ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Rural Studies 23 (2007) 125–141 www.elsevier.com/locate/jrurstud

Trial by space for a ‘radical rural’: Introducing alternative localities, representations and lives

Keith Halfacree

Department of Geography, University of Wales Swansea, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK

Abstract

This paper is concerned with bringing together and drawing out some diverse strands of thought and action that are striving—from within a broadly green anti-capitalist agenda—to produce a rural space that is different from and a challenge to the mainstream trajectories that the production of the rural is taking in the global North. First, I outline the main elements of a new model for thinking about rural space in general that tries to incorporate three different facets of ‘space’ that have been teased out through geographical scholarship. This draws inspiration from work by Henri Lefebvre. After demonstrating this model in respect of the post-1945 productivist rural, I introduce it to debates about the emerging contours of the post-productivist countryside. Drawing predominantly on British examples, the second half of the paper develops one element within the heterogeneous potentiality of this post-productivism to consider some key aspects of what I term an example of ‘radical’ rural spatiality. This examines its perceived localities, conceived formal representations and partially lived everyday lives. The final main section gives brief consideration to opportunities now being presented to this radical rurality but also notes the considerable challenges that lie ahead. r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Rural space; Rurality; Post-productivism; Green radicalism; Utopia; Theory

1. Introduction: getting to grips with rural change The structure of the paper is as follows. First, I introduce the model for thinking about rural space, one that tries to Throughout much of the global North today, challen- incorporate the different facets of ‘space’ so beloved of ging and critical questions are being asked with respect to theoretical geographical debate. Second, I operationalise how the ‘rural’ parts of these countries are developing and, this model in the context of debates about the changing perhaps still more importantly, should or could be spatiality of the British countryside. I develop one under- developing1. This reflects a strong feeling that rural change, researched and under-conceptualised element within the although something that has of course always been with us, heterogeneous post-productivist countryside by examining has intensified in terms of both pace and persistence, and a (potential) ‘radical’ rural spatiality. I then go on to that this change is also seen as being increasingly total and consider some of the opportunities and challenges facing interconnected (Woods, 2005). The key aim of this paper is any production of such a radical rurality in the present day. to use a recently developed model of rural space to This paper is set within a resurgence of interest in illuminate currents within this changing rurality that inject ‘utopian’ ideas within geography (e.g. Harvey, 2000), albeit a politically radical spatial challenge to the predominant that these have been strongly ‘urban’ to date (e.g. Baeten, scripting of the countryside that is emerging. 2002), perhaps partly reflecting a failure to appreciate the rural’s potentially radical ‘message’ (Halfacree, 2003a). Opening up the debate about our future rural(s) argues against teleology, inevitability, and unidirectional or E-mail address: [email protected]. 1Of course, the rural South is also in considerable transition but, singular models of socio-spatial change. Some element of without wishing to exaggerate a North-South dualism, the detailed our (rural) future is always there for the making. The paper changes here are in many ways quite different. also implicitly cautions against premature writing-off of

