The Social Science Journal 44 (2007) 287–299

Framing perceptions of oil development

and social disruption夽
Craig J. Forsyth a,∗ , Asha D. Luthra b , William B. Bankston c
a
Department of Criminal Justice, P.O. Box 41652, University of Louisiana,
Lafayette, Lafayette, LA 70504, United States
b
Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA, United States
c
Department of Sociology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, United States

Abstract
This paper examines the perceived relationship between the presence and growth of the offshore oil
industry in Louisiana and patterns of social disruption, particularly crime. Interview data were obtained
from long-time residents in the coastal region of Louisiana, and a social constructionist perspective
was used to frame the perceptions of these individuals (N = 94). Much previous research on the effects
offshore oil development and its cyclical expansion and contraction has been premised on a boom/bust
social impact model reflecting the experience of resource extraction in communities in the Western
United States. In contrast to this literature, we found our subjects perceived far less in the way of
disorganizing effects of oil development, and for the most part suggested the impacts to be either benign
or positive. There was little support for a boom/bust model of community disruption, and thus we suggest
research in this area consider alternative paradigms of interpretation of social impact.
© 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The oil industry, including offshore production, is an integral part of the social and economic
organization of the coastal regions of Louisiana. This research examines the perceived impact
of this activity on social disruption in these communities. While recent research has examined
this relationship using a quantitative approach (Seydlitz, Laska, Spain, Triche, & Bishop, 1993),
夽
This research was part of a larger study supported by a grant from the United States Department of Interior,
Minerals Management Service, through the Coastal Marine Institute, Louisiana State University (Cooperative
Agreement 30951, Task Order 17803). The views and conclusions are those of the authors alone and do not reflect
the policy or position of MMS.
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 337 482 5372; fax: +1 337 482 5694.
E-mail address: cjf5714@louisiana.edu (C.J. Forsyth).

0362-3319/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2007.03.015
288 C.J. Forsyth et al. / The Social Science Journal 44 (2007) 287–299

this paper uses qualitative data obtained from long-time residents. The perceptual effects are
the variables of interest rather than statistics of social disruption.

2. Examining social change and natural resource use

There is a long tradition in rural and, more recently, environmental sociology of examin-
ing the relationship between social activities and natural resource use (Field & Burch, 1991;
Freudenburg, Frickel, & Gramling, 1995; Gramling & Freudenburg, 1996; Krogman, 1996).
Within this interest in the specific consequences of rapid economic growth is a particular focus
on energy boomtowns (Freudenburg & Gramling, 1992; Gramling & Brabant, 1986; Gramling
& Freudenburg, 1990; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Wilkinson, Thompson, Reynolds, & Ostresh,
1982). Many areas in Louisiana have experienced change caused by the drilling for offshore oil
along the state’s coast, but rural areas and small communities are most likely to be dramatically
affected, both economically and culturally (Forsyth & Marckese, 1993a, 1993b).
Some scholars have looked to confirm long accepted notions that boom/bust or social change
brought on by mining activity is always negative. Growth has effects on some social problems,
but the negative aspects of these effects may be exaggerated by researchers who assume out-
siders and the oil industry are the root of most problems. Louisiana residents have generally had
a positive perception of the oil industry (Freudenburg & Gramling, 1994a, 1994b). Individuals
are impacted differently and this affects their perceptions of disruption. Perceptions and expe-
riences are dependent on one’s social construction of this reality, which is, in turn, dependent
on one’s sociological place (Cluck & Luton, 2002). Here we examine the socially disruptive
consequences of resource extraction through the eyes of those who have experienced it.

3. Method

This study focused on small communities in the Eastern part of St. Mary Parish, Louisiana
(this includes the towns of Morgan City, Berwick, Amelia, Bayou Vista, Patterson) where oil
activity has had major economic consequences over several decades. Morgan City (population
13,064) is the largest town in St. Mary Parish (population 52,189) and the center of oil activity
in the area. Before the offshore oil industry arrived, the area was known for lumbering, trapping,
and shrimping. The area boomed after World War II, when in 1947 a Kerr-McGee rig struck oil
in the open Gulf, beginning the offshore oil industry (Gramling, 1996). During the same period,
a growing fleet of large shrimp boats began to use Morgan City as a homeport. Both oil and
shrimp share some of the same infrastructure: repair and dock space and even workers whose
work cycles allow them extended time off in which to shrimp. The symbiotic character of the
oil and shrimp industry is symbolized in the Shrimp and Petroleum festival. It is Louisiana’s
oldest harvest festival and was originally dedicated to shrimp. Two monuments on the town’s
main street commemorate the discovery of large offshore shrimp in the 1930s and the offshore
oil industry.
The data examined here were obtained from guided conversations with 94 long-time res-
idents of the area. All had been residents of the area for at least 30 years: 56 were life-long
 C.J. Forsyth et al. / The Social Science Journal 44 (2007) 287–299 289

