places that attract individual, like-minded people away from long-standing “traditional regions” based on a desire for amenity and economic opportunity. I review the concept and its sparse embrace in the literature and suggest that it has much to offer our discipline. Using Las Vegas as a paradigmatic example, I explore methods that can be used to explore the formation and character of voluntary regions. I argue that the voluntary region framework is an encompassing lens through which cultural geographers can examine the complex nature of place and regional construction at the hands of dynamic forces that lead people to resettle in new places.

KEYWORDS:

• Wilbur Zelinsky
• regional geography
• sense of place
• place identity
• regional construction
• voluntary region

Acknowledgements

I thank Pete Shortridge for ideas and advice on this topic and for his encouragement regarding its relevance for geographers today. Thanks also to a fellowship at the Center for Gaming Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, for supporting my extended research in Las Vegas. I thank Rachel Rowley for numerous readings of this work as well as editors and anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions that have strengthened the manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Rex J. Rowley is Associate Professor of Geography at Illinois State University. His primary interests lie in sense of place, cultural landscapes, and media geographies. He teaches courses in human and urban geography, and GIS as well as field classes in Japan and the American Southwest.

ORCID

Rex J. Rowley http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1573-132X

Notes

1 Perhaps some of Zelinsky’s ideas lay dormant because of the many criticisms leveled against Zelinsky’s shortsighted embrace of superorganicism (Cosgrove 1978, Duncan 1980, Cosgrove 1983, Jackson 1989) or the resulting fear of approaching something associated with a major stir in our field (cf. Price and Lewis 1993a, Cosgrove 1993, Duncan 1993, Jackson 1993, Price and Lewis 1993b, Mitchell 1995, Shurmer-Smith et al. 1998). This is puzzling since some of the concepts Zelinsky proposed are valid in their own right as topics of critical geographic inquiry or are the antithesis of the oft criticized culture-as-agent perspective. It is as if a shroud has been placed over this book that admittedly has its weaknesses, blinding students and scholars of cultural geography to its many strengths.

2 The term “local” may seem somewhat pejorative, but its usage in Las Vegas is common as a term used by residents in reference to themselves, and connotes a difference between residents and tourists. I follow this same vernacular usage and meaning here.

3 This and other interview names, with the exception of prominent figures who gave their permission, are pseudonyms so as to protect the privacy of interviewees. Some only provided their first names, and I follow that pattern here with pseudonyms.