Progress in Human Geography 23,3 (1999) pp.

437-442

Otherness, representation and the

cultural construction of rurality
Jo Little
Department of Geography, University of Exeter, Amory Building, Rennes Drive,
Exeter EX4 4RJ, UK

In a recent editorial in the Journal of Rural Studies Cloke (1997) remarked on the buoyant
state of rural studies. Identifying major advances in both the quantity and quality of
rural research he argues that 'we are now experiencing the most exciting period of rural
studies, certainly within the last 20 years' (Cloke, 1997: 371). One of the major break-
throughs identified by Cloke, and now filtering through to published work, is the
engagement by rural geographers with the much referenced 'cultural turn'. Major
themes from within this cultural perspective, for example the representation and con-
struction of rurality, the marginalization of 'others' and the spatiality of nature (Cloke,
1977) have become an accepted, if not central, part of the writing and teaching of
academic rural geography. While an interest in new theoretical/conceptual debates in
rural geography is to be welcomed - especially given a traditional reluctance to take on
other theoretical developments in the subject - there is a sense in which the application
of the 'cultural turn' has, at times, been simplistic and uncritical. This review provides
a timely opportunity for a critique (albeit brief and necessarily selective) of rural
geographers' engagement with some of the themes of cultural geography and of the
contribution of this involvement to the development of the subject.

I Culture, marginality and the rural other

The (much cited) review article by Chris Philo (1992) calling for greater academic
attention to be paid to 'neglected' groups in rural social research inspired, encouraged
and legitimated a whole host of studies on the lifestyles and experiences of the 'rural
other'. As books, journal articles and PhD theses such studies have begun to emerge in
their written form (see, for example, Woodward, 1996; Cloke and Little, 1997; Cloke et
al., 1997; Milboume, 1997). In general terms this research has helped to draw attention
to the problems faced by a range of individuals and groups living and visiting (or not
visiting) the countryside. As a result of a focus on the rural other we now know much
C) Arnold 1 999 0309-1325(99)PH248PR
438 Otherness, representation and the cultural construction of rurality

more about the lives of, for example, rural women (see Little and Austin, 1996; Hughes,
1997a; 1997b; Little, 1997a; 1997b), rural children (Halliday, 1997; Jones, O., 1997;
Valentine, 1997a), rural gays and lesbians (Valentine, 1997b), rural people of colour
(Agyeman and Spooner, 1997; Kinsman, 1997) and travellers (Halfacree, 1996; Davis,
1997; Sibley, 1997). While some of this work has tended to present rather stereotypical
visions of both othered and non-othered groups, much has been undertaken rigorously
and sensitively, avoiding in the main the inevitable criticism of research tourism.
There are, nevertheless, I believe, some serious concerns to be voiced regarding rural
geographers' interest in and treatment of the 'rural other'. The first problem concerns
the conceptualization of the rural other and the lack of theoretical discussion around the
terms 'the other' and 'the same' (but see Lawrence, 1997; Murdoch and Pratt, 1997). Too
many studies have rather glibly labelled groups or individuals as 'other' with
seemingly little recognition of the power relations and processes of transgression
involved in such a categorization. Studies of the rural other can not and should not be
undertaken without some reference to the basis of a particular form of othering; why
are certain identities othered, who gains or benefits from such positioning and who are
those who are 'the same'. In attempting to address such questions, studies of the rural
other cannot ignore the broader configurations of power as expressed through racism,
patriarchy, homophobia, etc. At present work on the rural other does not, I would
argue, go far enough in its identification and articulation of the power relations which
serve to create and reinforce marginalization.
A further, and not unrelated, criticism of studies of the rural other is the somewhat
static treatment of both individual and group identity. While reference is frequently
made to the shifting and uncertain nature of identity (see, for example, Crouch, 1997),
there is a tendency for studies, especially those based on empirical work, then to ignore
such uncertainty in their identification and examination of the rural other. Studies are
only just beginning to emerge in recognition of the complexity of rural identities
(Cavanagh, 1998) and of the ways in which individuals may be marginalized or othered
in different ways and to varying degrees as a result of a whole range of personal, spatial
and temporal characteristics (see Ward and Lowe, forthcoming). As Cavanagh (1998)
has recently argued, studies of rural otherness need to focus much more directly on
difference within groups of so-called others, in an attempt to understand the 'degrees of
separation and movement' (Cavanagh, 1998) between the other and the same.
A greater sensitivity towards the complexity and fluidity of rural otherness requires
that we focus more directly on the meaning and construction of identity in a rural
context. While geographers in other parts of the discipline have started to question the
basis of personal identity formation (see, for example, feminist work on women of
colour - e.g., Twine, 1996, and more generally Keith and Pile, 1993), few attempts have
been made within rural geography to unravel what is actually meant by identity. A
recent article by Cloke et al. (1997) begins to look more closely at identity formation and
in so doing raises questions about identity as a theoretical construct. Cloke et al.
examine the cultural construction of Welsh identity and its importance in individuals'
understanding and experience of 'the rural'. Rather than simply ascribing the category
Welsh or non-Welsh on groups or individuals, they start to unpack the characteristics of
a Welsh identity and how these are taken up by and conferred on people in particular
situations (see also Jones, N., 1997).
Echoing through both discussions of the cultural turn in rural geography and specific
 Jo Little 439

