04-Cloke New-3295-04.

qxd 7/28/2005 9:43 PM Page 44

4
Rural Space: Constructing a Three-fold Architecture

Keith Halfacree

Building a map in order to find,

What’s not lost but left behind

(Beth Orton, Tangent, 1996)

INTRODUCTION forms and at a whole series of scales by social

individuals. We thus have a great diversity of
‘species of space’ (2000b: 3) implicated in every
This chapter develops a framework for exploring aspect of life, some touched on within this
the present day character and status of ‘rural chapter.
space’. Reflecting the present era, where frag- Much of what follows draws on the ideas
mentation within all aspects of life appears as of the late Henri Lefebvre. This material, not yet
a key leitmotif (Harvey, 1989), the chapter seeks been widely deployed within rural studies, seeks
to construct a heuristic device – a ‘map’ – with to broaden and to enrich our understanding of
which to interrogate rural space. Such a strategy space, and to draw out both its mundane every-
aims to bring together the dispersed elements of day significance and its highly abstract charac-
what we already know about rural space more ter under capitalism. Through developing a
than to reveal some hidden or ‘lost’ aspect of this Lefebvrian model of (rural) space, the chapter
space. As such – and as seems appropriate within argues that far from disappearing as a significant
a Handbook of rural studies – the chapter aims to conceptual category, ‘rural space’ does indeed
provide a resource to be drawn upon by those in retain what Sarah Whatmore (1993: 605) termed
search of a better understanding of the character an ‘unruly and intractable … significance’, both
of rural space throughout the world today. Thus, within everyday life and for us academics.
whilst clearly written from a British vantage Although the issue of defining the rural has
point, the chapter will hopefully resonate much its own chapter in this collection (Cloke,
further afield. Chapter 2 in this volume), it is with reference to
At the outset, the chapter is not going to this debate that we start. This is because the
rehearse yet again the debates that have raged very idea of ‘rural space’ is pleonastic.1 The
within geography and social theory concerning redundancy in the term comes from the fact that
the ontological and epistemological status of the concept ‘rural’ is inherently spatial, with
‘space’ (cf. Crang and Thrift, 2000a; Gregory ‘space’ understood in the broad sense implied
and Urry, 1985; Peet, 1998). Instead, it takes as a above. Any attempt to separate rural from space
starting point the position that space – and any- runs the risk of reproducing the unhelpful dual-
thing that we might call ‘rural space’ – is not ‘a ism of society versus space. From the brief
practico-inert container of action’ but ‘a socially engagement with defining rural (space), the
produced set of manifolds’ (Crang and Thrift, second section of the chapter develops a three-
2000b: 2). Space does not somehow ‘just exist’, fold understanding of space, and then of rural
waiting passively to be discovered and mapped, space. Finally, the third section illustrates an
but is something created in a whole series of application of this model through a brief
04-Cloke New-3295-04.qxd 7/28/2005 9:43 PM Page 45

RURAL SPACE 45

account of the two key phases of rural spatiality this variation reflects geographical context.
in post-1945 Britain. A good example comes through in research on
counter-urbanization. In the small, densely popu-
lated island of Great Britain, the rural side of this
DEFINING THE RURAL migration trend is typically defined at the scale
of the local government District (for example,
Champion, 1998). In contrast, in the USA and
In a paper from 1993, I argued that the rural is Australia, rurality is depicted at the more macro
best understood in two ways (Halfacree, 1993). scale of the Non-Metropolitan Region (for exam-
Both attempted to provide a definition rooted in ple, Frey and Johnson, 1998; Hugo and Bell,
‘rational abstraction’ or the identification of ‘a 1998). None the less, it is much more than a
significant element of the world which has some question of scale that shapes ‘rural’, since each
unity or autonomous force’ (Sayer, 1984: 126). of these diverse spatial imaginaries also bears
Unity could be attained, albeit through a degree the imprint of practices of culture, contestation,
of time–space bracketing, by regarding the commodification, etc. The role of these multiple
rural as either ‘locality’ or ‘social representa- imprints is clear in the rest of this chapter.
tion’. Crucially, these two conceptions of rural Returning to the specificity of the rural, in the
were seen as intrinsically interwoven and co- light of this chapter’s British bias it is important
existent rather than mutually exclusive. The sig- to note that ‘in an international context, the
nificance of this point will be developed below. English2 notions of ‘rural’ and the ‘countryside’
Before this, however, I must say a little about the are strongly contested and often non-existent’
geographical specificity of the term ‘rural’ itself (Wilson, 2001: 90). For example, in stark contrast
(see also Chapters 1 and). with Britain, Laschewski et al. (2002) regard the
rural in Germany as a ‘secondary concept’, sub-
ordinate to other spatialized terms such as
The geographical specificity of ‘rural’
‘region’, ‘peasant’ or ‘periphery’. This is reflected
in the problem of finding any ‘direct translations
The problematic issue of what different peoples in of “rural” (ländlich?) or “countryside” (no equiva-
different places mean by ‘rural’ goes right to the lent word)’ (Wilson, 2001: 90). Any talk or analy-
heart of the theoretical argument developed below. sis of rural or rural space must always be sensitive
Quite simply, neither at the official (Halfacree to this issue of geographical specificity.
et al., 2002) nor at the cultural or popular level is
there consensus on the delineation of the ‘non-
urban’ spaces that the term ‘rural’ seeks to encap- Rural space as material
sulate. Even within Europe, Hoggart et al. observe:
Defining rural as a ‘locality’ is inspired by struc-
there is little chance of reaching consensus on what is turalist and broader materialist concerns not to
meant by ‘rural’ … It is both more straightforward and fetishize space through the metaphor of a ‘con-
more convenient to establish definitions of urban areas tainer’ but to see it as being constantly produced,
[but cf. Champion and Hugo, forthcoming], based on reproduced and (potentially) transformed. As
population size or building density, than to attempt to
Smith sharply observes, following Marx, ‘a geo-
identify the defining parameters of rural space. (1995: 21)
graphical space [sic] … abstracted from society
A similar problem faces us when talking about is a philosophical amputee … we do not live, act
the rural in developing countries (Barke and and work “in” space so much as by living, acting
O’Hare, 1991). For example, within the Arab and working we produce space’ (1984: 77, 85).
world, ‘rural landscapes … are as diverse and More specifically, localities are relatively
complex as those of any other major culture enduring spaces inscribed by social processes or,
region’ (Findlay, 1994: 126). less passively, both inscribed and used by social
Unsurprisingly given the ‘manifold’ character processes; product and means of production.
of space, ‘rural’ can conjure up a huge range of They can be ‘visualized as islands of absolute
spatial imaginaries. A list of these could include: space in a sea of relative space’ (Smith, 1984: 87;
countryside, wilderness, outback, periphery, emphasis added). This understanding of locality
farm belt, village, hamlet, bush, peasant society, is more theoretically reflexive and, as a conse-
pastoral, garden, unincorporated territory, open quence, more restrictive than that promoted
space … (for an Anglo-US perspective, see through the ‘localities research’ that emerged
Bunce, 1994; Marx, 1964; Short, 1991). In part, in the 1980s (for example, Cooke, 1989). The
04-Cloke New-3295-04.qxd 7/28/2005 9:43 PM Page 46

46 APPROACHES TO RURAL STUDIES

latter ran the danger of spatial (environmental) Rural space as imaginative

determinism, a risk commonplace whenever
specific places are studied ‘in and of themselves’ In contrast to exploring and evaluating the
(Smith, 1987: 62). existence of a socially significant materially
To identify rural localities, at least two condi- expressed rural space, an alternative strategy is to
tions must be met (Hoggart, 1990). First, we look further at Copp’s argument that the rural
must show significant processes in operation that today is ‘merely’ an analytic distinction or rhetor-
are delineated at a local spatial scale. Second, the ical device. Here, the predominant character of
resulting spatial inscriptions must enable us to rural space moves away from being materially
distinguish ‘rural’ from one or more ‘non-rural’ immanent on the ground to being first and fore-
environments. In summary, we must ‘identify most imaginative (Mormont, 1990). It may have
locations with distinctive causal forces’ (1990: material expression, of course, but such embodied
248) we can label ‘rural’. traces are not its primary reality. The importance
Many authors doubt whether rural localities, of such a perspective has already been suggested
or at least socially significant rural localities, can in the discussion of the geographical variability of
be identified today, especially in the so-called the term ‘rural’ internationally.
developed world (Cloke, 1999). Such doubt As a concept utilized in everyday life, the rural
reflects, in particular, the influence of a political is a part of what Sayer (1989) terms a ‘lay narra-
economy perspective on rural studies (Cloke, tive’. Typically, as reflected in Copp’s quote,
1989). Quite simply, the spatiality of contempo- such narratives have been rather dismissed by
rary capitalism has tended to do away with the academics because of their relatively loose and
old geographical demarcations and borders. unexamined character as compared to the sup-
There has been a ‘spatial loosening of the ele- posedly rigorous and reflexive theory-saturated
ments once considered indicative of … rural and concepts favoured by ‘theorists’. ‘Conversational
urban’ (Lobao, 1996: 89). The scale of operations realities’ must yield to ‘academic discourses’
within capitalist society is constantly being (Shotter, 1993) or ‘academic narratives’ (Sayer,
re-written and the significance of a ‘rural’ scale 1989). However, this is a problematic posi-
has been incessantly and plurally undermined. tioning, with its elevation of the academic stance
From local, national and international (global) over that used by everybody – including
perspectives, the rural often seems anachronistic academics – most of the time. Its limitations are
and overtaken by events (Mormont, 1990), at immediately apparent when the rural as a lay
best a minor player in the line-up of localities. narrative is examined further.
Reflecting this effacement of erstwhile rural This examination can be undertaken by draw-
space, in a Presidential address to the Rural ing on the work of Serge Moscovici and the
Sociological Society in 1972, the US sociologist insights of symbolic interactionism. Moscovici
James Copp argued forcefully that: (1984) argued that in order to deal with the per-
There is no rural and there is no rural economy. It is petual complexity of the world around us we are
merely our analytic distinction, our rhetorical device. forced to simplify it into a series of ‘social repre-
Unfortunately we tend to be victims of our own termi- sentations’. These are understood as:
nological duplicity. We tend to ignore the import of
what happens in the total economy and society as it organizational mental constructs which guide us
affects the rural sector. We tend to think of the rural towards what is ‘visible’ and must be responded to,
sector as a separate entity … (1972: 519) relate appearance and reality, and even define reality
itself. The world is organized, understood and mediated
The British geographer Keith Hoggart reiter- through these basic cognitive units. Social representa-
ated the essence of this argument 18 years later: tions consist of both concrete images and abstract
concepts, organized around ‘figurative nuclei’. (Halfacree,
undifferentiated use of ‘rural’ in a research context is
1993: 29)
detrimental to the advancement of social theory … The
broad category ‘rural’ is obfuscatory … since intra-rural
Applying this theory to the definition of ‘rural’
differences can be enormous and rural–urban similari-
we can say that this ‘mere’ rhetorical device
ties can be sharp. (1990: 245)
refers to a ‘social representation of space’
From this perspective we must ‘do away with (Halfacree, 1993, 1995; Jones, 1995). Rural space’s
rural’ (p. 245) for theoretical progress. Indeed, con- cognitive representation rather than its appear-
tinued belief in its inherent salience may be seen ance in the social and physical landscape thus
as ideological, in that it denies and confuses our becomes the entry point of our interest. This is
picture of the spatiality of contemporary capitalism. irrespective of whether or not rural localities are
04-Cloke New-3295-04.qxd 7/28/2005 9:43 PM Page 47

