What is Rural?

Date:         Thu, 12 May 1994 11:22:31 -0600                                   
Reply-To:     H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
Sender:       H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
From:         "Jim Oberly, History Dept.,                                       
              U of Wisc-Eau Claire" <JOBERLY@CNSVAX.UWEC.EDU>                   
Subject:      Query:  What is "Rural"?                                          

[From: IN%"mebuck%mail.wm.edu@UICVM.UIC.EDU" 12-MAY-1994 08:06:12.80 [To: IN%"H-RURAL@UICVM.UIC.EDU" [Subj: "RURAL"

For some time now I have been wondering how to define "rural". What factors must be taken into account and how are these measured? As this is the Rural List, I thought we might generate some interesting discussion about what list members consider "rural".

Aileen C. Moffatt College of William and Mary mebuck@mail.wm.edu




Date:         Thu, 12 May 1994 22:44:33 -0600                                   
Reply-To:     H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
Sender:       H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
From:         "Jim Oberly, History Dept.,                                       
              U of Wisc-Eau Claire" <JOBERLY@CNSVAX.UWEC.EDU>                   
Subject:      Re: Query:  What is "Rural"?                                      

[From: IN%"pch%world.std.com@UICVM.UIC.EDU" "peter c holloran" 12-MAY-1994 22:31:30.89 [To: IN%"H-RURAL%UICVM.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu" "H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion list" [Subj: RE: Query: What is "Rural"?

Rural is the opposite of urban. The US Census Bureau defined an urban residence as one in a community of 2500 or more. This may be obsolete but a start, no?

Peter Holloran

On Thu, 12 May 1994, Jim Oberly, History Dept., U of Wisc-Eau Claire wrote:

> [From: IN%"mebuck%mail.wm.edu@UICVM.UIC.EDU" 12-MAY-1994 08:06:12.80 > [To: IN%"H-RURAL@UICVM.UIC.EDU" > [Subj: "RURAL" > > > For some time now I have been wondering how to define "rural". What factors must be taken into account and how are these measured? As this is the Rural List, I thought we might generate some interesting discussion about what list members consider "rural". > > Aileen C. Moffatt > College of William and Mary > mebuck@mail.wm.edu >



Date:         Fri, 13 May 1994 08:52:15 -0600                                   
Reply-To:     H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
Sender:       H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
From:         "Jim Oberly, History Dept.,                                       
              U of Wisc-Eau Claire" <JOBERLY@CNSVAX.UWEC.EDU>                   
Subject:      Re: Query:  What is "Rural"?                                      

[From: IN%"GALTA%GBMS01.UWGB.EDU@UICVM.UIC.EDU" "TONY GALT" 13-MAY-1994 01:48:00.59 [To: IN%"H-RURAL%UICVM.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu" [Subj: RE: Query: What is "Rural"?

Aileen Moffatt queries: > > For some time now I have been wondering how to define "rural". What factors must be taken into account and how are these measured? As this is the Rural List, I thought we might generate some interesting discussion about what list members consider "rural".

My take on this question comes from having conducted historical and cultural anthropological fieldwork in a small town in Apulia, southern Italy, that in the eyes of most people in Italy would be considered "rural", but that itself contained a strong urban rural distinction. The population numbered about 10,000 people, about half of them dwelling in the town center on a hill, and the other half dwelling in scattered *trulli*, and other country habitations. Each population harbored a proud and distinctive definition of itself as respectively urban and rural.

The point is that while some disciplines and agencies (Census departments in particular)may have precise definitions of what is rural and what is urban, a word like "rural" is a relative thing. Speaking as a cultural anthropologist it may be more important to understand what the people whose societies we study define as rural, than to seek any universal definitions. I suspect the same is true for historians, at least for those who focus on micro situations. In coming to an understanding of what is urban and rural in a given locale, we learn a great deal about related matters such as social class, social inclusion and exclusion, or even language and folklore. Consider that in the town I studied there were slightly different dialects spoken by town and country people.

I would argue then that the most useful definitions of urban and rural (and maybe suburban as well),unless perhaps one is a census taker, are emic in nature. It is possible, to be sure, to arrive at some sort of ideal typical formulation, but I suspect that would end up being rather trivial compared to the sort of identity questions an emic analysis would lead to.

Perhaps others would like to chip in their two cents.