studies of rural others is a concern with the theoretical and political 'purpose' (or end
point) of such research (see Cloke, 1997; Cloke and Little, 1997). It has been suggested
that too strong an emphasis on the cultural construction of rural society and marginal-
ization will encourage description and detract from an examination of the underlying
causes and processes of disadvantage. Such concerns clearly relate, again, to the failure
adequately to theorize the notion of otherness. They also reflect a broader tension be-
tween cultural approaches and political economy and a fear that interest in some of the
more traditional, structural, axes of rural power (particularly class, land and property
ownership and gender) is being abandoned in the face of 'postmodern' acceptance of
highly individualized experiences and explanations of inequality and difference.
The need to retain links between 'cultural approaches' to the study of marginaliza-
tion and political practice and policy is, however, evident in some writing. Questions
have been asked about the moral and ethical implications of researching the rural other
- particularly where this is done outside a specific policy debate. The ethics of
identifying marginalization outside any sort of framework for change have also been
challenged. As Cloke notes, however, even where research is motivated by a strong
desire to address inequality, real problems exist in presenting output of contemporary
cultural research in a manner that is compatible with rural policy and practice. The
inevitable 'messiness' of the experience and presentation of marginalization makes the
framing of policy recommendations difficult and encourages partial and individual
responses.

II Representations of rurality
Studies of otherness have shown how questions of marginality are closely bound up in
constructions of the rural; groups and individuals are othered as their particular socio-
cultural identities (or parts of those identities - see Little, 1997a) fail to conform with
assumptions and beliefs about the nature of rural society. As recent political events (e.g.,
the 1998 'Countryside March' in London) have demonstrated, a specific view of how
'real' country people think and behave (in the UK) has become dominant. Values and
beliefs of 'rural folk' are being constructed (from inside and outside) as distinct and
different - a failure to recognize and share such beliefs casts people as 'other' to
authentic country people and ways. A number of recently published studies (see, for
example, Cosgrove et al., 1996; Sarsby, 1997) have sought to identify, in some detail,
aspects of this dominant view of rurality and to show how they have been reproduced
and represented through art, literature and other media.
In discussing how the rural has been represented and consumed, studies have, with
predictable (and at times almost painful) regularity, drawn on the notion of the rural
idyll. Although not a new term or idea (see, for example, its use in the ground-breaking
sociological/geographical work of Pahl in the 1960s and Newby in the 1970s), the rural
idyll seems to have captured the imagination (or perhaps the unimagination) of rural
geographers to the extent that no discussion of rural society or community appears
complete without some reference to the peaceful, wholesome, tight-knit, caring,
timeless, etc., etc., myth that is the rural idyll. As guilty as anyone (see Little and Austin,
1996) I have found difficult to resist this shorthand (and often, it has to be said,
seemingly very appropriate) catchall and highly evocative notion. It is, however, time
440 Otherness, representation and the cultural construction of rurality

to move on. The 'rural idyll' has become dangerously credited with causal powers and
too often carelessly employed as an explanation for rural social change. It has also
served to detract from the recognition of variety and, indeed, alongside the concept of
'otherness' to simplify our understanding of power relations within rural society and of
the contestation of the reality and representation of rural culture.
The common cry of the second-year Exeter undergraduate - 'I want to do a disserta-
tion on the rural idyll' - encapsulates at once a simplicity of understanding with (it is
hoped) an awareness of the scope and importance of ideas behind the cultural (de)con-
struction of rurality. Much more work is needed on the detail of the various sociocul-
tural practices and beliefs that underpin (and are part of) dominant representations of
the rural. How such practices and beliefs vary between individuals and places and how
they are contested and challenged also need to be examined together with their rela-
tionship with (and role in) the structural explanations for rural change.