residents, 31 had moved into the area in the late 1940s or early 1950s, and 7 had moved
there in the early 1970s. These individuals ranged in age from 37 to 84. Seventy-three of the
respondents were men and 89 were White. Education ranged from less than high school to
masters, law, and medical degrees. They represented community leaders, public officials, and
a variety of professionals including bankers, teachers, law enforcement personnel, large and
small business owners, shrimpers, health and other professionals, and skilled labor directly and
indirectly employed by oil and oil service related companies. Classifying someone according
to occupation in this area is difficult. Previous research in this region has found that over 70%
of offshore oil workers also had a commercial shrimping license (Forsyth & Gauthier, 1991;
Margavio, Forsyth, Laska, & Mason, 1996). Similarly, some professionals in this sample were
small business owners. Two individuals were professionals, who also owned an oil service
business, as well as, having a shrimping license. As expected, many elected officials had stakes
in businesses and/or other jobs.
Snowball sampling was utilized which allowed the researchers to develop an ever-increasing
set of sampled observations. We began the sample selection process with several key informants
known to the authors through personal ties. From there, each respondent selected for the
study was asked to identify other persons we might contact as potential subjects, and each of
the subsequently interviewed participants was asked for further recommendations, and so on
(Babbie, 2001). The sampling proceeded until themes become salient and no new positions
emerged. We used unstructured interviews that started with explaining who we were, and that
we were interested in the respondents’ thoughts and opinions about the effect, over the years,
of offshore petroleum development on crime and social problems. We asked general questions
about the nature of social changes that have occurred and the role oil may have played in it.
Also addressed were questions of who may have benefited from oil development, and who
were disadvantaged by it. These conversations/interviews lasted an average of approximately
1 hr, and ranged from 15 min to 4.5 hr. The non-probability design of this study dictates that
caution should be exercised in praising its findings relative to studies that employed random
sampling design.
Disruptive activities, community problems, and change associated with oil activity were
explored through the use of “thick descriptions” (Geertz, 1973), letting the respondents speak
for themselves, and summarizing their perceptions of the problem through frame analysis.

4. Framing perceptions

Framing refers to the tendency of persons to construct accounts/stories of reality on the basis
of their place within a socially organized situation or locality (Goffman, 1974; Krogman, 1996).
Frame analysis recognizes that disputes exist where there are conflicts over interpretive matters.
Individuals may disagree on the nature and consequences of a problem and on the reasons and
avenues for changing the circumstances. Framing represents the individual’s social construction
of reality and frame analysis recognizes that people often take positions that are consistent
with their individual or group interests. Such positions may represent values or linguistic
means to achieve a particular definition of the situation. Individuals interpreting events tend to
assemble selective realities that diminish what is happening in certain circumstances, augment
290 C.J. Forsyth et al. / The Social Science Journal 44 (2007) 287–299

Table 1
Themes expressed from qualitative data (N = 94)
1. Sour Grapes (n = 3). Oil activity was disruptive, but the problems were the fault of old-timers that benefited
from the need for labor and did so at the expense of the community.
2. Newcomers Did It (n = 6). The boom/bust cycle brings in people who commit crime.
3. An Inherent Product of Mining (n = 3). Oil activity creates an atmosphere of disruption caused by social
change. This disruption is assigned to old-timers, who are, in a sense, victims because they are disturbed by
social change. Their comments are not as widespread of those in category 5.
4. Nothing Changed (n = 12). Oil activity changed nothing as far as social disruption was concerned. Same
old-timers commit the same crime. Crime did not arrive with newcomers. The theme conveys the idea that any
problems lie with individuals.
5. It is an Individual Problem (n = 6). The theme conveys the idea that any problems lie with individuals. It has
nothing to do with any structural characteristics.
6. This was once a wonderful place, it is not anymore and mining is the culprit (n = 6). Mining is seen as generally
disruptive to everyone and everything. Oil activity brings in newcomers who affect the community negatively.
Disrupts old-timers by changing values. It generally changes the core of the community by switching the focus
of the community to oil activity, when the down cycle comes the community has changed with little to fall back
on. The community cannot regain its former positive core. These individuals may try renewal to bring back the
former social conditions of the community.
7. Oil activity made this a good place to live (n = 53). This was not a nice place to live before the increase in oil
field activity. Oil brought in good jobs and good people.
8. The disruptions were minor (n = 5). The problems were minor and never reached the level expressed in the
media.

