Reading Rural Consumption Practices for Difference Bolt-holes, Castles and Life-rafts
Based mostly on evidence from the UK, this paper challenges the rural’s usual association with predominantly conservative politics and practices. It advocates showing awareness of ambiguity in how representations, and specifically in this paper rural representations, and their numerous associated co...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Linköping University Electronic Press
2010-06-01
|
Series: | Culture Unbound: Journal of Current Cultural Research |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.3384/cu.2000.1525.10214241 |
id |
doaj-ecc859a1cfd74307b2d144cb089cb881 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-ecc859a1cfd74307b2d144cb089cb8812020-11-24T22:29:39ZengLinköping University Electronic PressCulture Unbound: Journal of Current Cultural Research2000-15252010-06-012241263Reading Rural Consumption Practices for Difference Bolt-holes, Castles and Life-raftsKeith HalfacreeBased mostly on evidence from the UK, this paper challenges the rural’s usual association with predominantly conservative politics and practices. It advocates showing awareness of ambiguity in how representations, and specifically in this paper rural representations, and their numerous associated consumption practices are interpreted. A focus is given on the possibility of interpreting these practiced rural representations in the context of responses to the negative features within everyday life identified by writers such as Lefebvre. Drawing specifically on the “postmodern Marxism” of Gibson-Graham (2006), and particularly beginning to deploy what they term “reading for difference rather than dominance”, the paper introduces three “styles” of consuming the rural. These are expressed via the metaphors of bolt-hole, castle and life-raft, and it is argued that they can be read as expressing critique of urban everyday life. In the concluding section, the lessons learned from reading rural consumption practices for difference in this way are brought together to suggest that not only can the rural today be regarded as an active “heterotopia” but that this alternative status could be used to underpin an urban-focused social movement for reclamation of what Lefebvre termed “every-day life”.http://dx.doi.org/10.3384/cu.2000.1525.10214241Ruralreading for differencerepresentationsconsumption practiceseveryday lifesocial movement |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Keith Halfacree |
spellingShingle |
Keith Halfacree Reading Rural Consumption Practices for Difference Bolt-holes, Castles and Life-rafts Culture Unbound: Journal of Current Cultural Research Rural reading for difference representations consumption practices everyday life social movement |
author_facet |
Keith Halfacree |
author_sort |
Keith Halfacree |
title |
Reading Rural Consumption Practices for Difference Bolt-holes, Castles and Life-rafts |
title_short |
Reading Rural Consumption Practices for Difference Bolt-holes, Castles and Life-rafts |
title_full |
Reading Rural Consumption Practices for Difference Bolt-holes, Castles and Life-rafts |
title_fullStr |
Reading Rural Consumption Practices for Difference Bolt-holes, Castles and Life-rafts |
title_full_unstemmed |
Reading Rural Consumption Practices for Difference Bolt-holes, Castles and Life-rafts |
title_sort |
reading rural consumption practices for difference bolt-holes, castles and life-rafts |
publisher |
Linköping University Electronic Press |
series |
Culture Unbound: Journal of Current Cultural Research |
issn |
2000-1525 |
publishDate |
2010-06-01 |
description |
Based mostly on evidence from the UK, this paper challenges the rural’s usual association with predominantly conservative politics and practices. It advocates showing awareness of ambiguity in how representations, and specifically in this paper rural representations, and their numerous associated consumption practices are interpreted. A focus is given on the possibility of interpreting these practiced rural representations in the context of responses to the negative features within everyday life identified by writers such as Lefebvre. Drawing specifically on the “postmodern Marxism” of Gibson-Graham (2006), and particularly beginning to deploy what they term “reading for difference rather than dominance”, the paper introduces three “styles” of consuming the rural. These are expressed via the metaphors of bolt-hole, castle and life-raft, and it is argued that they can be read as expressing critique of urban everyday life. In the concluding section, the lessons learned from reading rural consumption practices for difference in this way are brought together to suggest that not only can the rural today be regarded as an active “heterotopia” but that this alternative status could be used to underpin an urban-focused social movement for reclamation of what Lefebvre termed “every-day life”. |
topic |
Rural reading for difference representations consumption practices everyday life social movement |
url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.3384/cu.2000.1525.10214241 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT keithhalfacree readingruralconsumptionpracticesfordifferenceboltholescastlesandliferafts |
_version_ |
1725743745614217216 |