Rural revitalization in China: Towards inclusive geographies of ruralization

Abstract

This commentary welcomes Gillen et al.'s geographies of ruralization as an alternative to the urban-centered analysis of socio-spatial transformation in post-reform China. We offer three perspectives to further develop such alternative articulation by drawing on China's most recent geographical experiences of rural revitalization. The first is the “top-down” process of rural revitalization launched by different levels of Chinese state agents and how this is divergent from local needs or embedded in bottom-up engagement. The second is the temporal dimension of ruralization highlighting how uses of the past are implicated in and legitimize the state agenda of rural revitalization. The third directs attention to the entanglement of nature and culture—that is, how a harmonious human–nature approach to rural revitalization is produced in discourse and practice. We argue that these alternative insights offer possibilities of developing more inclusive geographies of ruralization in the Global South and beyond.

Beyond binaries? Spatial possibilities in Southeast Asia

“…Reflecting on the commentary set in toto , it is indicative of a rural–urban ‘impasse’ that cannot be straightforwardly ‘addressed’ or ‘solved’. Baird (2022), for example, asks us to go further in breaking down the rural–urban binary; Ghosh (2022) calls upon us to cast our net wider to include further consideration of the agrarian; Lawreniuk and Parsons (2022) aim to pluralize ruralities in shaping present and future; Ortega (2022) draws attention to the discursive power of rural–urban classification as a form of spatial politicization; and Chen and Kong (2022) highlight the state drivers of ruralization. Of course, we all have our hobby horses, but this range of responses – while also being generally supportive of our paper – is indicative of something more profound than just different viewpoints.…”

The role of informal ruralization within China’s rapid urbanization

“…While Gillen et al conceptualized ruralization as a bottom-up practice, the influence of powerful top-down actors, such as the state and global systems of labor and capital, in the spatial and discursive productions of ruralization has been a point of debate 16 . China, in particular, has been cited as an example where the geographies of ruralization are dominated by the state strategy of rural revitalization 17 . Indeed, in both rapid urbanization and ruralization, understandings of China's contemporary society have mostly been concerned with top-down actions and narratives.…”

Geographical articulations of rurality at the rural‐urban interface

“…The conduction of inclusive rural social science can also be realized through developing spaces of mutual learning and comparison. Apart from the North‐South comparison, there is a need for an extended focus on between‐country (or within‐country) comparativism across the Global South so as to open up diverse possibilities and challenge normative assumptions and universal claims (Chen & Kong, 2022; Chen & Pow, in press). Relational comparison across the Global South is not only part of what Philips and Smith (2018) argue for in the development of a comparative ruralism, but also part of a regional perspective of the RUI that advocates for making comparisons across regions (Mckinnon & Hiner, 2016).…”