what is important to them, or construct what is happening in specific situations (Krogman,

1996).
The frames shown in Table 1 represent the variety of issues identified from the interview
data. They represent a summary of the data. These themes were derived from the content of the
interviews; they reflect the focus or opinion/idea of the respondent. Each of the 94 respondent
interviews were examined for and assigned a thematic content, and this process produced
eight themes. Identifying frames focused on isolating in the subjects’ narratives their ideas and
understandings of the causation and consequences of changes in the community, and how or if
these were tied to oil development (cf. Stone, 1989). Each respondent/interview was numbered.
Quotes from the respondents were selected for inclusion here which best reflect their frame of
perspectives. Thus, the following are representative quotes within these themes. These quotes
are varied, some are better fits than others, and some quotes contain overlap between categories.
These themes are not discrete categories, but are rather best fit models with which to present
the range of these data.

5. Findings

Frame #1: Sour Grapes. The first theme was a long-standing conflict expressed in the boom-
town literature, but only three of our subjects seemed to express this theme. Their
interpretation was that there were problems in the community, but these were
the fault of old-timers who benefited from the need for labor and did so at the
expense of the community.
. . .we had these labor dorms that the. . .ran, those guys made a fortune. . .they brought in the
scum of the earth. . . that’s the problem not oil. . .its those guys. . .in the last few years people
 C.J. Forsyth et al. / The Social Science Journal 44 (2007) 287–299 291

have started recruiting skilled labor from foreign countries like Mexico. . .these people are no
problem. . .there is no relationship between oil and crime or the cycle of that activity. . .its just
the labor supply. . .if you need unskilled labor and you also have to rely on some criminal
who runs a labor camp then you have problems with that bunch. . .that was the problem not
any boom/bust cycle. . .I cannot believe some of the crap that people brought into their own
communities. . .those days are over and crime has never had anything to do with offshore
drilling. . .criminals came in here when criminals were in charge of labor camps. . .[#1]

In the 70s and early 80s those people in charge of labor did not care who they brought in. . .their
motive was money. More recently the fact that it was skilled labor coming in negated the fact
of whether these labor recruiters cared or not. . .[#3]

This theme is framed as “Sour Grapes” because these informants indicated that they thought
that many public officials were jealous of the wealth made from the boom and wanted to also
profit from it. Their rationale is that “low life laborers” were brought to South Louisiana
communities and resided in boarding houses, called labor camps. The owners of the boarding
houses charged these workers for rent, transportation, and meals in some cases. Most also
made a bonus from each hour these men worked. Those places furnishing work clothes and
shoes also profited in what was a modern version of the company store. Sex work (men’s
clubs, topless clubs, pornography outlets, prostitution), bars, liquor stores, and other sellers of
vice increased their sales and profits. Much of this vice is behavior that involves violations of
the law that received selective enforcement. Local law enforcement and other public officials
have the power to arrest/curb/stop these violators who were routinely breaching norms which
deserve arrest, but were seldom arrested. If they are arrested/harassed, of course, they cannot
work and the profits from both their labor and exploitation are stalled. This implicit bargain
translates into the view that it is only because these public officials did not arrest these people,
did not maintain the peace, and did not enforce the law, that some individuals made these
profits. Some public officials believe they should have shared in these returns (and some did).
The idea that these old-timers brought these people into the community is in part fostered by
this sour grapes idea sustained by those who perceived they did not receive deserved rewards.
Growth in energy development, generally, precipitates confrontation between newcomers and
old-timers and within these clusters; old-timers who benefit and “become converts” (or sold
out) versus those who do not benefit and did not do so because they retained their values.

Frame #2: Newcomers Did It. A theme expressed by six respondents was that crime prob-
lems were mostly caused by newcomers. There also were comments that this
was changing because of the greater need for skilled labor. Those with more
skills caused fewer problems. The literature regarding maritime labor supports
this idea. Historically, positions aboard merchant ships which required high lev-
els of skill, for example, maritime steam engineers, were never the victims of
exploitation, but those in lower skilled positions were exploited and labeled
as troublemakers and as undeserving, which legitimated further exploitation
(Forsyth & Cullison, 1987). In addition, as the use of technology increased so did
the training/skills of the individuals associated with maintaining that technology
(Forsyth, 1989, 1999).
292 C.J. Forsyth et al. / The Social Science Journal 44 (2007) 287–299