Tony Galt Professor, Social Change and Development University of Wisconsin--Green Bay galta@gbms01.uwgb.edu



Date:         Fri, 13 May 1994 08:56:56 -0600                                   
Reply-To:     H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
Sender:       H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
From:         "Jim Oberly, History Dept.,                                       
              U of Wisc-Eau Claire" <JOBERLY@CNSVAX.UWEC.EDU>                   
Subject:      Re: Query:  What is "Rural"?                                      

[From: IN%"aingle%acs.bu.edu@UICVM.UIC.EDU" "Alexander Ingle" 13-MAY-1994 03:28:27.57 [To: IN%"H-RURAL%UICVM.BITNET@BROWNVM.brown.edu" "H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion list" [Subj: RE: Query: What is "Rural"?

But when is rural urban and urban rural? In ancient Greece and Italy, peasants frequently lived in "cities" and apparently walked miles sometimes to their farms every day. The typical Greek polis (city-state) had a population of ca.10,000. Attica, the region of Athens, was unusual not only for its large population, but also because so many cultivators lived in villages and not primarily in Athens. Archaeologists have had a hard time locating homestead farms in Greece, which may not mean they didn't exist, of course, but could indicate something about rural/urban demographics.

Aren't there modern "agro-towns" in Sicily where farmers live in communities much bigger than villages?

Conversely, some ancient towns and cities boast fairly serious agricultural undertakings within their walls (literally or figuratively). Pompeii has a number of large garden-farms which probably raised perishables like greens and flowers for the urban market. Jashemski in her *Gardens of Pompeii* also notes that one of the surprises of the excavations was that there were large areas of cultivated land inside the city.

I think the rural/urban distinction is valid and important, and for ancient Europe, too. But does the distinction have a historical development? I read somewhere (Karl Kautsky?) that the Mesopotamian city was nothing but a "princely camp." I can think of at least one scholar (Steven Scully) who does not believe that ancient Egypt, at any rate, was a "city culture," whatever that means.

--Alex Ingle aingle@acs.bu.edu




Date:         Fri, 13 May 1994 09:38:25 -0600                                   
Reply-To:     H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
Sender:       H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
From:         "Jim Oberly, History Dept.,                                       
              U of Wisc-Eau Claire" <JOBERLY@CNSVAX.UWEC.EDU>                   
Subject:      Re: Query:  What is "Rural"?                                      

[From: IN%"SHARPLESSR%baylor.edu@UICVM.UIC.EDU" "ebecca Sharpless" 13-MAY-1994 08:49:44.84 [To: IN%"H-RURAL@UICVM.UIC.EDU" [Subj: RE: What is rural?

In terms of culture, rural is not just the opposite of urban, at least not in the early twentieth century, which is the period I'm most familiar with. I'm working on the assumption that rural vs. urban forms a continuum. For example, here in Central Texas, where I do my work, there are crossroads villages--a church and a school only. Then there are the villages, which have a weekly newspaper, maybe a Baptist and a Methodist church, and a store or two. As you go up in size, amenities increase and mindsets change. A railroad connection became a big factor in connections to urban areas for little towns. At the other end of the spectrum, you have Waco, where in the 1920s you could attend a vaudeville show, buy an orange or a banana, and even attend synagogue. But, to muddy the waters, many of the people in Waco came from open country or crossroads towns and brought many of the manners and ways of the country with them.

To sum up, I don't think it's an either/or.

Rebecca Sharpless Baylor University R_SHARPLESS@BAYLOR.EDU

thinking these days about a continuum




Date:         Sat, 14 May 1994 09:02:21 -0600                                   
Reply-To:     H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
Sender:       H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
From:         "Jim Oberly, History Dept.,                                       
              U of Wisc-Eau Claire" <JOBERLY@CNSVAX.UWEC.EDU>                   
Subject:      Re: Query:  What is "Rural"?                                      

[From: IN%"GALTA%GBMS01.UWGB.EDU@UICVM.UIC.EDU" "TONY GALT" 13-MAY-1994 13:12:05.58 [To: IN%"H-RURAL%UICVM.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu" [Subj: RE: Query: What is "Rural"?

Alex Ingle writes, with respect to our discussion about urban/rural:

> Aren't there modern "agro-towns" in Sicily where farmers live in communities much bigger than villages?

