Tensions between rural and urban communities in the U.S. are growing. Rural residents often feel neglected and view “urban” political programs as a threat to their identity. In Colorado, such rural-urban tensions became apparent in February 2021 when Governor Jared Polis declared March 20 “MeatOut” Day, a national campaign promoted by the Farm Animal Rights Movement since 1985. He urged residents to go meat-free that day and reduce their meat consumption for human health and environmental reasons.

With agriculture as Colorado’s second-largest industry, strong backlash from rural communities followed immediately. The outrage sparked “MeatIn” events even in Nebraska and Wyoming, and pushed Polis to announce a day to celebrate Colorado’s animal agriculture sector. Taking this dispute as an example, the present study explored how rural and urban groups express emotions and beliefs in policy conflicts, and how these groups differ.

The author analyzed news media coverage of the MeatOut conflict using the Advocacy Coalition Framework, a theory that explains how groups come together around specific policies. It suggests that individuals form coalitions based on shared beliefs:

• Deep core beliefs are about a person’s values and identity
• Policy core beliefs describe someone’s opinion on a particular policy issue
• Secondary beliefs focus on specific ways to reach a policy goal

Policy core beliefs are typically what bind coalitions together. However, in this study, the author argues that groups increasingly form around deep core beliefs instead. Therefore, they also integrated Emotion-Belief Analysis to explore how emotions and identities shape these beliefs. Emotion-Belief Analysis explicitly analyzes emotional expression rather than actual emotions.

The author extracted information from 914 statements collected from 77 Colorado state and local news articles. They identified the individual making the statement (“narrator”), the expressed emotion, the geographic affiliation (rural or urban), and the MeatOut position (pro, anti, or unidentified). From there, the author narrowed their analysis down to 313 statements in which the narrator described their own emotions (e.g., an opinion piece), not those of others. They then explored similarities and differences between rural and urban pro- and anti-MeatOut groups.

Three distinct clusters of political discourse were identified: one urban pro-MeatOut, one urban anti-MeatOut, and one rural anti-MeatOut. There were just nine individuals in the urban pro-MeatOut group who made only 64 (20%) of the 313 statements. The rest came from the anti-MeatOut group, which consisted of 86 individuals, of whom 72 (84%) were from rural areas.

In the pro-MeatOut group, 78% of statements expressed positive emotions such as confidence and compassion, mainly about the benefits of the MeatOut proclamation. In contrast, the anti-MeatOut coalition expressed negative emotions like anger and fear about the MeatOut proclamation and the treatment of agriculture, culture, and identity in about half (49%) of their statements.

The anti-MeatOut coalition’s response wasn’t uniform, however. Within the group, statements by urban individuals tended to focus on positive emotions in support of agriculture. In fact, urban individuals in both groups — pro- and anti-MeatOut — were significantly more likely to express positive emotions than rural individuals.

Similarly, urban individuals in both coalitions were 7% less likely than rural individuals to express deep core beliefs (8% of urban statements versus 15% of rural statements), a significant difference. Within the anti-MeatOut group, rural individuals used deep core beliefs in more than 40% of their statements, compared with around 20% among their urban counterparts. This lends support to the author’s argument that “place-based” (geographic) identity is particularly important in rural communities’ policy discourse.

There are two key limitations to these findings. First, the news media tend to cover political conflicts selectively and sensationally. Second, it’s unclear how these results apply to non-agricultural policy areas across the U.S. and abroad. However, similar MeatOut debates in other states indicate at least some generalizability within the country.

In conclusion, this study suggests that rural communities have a strong place-based identity that’s closely connected to their core beliefs and influences their behavior in policy conflicts. This polarization between rural and urban groups can make it harder for advocates to advance their work, particularly in the farming sector.

To address this, advocates may involve rural communities and supportive rural stakeholders early in the policy process. They can also emphasize shared interests and mutual benefits to build trust between rural and urban areas. In addition, they should consider that coalitions can form around characteristics beyond just geographic location.