III Nature-society
In a recent review of rural geography for this journal, Marsden (1996) drew attention to
work by rural geographers on the relationship between nature and society. While not
wanting to repeat Marsden's observations, it is important that such work is noted in the
context of the 'cultural turn' in rural studies. Cloke (1997: 371) talks of the 'move
towards reclaiming nature as a legitimate and provocative component of reconstructed
rural studies', noting the wide range of research strands that are relevant. Elsewhere,
Cloke et al. (1996) argue that while nature cannot be conflated with the rural, the
countryside does represent one commonly identified spatialization of nature. One
recent focus of nature-society debates has been the place of humans and the relation-
ship between human and nonhuman actors. Murdoch (1997), for example, uses actor-
network theory in a criticism of the continual positioning of humans as the only
significant actors in society and the neglect of, in particular, animals and technology.
Similar arguments are put forward (albeit from a variety of different perspectives) by a
range of people involved in research on animals and flora as part of the broader exami-
nation of the relationship between nature and society (see, for example, Woods, 1998).
One related area which has had very little attention from rural geographers is that of
embodiment. This is somewhat surprising given the elusions to health and fitness
contained within the 'rural idyll' and of the role played by bodily transgressions in
defining the rural other. Harper (1997) has made reference to the body in her discussion
of the othering of the rural elderly, while Cavanagh (1998) has started to consider the
disabled body in the context of rural marginalization. Bell (1997) has also drawn
attention to the deformed body as associated with the anti-idyll of rural horror. In a
rather different vein, Cloke and Perkins (1998) draw attention to the use of images of
(young) active and fit body in the promotion of adventure tourism in New Zealand.
While through such studies we are beginning to see an acknowledgement of the
embodied nature of certain rural practices and attitudes, there is still considerable scope
for a more detailed and sustained focus on embodiment in a rural context and, in
particular, for the development of theoretical perspectives on the body and its centrality
to otherness and rural identity.
 Jo Little 441

IV Conclusion

In this review I have tried to temper the current excitements and enthusiasms of rural
geography with a plea for a critical and considered approach to recent developments -

particularly in the context of the 'cultural turn'. This is not intended as a criticism of the
work that has been produced, much of which has helped to lift rural geography (both
in terms of quality and reputation) out of its rather traditional and isolated past into a
much more energetic, robust and 'engaged' phase. My comments have, however,
reflected a belief that it is now time to move on. I have outlined some of the specific
areas where gaps have opened up and opportunities exist for new research (in, for
example, embodiment and rural spaces). More broadly there is a need further to
interrogate some of the now accepted concepts (particularly otherness and the rural
idyll) in rural research. Simply to continue to trot out descriptions of 'the other' would
be to waste the work that has been done to date. Instead we must start to look more
closely at the finer detail and complexities of marginalization and to attempt to explain
people's lives and experiences not simply by reference to some idealized rural culture
but to the configurations of power as they exist between and among individuals and
institutions.

References
Agyeman, J. and Spooner, R. 1997: Ethnicity and Environment and Planning D: Society and Space
the rural environment. In Cloke, P. and Little, J., 16, 185-218.
editors, Contested countryside cultures: otherness, Cosgrove, D., Roscoe, B. and Rycroft, S. 1996:
marginalisation and rurality, London: Routledge. Landscape and identity at Ladybower
Reservoir and Rutland Water. Transactions,
Bell, D. 1997: Anti-idyll: rural horror. In Cloke, P. Institute of British Geographers 21, 534-51.
and Little, J, editors, Contested countryside Crouch, D. 1997: 'Others' in the rural: leisure
cultures: otherness, marginalisation and rurality, practices and geographical knowledge. In
London: Routledge. Milbourne, P., editor, Revealing rural 'others':
representation, power and identity in the British
Cavanagh, J. 1998: Others and structures in the countryside, London: Pinter.
post(-)rural: degrees of separation and
movement. PhD thesis, University of Exeter. Davis, J. 1997: New Age travellers in the
Cloke, P. 1997: Country backwater to virtual countryside: incomers with attitude. In
village? Rural studies and the 'cultural turn'. Milbourne, P., editor, Revealing rural 'others':
Journal of Rural Studies 13, 367-75. representation, power and identity in the British
Cloke, P. and Little, J., editors, 1997: Contested countryside, London: Pinter.
cultures: otherness, marginalisation and rurality.
London: Routledge. Halfacree, K. 1996: Out of place in the country:
Cloke, P., Milbourne, P. and Thomas, C. 1996: travellers and the rural idyll. Antipode 28,
The English National Forest: local reactions to 42-72.
plans for renegotiated nature-society relations Halliday, J. 1997: Children's services and care: a
in the countryside. Transactions, Institute of rural view. Geoforum 28, 103-19.
British Geographers 21, 552-71. Harper, S. 1997: Contesting later life. In Cloke, P.
1997: Living life in different ways? and Little, J., editors, Contested countryside
Deprivation, marginalisation and changing cultures: otherness, marginalisation and rurality,
lifestyles in rural England. Transactions, Institute London: Routledge.
of British Geographers 22, 210-30. Hughes, A. 1997a: Women and rurality: gendered
Cloke, P. and Perkins, H. 1998: Representations experiences of 'community' in village life. In
of adventure tourism in New Zealand. Milbourne, P., editor, Revealing rural 'others':
442 Otherness, representation and the cultural construction of rurality

