This work chiefly consists of a genealogical critique of rural identity. Tracing the development and deployment of the concepts of rurality and rural consciousness, I argue that our current depictions of rurality as “spatial other,” replete with its harmful stereotypes, stem from a misconception about the nature of power. Political theorists’ and political scientists’ appraisals of rurality suggest that the set of actions that define rural politics are a product of their relative powerlessness. Rural locales’ removal from the center of power in urban spheres means that rural politics is reduced to reactionary, violent, and conservative political thought and engagement. Conventional depictions of power as directional, agentic, and commodified modes of domination have been pressed into service amidst the construction of this rural monolith; the rural is always powerless, existing at the periphery of an urban “power center.” Against this understanding of power, I argue that adoption of a directionless, discursive mode of power (the Foucauldian approach to power) might help us to problematize spatial identities that until now have always relied on the center/periphery or powerful/powerless distinction. To illustrate the force of this theory, I use empirical research from ethnographic interviews and participant observation that reveals the discursive construction of spatial identities – even in the face of apparent differences that bely identity itself. Taking this research into account, I conclude the study by critiquing the possibility of a political theory of the rural. I argue that rural identity, which has been bolstered by political scientists and political theorists alike, has severely restrained the possibilities of rural political action, and that continued problematization of spatial identities may ameliorate this harm.
Matthew B. Kirk (Wed,) studied this question.