RURAL SPACE 47

acknowledged. Indeed, even if one doubts the delineation and boundedness, regarding the rural
continued existence of any distinct rural locality: as an interpretative repertoire fundamentally
destabilizes what is left of any fixity. Any linguis-
The rural is a category of thought. … The category [is] tic rural space that is produced through an inter-
not only empirical or descriptive; but it also [carries] a pretative repertoire becomes fundamentally and
representation or set of meanings, in that it [connotes] irreducibly contextual and thus highly transient.
a more or less explicit discourse ascribing a certain A ghostly ephemerality is suggested.
number of characteristics or attributes to those to whom
it [applies]. (Mormont, 1990: 40, 22)

The idea that the rural is a social representation Rural space as material and ideational
of space can, however, be dematerialized further.
This comes from a critique of both elements of the Cloke and Park (1984) presented a range of
term ‘social representation’. First, we can take definitions that depicted the rural (countryside) in
issue with its social character, which assumes a terms of areas dominated by extensive land uses,
degree of group-specific consensus in composi- containing small, low order settlements and/or
tion. Whilst this clearly facilitates both communi- engendering a cohesive sense of community iden-
cation and understanding (Potter and Wetherell, tity. These emphases are also apparent in the
1987; Halfacree, 2001a), it is hard to know where probable content of the two definitions outlined
to delineate the boundary between social and more above. The attempt to understand rural space
‘individual’ representations (Potter and Wetherell, through the locality definition is likely to draw
1987). Second, we can question the representa- upon the distinctiveness of one or more of the fol-
tional or cognitive character of the concept. For lowing: agriculture and other primary productive
example, Shotter suggests that our everyday ‘con- activities, low population density and physical
versational realities’ attain their fullness through inaccessibility, and consumption behaviour
playing themselves out within specific discursive (Halfacree, 1993; Moseley, 1984). In contrast, the
situations, without there being a need for them to social representation of space approach is likely
be grounded through ‘any reference to any inner to contrast an imagined rural geography of land-
mental representations’ (1993: 142). scape aesthetics and ‘community’ with that of
Following both lines of critique, Potter and other spaces, notably the city/urban and the suburb
Wetherell (1987) proposed an alternative concept (Halfacree, 1995; Murdoch and Day, 1998).3
to social representation, namely the ‘interpretative As noted above, and as suggested by their likely
repertoire’. This fundamentally post-structuralist content, both definitions should be seen as inter-
and linguistic concept is located within discourse woven rather than mutually exclusive. In other
alone and comprises ‘a lexicon or register of terms words, the material and ideational rural spaces
and metaphors drawn upon to characterize and they refer to intersect in practice. For example, a
evaluate actions and events’ (Potter and Wetherell, belief (social representation) in the distinctiveness
1987: 138; also Shotter, 1993). Within debates of rural space (locality), in terms of a people’s way
about defining rural, Pratt has taken up this inter- of life and priorities and in terms of general geo-
pretative repertoire direction most directly. He graphy, lies behind the politics of the British orga-
considers that it is paramount to stress ‘the vari- nization the Countryside Alliance (Woods, 2003).
ability, contradiction and variety of representation Specifically, the Alliance feels that the ‘real rural
and articulation of rural discourses’ (1996: 76). agenda’ (locality) (Countryside Alliance, 2002)
Indeed, he called earlier for the replacement of the has not been recognized, or has been ignored or
term rural with that of ‘post-rural’. This would overwhelmed by an ‘urban’ perspective (social
highlight the rural’s constant ‘reflexive deploy- representation) on the countryside. Whilst one can
ment’ and indicate how ‘the point is there is not be critical of such groups, not least through recog-
one [rural] but there are many’ (Murdoch and nizing their ideological agenda, dissection of their
Pratt, 1993: 425; emphasis added). rurality-in-discursive-motion exposes the contours
Such a fundamental critique again leads us to of a space that is both material and ideational.
question the contemporary validity of any notions This, of course, should come as no surprise to
of rural space. The concept of social representa- those who hold a ‘socially produced manifold’
tion, because it is representational, does allow model of space.
us to retain a notion of rural space, albeit one Another excellent example of these two
that is much more ‘virtual’ than that implicated dimensions of rural space, plus their interwoven
in the locality definition. However, by denying character, is given by Gray’s (2000) examination
the representational element, with its implied of how the European Union (EU) has defined
04-Cloke New-3295-04.qxd 7/28/2005 9:43 PM Page 48

48 APPROACHES TO RURAL STUDIES

rural space. He argued that the EU has mixed the Rural space as practised
‘two modes of conceiving rurality’ (p. 32) in for-
mulating, applying and appraising its Common Gray’s example draws attention to a further
Agricultural Policy (CAP). Four phases, alternat- crucial point, namely that ideas of space cannot
ing between the two modes, are teased out: be separated from ideas of time. Time does not
exist on the metaphorical head of a pin/black
1 Representation. When conceiving the CAP, hole and space is always temporal: ‘all space is
the EU initially understood the rural as a anthropological, all space is practised, all space
space defined by agriculture. Specifically, is place’ (Thrift, 1996: 47). In short, moving
when the EU thought of rurality it thought of away from the Kantian absolute, space and time
a certain form of agriculture, namely small are inseparable and we have ‘space as process
family farms. Such farms were seen as the and in process (that is space and time combined
bedrock of rural society – everything ‘rural’ in becoming)’ (Crang and Thrift, 2000b: 3).
was ultimately built up upon them. There was It follows that when we think about the possi-
also a strong moral element implicated within bility of rural space we must also think about the
this vision, with these farms and their result- possibility of rural time. Overall, we should con-
ing society being based on hard, honest work. sider rural space–time, although my terminology
2 Locality. The EU then sought to define the will stick to the expression ‘rural space’ in this
rural as a locality informed by this idea of chapter. Thus, we must note how the material
what made the rural meaningful. This was so space of the rural locality only exists through the
as to be able to implement the CAP. practices of structural processes, and how the
Boundaries were drawn on the maps to delin- ideational space of rural social representations
eate rural spaces based upon agriculturally only exists through the practices of discursive
related characteristics: topography, resources, interaction. In this respect, therefore, investiga-
farm development potential, etc. It was tion into rural space(–time) requires a strongly
thought that a distinct set of processes acted contextual approach to enable us to tease out the
within these localities. Thus, a ‘rural problem’ entanglements at play. This immediately begins
was defined where there were threats to small to question the ultimate usefulness of exploring
family farming and, thus, to rural society. the totality of rural space through the somewhat
Policies were put in place trying to sustain arid, distanced and partial categories (Halfacree,
these delineated landscapes. 2001a) used in ‘defining the rural’. Instead, we
3 Representation. Since the 1970s, the mental need to think of (rural) space synergistically, as
construct of the rural held by the EU has ‘more than simply the sum of separate relations
altered, largely as a result of the changes that comprise its parts’ (Smith, 1984: 83).
and trends occurring (if not necessarily origi-
nating) within rural places themselves.
Consequently, the spatial imagination of the
CAP was revised. In European Commission TOWARDS A THREE-FOLD
documents, such as The Future of Rural UNDERSTANDING OF RURAL SPACE
Society (CEC, 1988) or The Cork Declaration
(CEC, 1996), the rural is seen as being much
This section works towards the development
more autonomous from agriculture. Rural
of such a more fully contextual process-rooted
space is recognized as comprising a hetero-
synergistic understanding of rural space. It aims to
geneity of activities – consumption as well as
produce an architecture within which the totality –
production.
its diversity, even ‘duplicity’ (Halfacree, 2003) –
4 Locality. Drawing boundaries around rural
of rural space can be better appreciated. This is
space can no longer be guided largely by agri-
a model that can be applied to all rural places,
cultural criteria. Significant processes that are
although its content will be extremely diverse.
felt to inscribe rural localities are no longer
just agriculturally related. The revised CAP
thus seeks to delineate a more internally diver-
sified rurality, drawing on the imprint of Problems with the locality and
processes such as those represented through representational definitions
local cultures. For example, in Highland
Scotland, effort has been made to recognize My stress on the interwoven character of rural
rural localities according to Gaelic culture and space in terms of material and ideational elements
crofting (see Black and Conway, 1995). sought to overcome any dualism between the
04-Cloke New-3295-04.qxd 7/28/2005 9:43 PM Page 49