. . .the workers that are needed are more and more skilled. . . the less skilled they are the trashier
they are and the worse work record they tend to have. . .more skilled people seem to be less
trouble. . .we arrest people for nuisance type stuff. . .but over the years it has decreased as the
skills of the workers have increased. . .[#4]
. . .during the 70s/80s boom we had lots of low life. . .police characters. . .criminals coming
in as labor . . .they had little work history. . .when the bust hit they hung around and caused
trouble. . .[6]
there are labor houses. . .which are used for offshore oil workers. . .they are also used to supply
labor to other industries as well. . .they are always problems with those men. . .the more of them
the more trouble. . .[7]
we had a lot of low life brought in here. . .when the need for unskilled labor was high in the
70s, 80s. . .some of them created a nuisance during their off cycle, some hung around after they
lost their jobs because they had no place to go and no money to get there. . .that was a problem
for a while. . .[8]
I’ve seen it change. . .here. . .you know, with the ups and downs of the oil business. . .in
the boom. . .they couldn’t hire enough people. . .it was riff-raff. . .that came in. . .lots of
trouble. . .we had lots of unmarried males. . .some came down here to hide on the offshore
rigs, these criminal, psychos, dope dealers. . .and animals such as that. . .lately we got a lot
higher quality of people coming in. . .[9]
Similar to the first frame “Sour Grapes,” this second theme expresses a recognition of
community disruption, and sees a causal association with oil development. However, it differs
from the first in that blame is laid on intrusion into the community of “newcomers” attracted
by the industry. Further, no intent or purposeful exploitation is tied to the disruptive outcome,
which itself is viewed as “naturally” residing as the industry has transformed technologically.
Frame #3: An Inherent Product of Mining. The third grouping of comments by three persons
are framed under the theme that community problems are an inherent product
of oil activity and mining in general. The view expressed is that oil activity
creates an atmosphere of disruption caused by social change. This disruption
befalls old-timers, who are, in a sense, victims because they are disturbed by
social change. Their comments were not as exacting as those framed with “This
was once a wonderful place and mining screwed it up” (Frame 6). Nevertheless,
they felt that crime did go up and the boom/bust cycle was the culprit. They saw
the boom/bust cycle as an inherent part of mining activity, in general, and this
cycle as creating an atmosphere conductive to disruption. Unlike Frames 1 and
2, this frame identifies no specific group as responsible, but rather focuses on the
“victims” of the general processes of social change and modernization. Indeed,
the boom/bust cycle itself is an understood and accepted part of oil activity. They
see oil activity as a benign intruder because it is no different than other kinds of
businesses that go through various cycles.
. . .when people lose their livelihood they get stressed. . .I see a lot of family disputes when
that happens. . .and I see a lot of fights and such during good times too. . .but its also a type
of person. . .people that do not have much of a pad. . .they spend what they make and when
 C.J. Forsyth et al. / The Social Science Journal 44 (2007) 287–299 293

they got no job there is nothing but unemployment. . .other people do okay. . .but if you are in
mining, oil, or fish or shrimp or farming or doing something that depends on that. . .you can
bet that it will be bad sometimes. . .you can expect it. . .its part of the deal. . .you just have to
make sure the good out weighs the bad. [10]
. . .brief period 20 or so years ago. . .people got hold of a lot of money, but the downside of
that was not crime just the fact that a lot of people based a lifestyle or loans on that kind of
income. . .you cannot base a lifestyle on a big check when you damn well know that check will
shrink. . .[12]

Frame #4: Nothing Changed. The fourth group of comments was framed with the view
that minor criminal episodes were part of a long-standing tradition in these
communities. Twelve subjects held the perception that little had changed as a
result of oil activity. The belief is that there are long-standing problems in these
communities which continue to influence crime rates. This thesis differs from
others in that it is long-time residents who are perceived to be committing these
minor crimes and their behavior had not changed. Others commented that nothing
had changed and there was no relationship between oil activity and crime.
the same locals who were getting in trouble before did so then and after that. . .the same
guys. . .white trash on the river road is still there. . .its amazing to me how those people spend all
their money no matter how much they make. . .I can show you three generations of people in the
same families. . .they are all the same and have been the same. . .did the same shit. . .no manner
what the economy . . .good welders, fitters, carpenters. . .they are always in trouble and ain’t
got a pot to piss in. . .their daddies did the same thing. . .brothers. . .same cycle. . .forever. . .no
relationship between oil and crime. [14]
. . .nothing changes. . .maybe some workers get displaced and end up homeless for a short
period. . .but it has no effect on the chronic homeless population. . .other people look for work
and find it. . .same people get DWIs. . .same for domestic disputes. . .[15]
the same bad people, the same good people. . .[17]
the crime rate in this parish has been low and constant . . .we reflect national trends. . .oil goes
up and down and crime is in no way related to that. [18]
crime is pretty much a constant. . .people are a constant. . .some are always in trouble. . .some
never. . .[19]
. . .crime has not changed in my over 30 years in law enforcement. . .[20]
I have been here all my life. . .nothing changes. . .[21]
To tell you the truth. . .I may be mentally dense but I never noticed a boom or a bust. . .I run a
grocery. . .it goes up and down. . .but it always did that. . .it’s never the same and that’s always
the same. [22]
take for example. . .all these people without power. . .I have had more. . .fights in the week after
the hurricane. . .way more. . .then again it’s the same people who get in fights all the time. . .I
should just send a patrol to their house about 4 hours after the lights go out because that’s how
long it takes them to start beating the hell out of one another. . .but again it’s the same people
294 C.J. Forsyth et al. / The Social Science Journal 44 (2007) 287–299