Yes, indeed. One day in 1969 I was standing on a hill with a Frenchman and a Sicilian looking out over the landscape somewhere in the Province of Palermo. Across the valley from us--on another hill--was a large town. In fact, it was so large and sprawled out over the hill that it seemed a city. The frenchman--Henri Bresc--and I were both taken aback when our Sicilian friend referred to the settlement as a "village". This was indeed an agro-town; I can't reconstruct from memory which one it was. The pattern was massive movement of peasants and peasant workers to the fields in the morning and evening. Our Sicilian friend said the population was about 20-25 thousand people.

It is easy to say that the middle of Manhattan is urban, and the middle of a cornfield in Illinois is rural, but the shades and gradations in between often escape consistent definition--hence the greater usefulness of inhabitants'concepts.

Tony Galt Social Change and Development University of Wisconsin--Green Bay galta@gbms01.uwgb.edu




Date:         Sat, 14 May 1994 09:07:09 -0600                                   
Reply-To:     H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
Sender:       H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
From:         "Jim Oberly, History Dept.,                                       
              U of Wisc-Eau Claire" <JOBERLY@CNSVAX.UWEC.EDU>                   
Subject:      Re: Query:  What is "Rural"?                                      

[From: IN%"kaitken%rpl.regina.sk.ca@UICVM.UIC.EDU" 13-MAY-1994 14:55:19.29 [To: IN%"H-RURAL%UICVM.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU" "H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion list" [Subj: RE: Query: What is "Rural"?

I tend to agree with Tony Galt's approach, personally, because it is culturally sensitive. In sparsely populated areas like Saskatchewan governments define villages as 100+ population, towns as 500+, and cities as 5,000+. I can't see that working in Indiana, or Lancashire, or the Punjab, but it generally fits ourunderstanding of what is urban, and what isn't, and therefore might be rural.

My linguistic degree being rather dusty (UBC 1975) I had to track down "emic" in the Oxford Unabridged to be sure I could say that Tony is right, one needs to take a more emic approach, than etic, in defining rural.

Regards

Ken Aitken

> My take on this question comes from having conducted historical and cultural anthropological fieldwork in a small town in Apulia, southern Italy, that in the eyes of most people in Italy would be considered "rural", but that itself contained a strong urban rural distinction. The population numbered about 10,000 people, about half of them dwelling in the town center on a hill, and the other half dwelling in scattered *trulli*, and other country habitations. Each population harbored a proud and distinctive definition of itself as respectively urban and rural. > >The point is that while some disciplines and agencies (Census departments in particular)may have precise definitions of what is rural and what is urban, a word like "rural" is a relative thing. Speaking as a cultural anthropologist it may be more important to understand what the people whose societies we study define as rural, than to seek any universal definitions. I suspect the same is true for historians, at least for those who focus on micro situations. In coming to an understanding of what is urban and rural in a given locale, we learn a great deal about related matters such as social class, social inclusion and exclusion, or even language and folklore. Consider that in the town I studied there were slightly different dialects spoken by town and country people. > > I would argue then that the most useful definitions of urban and rural (and maybe suburban as well), unless perhaps one is a census taker, are emic in nature. It is possible, to be sure, to arrive at some sort of ideal typical formulation, but I suspect that would end up being rather trivial compared to the sort of identity questions an emic analysis would lead to. > >Perhaps others would like to chip in their two cents. > >Tony Galt >Professor, Social Change and Development >University of Wisconsin--Green Bay >galta@gbms01.uwgb.edu ftp.cac.psu.edu (1) 2:0.36.12 Successfully received Bev, 4:27 PM 12/14/.,Re: Traffic (1) 2:0.38.25 Successfully received LOVELAND@ACUVAX.AC., 2:41 PM 12/14/.,Outlaws and Lawmen book catalog (1) 2:0.40.12 Successfully received Ca




Date:         Sat, 14 May 1994 09:10:09 -0600                                   
Reply-To:     H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
Sender:       H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
From:         "Jim Oberly, History Dept.,                                       
              U of Wisc-Eau Claire" <JOBERLY@CNSVAX.UWEC.EDU>                   
Subject:      Re: Query:  What is "Rural"?                                      

[From: IN%"klebaner%everest.hunter.cuny.edu@UICVM.UIC.EDU" 13-MAY-1994 20:24:38.71 [To: IN%"H-RURAL%UICVM.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu" [Subj: RE: Query: What is "Rural"?

But what about Geography? I see the discussions on location and population size, but what about areal size, or population density of a specific economic sector (agriculture)?

Just a question from a geography student.

