No abstract

This paper considers recent pleas for a ‘geography of gentrification’, arguing that they have been very urban in focus and often enact what, following Soja (1996), might be described as ‘firstspace epistemology’. The paper identifies traces of other, secondspace and thirdspace geographies of gentrification. It is argued that these geographies may not be fully commensurable with each other but that they each may have some commensurability with rural as well as the urban spatialities. The paper goes on to explore these arguments in relation to studies of gentrification of the British countryside, focusing particularly on gentrification in rural Norfolk.

Gentrification has long been the subject of considerable interest and debate amongst geographers. A range of differing ontological and epistemological conceptions of gentrification have been advanced, with attempts often being made to legislate between them to establish some definitive categorizations of gentrification. The majority of gentrification studies are also highly urbanized: gentrification is seen explicitly or implicitly as a phenomenon that occurs in urban space. This paper questions both the legislative and urban foci of gentrification studies, by outlining an interpretative study of material, social and symbolic dimensions of gentrification within two villages in rural Berkshire. key words rural Berkshire gentrification interpretative approach material spatial practice spatial representation spaces of representation

No abstract

objects of study but also to social relationships with other academics, with governmental organisations and with public opinion and values. Attention is drawn to the differential relationships that counterurbanisation and rural gentrifi cation are implicated in, and how this might account for the differential character of the two concepts.ABSTRACT This paper examines the interrelationships between the concepts of counterurbanisation and rural gentrifi cation, suggesting that four different positions can be identifi ed. Firstly, these concepts are highly commensurable and could usefully be more closely aligned. Secondly, rural gentrifi cation has a political/critical dimension that is missing from conceptualisations of counterurbanisation, and hence rural gentrifi cation might usefully displace counterurbanisation as a focus of study. Thirdly, counterurbanisation is a less reductionist concept than rural gentrifi cation, and therefore counterurbanisation researchers need to disentangle themselves from too great a focus on rural gentrifi cation. Fourthly, both concepts share many problematic features and may both be viewed as chaotic concepts. The paper then discusses how counterurbanisation and gentrifi cation researchers have responded to criticisms relating to their conceptual foci, suggesting that these can be characterised as legislative or interpretive. It is argued that whilst the former response has been predominant, there are signs that the latter approach is also being adopted. The concluding part of the paper draws on the notion of an interpretive approach to understanding counterurbanisation and rural gentrifi cation, and their interrelationships. Use is made of Latour's notion of 'circulatory sociologies of translation' to consider how the two concepts are linked not only to their