getting in trouble. . .what I am saying is certain people are problems. . .nothing changes. . .the
problems were always the same here. [24]
The boom/bust literature has long suggested factors contributing to disruption include
crowding, overloaded services and institutions, breakup of established networks, exploita-
tion by outside firms, actions and inaction by public officials and leaders. Other factors include
increased anonymity and reduced effectiveness of informal social controls (Freudenburg et al.,
1995; Freudenburg & Gramling, 1992; Gramling & Brabant, 1986; Gramling & Freudenburg,
1990, 1996; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Seydlitz et al., 1993). A competing view, however, is
that crime, violence, and social disorganization attributed to “booms” may be a reflection of
previously existing structural conditions in many communities (Wilkinson et al., 1982). The
latter is the intuitive understanding of those representing this frame. For a causal relationship
to exist between two variables, three sequential criteria must be met: the cause must precede
the effect in time, the variables must be empirically correlated, and the relationship cannot
be spurious. What respondents using this frame are indicating is that the effect (disruption)
preceded the cause (oil activity); consequently, they felt there was no relationship.
Frame #5: It is an Individual Problem. Six respondents felt that any problems suggested to
be caused by oil development lie with individuals. It has nothing to do with any
structural characteristics. Many of the comments within this frame could have
been included within the frame “nothing changed.” What is unique about this
frame of orientation is its tendency to “individualize” and “de-politicize” social
problems, viewing them as having little or nothing to do with social or economic
structure and change.
. . .last time we had labor coming in but they had a work history. . .they came to work. . .good
people no problem. . . lots of them lived in trailers together. . .when things slowed down they
found work in other places quickly. . .in the 70s and early 80s some of the people who came
here were problems. . .goes to show you that the oil industry and its boom bust cycle is not the
problem and neither is all the shipbuilding that goes with oil. . .it’s the people. . .[25]
some people can make it in a boom bust economy. . .others don’t do well. . .crime has nothing
to do with the economy or oil. . .it has to do with people. . .[27]
the last so-called boom somebody had to tell me we were in a boom. . .I guess some people
learned a lesson. . .once you get use to a cyclical industry. . .doesn’t matter what it is. . .you
tend to react differently. . .some guys catch on and others don’t.[28]
. . .its like some people who use drugs they run out of drugs and cause all sorts of prob-
lems they will do anything to get some drugs. . .but others they run out of drugs and they
just stay home. . .that’s the way it is. . .it’s the same people doing the same old crime. . .it’s
individuals. . .[29]
I see seafood docks, shrimpers, welders, carpenters. . . construction workers. . .they have always
existed in a boom bust economy, you recognize what it is. . .that there is not a steady flow and
you live like that. . .you make enough in the boom to make it through the down cycle. . .I guess
if you don’t know that and if you are a mind set to commit crime. . .then you will. . .but it seems
a bit farfetched to me to blame it on an industry. . . most people experience some sort of boom
bust times and never get involved in crime. . .[30]
 C.J. Forsyth et al. / The Social Science Journal 44 (2007) 287–299 295