RURAL SPACE 49

definitions, which would force us to choose one of Space (1991a). Although this book was
or the other as the ‘right’ perspective. None the less, originally published in France in 1974, it was not
dualistic ways of thinking still haunt this model. translated into English until 1991. Its appearance
For example, when the two definitions were first in that year has been described by Merrifield
laid out, it was suggested that the locality approach (2000: 170) as ‘the event within critical human
was rooted within the distanced, disinterested per- geography over the 1990s’ and, although there
spective that has traditionally been the modus have been some detractors (for example, Unwin,
operandi of academia. In contrast, the social repre- 2000), it has become extremely influential within
sentation approach was an attempt to tap into ‘ordi- geography (and beyond). However, its place
nary’ people’s lay narratives. However, as Jones within rural geography has been much less
(1995) has pointed out, we need to see not just two marked (Phillips, 2002), perhaps in part reflect-
types of discourse but a spectrum of discourses ing a perception of Lefebvre as having had ‘very
between the lay and the academic, such as what he little to say about rural life’ (Unwin, 2000: 15).4
terms ‘popular’ and ‘professional’ discourses. This Lefebvre’s work is typically written in a fairly
speaks of a mixed, hybrid character to rural space loose and indeterminate – and, admittedly, some-
or even an infinity of spatialities. times impenetrable – style, which for critics such
As noted at the start of the last section, one of the as Unwin (2000) is one of its fundamental flaws.
aims of the attempt to define the rural as a locality Alternatively, one can see this imprecision and
and/or a social representation was to consolidate fluidity as facilitating the resourcefulness of his
rurality within a rational abstraction. However, as ideas. As with his concept of space discussed
we also saw above, it remains a moot point just how below, he can be said to have left ‘us to add our own
rationally abstract both definitions are. Instead, they flesh and to re-write it as part of our own chapter or
may be seen as ‘chaotic conceptions’ that ‘arbitrar- research agenda’ (Merrifield, 2000: 173). This is
ily divide the indivisible and/or [lump] together the what those inspired by Lefebvre mostly appear to
unrelated and the inessential’ (Sayer, 1984: 127). have done and it is also my intention here.
In both cases, therefore, the current theoretical Lefebvre’s relative neglect of the rural within
saliency of rural space is questioned, which sug- his work comes in part from a combination of
gests that to try to maintain a foundational idea of showing the universality of the production of a
rural space – material or ideational – is fetishistic. particular kind of space – urban and rural – under
Only through a focus on contextual practice is the capitalism, and from his dialectical attempt to
‘truth’ of rural space revealed. resist binaries or dualisms (Shields, 1999). For
An essentialism to rural space also haunts the example, he resists the idea that the principal
model through the ways in which each definition spatial contradiction of capitalism lies within
appears practised. In the locality version, rural the dualism ‘town’ versus ‘country’, locating
space is practised as a set of distinct social, politi- it instead within the urban (Gregory, 1994;
cal and/or economic actions, whereas in the social also Harvey, 1985; Lefebvre, 1996: 118–21).
representation model, the practice is largely sym- However, the implications of Lefebvre’s ideas do
bolic or linguistic. Although both the Countryside not result in a simple rejection of the rural/rural
Alliance and the EU example showed the insuffi- space. This is because, for Lefebvre (after Hegel
ciency of these understandings, focusing on the and Marx), the concept of production that under-
two ways of defining rural thus seems to break up lies capitalist spatiality is a ‘concrete universal’.
the totality of rural space. Related to this point, the It is ‘a social practice [that] suffuses all societies
two approaches also run the risk of mis-specifying but its concrete form is differentiated from one
‘space’. For example, by stressing the rural’s status to the other’ (Smith, 1998: 278). The rural can be
as a ‘constructed representation’ at the expense of a significant category that emerges – and not
any existence as an ‘ascertained reality’, Mormont necessarily just as a dualistic ‘response’ to the
(1990: 41) reproduces a society–space dualism urban – within this differentiation.
that, as a consequence, reproduces a much more One of the core tasks of The Production of
limited sense of space than the present chapter has Space (Lefebvre, 1991a), was to draw attention
assumed from the outset. to the way in which space is now intrinsically
linked with capitalism and exchange, rather than
being somehow relatively independent of society’s
Rural space as a relative ‘permanence’ mode of production. Today, reflecting the lasting
legacy of critical geography, this may seem a
The fuller concept of rural space that I wish to fairly obvious statement but its implications remain
present is rooted in some of the core ideas con- profound. Under capitalism, space becomes
tained within Henri Lefebvre’s The Production produced:
04-Cloke New-3295-04.qxd 7/28/2005 9:43 PM Page 50

50 APPROACHES TO RURAL STUDIES

the production of space can be likened to the production 1984: 77). These social constructions can
of any other sort of merchandise, to any other sort of ‘operate with the full force of objective facts’
commodity … [S]pace … isn’t just the staging of repro- (Harvey, 1996: 211).
ductive requirements, but part of the cast, and a vital, Rural space, then, suggests one of the pro-
productive member of the cast at that … It is a phe- ductive permanences of capitalist spatiality.
nomenon which is colonized and commodified, bought However, to avoid ‘the grossest of fetishisms’
and sold, created and torn down, used and abused, spec-
(Harvey, 1996: 320), we need to show how its
ulated on and fought over. (Merrifield, 2000: 172–3)
multi-faceted character comes into being within
More specifically, Lefebvre characterizes the the context of abstract space. To do this requires us
space produced through capitalism as ‘abstract’. to develop our more complete picture of the archi-
Constantly being moulded by the pressures and tecture of this space. This will ‘bring the various
demands of the market and social reproduction, kinds of space and the modalities of their genesis
this abstract space transcends earlier ‘modes of within a single theory’ (Peet, 1998: 102–3).
production’ of space (Shields, 1999: 170–85).
Abstract space’s core feature is its simultaneous
homogeneity and fragmentation. As with produc-
tion, it is a concrete universal, or a concrete A three-fold model of space
abstraction:
Materiality, representation, and imagi-
Space … is both abstract and concrete in character:
nation are not separate worlds. (Harvey,
abstract inasmuch as it has no existence save by virtue
1996: 322)
of the exchangeability of all its component parts, and
concrete inasmuch as it is socially real and as such
The complex model of rural space developed
localized. This is a space, therefore, that is homoge-
below is based on Lefebvre’s (1991a: 33, 38–39,
nous yet at the same time broken up into fragments.
(Lefebvre, 1991a: 341–2)
et seq.) seminal three-fold understanding of
spatiality; his ‘conceptual triad’. This triad has
This dual character suggests how space both been outlined and developed in various locations
subsumes place, with the loss of any ingrained (for example, Gregory, 1994: 401–6; Merrifield,
meanings – in Marx’s famous dictum, ‘all that is 1993: 522–7; 2000; 2002: 173–5; Shields, 1999:
solid melts into air’ – and reconfigures places as 160–70). Let us consider each element in terms
relative ‘permanences’ carved out through the of my interpretation of them.
flow of processes producing space (Harvey, First, there are spatial practices. These are
1996: 261). These are very much temporary the actions – flows, transfers, interactions – that
places due to the inherent dynamism of capitalist ‘secrete’ a particular society’s space, facilitating
spatiality, as drawn out so strongly in David both material expression of permanences and
Harvey’s work. In summary: ‘The geographical societal reproduction. Bearing in mind the inher-
and technological landscape of capitalism is torn ent instability of space, they can secrete contra-
between a stable but stagnant calm incompatible diction as well as stability (Merrifield, 2002: 90).
with accumulation and disruptive processes of Spatial practices are inscribed routine activities
devaluation and “creative destruction’’’ (Harvey, and their expression bears similarities with the
1985: 138). concept of the locality outlined earlier. They are
Moreover, reflecting this inherent dynamism associated with everyday perceptions of space.
and as Merrifield’s previous quote implied, as a They structure our everyday reality, whilst at the
vital member of the productive cast, the signifi- same time being rooted within that reality. As
cance of space for Lefebvre is not ended when such, spatial practices can also be traced to rules
we appreciate that it is produced. Space is not and norms, and to space as lived.
simply a product but also a medium through Second, there are representations of space.
which production occurs (Gottdiener, 1985). To These are formal conceptions of space, as artic-
appreciate space, therefore, we must not only ulated by capitalists, developers, planners,
note the geography and temporality of its pro- scientists and academics. They have much in
duction but also how it operates as a means of common with Sayer’s (1989) idea of an ‘acade-
production. For it to function as the latter, atten- mic narrative’ that is the tool of the ‘specialist’.
tion must be given to space’s more humanistic Representations of space are conceived and
dimensions. Thus, ‘the production of space also abstract and expressed through ‘arcane signs,
implies the production of the meaning, concepts jargon, codifications’ (Merrifield, 2000: 174).
and consciousness of space which are insepara- They also find ‘objective expression’ directly in
bly linked to its physical production’ (Smith, such things as monuments, factories, housing
04-Cloke New-3295-04.qxd 7/28/2005 9:43 PM Page 51

RURAL SPACE 51

estates, workplace and bureaucratic rules, and in A three-fold model of rural space
the more general rules and norms of everyday
life that are operative in a given place. Thus, rep- Combining Lefebvre’s ideas with the definitional
resentations of space will to some extent be per- debates outlined earlier enables me to suggest a
ceived, appropriated and perhaps even subverted more complex model of rural space. This is out-
within daily life. They are always ‘shot through lined in Figure 4.1. Again, it has three facets:
with a … mixture of understanding … and ideol-
ogy’ (Lefebvre, 1991a: 41). • Rural localities inscribed through relatively
Third, there are spaces of representation. distinctive spatial practices. These practices
These diverse and often incoherent images and may be linked to either production or
symbols are associated with the tumults and consumption activities.
passions of space as directly lived. This was a • Formal representations of the rural such
major area of interest for Lefebvre (for example, as those expressed by capitalist interests,
Lefebvre, 1991b), with the turmoil of the every- bureaucrats or politicians. Crucially, these
day making his ‘heart soar’ (Merrifield, 2002: 90). representations refer to the way the rural is
Although clearly with links to perceived space, framed within the (capitalist) production
spaces of representation refer to vernacular space process; specifically, how the rural is com-
symbolically appropriated by its users. Such a modified in exchange value terms. Procedures
‘social imaginary’ (Shields, 1999: 164) can have of signification and legitimation are vital here.
a subversive aspect when it results in space being • Everyday lives of the rural, which are
(re)appropriated from the interests of the domi- inevitably incoherent and fractured. These
nant. Partly in response to this threat, representa- incorporate individual and social elements
tions of space will seek to dominate and control (‘culture’) in their cognitive interpretation
the potentially ‘hot’ spaces of representation. They and negotiation. Formal representations of
are thus key sites of political and ideological the rural strive to dominate these experiences,
struggle. as they will rural localities.
As I have tried to suggest in this outline of
Lefebvre’s spatiality, each of the three facets can- All three facets together comprise rural space,
not be understood in isolation from the other two. an understanding that dissolves the potential
Each forms an element of a three-part dialectic and dualism between locality and social representa-
thus each facet is always ‘in a relationship with the tion that troubled me above. As was suggested by
other two’ (Shields, 1999: 161). In any given per- the quote that starts this chapter, this three-fold
manence, however, one or more may be dominant, architecture for rural space is less about estab-
and one or more may appear almost indistinct; lishing a new understanding than about realizing
likewise, the individual facets may serve to rein- what we already have. For example, this struc-
force, contradict or be relatively neutral with ture of everyday life, locality and formal repre-
respect to one another. For example, under the sentation bears a fair resemblance to the
regime of abstract space, the abstraction of definition of ‘rural’ given in the fifth edition of
exchange value elevates representations of space the Concise Oxford Dictionary: ‘In, of, suggest-
that, through commodification and bureaucratiza- ing, the country’ (emphases added).
tion, seek to dominate the use value concrete realm The extent to which an individual place (at
of spaces of representation (Gregory, 1994: 401). whatever scale) can be said to merit the label
None the less, ultimately, all three facets together ‘rural’ depends on the extent to which the totality
comprise space’s ‘triple determination’. of rural space dominates that place relative to
Moreover, again reflecting Lefebvre’s dialec- other spatialities. Clearly, as recognized long ago
tic approach, these three facets of space are seen (see above), this is a moot point. Places represent
as intrinsically dynamic, as are the relations the meeting points of networks, ‘constructed out
between them. Lefebvre’s spatiality is inherently of a particular constellation of social relations,
‘turbulent’ (Gregory, 1994: 356). Space as some meeting and weaving together at a particular
kind of frozen category has no meaning. As locus’ (Massey, 1996: 244). The rural status of
Merrifield argues, the spatial triad must always any place is thus an issue that always must be
‘be embodied with actual flesh and blood and determined on the ground/in place to avoid rural
culture, with real life relationships and events’ fetishism. A further issue here will be the extent
emphasis? (2000: 175). Thus, contra Unwin to which the three facets of rural space cohere in
(2000: 21, 24), Lefebvre does not ‘dangerously a united front within that place. As noted above,
[reduce] the significance of time’ and does not this is inherently problematic. For example, for-
‘dehumanize’ space; quite the opposite. mal representations never completely overwhelm
04-Cloke New-3295-04.qxd 7/28/2005 9:43 PM Page 52