0743-0167/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2006.10.002 ARTICLE IN PRESS 126 K. Halfacree / Journal of Rural Studies 23 (2007) 125–141 the ‘rural’ as a relatively distinctive spatial category, not urban in his own life and work but his ideas can still be least at the level of everyday life, where it retains ‘an unruly used to re-interrogate the former. and intractable popular significance’ (Whatmore, 1993, Lefebvre’s model of space has, of course, been outlined p.605). and developed in numerous locations (e.g. Gregory, 1994; Merrifield, 1993, 2000, 2002; Shields, 1999). One of its core 2. A model for interrogating rural change elements is its attempt to transcend the dualism of conceived/abstract versus perceived/concrete to incorpo- The country is a foreign land. It shouldn’t be, yet it is rate its embodiment as lived (Elden, 2004, pp. 187–90); its (Perec, 1997 [1974], p. 68). entanglement with everyday life. I now consider each element in terms of my own understanding2. Critics may 2.1. A three-fold model of space feel that such use of Lefebvre’s ideas takes liberties but, as Merrifield (2000, p. 173) has observed, this is in many ways A few years ago, in a report on social exclusion, in the spirit of his own wide-ranging inquiries. It can also Shucksmith (2000, p. 6) observed how ‘Most people in be noted that my appropriation here is not atypical of Britain know little about rural areas beyond a purely visual Anglophone geographers’ interpretations of Lefebvre’s appreciation’. He went on to suggest reasons for this: ‘Seen work on space, such as Harvey (1987), Merrifield (1993) through a car window, or a TV screen, it is easy to see rural or even Soja (1996); cf. Elden (2001). areas as idyllic and changeless y [especially when we] First, there are spatial practices. These are the actions carry a picture of an imagined countryside where farming that ‘secrete’ a particular society’s space, facilitating both families till the same land as their forebears, where material expression and societal reproduction. Spatial everyone knows and supports one another in ‘commu- practices are inscribed routine activities and their expres- nities’, where life is slower and somehow better’ (p. 6). sion bears similarities with the concept of locality (Half- Moreover, this powerful representation of the rural is often acree, 1993). They are associated with how we perceive not challenged in the daily lives of many rural residents, ‘real’ (Elden, 2004, p.190) space. whose quotidian practices centre on working in the city and Second, there are representations of space. These formal for whom the rural is reduced to a ‘lifestyle’, the village a conceptions of space, as articulated by businesspeople, mere ‘dormitory’. We have what the radical French farmer planners, scientists and academics, refer to space as Jose´Bove´(quoted in Bove´and Dufour, 2001, p. 125) conceived or ‘imagined’ (Elden, 2004, p.190). They are disparages as a ‘cardboard-cutout countryside’. abstract and expressed through signs, plans, blueprints, Recognising the partiality of having such a perspective jargon, codes, etc. on the rural, whilst also acknowledging the central role of Third, there are spaces of representation. These diverse representations, daily lives and practices (all noted in the and often incoherent images and symbols are associated paragraph above), leads me to advocate the model of rural with space as directly lived—the spatial performance of space summarised below. This model is rooted in earlier everyday life. Although clearly linked to perceived and work (e.g. Halfacree, 1993) but now adds inspiration from conceived space—the ‘real-and-imagined’ (Elden, 2004, the late Henri Lefebvre (especially Lefebvre, 1991 [1947]). p.190)—spaces of representation refer to more symbolic Lefebvre was, of course, a social theorist (and much more) generations and appropriations by users into quotidian who recognised and promoted the importance of the meanings and local knowledges. Spaces of representation critical study of everyday life (e.g. Lefebvre, 1991 [1974]) can be subversive when they result in space being throughout his work (see appraisals in Elden, 2004; substantially (re)appropriated by marginal groups. Merrifield, 2000; Shields, 1999). One of Lefebvre’s most influential theorisations, at least to date in Anglophone interpretations (cf. Elden, 2004), is 2Lefebvre’s work has been very little used in Anglophone rural studies his seminal ‘conceptual triad’ for understanding space. This to date; as such, the introduction of his spatial conceptualisation here is, it is hoped, useful in its own right. This neglect is particularly notable given model attempted to bring together the diverse interpreta- Lefebvre’s early career as a rural sociologist (see Elden, 2004, Chapter 4; tions we have of space, which are all too often inadequately Unwin, 2000) and the inspiration he got from the rural throughout his life problematised (see Massey, 1992), into a unitary social (e.g. Merrifield, 2002; Lefebvre, 1991 [1947], pp. 131–132, Chapter 5). theory (Shields, 1999, Chapter 10). Although coming to Indeed, although Unwin (2000, p. 15) argued that Lefebvre ‘had very little fruition in a strongly urban context in the 1970s that to say about rural life’, some of his work on the rural is starting to come through in English translation (e.g. Lefebvre, 2003, pp. 111–120) and reflected, for example, the highly prominent, dynamic but appreciating this context helps us to understand more broadly how his contested character of urbanisation Lefebvre noted in ideas of space developed. (As one referee usefully noted, there is still very numerous works, the model can be applied to the rural if much at least a paper to be written on Lefebvre’s rurality.) One noted we see the latter as a category that can emerge—not as a exception to the neglect of Lefebvre in rural studies is Phillips’s (2002) dualistic ‘response’ to the urban (see Lefebvre, 1996, pp. study of rural gentrification, where he deploys the three-fold under- standing of space to examine the production, symbolisation and 118–121)—within the broader ‘uneven development’ socialisation of gentrification in two Berkshire villages. There is clearly a (Smith, 1984) that is an inherent feature of capitalist need, though, for a much fuller engagement with Lefebvre’s rural work spatiality. Lefebvre may have moved from the rural to the than is attempted either by Phillips or in the present paper. ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Halfacree / Journal of Rural Studies 23 (2007) 125–141 127