This view represents social disruption and social problems as merely reflections of individual
character.
Frame #6: This was once a wonderful place, it is not anymore and mining is the cul-
prit. The sixth cluster of remarks by six subjects were framed under the idea
that oil activity is generally disruptive. Mining activity is seen as changing
the core of the community by switching its traditional focus on shrimping and
farming to one centered on oil activity. When the down cycle of the oil busi-
ness came, the community had changed and had no other industry on which
to rely. These individuals perceived that the traditional cultural foundation
of shrimping is gone, and they support renewal projects to achieve cultural
revitalization.
. . .this was once a great place to live. . .it was primarily fishing, some farming. . .we had a nice
downtown area. . .oil and all their stuff. . .people came who did not give a care because they
were not going to be here very long. . .then others came who did the shit work. . .they caused
a lot of trouble. . .a lot of people stopped doing what they did to earn a living to get into some
facet of the oil business . . .oil or other ways to make money with it. . .people who had lived
here their entire life changed their way of doing things and their outlook. . .when oil went to
hell. . .we had nothing. . .and the skills and resources to get us back to being a nice place to live
were not there. [31]
. . .the oil industry did a lot of harm; messed us up badly. [32]
We are trying to get our downtown back. . .with a concentration on the river, the fishing boats, the
dock area and some stores and restaurants. . .oil was not worth a crap to this community. . .oil
brought crime and vice and the low life who either commit the crime or buy the stuff we
never had here before. . .and certainly never wanted here. . .this was once a great street for
business. . .oil brought shit and the shit laid here. . .and when they left it was an abandoned pile
of shit. . .now we are trying to get good people and their business back. . .[33]
it created a different kind of community. . .lots of arrest for cocaine. . .people had too much
money sort of crime. . .seems like more people got divorced but I don’t really know that. . .when
it got bad some just stop spending money. . .some people tried to stay in that lifestyle got
involved in embezzlement, NSF, fraud, stuff like that. . .[34]
when people change their way of making a living and their lifestyle. . .its hard to go back. . .that’s
what oil did. . . everyone thinks this was always a bad place to live with criminals and scum. . .but
it wasn’t. . .they just can’t remember when it was good. . .[36]
This view presents mining as having an extraordinarily negative social impact. They see
crime as part of the devastation of a traditional culture that was incompatible with the trans-
formation brought by oil exploration and extraction.
Frame #7: Oil activity made this a good place to live. Another theme expressed was framed
within the idea that oil had substantially improved life in a community. Fifty-
three of the respondents perceived the effects in this way, thus it was by far the
most common perception. They felt quite differently compared to those using
the previous frame. These respondents felt that the community was a poor place
296 C.J. Forsyth et al. / The Social Science Journal 44 (2007) 287–299

to live and oil had improved it. Clearly, most of the comments concerning the
effect of oil development were very positive.
This was not a nice place to live before the oil industry and oil field picked up. Oil brought in
good jobs good people. I look at the people I arrest, none of those people are employed by oil
companies. . .Nothing bad came out of oil. . .[41]
This was all poor white trash until oil came. . .oil decreased crime. . .oil and the oil business
have caused the cycle of crime to go down. . .[51]
. . .no relationship. . .offshore oil has reduced crime [53]
Oil and shrimping have always been the backbone of this community. . .but oil is the most
economically important of the two. . .the oil industry made this town. . .[60]
Shrimping is great for St. Mary Parish. . .but it never carried the economy. . .its part of the
culture and a minor player in the economy. . .all the shrimp boats and the docks on Front Street
in Morgan City are wonderful. . .but without oil all we would have are big shrimp fleets owned
by the docks. . .the only way most of us can still afford to shrimp is because we make money
in the oil industry directly or in some industry dependent on oil. Oil is dirty work and the
shipyards and pipe yards and all the other support businesses are ugly and if they were not here
we would be prettier and much poorer. [70]
Without oil we would be a shrinking spot on the map. [71]
All the renewal on Front Street is supported by money from oil. . .[82]
Some research has suggested that offshore oil activity allowed occupations such as farming
and shrimping to survive in small rural Louisiana communities because it gave them income
during the off-season or bad times, and that cultural icons like the individual shrimper would
have disappeared without the income and work scheduling generated by offshore drilling
(Forsyth & Gauthier, 1991; Margavio et al., 1996). The majority of our subjects agreed by
expressing this interpretation.
Frame #8: The disruptions were minor. The final comments are framed around the belief
that the community problems associated with the oil industry were minor and
never reached the level of seriousness expressed in the media. Five respondents
held this view.
. . .and let me said what these workers did was not bad just pain in the ass shit nothing bad. [91]
None of these guys did anything real bad. . .never any bad trouble. [92]
. . .they are just a bunch of drunks and trouble makers not violent criminals as a lot of newspapers
said. [93]
The problems some of these guys caused were minor and never reached the level of violence
expressed in the national media. [94]
These individuals were reacting to exaggerations in the media’s portrayal of South Louisiana.
There were stories about violent criminals hiding out in the oil patch (Abbott, 1982). Such
exaggeration, these respondents said, occurred in other community characteristics as well,
such as national ballet companies with world famous dancers only coming to four cities, one
 C.J. Forsyth et al. / The Social Science Journal 44 (2007) 287–299 297