representation, power and identity in the British Murdoch, J. and Pratt, A. 1997: From the power
countryside, London: Pinter. of topography to the topography of power: a
1997b: Rurality and 'cultures of woman- discourse on strange ruralities. In Cloke, P. and
hood': domestic identities and moral order in Little, J., editors, Contested countryside cultures:
village life. In Cloke, P. and Little, J., editors, otherness, marginalisation and rurality, London:
Contested countryside cultures: otherness, margin - Routledge.
alisation and rurality, London: Routledge.
Newby, H. 1979: Green and pleasant land? Social
Jones, N. 1997: Diverging voices in a rural Welsh change in rural England. Harmondsworth:
community. In Milbourne, P., editor, Revealing Penguin.
rural 'others': representation, power and identity in
the British countryside, London: Pinter. Pahl, R. 1965: Urbs in rure: the metropolitanfringe in
Jones, 0. 1997: Little figures, big shadows: Hertfordshire. London School of Economics
country childhood stories. In Cloke, P. and Geographical Papers 2. London: LSE.
Little, J., editors, Contested countryside cultures: Philo, C. 1992: Neglected rural geographies: a
otherness, marginalisation and rurality, London: review. Journal of Rural Studies 8, 193-207.
Routledge.
Sarsby, J. 1997: From cream making to coq au vin:
Keith, M. and Pile, S. 1993: Place and the politics of finding images in rural Devon. In Milbourne,
identity. London: Routledge. P., editor, Revealing rural 'others': representation,
Kinsman, P. 1997: Re-negotiating the boundaries power and identity in the British countryside,
of race and citizenship: the Black Environ- London: Pinter.
mental Network and conservation bodies. In Sibley, D. 1997: Endangering the sacred: nomads,
Milbourne, P., editor, Revealing rural 'others': youth cultures and the English countryside. In
representation, power and identity in the British Cloke, P. and Little, J., editors, Contested
countryside, London: Pinter. countryside cultures: otherness, marginalisation
and rurality, London: Routledge.
Lawrence, M. 1997: Heartlands or neglected
geographies? Liminality, power and the Twine, F. 1996: Brown skinned white girls: class,
hypereal rural. Journal of Rural Studies 13, 1-17. culture and the construction of white identity
Little, J. 1997a: Employment, marginality and in suburban communities. Gender, Place and
women's self-identity. In Cloke, P. and Little, J., Culture 3, 205-24.
editors, Contested countryside cultures: otherness,
marginalisation and rurality, London: Routledge. Valentine, G. 1997: A safe place to grow up?
1997b: Constructions of rural women's Parenting, perceptions of children's safety and
voluntary work. Gender, Place and Culture 4, the rural idyll. Journal of Rural Studies 13,
197-210. 137-48.
Little, J. and Austin, P. 1996: Women and the 1997b: Making space: lesbian separatist
rural idyll. Journal of Rural Studies 12, 101-11. communities in the United States. In Cloke, P.
Lowe, P., Clark, J., Seymour, S. and Ward, N. and Little, J., editors, Contested countryside
1997: Moralizing the environment: countryside cultures: otherness, marginalisation and rurality,
change, farming and pollution. London: UCL London: Routledge.
Press.
Ward, N. and Lowe, P. forthcoming: Insecurities
Marsden, T. 1996: Rural geography trend report: in contemporary country life: rural com-
the social and political bases of rural restructur- munities and social change. In Hill, M., Vail, J.
ing. Progress in Human Geography 20, 246-58. and Wheelock, J., editors, Fostering insecurity:
Milbourne, P., editor, 1997: Revealing rural 'others': policies and lived experiences, London: Routledge.
representation, power and identity in the British Woods, M. 1998: Mad cows and hounded deer:
countryside. London: Pinter. political representations of animals in the
Murdoch, J. 1997: Inhuman/nonhuman/human: British countryside. Environment and Planning A
actor-network theory and the prospects for a 30, 1219-34.
nondualistic and symmetrical perspective on Woodward, R. 1996: 'Deprivation' and 'the rural':
nature and society. Environment and Planning D: an investigation into contradictory discourses.
Society and Space 15, 731-56. Journal of Rural Studies 12, 55-68.