Importantly, each of the three facets of space cannot be realising what we already have. My model seeks to counter understood in isolation from the other two. Each forms an the tendency apparent within Shucksmith’s earlier obser- element of a ‘trialectic’ (Soja, 1996) and thus each facet is vations and to reconnect with a totality of rural space that, always in a relationship with the other two. In line with typical of everyday experience within capitalism, appears Lefebvre’s irreducibly historical sensitivity, the three facets increasingly fragmented, and partially and poorly known of space are seen as intrinsically dynamic, as are the (e.g. Harvey, 1989). Giving just one illustration for each relations between them. Lefebvre’s spatiality is inherently facet, for example, the idea of rural localities ties in with ‘turbulent’ (Gregory, 1994, p. 356), expressed most notably Hoggart’s (1990) broadly political economic interrogation in his history of space but also at the level of the everyday. of ‘rural’ today; interest in representations is expressed in As Merrifield (2000, p. 175) argues, the spatial triad must Murdoch’s and Pratt’s (1993) emphasis on the social always ‘be embodied with actual flesh and blood and construction of rurality; and everyday rural life is central to culture, with real life relationships and events’. the dwelling perspective of Cloke and Jones (2001).

2.2. A three-fold model of rural space 2.3. Rural structured coherences and trial by space

Combining my gloss on Lefebvre’s ideas with wide- A final key issue to be addressed in this section ties in ranging definitional debates that I cannot cover here on with and informs the seemingly interminable debate as to whether ‘the rural’ should be interpreted (if at all today) whether ‘rural’ exists today within the global North primarily as material, imaginative or practiced, has led me (Halfacree, 1993, 2004b). My focus here is first on the to propose a complex model of rural space, illustrated in ‘ruralness’ of any given place (scale chosen as appropriate). Fig. 1 and established more fully in Halfacree (2004b, From Massey (1996), places can be seen as representing the 2006a). Again, it has three facets: meeting points of networks, ‘constructed out of a particular constellation of social relations, meeting and  Rural localities inscribed through relatively distinctive weaving together at a particular locus’ (p. 244). Using this spatial practices, linked to production and/or consump- understanding, for any potentially rural place, we need to tion activities; answer three questions:  Formal representations of the rural such as those expressed by capitalist interests, cultural arbiters, (i) How many ‘species’ (Perec, 1997 [1974]) of rurality are planners or politicians; present?  Everyday lives of the rural, which are inevitably (ii) How well do these different ruralities accommodate subjective and diverse, and with varying levels of one another? coherence/fracture. They both take in and, to a greater (iii) How dominant is/are rural spatiality/spatialities rela- or lesser extent, subvert the other categories. tive to co-present non-rural spatiality/spatialities?