of which was Lafayette, Louisiana (the professional hub of the Louisiana oil industry, located
65 miles southeast of Morgan City) (Brabant & Gramling, 1985; Gramling, 1983). This story,
although true, brought on related stories which attempted to explain why Lafayette, Louisiana
was in the same league as New York, Boston, and Los Angeles. The media contained vast
overstatements describing the city as having enormous wealth and that 1 of every 15 residents
was a millionaire in 1979, or that shacks rented for $1,000 a month. In addition, there were
other exaggerations by the press on what took place during the so-called boom years. This
media attention was evident in the interview data as the terms boom and bust are very common
in the vocabulary of these individuals. The media has tossed these terms around for more than
25 years. The role of the media in the construction of social problems and creating moral
panics is well documented in the social sciences (Chermak, 1995; Crouch & Damphousse,
1992; Forsyth & Oliver, 1990; Forsyth & Shover, 1986; Goode & Ben-Yehuda, 1999). In the
perception of those using this frame, the boom/bust and its problems were largely a media
fabrication.

6. Discussion

One of the unique features of oil and gas extraction is its cycle of expansion and contraction
in supply and demand. As noted in the beginning of this paper, it has been suggested this pattern
is analogous to boomtowns. While this may be the case for Western boomtowns, the social his-
tory of these long-standing Louisiana communities indicates otherwise. The boomtown social
impact model simply may not be applicable to offshore oil. If one looks at company/mining
towns of the Western United States, this concept may be relevant. The towns were created
and then disappeared or nearly did. Hence, the term ”ghost town“is a feature of the West.
Conversely, there are no ”company towns“or abandoned places associated with offshore oil
development. The demand for offshore oil has never stopped. This demand has moved up
and down over the short run and up over the long term. But the ideology that pervades the
oil industry and the community is that the industry will return because the demand is always
there. Oil has a varying demand over time. Those involved in the oil industry learn to persist
in this cycle. As one long time public official and oil executive said in an interview,
. . .you make enough in the boom to survive the bust. It’s a shaking out process. Those that
are not strong enough to survive the bust die. This cycle continues, as better times come more
people enter and so on. . .[89]

This unsettled character, then, is an expected part of the industry. The general comments
of those interviewed support the notion that the oil industry and its auxiliary activities have
not seriously disrupted communities, but has brought immediate and higher socio-economic
status for families and in time, social capital and social mobility for their children. Moreover,
because of on–off cycles of employment, cultural recreations and secondary employment such
as fishing, shrimping, and farming have been facilitated (Cluck & Luton, 2002; Forsyth &
Gauthier, 1991; Margavio et al., 1996).
The individuals interviewed had developed specific caveats for acknowledging their con-
victions, but very few of these individuals perceived the oil industry to be a source of major
298 C.J. Forsyth et al. / The Social Science Journal 44 (2007) 287–299

disruption, and most saw the consequences as being positive. If we take the perspective that the
social construction of problems may be found in the process of social actors creating “causal”
stories involving blame or intent and their image of consequences (Stone, 1989), our data sug-
gest a rather broad range of definitions of the effect of off-shore development on community
problems, with the most typical interpretative themes offering an image of long-term positive
community gains.
The ideas and findings generated by this research should encourage further inquiries, and will
propagate new models and paradigms with which to investigate the effects of oil development
or other mining activities. The nature of our sample obviously limits the external validity of the
results. Nevertheless, our findings indicate the need for research that is sensitive to the diversity
of possible effects and that is not bound to the assumption of the boom/bust model, suggesting
that the social impact of oil extraction is inherently detrimental to social and cultural integration.
This may be true also of established small communities in other settings that experience growth
and change from energy development, e.g., coal extraction in Appalachia (cf. White, 1983).
There is no intention here to suggest that there are no serious, and perhaps negative, community
consequences, but, for the most part, the perceptions of our respondents suggested the presence
of the oil and gas industry may have contributed significantly to building the community.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the Editor of the Social Science Journal and two anonymous reviewers
for their help in improving this manuscript.

