The discourse of the rural idyll masks poverty and social exclusion

Authors Avatar

The discourse of the rural idyll masks poverty and social exclusion

There is a danger that in the future there will be literally thousands of areas in Europe with a population over the age of 60 and no services: no post offices, no banks, no shops, no bakeries, nothing … Without specific measures to combat exclusion, to promote rural development and improve public services we risk seeing rural desertification on an unprecedented scale’ ().

It is a popularly held perception that living in the countryside is an ‘Idyll’ (Newby, 1980) of friendly, close-knit individuals who are generous, healthy, affluent and happy people (Williams & White 2002) This idyll contrasts sharply  to the much more hostile media representations of life in the city with its associated crime, poverty and social defragmentation (). In the UK, representations of the ‘rural idyll’ are frequently portrayed in numerous media formats such as magazines and television shows like ‘Country Life’ and ‘Escape to the Country’, ensuring that the imagery of the rural idyll is allowed to dominate popular discourse (Neal, 2006). Research also found that both urban and rural dwellers both believe that the countryside environment provides a higher quality of life, particularly for children (Neal, 2006). The powerful draw of the rural idyll is further evident in national statistics which show higher rates of migration from urban to rural localities than vice versa ().

Research has ended its previous obsessions with “Gemeinschaft social relations” in rural life by offering a more critical analysis of ‘the rural idyll’.  It now attempts to recognise the different experiences and varying implications for different social groups to be found (). These critical investigations have helped   highlight previously unreported  marginalities, power relations, poverty and exclusions that fragment allegedly harmonious Gemeinschaft communities’ ().

Poverty is often regarded as outcome where people cannot share in the everyday lifestyles of the majority because of a lack of disposable income or other resources. Disadvantage is essentially similar but considers other aspects like culture and not just income or expenditure (Townsend 1979). There is also a relative aspect. German entrepreneur Adolf Merckle reportedly worth $9.2 billion committed suicide when he lost a large part of his fortune during the current economic crisis. He was still worth hundreds of millions of dollars but by his high standards he was finished (The Timesonline, 09/01/09). At the opposite end of the scale a single mum struggling to pay the rent might feel quite flush if she were to inherit a few hundred quid from a distant relative. A third aspect may be that some people choose to live sparse lifestyles, my father-in-law a retired tenant farmer on a decent pension now lives in a privately owned small cottage in a rural village in Cumbria. The cottage is basically a wreck it needs damproofing, new windows, has no central heating, and the wall paper is hanging of the walls. He believes the cottage is fine and will not spend any money on improvements. He certainly doesn’t feel that he is deprived in any respect.  

Deprivation is slightly different from poverty and social exclusion, concentrating on the lack of core life aspects such as food, housing, mobility or services. In contrast, social exclusion is seen as a more multi-faceted process which refers to the dysfunction of the major systems in society that should increase the social integration of communities and individuals (Berghman 1995). It implies a more macro rather than micro approach focusing more upon the processes which cause social exclusion whilst acknowledging the importance of the local context in such processes (Shucksmith, 2003). The notion of poverty therefore tends to be mainly distributional, while the concept of social exclusion focuses primarily on relational issues like labour markets, social isolation, lack of services and especially the broader political and structural barriers to opportunity (Shucksmith, 2003). It is generally agreed that social exclusion provides a broader and more critical means of understanding social problems relating to poverty (Millbourne, 2004a).

Join now!

The concept of social exclusion is contested and therefore no single agreed definition exists. Levitas 1999 cited in Shucksmith (2003,1) argues that there are three competing approaches. Firstly there isan “integrationist” approach whereby work is seen as an integral force, both through work based identities and self worth, earnings and networks. Secondly a “poverty” approach in which social exclusion is related to benefit dependency and low income. The final method is an “underclass” approach whereby the excluded are perceived as uneducated deviants lacking the morals and cultural norms of society. They are viewed as having a lack of aspirations ...

This is a preview of the whole essay