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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Keith Halfacree
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