52 APPROACHES TO RURAL STUDIES

Rural locality

RURAL SPACE

Representations of the rural Lives of the rural

Figure 4.1 The totality of rural space

the experience of everyday life – although they Formal representations of the rural are less
may come close – and the extent to which formal hegemonic, and often-diverse spatial practices
representations and local spatial practices are come to the fore.
unified is also uneven. The tension within • Chaotic and incoherent. There is a lack of
abstract space between permanence and flow is local structured coherence brought about by
also apparent throughout. more fundamental contradictions between
Following Cloke and Goodwin (1992), the or within the elements of rural space. Rural
‘middle-ground regulationist concept’ (Cloke, space is dominated by everyday lives of the
1994: 166) of ‘structured coherence’ (after rural, as it holds together at neither the per-
Harvey, 1985: 139ff.) is a useful device for explor- ceptual nor conceptual level. This characteri-
ing the internal consistency of any permanence zation represents a potentially subversive
that is rural place. This concept refers to the alternative within the overall logic of abstract
extent to which economy, state and civil society spatiality as, for example, it can disrupt soci-
mesh together in a relatively stable fashion at the etal reproduction. Some difference this time
local level (Cloke and Goodwin, 1992). Each of is ‘produced’ and ‘presupposes the shattering
these three societal elements will be shaped by of a system’ (1991a: 372) if that system is
and internalize the three facets of rural space, unable to recuperate it.
again to varying degrees. Overall, three charac-
terizations of a rural structured coherence under
the more meta-level purview of abstract capitalist RURAL SPACE TODAY:
spatiality are suggested: A BRITISH ILLUSTRATION
• Congruent and unified. All elements of rural
space cohere in a relatively smooth, consistent I will now illustrate the model of rural space
manner. Formal representations of the rural in the contemporary British context. Clearly, the
are unified, overwhelming and hegemonic. international relevance of this illustration will
• Contradictory and disjointed. There is ten- vary enormously. However, the core aim here is
sion and contradiction between or within the elucidatory, to indicate the application of the
elements of rural space but an overall coher- theoretical ideas developed in the last section.
ence does hold, best appreciated at a more I make this brief sketch under two sub-headings:
meta-level. Differences are more ‘induced’ productivism and post-productivism. Attention
than ‘produced’ (Lefebvre, 1991a: 372). will also be paid to the type of structured
04-Cloke New-3295-04.qxd 7/28/2005 9:43 PM Page 53

RURAL SPACE 53

coherence attained within these spatialities. First, agriculture by other land uses in many locations,
though, consideration must be given to the afore- typically those attempting to service the ‘external’
mentioned international context. (Marsden, 1999) demands of urban residents.
Consequently, developed countries are seeing the
emergence of a multifunctional rural regime (cf.
Rural change in an era of ‘globalization’ Wilson, 2001), an increasingly regionalized rural
(Halfacree et al., 2002; Murdoch et al., 2003). This
The debate about changing rural space detailed latter trend is especially evident within Britain, to
below takes place within an international context which I now turn.5
of ongoing rural and urban change (Champion
and Hugo, forthcoming). Two key and interre- The spaces of productivism
lated dynamics appear to be at work. First, and of
significance to every country in the world, is the
Eager to overcome the boom–bust cycles to
changing and intensifying influence of capitalist
which the agricultural industry had been excep-
globalization, not least as manifested in a ‘glob-
tionally prone, and to reward the efforts of the
alized food system’ (Symes and Jansen, 1994a: 5;
farming community during wartime, the post-
compare Goodman and Watts, 1997; Le Heron,
1945 British government sought, through legisla-
1993; McMichael, 1994; Wallace, 1992). In the
tively driven reforms, to provide a more secure
wake of global agreements at the GATT level
base for the country’s farmers – to ‘make two
(now World Trade Organization) on agricultural
blades of grass grow where one grew before’
trade (McMichael, 1993; Winter, 1996), this
(Shucksmith, 1993: 466). This heralded the start
manifestation is now increasingly characterized
of the productivist era, which lasted from around
by a freer rein for ‘market forces’, as direct state
this time until at least the late 1970s.
engagement with agriculture retreats. Of course,
Productivism positioned agriculture as a pro-
as any glance at the news tells us almost daily,
duction maximizer, a progressive and expanding
this is proving a painful and grudging retreat,
food production-orientated industry (Marsden
seen in ongoing agricultural trade disputes
et al., 1993) but also as an industry with its roots
between and within the EU, United States and
in an established agricultural landscape. As we
other large food exporters, such as the Cairns
shall see below, this was a contradiction that has
Group (Denny and Elliott, 2002). None the less,
increasingly proved problematic. Additionally
it is one that is pushing developing countries
and crucially, productivism was not just experi-
towards an export-led agriculture, often to the
enced by the farming community but filtered
detriment of more domestic food priorities
into every corner of British rural life and even
(Shiva, 2000), of typically ‘non-traditional’ prod-
beyond. It was a cornerstone of rural local struc-
ucts (for example, Llambi, 1994; Raynolds,
tured coherences and can be seen almost as short-
1994). For developed countries, this restructuring
hand for British rural life between 1945 and
is prompting a questioning of the previously
1980. Let me now consider its three facets of
hegemonic position of agriculture within rural
rural space in more detail.
society, ensemble, whilst also promoting intensi-
First, a rural locality was inscribed through
fication and industrialization within that industry,
the predominance of particular agricultural prac-
from hogs in Iowa (Page, 1997) to genetically
tices. These encapsulated the daily and seasonal
modified rapeseed in Oxfordshire (Monbiot,
activities of the farmers themselves, plus their
2002: ch. 7).
multi-faceted and increasingly specialized sup-
The second key dynamic powering rural change
port services. These practices are outlined, for
is the recognition of the increasing consumption
example, in classic textbooks of the time (for
role and potential of rural places. This is apparent
example, Morgan and Munton, 1971; Tarrant,
within developing countries in, for example, the
1974). Thus, in 1967’s Agricultural Geography,
sequestration of former commons for National
Symons characterized the ‘agricultural activities’
Parks, where a primary objective is to attract big-
to be studied ‘in a spatial context’ as:
spending tourists and trophy hunters (Monbiot,
1994; also Pretty, 2002), but it is most noted in the the constituent activities of cropping and livestock rear-
rich world. Here, ‘agrarian marginalization’ ing, and … the outputs (crops and livestock) and … the
(Buttel, 1994: 16) and rising consumption con- farms, fields, labour, machinery and all other inputs
cerns are reflected in everything from the increas- required for production. (1978 [1967]: 1)
ing weight given to ‘environmental’ considerations
within some agriculture (Bowler et al., 1992; Overall, these agricultural practices focused
Harper, 1993; Potter, 1998) to the replacement of on increasingly industrialized modes of food
04-Cloke New-3295-04.qxd 7/28/2005 9:43 PM Page 54

54 APPROACHES TO RURAL STUDIES

production and of increasing both the output and In national (and EU) policy terms, ‘rural’ was
the profitability from the land. This is also to synonymous with ‘agricultural’ (Woods, 2003),
some extent implied by the interrogation of agri- just as ‘rural geography’ as an academic sub-
culture almost exclusively through neoclassical discipline was largely held in the thrall of ‘agri-
economics within these same textbooks. cultural economics’, at least until Clout’s 1972
Beyond the farm, predominant practices also textbook (Cloke, 1980).
had an agricultural flavour, from the harvest Third, not least through the connections of
festival and other village celebrations, to the productivist agriculture to the wider civil society
imprints of the local landed elites, to the service of rural places, everyday lives of the rural existed
roles played by market towns. The whole rural largely through this productivist vision. With a
locality appeared to radiate out positively from clear state-endorsed place within the Atlanticist
agriculture. Illustrating this, in an upbeat account food order (Goodman and Watts, 1997;
of dairy farming in Wales, Bowen described how: Le Heron, 1993), farmers themselves felt this
intended sense of security in a variety of dimen-
the daily collection of milk and its transportation to the sions: land rights, land use, finance, politics,
local factory … means employment for lorry drivers, ideology (Marsden et al., 1993: 59–61). Such an
milk-factory workers, mechanics and garage-hands in experience was reinforced by local landed elites
the countryside, a whole range of supplementary occu- (Cloke and Goodwin, 1992), as outlined so effec-
pations which keep more and more people in rural areas.
tively in Newby’s (1977; Newby et al., 1978)
In this way the peripheral areas of the Welsh massif have
accounts of how and why they prevented the con-
not only been able to arrest the seepage of population …
struction of much local authority housing in rural
but … to record slight increases … Nowhere has this
been more marked than in the small market towns which
areas and more generally structured everyday rural
act as service centres for the countryside … [A]part life in their own (productivist) interest.
from agriculture no other industry is now sufficiently Overall, therefore, productivism was the glue
prominent to leave its mark on the general distribution that consolidated a structured coherence for rural
of population [of rural Wales]. (1962: 257) Britain. Moreover, this was largely a congruent
and unified coherence, with the three facets of
The formal representations of the rural which spatiality meshing together well. Within the rural
underpinned this (re)focusing of rural life were totality, the formal representation of British
outlined most clearly in official government state- rurality as productivist agriculture was strongly
ments and publications. Early on, these included unified, quite overwhelming and fairly hege-
the Scott Report [Land Utilization in Rural Areas monic. This is illustrated, for example, by the
Survey] of 1942, with its moralistic expression of lack a ‘political’ profile or of general public
farming’s ‘prescriptive right’ (Clout, 1972: 83) interest in agriculture or the rural at this time.
over land, and the 1947 Agriculture Act, with ‘Rural politics’ was almost oxymoronic, charac-
its more prosaic institutionalization of assured terized by conservative, stable voting traditions
markets and guaranteed prices. Even as late as the (Grant, 1990) and a Ministry of Agriculture,
1970s, the White Papers Food from Our Own Fisheries and Food working largely outside the
Resources (1975) and Farming and the Nation public view, marginalizing rural issues far from
(1979) saw continued expansion of agriculture the political mainstream (Woods, 2003).
as an urgent priority (Bowers, 1985). All these None the less, especially in some parts of
documents, reflecting in part an entrenchment of Britain, each facet of this productivist rural space
a corporatist relationship between the agricultural was contested by other spaces, rural and non-
industry and the state (Winter, 1996), clearly rural. For example, productivist agricultural prac-
nominated, normalized and nurtured the country- tices were tempered by the persistence of less
side as first and foremost a food production capitalistically rational farming, often buttressed
resource. Moreover, as we have already seen from by state welfare payments. From the 1946 Hill
Gray’s (2000) work, this attitude extended well Farming Act onwards (Morgan and Munton,
beyond Britain. 1971), these payments have been crucial to the
Once again, beyond the farm gate this repre- survival of sheep farmers in the uplands, in par-
sentation was sustained and reinforced. For ticular. Another key spatial practice of rural local-
example, non-agricultural institutions concerned ities was population out-migration, as revealed so
with rural issues tended both to acknowledge clearly by the Beacham Report on mid-Wales in
and to accept a leadership role for agriculture, 1964. Contra the impression given by many of the
as witnessed by the persistence of ‘agricultural Welsh ‘community studies’ (for example, Rees,
exceptionalism’ (Newby, 1987: 216) within 1950), ‘migration out of the area is … a very
otherwise strict planning controls on development. important feature in the life of the community’
04-Cloke New-3295-04.qxd 7/28/2005 9:43 PM Page 55