References

Abbott, J. H. (1982). In the Belly of the Beast. New York: Random House.
Babbie, E. (2001). The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Brabant, S., & Gramling, R. (1985). Academic versus street definitions of poverty: Implications for policy formu-
lations. Applied Sociology, 2, 33–42.
Chermak, S. (1995). Victims in the News Crime and the American News Media. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Crouch, B. M., & Damphousse, K. R. (1992). Newspapers and the antisatanism movement: A content analysis.
Sociological Spectrum, 12(1), 1–20.
Cluck, R. E., & Luton, H. (2002, March). Towards a multi-level social assessment framework: Effects and responses
to change in the Gulf of Mexico. Paper presented at the Society for Petroleum Engineers international conference
on health, safety and environment in oil and gas exploration and production, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Field, D., & Burch, W. (1991). Rural Sociology and the Environment. Middleton, WI: Social Ecology
Press.
Forsyth, C. J. (1989). The American Merchant Seaman and His Industry: Struggle and. Stigma New York: Taylor
& Francis.
Forsyth, C. J. (1999). Some unsettling maritime terms: The interpretation of found, cargo, ballast, and voyage.
Maritime Policy and Management, 26(1), 61–68.
Forsyth, C. J., & Cullison, A. (1987). Intraunion conflict: The changing marine engineer. Maritime Policy and
Management, 14(4), 279–287.
 C.J. Forsyth et al. / The Social Science Journal 44 (2007) 287–299 299

Forsyth, C. J., & Gauthier, D. K. (1991). Families of offshore oil workers: Adaptations to cyclical father
absence/presence. Sociological Spectrum, 11(2), 177–201.
Forsyth, C. J., & Marckese, T. A. (1993a). Thrills and skills: A sociological analysis of poaching. Deviant Behavior,
14, 157–172.
Forsyth, C. J., & Marckese, T. A. (1993b). Folk outlaws: Vocabularies of motives. International Review of Modern
Sociology, 23(1), 17–31.
Forsyth, C. J., & Oliver, M. (1990). The theoretical framing of a social problem: Some conceptual notes on satanic
cults. Deviant Behavior, 11, 281–292.
Forsyth, C. J., & Shover, N. (1986). No rest for the weary. . .constructing a problem of elderly crime. Sociological
Focus, 19(October), 375–386.
Freudenburg, W. R., Frickel, S., & Gramling, R. (1995). The sociocultural definition of natural resources: Learning
to think about a mountain. Sociological Forum, 10, 361–392.
Freudenburg, W. R., & Gramling, R. (1992). Community impacts of technological change: Toward a longitudinal
perspective. Social Forces, 70, 937–955.
Freudenburg, W. R., & Gramling, R. (1994a). Mid-range theory and cutting edge sociology: A call for cumulation.
Environment, Technology, and Society, 76(1), 3–6.
Freudenburg, W. R., & Gramling, R. (1994b). Oil in Troubled Waters: Perceptions, Politics, and the Battle Over
Offshore Drilling. New York: SUNY Press.
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books.
Goode, E., & Ben-Yehuda, N. (1999). Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishers.
Gramling, R. (1983). A social history of Lafayette Parish. In D. Manuel (Ed.), Energy and Economic Growth in
Lafayette, LA: 1965–1980 (pp. 8–52). Lafayette, LA: The University of Southwestern Louisiana.
Gramling, R. (1996). Oil on the Edge. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Gramling, R., & Brabant, S. (1986). Boomtowns and offshore energy impact assessment: The development of a
comprehensive model. Sociological Perspectives, 29, 177–201.
Gramling, R., & Freudenburg, W. R. (1990). A closer look at local control: Communities, commodities, and the
collapse of the coast. Rural Sociology, 55, 541–558.
Gramling, R., & Freudenburg, W. R. (1996). Crude, coppertone, and the coast: Socio-environmental factors in
the emergence and constraint of economic development opportunities. Society and Natural Resources, 9, 483–
506.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Krogman, N. (1996). Frame disputes in environmental controversies: The case of wetlands regulations in Louisiana.
Sociological Spectrum, 16(4), 371–400.
Margavio, A., Forsyth, C. J., Laska, S., & Mason, J. (1996). Caught in the Net: Protecting Endangered
Species or Endangering Shrimpers? Conflict Over Marine Resources. College Station: Texas A&M University
Press.
Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory.
American Journal of Sociology, 94, 774–802.
Seydlitz, R., Laska, S., Spain, D., Triche, E., & Bishop, K. (1993). Development and social problems: The impact
of the offshore oil industry on suicide and homocide rates. Rural Sociology, 58(1), 93–110.
Stone, D. A. (1989). Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political Science Quarterly, 104(2),
281–300.
White, S. E. (1983). Return migration to Appalachian Kentucky: An atypical case of nonmetropolitan migration
reversal. Rural Sociology, 48(3), 471–491.
Wilkinson, K. P., Thompson, J. G., Reynolds, R. R., Jr., & Ostresh, L. M. (1982). Local social disruption and
Western energy development. Pacific Sociological Review, 25(3), 275–296.