Josiah Klebaner Hunter College, CUNY New York City klebaner@everest.hunter.cuny.edu




Date:         Mon, 16 May 1994 09:45:18 -0600                                   
Reply-To:     H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
Sender:       H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
From:         "Jim Oberly, History Dept.,                                       
              U of Wisc-Eau Claire" <JOBERLY@CNSVAX.UWEC.EDU>                   
Subject:      Re: Query:  What is "Rural"?                                      

[From: IN%"pch%world.std.com@UICVM.UIC.EDU" "peter c holloran" 14-MAY-1994 10:50:41.24 [To: IN%"H-RURAL%UICVM.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu" "H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion list" [Subj: RE: Query: What is "Rural"?

Could we not define a community as urban, rural or suburban by its primary economic base--service & commercial; agricultural; residential--rather than by size? Or is urban a state of mind? This is a good thread.

Peter Holloran Pine Manor College



Date:         Mon, 16 May 1994 09:46:12 -0600                                   
Reply-To:     H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
Sender:       H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
From:         "Jim Oberly, History Dept.,                                       
              U of Wisc-Eau Claire" <JOBERLY@CNSVAX.UWEC.EDU>                   
Subject:      Re: Query:  What is "Rural"?                                      

[From: IN%"walsh%atlas.socsci.umn.edu@UICVM.UIC.EDU" "Eileen Walsh" 14-MAY-1994 12:07:03.60 [To: IN%"H-RURAL%UICVM.BITNET@relay.tc.umn.edu" "H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion list" [Subj: RE: Query: What is "Rural"?

I'm very grateful that those of us doing U.S. history have those censuses, but the more I work with them the more I have to work around the assumptions implicit in them. The polarization of urban and rural seems like something reasonable at particular historical moments - like when the U.S. Census Bureau defined them - but as a general principle? I don't think so. The examples raised of agro-towns and camps and so on seem to support the notions of complexity and variability. It all depends.

From an environmental history perspective, it seems to me Bill Cronon makes distinctions in _Nature's Metropolis_ between urban and rural and wilderness. That changes the dimensions a bit.

Eileen Walsh History Department College of Liberal Arts University of Minnesota, Minneapolis walsh@atlas.socsci.umn.edu




Date:         Mon, 16 May 1994 11:04:22 -0600                                   
Reply-To:     H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
Sender:       H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
From:         "Jim Oberly, History Dept.,                                       
              U of Wisc-Eau Claire" <JOBERLY@CNSVAX.UWEC.EDU>                   
Subject:      Re: What is "Rural"?                                              

[From: IN%"clinderb%MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU@UICVM.UIC.EDU" "cathy louise inderberg" 16-MAY-1994 10:45:56.46 [To: IN%"h-rural@UICVM.BITNET" [Subj: What is Rural?

This is a question that concerns me deeply. If we subscribe to the definition offered by Robert Swierenga in "Theoretical Perspectives on the New Rural History: From Environmentalism to Modernization," _Agricultural History_ 56 (1982): 495-502, the "new rural history is the systematic study of human behavior over time in rural environments." A "rural environment," he goes on to say, is"an area of low population density" where the "chief livelihood [is] earned in agriculture. But ruralness is more than location or an occupation; it is a way of life."

I would argue that while community studies are often included under the rural rubric, their focus is most often upon town-dwelling leaders, voluntary associations, and main-street shops, not on the people in the countryside. At the risk of fragmentation, the difference between life on the farm and life in a small town must be recognized. Town-dwellers and farm-dwellers alike are acutely aware of the distinction. Physical isolation, seasonality, length of work day, class (perhaps), farming as a family enterprise--all separate life on the farm from life in a town of up to 2,499 people (the currently accepted definition of a low-density environment).

Perhaps I am especially sensitive to the difference: I was raised on a farm outside Ferryville, Wisconsin. "Town" was a village of 186 people. Yet the difference in lifestyle between town kids and farm kids was obvious, and we all knew it.

Cathy Inderberg Graduate student University of Chicago clinderb@midway.uchicago.edu




Date:         Mon, 16 May 1994 12:01:24 -0600                                   
Reply-To:     H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
Sender:       H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
From:         "Jim Oberly, History Dept.,                                       
              U of Wisc-Eau Claire" <JOBERLY@CNSVAX.UWEC.EDU>                   
Subject:      Re: Query:  What is "Rural"?                                      

[From: IN%"JHANN00%ukcc.uky.edu@UICVM.UIC.EDU" "John Hannum" 16-MAY-1994 11:58:38.22 [To: IN%"H-Rural@UICVM.bitnet" "Rural History List" [Subj: What is Rural?