RURAL SPACE 55

(Bowen, 1962: 257). This practice could have urban workplaces (commuting), leisure-related
fitted in with a ‘pure’ productivist representation, commodification, industrialization and exploita-
whereby ‘surplus’ population would be expelled tion of marginality (waste dumps, mining),
for ‘efficiency’ gains. Indeed, this was suggested, whilst the latter’s practices are especially associ-
for example, in the 1954 report of the Welsh ated with counter-urban in-migration and the
Agricultural Land Sub- Commission (1962: 258). appeal of the ‘rural idyll’ (Halfacree, 1994).
However, the formal representation never went Farming practices, too, have been forced to
this far. Throughout productivism’s currency, a adjust in response to the varied and numerous
contradictory romantic, communitarian and ideo- economic and other contradictions of produc-
logical moral stewardship vision of farmers and tivist agriculture, from having to cope with sur-
landowners overlay its representation of rural pluses and over-production, to dealing with the
space. In Murdoch et al.’s (2003) terms, mod- legacy of publicly acknowledged environmental
ernism was challenged by pastoralism. Again, the destruction (for example, Harvey, 1997).
Scott Report epitomized this contradiction. In response to these challenges, the lives of
Finally, as might be expected from this tension, the rural for individual farmers and their families
everyday lives of the rural were also not always in have increasingly been characterized by insecu-
tune with productivism. Remnants of less produc- rity and uncertainty, expressed most acutely
tivist agriculture and other economic activities through high levels of debt and depression
remained, and other rural practices impinged on (Derounian, 1993; Simmons, 1997). This situa-
the people’s daily lives. This facilitated the broad- tion is enhanced by a general public – and a new
ening of their ‘social imaginary’ away from any rural population – that increasingly questions
singular productivist vision. both the role of farmers as ‘guardians of the
countryside’ and the financial and other implica-
tions of agricultural support (Harvey, 1997;
Undermining the spaces of productivism Seymour et al., 1997).
Finally, formal representations of the rural are
Changes in the political economy of agriculture compel also no longer so dominated by the productivist
a need to reappraise the future of rural space. The late vision. Instead, other ways of commodifying the
1980s and early 1990s have marked the beginning of the rural have come to the fore (Cloke, 1999). For
end for the productivist rationale which had given the example, Cloke has noted how a push towards a
agricultural industry a dominant, almost exclusive, role degree of deregulation in rural planning has pro-
in determining the shape and function of the country- vided an opening for new economic opportunities
side. (Symes and Jansen, 1994a: 2) to be exploited. This went hand-in-hand with:

Over the past couple of decades, the produc- new markets for countryside commodities: the country-
tivist agricultural rural spatiality has come under side as an exclusive place to be lived in; rural commu-
increasingly intense and probably fatal strain.6 nities as a context to be bought and sold; rural lifestyles
Bluntly, productivist British agriculture is now which can be colonised; icons of rural culture which can
in ‘structural crisis’ and cannot be cured by the be crafted, packed and marketed; rural landscapes with
a new range of potential … (1992: 293)
kinds of ‘technical fixes’ that rescued it from
previous more minor ‘conjunctural crises’ Illustrating this in respect to rural leisure, in
(Drummond et al., 2000). All three facets of pro- 1985 the then Conservative government released
ductivist rural space have been undermined. Its a report entitled Pleasure, Leisure and Jobs: The
representation of rural was ultimately unable to Business of Tourism. This heralded the start of
achieve total dominion over either rural localities what Veal (1993) terms its ‘enterprise phase’,
or everyday lives of the rural. Nor has it even where emphasis shifted from social welfare con-
been able to retain its dominance within the cerns towards market demand being met via
realm of representation, as rivals have grown the private sector. This more diversely commod-
more significant. Rural change is not being ified representation of rural impinged on agri-
driven primarily through some idealist desire to culture as well. For example, England’s Rural
change the landscapes of rural Britain but due to Development Programme:
the totalizing failure of productivism.
Rural localities have been profoundly affected underpins [the] Government’s New Direction for
by a different rural spatiality expressed through Agriculture by helping farmers and foresters to respond
economic restructuring and social recomposition better to consumer requirements and become more
(Cloke and Goodwin, 1992). The former is competitive, diverse, flexible and environmentally
expressed through practices associated with responsible. (DEFRA, 2003: no pagination)
04-Cloke New-3295-04.qxd 7/28/2005 9:43 PM Page 56

56 APPROACHES TO RURAL STUDIES

Likewise, the EU has a broader vision of rurality Consequently, the EU now seeks to ‘[transpose]
within its CAP reforms (Gray, 2000; see earlier). the image of diversified rurality into tangible
A recent series of devastating agricultural localities’ (2000: 44). The spatiality of the post-
crises have also directly challenged all three productivist countryside is, in short, fundamen-
facets of British productivist spatiality. In partic- tally heterogenous.
ular, the foot and mouth epidemic of 2001–2
brought the twin but related issues of rural crisis
and an increasingly uncertain rural future to the Spaces of post-productivism
fore (Bennett et al., 2002). Practices of the rural
became embodied in mass livestock slaughter, Referring to the earlier account of the spatiality
cremation and burial, and in ‘footpath closed’ of capitalism, abstract space is ever searching to
notices; lives of the rural became dominated maximize exchange values through creating the
by loss of livelihoods (farmers, tourism providers, most economically ‘successful’ productive
support services) and the harsh light of media permanences. Under productivism, its rural
attention; and formal representations of the rural grounding was rooted in a specific model of
seemed simply overwhelmed. All established agricultural production. Given that such ground-
rural ‘certainties’ – even as far as its producing ings are never truly ‘permanent’ – and reflecting
food at all – were sharply questioned. For exam- the danger of putting all your eggs in one basket –
ple, government sources suggested that around a it is perhaps unsurprising that this permanence
quarter of British farms – almost all of them has now become increasingly untenable.
small ones – would have closed or merged by A search is on for alternatives that promise
2005, with 50,000 people forced to leave the greater profitability. A key way of doing this,
industry (Guardian, 2001). Constitutionally, the given that the spatial frontier of ‘rurality’ has by
replacement of the Ministry of Agriculture, now largely been ‘colonized’ by capitalism, is
Fisheries and Food by a new Department for the through ‘involution’, whereby the production of
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in 2001 space reworks its internal subdivisions (Katz,
removed, at least nominally, ‘agriculture’ from 1998). This seems to be what is happening in the
its assumed pre-eminence within rural policy- post-productivist countryside. Hence, the empha-
making. The rural world of 1950s productivism sis on heterogeneity.
seemed as dead and buried as much of the A number of authors have suggested models of
country’s livestock … the possible ongoing production of the post-
All these disruptions to rural Britain over the productivist countryside. For example, Marsden
past decade throw sharply into focus Ilbery and (1998a; Marsden et al., 1993) has suggested the
Bowler’s (1998) talk of a ‘post-productivist tran- emergence of four ideal types within a ‘differen-
sition’ for agriculture, characterized by reduced tiated countryside’, as outlined in Table 4.1 and
food production and state support, and the inter- illustrated further in Murdoch et al. (2003).
nationalization of the food industry within a Marsden goes on to argue that the new territories
more free market global economy, albeit with of this differentiated countryside will comprise
increased environmental regulation placed on the varying proportions of at least the four dimen-
industry. Three ‘bipolar dimensions of change sions (Marsden, 1998b), described in Table 4.2.
are recognized’ (Ilbery and Bowler, 1998: 70): All four involve processes of commoditization, an
intensification to extensification, concentration emphasis which takes us ‘beyond agriculture’
to dispersion, and specialization to diversifica- (Marsden, 1995, 1999) to explore the varying
tion. However, Ilbery and Bowler are careful arenas in which varied social and political
not to homogenize and essentialize these trends, processes construct and attribute commodity
recognizing diverse ‘pathways of farm business values to range of rural objects, artefacts, people
development’ emerging (Bowler, 1992). and places (Marsden, 1998a).
This emphasis on diversity has extended Marsden’s model is very much an incremental
beyond the agricultural sector and has prompted expression of rural change. Alternatively, in the
talk not just of a post-productivist transition but spirit of Lefebvre’s more ‘open’ notion of the
of a ‘post-productivist countryside’ (Halfacree, production of space, such models can be extended
1997, 1998, 1999; Ward, 1993). Within such a to incorporate more potential rural futures. This
vision, as laid out prophetically in the European is the intention of the four spatial scenarios
Commission’s 1988 report The Future of Rural sketched below, which is developed from
Society (CEC, 1988), ‘Agriculture exists within Halfacree (1999).
and is encompassed by rural space and society Super-productivism This vision re-states
rather than the other way around’ (Gray, 2000: 42). the spatiality of productivism, but this time in
04-Cloke New-3295-04.qxd 7/28/2005 9:43 PM Page 57