All three facets together comprise rural space, the rural Following Cloke and Goodwin (1992) after Harvey totality (Halfacree, 2004b). In the spirit of Lefebvre’s (1985), the regulationist concept of ‘structured coherence’ investigations of everyday life (e.g. Lefebvre, 1991 [1947]), can be adapted to interrogate the internal consistency of with his central desire to counter our alienation, and the any putative rural space. The original concept refers to the earlier quote by Perec, this three-fold architecture is less extent to which economy, state and civil society mesh about establishing a truly ‘new’ understanding than about together in a relatively stable fashion at the local level. Taking this sensibility to the analysis of rural space, we can consider the extent to which localities, representations and everyday lives present a united front or rural coherence. Three formats of a rural coherence are suggested.3 Again, all three should be seen as dynamic conditions, whose duration and spatial reach remain inherently impermanent. The three formats are:

 Congruent and unified. All elements of rural space cohere in a relatively smooth, consistent manner. The con- ceived, the perceived and the lived internalise one another. The three elements of rural space become, in effect, three co-constitutive ‘moments’ (Harvey, 1996,

3My interpretation of the three formats differs slightly from that given in Halfacree (2006a) due especially to insights from one of the referees of Fig. 1. A general model for rural space. the present paper. ARTICLE IN PRESS 128 K. Halfacree / Journal of Rural Studies 23 (2007) 125–141

p.78) of a coherent and singular spatial whole. The themselves into abstract descriptions, or mutate into permanence (Harvey, 1996, p.81) of this arrangement fantasies. remains relative, however, in line with a Lefebvrian emphasis on a dynamic spatiality. In other words, in a theme repeated throughout the  Contradictory and disjointed. There is tension and book, without an appropriate space little that is truly contradiction within/between elements of rural space different can exist (see also Harvey, 2000). Thus, trial by but an overall coherence holds, best appreciated at a space is inherently associated with the notion of space’s synergistic meta level. The three elements much more production, the mental and material processes through poorly internalise one another but the often quite which space itself is ‘perpetually recast’ (Elden, 2004, p. readily apparent differences are nevertheless ‘induced’ 185). It attains the position—if its trial is successful—of ‘a and remain ‘internal to a whole’ (Lefebvre, 1991 [1974], vital, productive member of the cast’ (Merrifield, 2000, p. p. 382). 173) in the overall reproduction and possible transforma-  Chaotic and incoherent. There are fundamental contra- tion of a particular society. dictions within/between the elements of rural space. Returning to the idea of rural coherence, where this is These elements fail to internalise one another and congruent and unified it suggests that trial by space has fundamentally conflicting ruralities co-exist. Difference been successful, albeit temporarily and for a specific area. is again readily apparent but this time it is what Where rural coherence is more disjointed, trial by space is Lefebvre termed ‘produced’—they ‘escape the system’s ongoing and/or proving more challenging but is suggesting rule’ (Lefebvre, 1991 [1974], p. 382)—and cannot be some meta level resolution. However, a more chaotic sense resolved as things stand, even at a meta level. of rural (in)coherence suggests a trial that is far from resolution. In such circumstances, ‘ideas, representations or values’ that are striving to make their mark are in a In all three cases, non-rural spatialities are present but liminal state between fantasy and morphology, between not pre-eminent. If they are, we do not really have a ‘rural’ production, reduction (Lefebvre, 1991 [1974] p. 382) y space at all, except in spectral form. If so, a ‘rural’ analysis and extinction. It is argued below that this situation exists seems inappropriate. This possibility will be considered a today within (some parts of) the British countryside. little further below. Having introduced a model with which to interrogate Why is the degree of rural spatial coherence such an rural space, I now move on to apply it. I explore different important issue to consider? Immediately, of course, it species of rurality using the three-fold classification and the indicates the degree to which a state of ‘harmony’ can be issue of rural coherence/trial by space. Although some attained in rural locations, in terms of the extent to which attention is given first to the previously dominant form of rural residents, policy makers, business interests, pressure rural space that appears in such crisis today (for greater groups, etc. are ‘singing from the same hymn sheet’. detail, see Halfacree, 2006a), primary consideration is paid In a congruent and unified coherence, with localities, to our emerging rural spatiality and, specifically, to one representations and everyday lives internalising each minor but interesting, challenging and under-considered other, a clear degree of stability is suggested, at least in current within it. To achieve a reasonably integrated terms of spatiality; what is conceived is perceived is lived. elaboration, the remainder of this paper focuses on Great At its extreme, we may have what I will call cultish spaces. Britain but occasional cross-reference to other countries In the other two situations, the spatial character of any suggests broader geographical significance. place is much more open to debate and different levels of spatial contestation are seen to take place. To appreciate 3. Rural space and the changing countryside this issue more fully, I add a final conceptual idea, trial by space. 3.1. Historical context: the productivist countryside In The Production of Space, Lefebvre (1991 [1974], pp. 416–417, second emphasis mine) argued that: Following what is now a well established and accepted convention (e.g. Ilbery and Bowler, 1998; Woods, 2005), y nothing or no one can avoid trial by space y It is in from around 1945 to about the late 1970s, productivism space y that each idea of ‘value’ acquires or loses its predominated within British agriculture. This I define as distinctiveness through confrontation with the other the positioning of agriculture as an efficient production values and ideas that it encounters there. Moreover— maximiser (Bowers, 1985), a progressive and expanding and more importantly—groups, classes or fractions of food production orientated industry in the typical capitalist classes cannot constitute themselves, or recognize one mould. Critically, though, productivism still saw the another, as ‘subjects’ unless they generate (or produce) a agricultural ‘industry’ as rooted in an established agricul- space. Ideas, representations or values which do not tural landscape. This ‘balance’ reflects the two key succeed in making their mark on space, and thus narratives that Murdoch et al. (2003, pp. 1–2) argue generating (or producing) an appropriate morphology, shaped perceptions of the British/English rural, namely will lose all pith and become mere signs, resolve ‘modernism’ and ‘pastoralism’ (see also Matless, 1998, ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Halfacree / Journal of Rural Studies 23 (2007) 125–141 129