Interesting thread (one we've never solved in Rural Sociology, I assure you). One interesting source of postmodern thinking on the social construction of place is _Place/Culture/Representation_ edited by James Duncan & David Levy.

John Hannum University of Kentucky



Date:         Tue, 17 May 1994 08:56:20 -0600                                   
Reply-To:     H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
Sender:       H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
From:         "Jim Oberly, History Dept.,                                       
              U of Wisc-Eau Claire" <JOBERLY@CNSVAX.UWEC.EDU>                   
Subject:      Re: Query:  What is "Rural"?                                      

[From: IN%"clinderb%MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU@UICVM.UIC.EDU" "cathy louise inderberg" 16-MAY-1994 20:50:33.88 [To: IN%"H-Rural@UICVM.BITNET" [Subj: What is "rural"?

After my impassioned plea for all the farm kids out there, I received a lovely message from Gary Briers of Texas A&M reminding me that while all that is farm may well be "rural," all that is rural need not be farm. Of course he's right! Gary had some insightful things to say about the issue. Maybe he'll share? Anyway, thanks again for the message, Gary.

Cathy Inderberg Graduate Student University of Chicago clinderb@midway.uchicago.edu



Date:         Tue, 17 May 1994 08:57:27 -0600                                   
Reply-To:     H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
Sender:       H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
From:         "Jim Oberly, History Dept.,                                       
              U of Wisc-Eau Claire" <JOBERLY@CNSVAX.UWEC.EDU>                   
Subject:      Re: Query:  What is "Rural"?                                      

[From: IN%"immcgive%mailbox.syr.edu@UICVM.UIC.EDU" "Ian M. Mcgiver" 16-MAY-1994 21:44:03.56 [To: IN%"H-RURAL@uicvm.bitnet" "H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion list" [Subj: RE: What is "Rural"?

What are we asking when we ask what is "rural" as opposed to "urban?"

In trying to distinguish between the rural and urban in the American past we may be missing the connections that those in the past understood very well.

Wm. Cronon's <Nature's Metropolis> shows the intimate economic connection between the city of Chicago and its vast hinterland. John Stilgoe's <Metropolitan Corridor> shows how the urban/industrial culture of the late 19th century cities intruded into even the smallest towns.

That even the most rural people were aware of their urban connections is illustrated by stories told to be in the early 1980s by an old farm woman in upstate NEw York. She was born (1901) and raised on a hill farm in the foothills of the northern Catksill mountains. (The land is rated as "submarginal" for farm use and the state bought up much of it in the 1930s as part of its reforestation program.)

It was about 8 miles from this woman's farm to the nearest principal town, that it, the town with a railroad station. When this woman was a girl she made that 8 mile trip only twice a year. Although she regularly made the 1 to 2 mile trip to the nearby hamlet for church functions. And Her father or one of the neighbor men made the trip to the railroad depot once every two weeks or so to sell the neighborhood's load of butter at the creamery.

One of the two annual trips was when the girl's family went to the county fair. The other trip was when her father brought her to the railroad depot in the late fall to sell the veal calf which she raised every year. (The girl and her sister each raised a calf for veal every summer.) As the woman recounted the story to me seventy years later, she made it clear that even as a child she was intimately aware of her urban connection. Each year, her calf was brought to the depot town, where the calf was loaded on a car with other livestock. From there it was hauled 150 miles and sold in New York City.

This woman grew up in about as rural a place as could be found in New York State. Yet she always knew that she was tied to city.

Is there room in the rural/urban dichotomy to allow for this woman and other farmers viewed their lives?

Ian McGiver Syracuse University, <immcgive@mailbox.syr.edu>




Date:         Tue, 17 May 1994 10:54:35 -0600                                   
Reply-To:     H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
Sender:       H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
From:         "Jim Oberly, History Dept.,                                       
              U of Wisc-Eau Claire" <JOBERLY@CNSVAX.UWEC.EDU>                   
Subject:      Re: Query:  What is "Rural"?                                      

[From: IN%"scanl001@maroon.tc.umn.edu" "Tom Scanlan" 16-MAY-1994 15:18:52.04 [To: IN%"joberly@CNSVAX.UWEC.EDU" [Subj: What is rural?