RURAL SPACE 57

Table 4.1 Ideal types for the post-productivist countryside

• Preserved countryside: areas dominated by anti-development and preservationist attitudes; middle-class pressure
groups active and powerful. For example, much of South-East England
• Contested countryside: areas beyond the major commuter areas where strongly local agricultural and small business
interests hold sway but are increasingly challenged by in-migrants. For example, much of South-West England
• Paternalistic countryside: areas where large private estates remain important and/or where large farms predominate;
their owners still feel some sort of obligation to their constituents. For example, parts of the Highlands and Islands
of Scotland
• Clientalist countryside: remote areas where agricultural productivism still dominates the landscape but where considerable
reliance is placed on external finances, such as EU monies. For example,West Wales and much of Scotland
Source: Marsden, 1998a: 17–18

Table 4.2 Components of the differentiated countryside

• Mass food markets: building on a post-CAP reform and a more free market attitude to agriculture, this is the highly
productive agricultural land of agribusiness, high capital-intensive inputs and genetically modified crops
• Quality food markets: farming influenced by added value that can be obtained by ‘quality’.This landscape will include
organic farming and the production and marketing of locally identified products, e.g. cheeses, livestock
• Agriculturally related changes: diversification-led changes on the farm. Includes the re-commodification of formerly
disused buildings (e.g. for accommodation) and defunct objects (e.g. old implements) and the marketing of the rural
for recreation and tourism
• Rural restructuring (non-agricultural): from the use of the countryside for nasties (waste dumps, industry, open cast
mines) to residence
Source: Marsden, 1998b: 109–13

a much less moderated form, shorn of its moral as those of the planning system. However, unlike
dimension. The capitalist ‘logic’ of abstract space super-productivism, the extent to which everyday
is fully released. An emergent super-productivism lives in the rural conform to this spatial imagina-
is readily apparent in the practices of agribusiness, tion vary (cf. Cloke et al., 1995; Halfacree, 1995),
the genetic modification of plants and animals, reflected in battles within the planning arena over
and biotechnology generally. Here, formal repre- what are seen as unsuitable developments in rural
sentations position land solely as a productive locations (Ambrose, 1992). Whilst in some places
resource linked to profit maximization. ‘Nature’ there may well be an ‘ascendance of certain
is very much seen as ‘an accumulation strategy’ aesthetic representations of the countryside over
(Katz, 1998; see Goodman and Redclift, 1991). previous economic ones’ (Murdoch and Marsden,
Indeed, such is the physical impact of super- 1994: 215–16), this is highly uneven. Overall, the
productivism, with its ‘monoscape’ of sameness local structured coherence is likely to be contra-
(Pretty, 2002), that everyday lived rurality has dictory and disjointed, although differences
little scope to diverge from the representation. between co-existent rural spatialities are more
Overall, what is suggested is a potentially con- induced than produced.
gruent and unified local structured coherence, Effaced rurality As noted above, many acad-
albeit one that is unpalatable to many. emics have sought to emphasize just how lacking
Consuming idylls This alternative directly in distinctiveness the categories ‘rural’ and
opposes – in terms of rural spatiality – super- ‘urban’ really are. The rural has, in effect, been
productivism. It takes and develops the erstwhile effaced by the geographical development of late
moderating element of the old productivist repre- capitalism. Thus (formerly) rural places may be
sentation, namely its moral ‘pastoralist’ (Murdoch seen as dominated by distinctly non-rural spatiali-
et al., 2003) angle, expressed most strongly ties, leaving rural space only as a ghostly presence,
through ideas of ‘community’ (Murdoch and Day, experienced through folk memory, nostalgia,
1998). The rural locality may have agriculture hearsay, etc. Here, locality, formal representations
as a backdrop but its key spatial practices are and daily lives will have little significant ‘rural’
consumption-orientated, notably leisure, residence content. Where rurality does still come through,
and attendant migration (counter-urbanization). however, we might again expect to see a contra-
The formal representation underlying these dictory and disjointed local structured coherence.
practices tends to be that of the ‘rural idyll’ Radical visions Radical visions for rural
(Halfacree, 1994, 2003), upheld by rules such space have been neglected to date in discussions
04-Cloke New-3295-04.qxd 7/28/2005 9:43 PM Page 58

58 APPROACHES TO RURAL STUDIES

of the topography of the post-productivist manifolds’ (Crang and Thrift, 2000b: 2) that is
countryside (Halfacree, 1999, 2001b). By ‘radi- space. Indeed, internationally, rurality’s obituary
cal’ I mean here rural spatialities that try to express must not be prematurely written, it being a global
produced rather than induced difference and thus site of struggle and radicalism (Halfacree,
challenge the spatial logic of capitalism. Rooted in 2001c). These struggles are struggles over the
the social imaginary of everyday lives, Mormont practices, representations and everyday lives that
captures the thrust of my argument thus: inscribe the rural totality. They are struggles
about rural space.
Rurality is claimed not only as a space to be appropri-
Using as a backdrop the abstract space of
ated … but as a way of life, or a model of an alternative
society inspiring a social project that challenges con-
capitalism, this chapter has sought to outline and
temporary social and economic ill … Peasant autarky, then to illustrate briefly an architecture through
village community and ancient technique are no longer which we can come to analyse this totality of
relics, but images which legitimize this social project of rural space. The resulting general model must be
a society which would be ruralized … The aim is not to seen, finally, in the spirit of the ‘concrete univer-
recreate a past way of life but to develop forms of social sal’. In a global capitalist era, such a general
and economic life different from those prevailing at model has ‘universal’ applicability and it is
present … (1987: 18; emphasis added) hoped that future work will fill in its ‘concrete’
contours in a wide range of different places.
Thinking of the content of this ‘radical’ rural
space, we can imagine a locality revolving around
decentralized and relatively self-sufficient living
patterns, representations that imagine the coun- NOTES
tryside as a diverse home accessible to all, and
everyday experiences celebrating the local and 1 Pleonasm: ‘redundancy of expression’ (Concise Oxford
the individually meaningful (Juckes Maxey, 2002; Dictionary).
Schwarz and Schwarz, 1998). These alterna- 2 Within Great Britain we can recognize a range of
tives may be imagined through the efflorescence rurals, again linked to but not reducible to scale. For
of ‘festival’ (Lefebvre, 1991b) or ‘temporary example, rurality arguably varies between England,
autonomous zone’ (Bey, 1991), or through the Scotland and Wales (for example, Cloke et al., 1995;
more sober practices of ‘low impact develop- Jedrej and Nuttall, 1996), and Cloke et al. (1998) note
ment’ (Fairlie, 1996) or ‘agri-culture’ (Pretty, national-, regional- and local-level constructs of rural
2002). Where they emerge, however, they tend to within England.
result in chaotic and incoherent local structured 3 Once again, we might reflect that these contents repre-
coherences. This is because they feature centrally sent a developed world, specifically British, bias.
a struggle between these nascent produced differ- None the less, the content of a more developing world
ences and the existing spatialities of (rural) capi- rural locality is also likely to reflect, at least, agricul-
ture and primary production, low population and
talism. The latter represent ‘the existing centre
inaccessibility, plus additional features such as the
and the forces of homogenization [that] must
challenge of obtaining key resources (food, water, etc.)
seek to absorb all such differences … [so as] to
(Barke and O’Hare, 1991; Findlay, 1994). The social
integrate, to recuperate, or to destroy whatever has representation perspective, though, is likely to be
transgressed’ (Lefebvre, 1991a: 373). The chal- much more geographically specific, as already noted.
lenge for radical politics, of course, is somehow to 4 This is in spite of Lefebvre’s early career as a rural soci-
make these temporary, provocative spatialities ologist (Shields, 1999) and the insights he gained from
more lasting and permanent. small French towns such as Navarrenx (Merrifield,
2002; Lefebvre, 1991b).
5 The productivist/post-productivist framework illus-
trated here is not one that has been completely
CONCLUSION accepted, even for Great Britain. Controversy shadows
this model, although critique has been developed most
with respect to its agricultural dimension (see Evans
Michael Woods (2003) has recently discussed et al., 2002; Wilson, 2001). There is not the space here
how ‘rural politics’ has ceased to be an oxymoron to go into this debate, suffice it to note that the model’s
and has become a key issue for struggle within general applicability seems to dissipate as we go away
the developed world, detailing examples of rural from Britain, through northern Europe (Buller et al.,
protest as a ‘new social movement’ in Britain, 2000; Hoggart et al., 1995; Symes and Jansen, 1994b),
France and the United States. Such a positioning Japan (Takahashi, 2001), North America (Curry-Roper,
is not to fetishize the rural but to place it within 1992) and Australia (Argent, 2002; Panelli, 2001),
the ‘socially produced [and contested] set of where there are clear resonances, to a Mediterranean
04-Cloke New-3295-04.qxd 7/28/2005 9:43 PM Page 59

