Rural-Urban Blurring and the Subjectivity Within

Abstract

Realizing that a changing society is in constant need of redefinition, the rural-urban distinction is especially important to look systematically into. One reason is that although the outdatedness of the ruralurban dichotomy is widely acknowledged, it is still largely sustained, not least in 'rural' and 'urban' development endeavors, which are often conducted separately. Such practice may seem questionable in the face of the progressive blurring of these concepts, which makes them increasingly subjective. Acknowledging the continued need for categorization on the one hand and admitting to its flawed nature on the other, we submit there is a pressing need to capture the changing logic of rural-urban subjectivity in order to better handle it in practice. By combining humanistic and materiality-based perspectives, we discuss the concepts of 'rural' and 'urban' with emphasis on perception and experiential space as one possible way forward. In that vein, we also tentatively explore the potential of the concept of 'landscape' to serve as a bridge between physical and subject-centered tenets of rural-urban awareness. We argue it could become a useful conceptual tool for creating context from the divergent theoretical currents in regard to how rural-urban should be understood today.

Deprivation and the Rural‐Urban Trap

“…Deleuze ). Hence, although most progressive developments in conceptualising rurality/urbanity today do converge at treating them as cultural constructs rather than as geographically bounded places or factictities (Hoggart ; Halfacree ; Pile ; Champion & Hugo ; Cloke ; Hubbard ; Woods ; Lerner & Eakin ; Bosworth and Somerville ; Dymitrow & Stenseke ; etc. ), their ambiguity, controversiality and impracticality of deployment is often forsaken in practice (cf.…”

“… As Dymitrow & Stenseke (, p. 2) note, ‘“rural” and “urban” […] have come to a point in their conceptual development at which they can signify almost anything […], and this span widens with an ever greater speed, without raising considerable intellectual doubts’.…”

Performing rurality. But who?

“…The concepts of 'rurality' and 'urbanity' are no exceptions to this development, given that characterizations of 'urban' and 'rural' , while subjective (Hubbard, 2006: 69-70;Woods, 2011: 44;Dymitrow, Stenseke, 2016), are well "implicated in the production of places and, in particular, in the judgment of people's practices within places" (Cresswell, 2009). However, unlike e.g.…”

“…Dymitrow, Stenseke, 2016). The principal point is that due to increasing rural-urban blurring (and thus increased subjectivity and solipsism involved in this process), there is an ever greater likelihood that current understandings of 'rural' as used in formal contexts (legislation, administration, land use, funding and research) may misapprehend the societal phenomena this concept purports to explain and, by that, get in the way of making sound planning, policy and development decisions.…”

Landscapes with different logics: A physicalistic approach to semantic conflicts in spatial planning

“…Throughout the developed world, areas classified traditionally as 'rural' are in constant socio-economic and visible transition. With the resource-based economy in decline in favour of greater economic diversity, the countryside of today "has shifted from being a landscape of production to also being a landscape of consumption" (Dymitrow, Stenseke 2016). Increased personal mobility, telecommunications and information technology have all rendered the countryside a functional extension of the city (Millward et al 2003).…”