Discourses of rurality: Loose talk or social struggle?

This paper is critical of the existing usage of ‘rural’ and ‘rurality’. It does not simply dismiss the terms as either irrelevant, wrong, or as a chaotic conception. The paper attempts to plot the implications, and account for the existence, of a multiplicity of meanings of the term ‘rurality’. Rather than adjudicating on the ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ use of the term it is suggested that the disputation over the use and meaning of the term ‘rurality’ demonstrates the rupture of sign and signification that has been discussed in debates concerning ideology and hegemony, and more recently post-structuralism. The paper argues in favour of a productive dialogue between Gramscian notions of political struggle and post-structuralist concerns with language and meaning. It is suggested that a more adequate explanation of social change should be sensitive to the multiple discourses that constitute our ‘reality’ (‘urban’ or ‘rural’), and the resources that are mobilised in their favour.