RURAL SPACE 59

Europe that is still not even fully productivist (Wilson, Bunce, M. (1994) The Countryside Ideal. Anglo-American
2001), to developing nations, where the model Images of Landscape. London: Routledge.
presently has little relevance (Barke and O’Hare, 1991: Buttel, F. (1994) ‘Agricultural change, rural society, and the
ch. 4; Madeley, 2002). Such geographical diversity state in the late twentieth century: some theoretical obser-
(Marsden, 1999) is, however, unsurprising if we follow vations’, in D. Symes and A. Jansen (eds), Agricultural
neither an overly structuralist line, allowing endogenous Restructuring and Rural Change in Europe. Wageningen:
change (van der Ploeg and Long, 1994), nor a ‘develop- Agricultural University. pp. 13–31.
mentalist’ (Taylor, 1993) assumption of linear change. CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (1988)
None the less, we must take care not to overlook the The Future of Rural Society. Brussels: CEC.
British bias and general lack of meaningful interna- CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (1996)
tional comparison that still bedevils the productivist/ The Cork Declaration: A Living Countryside. Brussels:
post-productivist debate (Wilson, 2001): national tradi- CEC.
tions remain very strong within rural studies generally Champion, A. (1998) ‘Studying counterurbanisation and
(Symes and Jansen, 1994a). the rural population turnaround’, in P. Boyle and
6 This argument to some extent parallels that over the K. Halfacree (eds), Migration into Rural Areas. Theories
fate of Fordism; indeed, some scholars have linked the and Issues. Chichester: Wiley. pp. 21–40.
two (Buttell, 1994; Marsden, 1992). This suggests Champion, T. and Hugo, G. (forthcoming, 2003) New
the pairings of Fordism/productivism and post-Fordism/ Forms of Urbanization: Beyond the Urban–Rural
post-productivism, although one needs to exercise Dichotomy. Aldershot: Ashgate.
caution here, as with all such schema. Cloke, P. (1980) ‘New emphases for applied rural geogra-
phy’, Progress in Human Geography, 4: 181–217.
Cloke, P. (1989) ‘Rural geography and political economy’,
REFERENCES in R. Peet and N. Thrift (eds), New Models in Geography.
Volume 1. London: Unwin Hyman. pp. 164–97.
Ambrose, P. (1992) ‘The rural/urban fringe as battle- Cloke, P. (1992) ‘“The countryside”: development, conser-
ground’, in B. Short (ed.), The English Rural Community. vation and an increasingly marketable commodity’, in
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 175–94. P. Cloke (ed.), Policy and Change in Thatcher’s Britain.
Argent, N. (2002) ‘From pillar to post? In search of the Oxford: Pergamon. pp. 269–95.
post-productivist countryside in Australia’, Australian Cloke, P. (1994) ‘(En)culturing political economy: a life in
Geographer, 33: 97–114. a day of a “rural geographer”’, in P. Cloke, M. Doel,
Barke, M. and O’Hare, G. (1991) The Third World, D. Matless, M. Phillips and N. Thrift, Writing the Rural:
2nd edn. Harlow: Oliver and Boyd. Five Cultural Geographies. London: Paul Chapman.
Bennett, K., Carroll, T., Lowe, P. and Phillipson, J. (2002) pp. 149–90.
Coping With Crisis in Cumbria: Consequences of Foot Cloke, P. (1999) ‘The country’, in P. Cloke, P. Crang and
and Mouth Disease. University of Newcastle: Centre M. Goodwin (eds), Introducing Human Geographies.
for Rural Economy. London: Edward Arnold. pp. 256–67.
Bey, H. (1991) TAZ: The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Cloke, P. and Goodwin, M. (1992) ‘Conceptualizing coun-
Ontological Anarchy, Poetical Terrorism. New York: tryside change: from post-Fordism to rural structured
Autonomedia. coherence’, Transactions of the Institute of British
Black, J. and, Conway, E. (1995) ‘Community-led develop- Geographers, 17: 321–36.
ment policies in the Highlands and Islands: the European Cloke, P. and Park, C. (1984) Rural Resource Management.
Community’s LEADER programme’, Local Economy London: Croom Helm.
10: 229–45. Cloke, P., Goodwin, M. and Milbourne, P. (1995) ‘There’s so
Bowen, E. (1962) ‘Rural Wales’, in J. Mitchell (ed.), Great many strangers in the village now”: marginalization and
Britain: Geographical Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge change in 1990s Welsh rural life-styles’, Contemporary
University Press. pp. 247–64. Wales, 8: 47–74.
Bowers, J. (1985) ‘British agricultural policy since the Cloke, P., Goodwin, M. and Milbourne, P. (1998) ‘Inside
Second World War’, Agricultural History Review, looking out; outside looking in. Different experiences of
33: 66–76. cultural competence in rural lifestyles’, in P. Boyle and
Bowler, I. (1992) ‘Sustainable agriculture as an alternative K. Halfacree (eds), Migration into Rural Areas:
path of farm business development’, in I. Bowler, Theories and Issues. Chichester: Wiley. pp. 134–50.
C. Bryant and M. Nellis (eds), Contemporary Rural Clout, H. (1972) Rural Geography. Oxford: Pergamon.
Systems in Transition. Volume 1. Agriculture and Cooke, P. (ed.) (1989) Localities: the Changing Face of
Environment. Wallingford: CAB International. pp. 237–53. Urban Britain. London: Unwin Hyman.
Bowler, I., Bryant, C. and Nellis, M. (eds) (1992) Copp, J. (1972) ‘Rural sociology and rural development’,
Contemporary Rural Systems in Transition. Volume 1. Agri- Rural Sociology, 37: 515–33.
culture and Environment. Wallingford: CAB International. Countryside Alliance (2002) Homepage at <http://www.
Buller, H., Wilson, G. and Höll, A. (eds) (2000) Agri- countryside-alliance.org/> (accessed June).
environmental Policy in the European Union. Aldershot: Crang, M. and Thrift, N. (eds) (2000a) Thinking Space.
Ashgate. London: Routledge.
04-Cloke New-3295-04.qxd 7/28/2005 9:43 PM Page 60

60 APPROACHES TO RURAL STUDIES

Crang, M. and Thrift, N. (2000b) ‘Introduction’, in Halfacree, K. (1997) ‘Contrasting roles for the post-
M. Crang and N. Thrift (eds), Thinking Space. London: productivist countryside: a post-modern perspective on
Routledge. pp. 1–30. counterurbanisation’, in P. Cloke and J. Little (eds),
Curry-Roper, J. (1992) ‘Alternative agriculture and con- Contested Countryside Cultures. London: Routledge.
ventional paradigms in US agriculture’, in I. Bowler, pp. 70–93.
C. Bryant and M. Nellis (eds), Contemporary Rural Halfacree, K. (1998) ‘Neo-tribes, migration and the post-
Systems in Transition. Volume 1. Agriculture and productivist countryside’, in P. Boyle and K. Halfacree
Environment. Wallingford: CAB International. pp. 254–64. (eds), Migration into Rural Areas: Theories and Issues.
DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Chichester: Wiley. pp. 200–14.
Rural Affairs) (2003) ‘Welcome to the England Rural Halfacree, K. (1999) ‘A new space or spatial effacement?
Development Programme’, at <http://www.defra.gov. Alternative futures for the post-productivist country-
uk/erdp/> (accessed June). side’, in N. Walford, J. Everitt and D. Napton (eds),
Denny, C. and Elliott, L. (2002) ‘Shaping up for Seattle Reshaping the Countryside: Perceptions and Processes
at the beach’, Guardian, 4 September at <http://www. of Rural Change. Wallingford: CAB International.
guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,785702,00.html> pp. 67–76.
(accessed June 2003). Halfacree, K. (2001a) ‘Constructing the object: taxonomic
Derounian J. (1993) Another Country. Real Life Beyond practices, “counterurbanisation” and positioning
Rose Cottage. London: NCVO Publications. marginal rural settlement’, International Journal of
Drummond, I., Campbell, H., Lawrence, G. and Symes, D. Population Geography, 7: 395–411.
(2000) ‘Contingent or structural crisis in British agri- Halfacree, K. (2001b) ‘Going “back-to-the-land” again:
culture?’ Sociologia Ruralis, 40: 111–27. extending the scope of counterurbanisation’, Espace,
Evans, N., Morris, C. and Winter, M. (2002) ‘Conceptualizing Populations, Sociétés 2001–1–2: 161–70.
agriculture: a critique of post-productivism as the new Halfacree, K. (2001c) ‘A place for ‘nature’?: new radical-
orthodoxy’, Progress in Human Geography, 26: 313–32. ism’s rural contribution’. Paper presented at 19th
Fairlie, S. (1996) Low Impact Development. Charlbury, European Congress for Rural Sociology, Dijon, France,
Oxfordshire: Jon Carpenter. September.
Findlay, A. (1994) The Arab World. London: Routledge. Halfacree, K. (2003) ‘Landscapes of rurality: rural
Frey, W. and Johnson, K. (1998) ‘Concentrated immigra- others/other rurals’, in I. Roberston and P. Richards
tion, restructuring and the “selective” deconcentration (eds), Studying Cultural Landscapes. London: Arnold.
of the United States population’, in P. Boyle and pp. 141–69.
K. Halfacree (eds), Migration into Rural Areas: Theories Halfacree, K., Kovach, I. and Woodward, R. (eds) (2002)
and Issues. Chichester: Wiley. pp. 79–106. Leadership and Local Power in European Rural
Goodman, D. and Redclift, M. (1991) Refashioning Development. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Nature: Food, Ecology and Culture. London: Routledge. Harper, S. (ed.) (1993) The Greening of Rural Policy:
Goodman, D. and Watts, M. (eds) (1997) Globalising International Perspectives. London: Belhaven.
Food: Agrarian Questions and Global Restructuring. Harvey, D. (1985) The Urbanization of Capital. Oxford:
London: Routledge. Blackwell.
Gottdiener, M. (1985) The Social Production of Urban Harvey, D. (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity.
Space. Austin: University of Texas Press. Oxford: Blackwell.
Grant, W. (1990) ‘Rural politics in Britain’, in P. Lowe and Harvey, D. (1996) Justice, Nature and the Geography of
M. Bodiguel (eds), Rural Studies in Britain and France. Difference. Oxford: Blackwell.
London Belhaven. pp. 286–98. Harvey, G. (1997) The Killing of the Countryside. London:
Gray, J. (2000) ‘The Common Agricultural Policy and the Jonathan Cape.
re-invention of the rural in the European Community’, Hoggart, K. (1990) ‘Let’s do away with rural’, Journal of
Sociologia Ruralis, 40: 30–52. Rural Studies, 6: 245–57.
Gregory, D. (1994) Geographical Imaginations. Oxford: Hoggart, K., Buller, H. and Black, R. (1995) Rural
Blackwell. Europe: Identity and Change. London: Arnold.
Gregory, D. and Urry, J. (1985) Social Relations and Hugo, G. and Bell, M. (1998) ‘The hypothesis of welfare-led
Spatial Structures. Basingstoke: Macmillan. migration to rural areas: the Australian case’, in P. Boyle
Guardian (2001) ‘Half of farms “will close by 2020”’, and K. Halfacree (eds), Migration into Rural Areas:
13 August. Theories and Issues. Chichester: Wiley. pp. 107–33.
Halfacree, K. (1993) ‘Locality and social representation: Ilbery, B. and Bowler, I. (1998) ‘From agricultural produc-
space, discourse and alternative definitions of the rural’, tivism to post-productivism’, in B. Ilbery (ed.), The
Journal of Rural Studies, 9: 23–37. Geography of Rural Change. Harlow: Longman. pp. 57–84.
Halfacree, K. (1994) ‘The importance of “the rural” in the Jedrej, C. and Nuttall, M. (1996) White Settlers. The
constitution of counterurbanization: evidence from Impact of Rural Repopulation in Scotland. Luxembourg:
England in the 1980s’, Sociologia Ruralis, 34: 164–89. Harwood Academic Publishers.
Halfacree, K. (1995) ‘Talking about rurality: social repre- Jones, O. (1995) ‘Lay discourses of the rural: develop-
sentations of the rural as expressed by residents of six ments and implications for rural studies’, Journal of
English parishes’, Journal of Rural Studies, 11: 1–20. Rural Studies, 11: 35–49.
04-Cloke New-3295-04.qxd 7/28/2005 9:43 PM Page 61