Urban/rural as a state of mind can draw some interesting implications from the excellent and ingenious maps in John Borchert's economic geography, "America's Northern Heartland." My favorite is the map of stations that carry the Minnesota Twins baseball games. At first glance the map defines and confirms the urban influence of the metroplitan region. But baseball has a special resonance in small town and village life, and I suspect something more complicated is going on: loyalty to the Twins is not loyalty to Minneapolis/St. Paul but to a substitute or an extrapolation of loyalty to the home town team. Is there a more rural game than baseball?

Tom Scanlan Associate Professor Rhetoric Department University of Minnesota 202 Haecker Hall email:scanl001@maroon.tc.umn.edu




Date:         Tue, 17 May 1994 10:55:46 -0600                                   
Reply-To:     H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
Sender:       H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
From:         "Jim Oberly, History Dept.,                                       
              U of Wisc-Eau Claire" <JOBERLY@CNSVAX.UWEC.EDU>                   
Subject:      Re: Query:  What is "Rural"?                                      

[From: IN%"mebuck%mail.wm.edu@UICVM.UIC.EDU" 16-MAY-1994 13:55:20.11 [To: IN%"H-RURAL@UICVM.UIC.EDU" [Subj: what is rural

I'd have to agree with those who said there is more to rural than is determined by government census categories (or the like). I did an extensive oral history project last year in two smaller Saskatchewan communities, both including a town of approximately 1500 persons. The population in both towns has been relatively stable since 1910ish. There is a definate change in how those living in these communities perceive where they live. Early in the century those living in town often were not farmers (they were merhants, grain buyers etc.) and considered themselves a cut above the farmers. Town was very different from farm. However, as people began to move off the farm and into town yet kept farming the dynamics changed. So, in the early years, were those living in town, rural or were only those on the farm rural? It is complicated (in one of the towns) by a strict social heirarchy and attempts to recreate "the better sort" of British lifestyle on the prairies.

It seems to me that like anyother historical construct, we must place "rural" into historical context. Does that mean I consider these two communities rural because Statistics Canada says they are/were, or do I take into consideration what the people living there considered? In my opinion, this is a very tricky question.

     Aileen C. Moffatt                                                          
     College of William and Mary                                                
     mebuck@mail.wm.edu                                                         



Date:         Thu, 19 May 1994 13:38:15 -0600                                   
Reply-To:     H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
Sender:       H-Rural Rural & Agricultural History discussion                   
list                                                                            
              <H-RURAL@UICVM.BITNET>                                            
From:         "Jim Oberly, History Dept.,                                       
              U of Wisc-Eau Claire" <JOBERLY@CNSVAX.UWEC.EDU>                   
Subject:      Re: Query:  What is "Rural"?                                      

[From: IN%"nbruce%magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu@UICVM.UIC.EDU" "Norma Bruce" 19-MAY-1994 12:33:57.08 [To: IN%"h-rural@uicvm.uic.edu" [Subj: What is rural?

Perhaps we should ask the people who are there--rural folks, as Moffat suggests as a possibility. In 1994 I tell people I grew up in rural Illinois, an unthinkable thing to say when I actually lived there, because I lived in town (ca. 3,000 people) and rural meant farmers. And that town was very different from the one 15 miles away where I lived for 6 years (ca. 1,000 people). My parents both grew up on farms in adjoining counties in Illinois. In my father's family they shared shoes and alternated days going to school; in my mother's family, they took the train into Chicago (I think they had a choice of 5 or 6 times a day) to shop for school clothes. However, they were members of the same protestant denomination, and probably used the same school texts, listened to the same radio programs, and attended one-room schools. Neither can remember a time when their parents didn't own a car (they are in their 80s now) despite the differences in their family incomes. Whatever rural is in the USA heartland, it's sure to be different in Texas (where I was this week) or Greece or 11th century England. One thing I know, the rural I know would not be pleased with some of the topics on rural culture coming out of Academe. In my father's opinion (a small businessman still working at 81) if you've ever worked for the state (and I do), you're probably ruined for life in the real world.

Norma Bruce (formerly rural, now suburban) Veterinary Medicine Librarian The Ohio State University bruce.6@osu.edu




Information provider:
Unit: H-Net program at UIC History Department Email: H-Net@uicvm.uic.edu
Posted: 8 Jul 1994
 

Return to Menu