RURAL SPACE 61

Juckes Maxey, L. (2002) One Path Forward? Three Merrifield, A. (2000) ‘Henri Lefebvre: a socialist in
Sustainable Communities in England and Wales. space’, in M. Crang and N. Thrift (eds), Thinking Space.
Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Geography, London: Routledge. pp. 167–82.
University of Wales, Swansea. Merrifield, A. (2002) Metromarxism. New York: Routledge.
Katz, C. (1998) ‘Whose nature, whose culture?: private Monbiot, G. (1994) No Man’s Land. London: Macmillan.
productions of space and the “preservation”’, of nature’, Monbiot, G. (2002) Captive State. The Corporate
in B. Braun and N. Castree (eds), Remaking Reality. Takeover of Britain. London: Macmillan.
Nature at the Millennium. London: Routledge. pp. 46–63. Morgan, W. and Munton, R. (1971) Agricultural
Laschewski, L., Teherani-Krönner, P. and Bahner, T. Geography. London: Methuen.
(2002) ‘Recent rural restructuring in East and West Mormont, M. (1987) ‘Rural nature and urban natures’,
Germany: experiences and backgrounds’, in K. Halfacree, Sociologia Ruralis, 27: 3–20.
I. Kovach and R. Woodward (eds), Leadership and Mormont, M. (1990) ‘Who is rural? Or, how to be rural:
Local Power in European Rural Development. Aldershot: towards a sociology of the rural’, in T. Marsden,
Ashgate. pp. 145–72. P. Lowe and S. Whatmore (eds), Rural Restructuring.
Le Heron, R. (1993) Globalized Agriculture: Political London: David Fulton. pp. 21–44.
Choice. Oxford: Pergamon. Moscovici S. (1984) ‘The phenomenon of social represen-
Lefebvre, H. (1991a) The Production of Space. Oxford: tations’, in R. Farr and S. Moscovici (eds), Social
Blackwell. Representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Lefebvre, H. (1991b) Critique of Everyday Life. Volume 1. Press. pp. 3–69.
London: Verso. Moseley, M. (1984) ‘The revival of rural areas in advanced
Lefebvre, H. (1996) Writings on Cities. Oxford: Blackwell. economies: a review of some causes and consequences’,
Llambi, L. (1994) ‘Comparative advantages and disadvan- Geoforum, 15: 447–56.
tages in Latin American nontraditional fruit and veg- Murdoch, J. and Day, G. (1998) ‘Middle class mobility, rural
etable exports’, in P. McMichael (ed.), The Global communities and the politics of exclusion’, in P. Boyle
Restructuring of Agro-food Systems. Ithaca, NY: Cornell and K. Halfacree (eds), Migration into Rural Areas.
University Press. pp. 190–213. Theories and Issues. Chichester: Wiley. pp. 186–99.
Lobao, L. (1996) ‘A sociology of the periphery versus a Murdoch, J. and Marsden, T. (1994) Reconstituting Rurality.
peripheral sociology: rural sociology and the dimension London: UCL Press.
of space’, Rural Sociology, 61: 77–102. Murdoch, J. and Pratt, A. (1993) ‘Rural studies: mod-
Madeley, J. (2002) Food For All: The Need For a New ernism, postmodernism and the “post-rural”’, Journal
Agriculture. London: Zed Books. of Rural Studies, 9: 411–27.
Marsden, T. (1992) ‘Exploring a rural sociology for the Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Ward, N. and Marsden, T. (2003)
Fordist transition: incorporating social relations into The Differentiated Countryside. London: Routledge.
economic restructuring’, Sociologia Ruralis, 32: 209–30. Newby, H. (1977) The Deferential Worker. London: Allen
Marsden, T. (1995) ‘Beyond agriculture? Regulating the Lane.
new rural spaces’, Journal of Rural Studies, 11: 285–96. Newby, H. (1987) Country Life. London: Weidenfeld and
Marsden, T. (1998a) ‘Economic perspectives’, in B. Ilbery Nicolson.
(ed.), The Geography of Rural Change. Harlow: Newby, H., Bell, C., Rose, D. and Saunders, P. (1978)
Longman. pp. 13–30. Property, Paternalism and Power. London: Hutchinson.
Marsden, T. (1998b) ‘New rural territories: regulating the Orton, B. (1996) ‘Tangent’, from Trailer Park. Heavenly
differentiated rural spaces’, Journal of Rural Studies, Records HVN LP17CD.
14: 107–17. Page, B. (1997) ‘Restructuring pork production, remaking
Marsden, T. (1999) ‘Rural futures: the consumption country- rural Iowa’, in D. Goodman and M. Watts (eds),
side and its regulation’, Sociologia Ruralis, 39: 501–20. Globalising Food: Agrarian Questions and Global
Marsden, T., Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Munton, R. and Restructuring. London: Routledge. pp. 133–57.
Flynn, A. (1993) Constructing the Countryside. London: Panelli, R. (2001) ‘Narratives of community and change in a
UCL Press. contemporary rural setting: the case of Duaringa, Queens-
Marx, L. (1964) The Machine in the Garden. New York: land’, Australian Geographical Studies, 39: 156–66.
Oxford University Press. Peet, R. (1998) Modern Geographical Thought. Oxford:
Massey, D. (1996) ‘A global sense of place’, in S. Daniels Blackwell.
and R. Lee (eds), Exploring Human Geography. A Phillips, M. (2002) ‘The production, symbolization and
Reader. London: Arnold. pp. 237–45. socialization of gentrification: impressions from two
McMichael, P. (1993) ‘World food system restructuring Berkshire villages’, Transactions of the Institute of
under a GATT regime’, Political Geography, 12: 198–214. British Geographers, 27: 282–308.
McMichael, P. (ed.) (1994) The Global Restructuring of Ploeg, J. D. Van der and Long, A. (eds) (1994) Born From
Agro-food Systems. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Within: Practice and Perspectives of Endogenous Rural
Press. Development. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Merrifield, A. (1993) ‘Place and space: a Lefebvrian Potter, C. (1998) Against the Grain: Agri-environmental
reconciliation’, Transactions of the Institute of British Reform in the United States and the European Union.
Geographers, 18: 516–31. Wallingford: CAB International.
04-Cloke New-3295-04.qxd 7/28/2005 9:43 PM Page 62

62 APPROACHES TO RURAL STUDIES

Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. (1987) Discourse and Social Symes, D. and Jansen, A. (1994a) ‘Introduction’, in
Psychology. London: Sage. D. Symes and A. Jansen (eds), Agricultural Restructuring
Pratt, A. (1996) ‘Discourses of rurality: loose talk or social and Rural Change in Europe. Wageningen: Agricultural
struggle?’, Journal of Rural Studies, 12: 69–78. University. pp. 1–12.
Pretty, J. (2002) Agri-culture. Reconnecting People, Land Symes, D. and Jansen, A. (eds) (1994b) Agricultural
and Nature. London: Earthscan. Restructuring and Rural Change in Europe. Wageningen:
Raynolds, L. (1994) ‘The restructuring of Third World Agricultural University.
agro-exports: changing production relations in the Symons, L. ([1967] 1978) Agricultural Geography. London:
Dominican Republic’, in P. McMichael (ed.), The Bell and Hyman.
Global Restructuring of Agro-food Systems. Ithaca, NY: Takahashi, M. (2001) ‘Changing ruralities and the post-
Cornell University Press. pp. 214–37. productivist countryside of Japan: policy changes of the
Rees, A. (1950) Life in a Welsh Countryside. Cardiff: central government in the 1990s’, in K. Kim, I. Bowler and
University of Wales Press. C. Bryant (eds), Developing Sustainable Rural Systems.
Sayer, A. (1984) Method in Social Science. London: Pusan: Pusan National University Press. pp. 163–74.
Hutchinson. Tarrant, J. (1974) Agricultural Geography, Newton Abbot:
Sayer, A. (1989) ‘The “new” regional geography and David and Charles.
problems of narrative’, Society and Space, 7: 253–76. Taylor, P. (1993) Political Geography, 3rd edn. Harlow:
Schwarz, W. and Schwarz, D. (1998) Living Lightly. Longman.
Travels in Post-Consumer Society. Charlbury, Thrift, N. (1996) Spatial Formations. London: Sage.
Oxfordshire: Jon Carpenter. Unwin, T. (2000) ‘A waste of space? Towards a critique of
Seymour, S., Lowe, P., Ward, N. and Clark, J. (1997) the social production of space …’, Transactions of the
‘Environmental “others” and “elites”: rural pollution Institute of British Geographers, 25: 11–29.
and changing power relations in the countryside’, in Veal, A. (1993) ‘Planning for leisure: past, present and
P. Milbourne (ed.), Revealing Rural ‘Others’. London: future’, in S. Glyptis (ed.), Leisure and the
Pinter. pp. 57–74. Environment. London: Belhaven. pp. 53–67.
Shields, R. (1999) Lefebvre, Love and Struggle. Spatial Wallace, I. (1992) ‘International restructuring of the agri-
Dialectics. London: Routledge. food chain’, in I. Bowler, C. Bryant and M. Nellis (eds),
Shiva, V. (2000) Stolen Harvest. Cambridge, MA: South Contemporary Rural Systems in Transition. Volume 1.
End Press. Agriculture and Environment. Wallingford: CAB
Short, J. (1991) Imagined Country. London: Routledge. International. pp. 15–28.
Shotter J. (1993) Cultural Politics of Everyday Life. Ward, N. (1993) ‘The agricultural treadmill and the rural
Buckingham: Open University Press. environment in the post-productivist era’, Sociologia
Shucksmith, M. (1993) ‘Farm household behaviour and Ruralis, 27: 21–37.
the transition to post-productivism’, Journal of Agricultural Whatmore, S. (1993) ‘On doing rural research (or breaking
Economics, 44: 466–78. the boundaries)’, Environment and Planning A, 25: 605–7.
Simmons, M. (1997) Landscapes – of Poverty. London: Wilson, G. (2001) ‘From productivism to post-
Lemos and Crane. productivism … and back again? Exploring the
Smith, N. (1984) Uneven Development. Oxford: Blackwell. (un)changed natural and mental landscapes of European
Smith, N. (1987) ‘Dangers of the empirical turn: some agriculture’, Transactions of the Institute of British
comments on the CURS initiative’, Antipode, 19: 59–68. Geographers, 26: 313–32.
Smith, N. (1998) ‘Nature at the millennium: production Winter, M. (1996) Rural Politics. London: Routledge.
and re-enchantment’, in B. Braun and N. Castree (eds), Woods, M. (2003) ‘Deconstructing rural protest: the emer-
Remaking Reality. Nature at the Millennium. London: gence of a new social movement’, Journal of Rural
Routledge. pp. 271–85. Studies, 19: 309–25.