Table 1 A sketch of productivist spatiality

 Rural localities: Predominance of agricultural practices that focused on increasingly industrialised modes of food production and of increasing both the output and the profitability from the land. These practices, which encapsulated the daily and seasonal activities of the farmers themselves, plus their multi-faceted and increasingly specialised support services, are outlined in contemporary textbooks (e.g. Morgan and Munton, 1971; Tarrant, 1974).  Rural representations: Outlined clearly in official government documents. The Scott Report [Land Utilisation in Rural Areas Survey] of 1942, through the 1947 Agriculture Act, to the 1970s White Papers Food From Our Own Resources (1975) and Farming And The Nation (1979) all nominated, normalised and nurtured the countryside as first and foremost a food production resource. This representation extended well beyond Britain (Gray, 2000).  Rural lives: Farmers generally felt an intended sense of security in terms of land rights, land use, finance, politics, ideology (Marsden et al., 1993, pp. 59–61) and to a greater or lesser extent embraced productivism as ‘good farming’ (Burton, 2004). This experience was reinforced by local landed elites (Cloke and Goodwin, 1992), as outlined in Newby’s (1977; Newby et al., 1978) accounts of how and why they prevented the construction of local authority housing and more generally structured everyday rural life in their own (productivist) interest.

(Source: Halfacree, 2006a, pp. 53–54.)

pp. 220–221). Across the Channel, a broadly similar tale Although unevenly developed across Britain and elsewhere, can be told for France. Narrated here by the radical activist productivism tended towards a largely congruent and farmer Jose´Bove´, ‘productivism’ was: unified rural coherence, with the three facets of spatiality meshing together well. Productivism seemed to have passed the type of modernization imposed on agriculture after its trial by space with flying colours and British rurality was the Second World War y whose only purpose was to ‘productivist agriculture’.4 This is illustrated, for example, produce for the sake of producing y the fundamental by the lack a ‘political’ profile or general public interest in idea is the same that applied in industry: intensification agriculture or the rural at this time (Woods, 2003). and specialization of output, rationalization and seg- However, as a Lefebvrian interpretation of space would mentation of work, standardization of product y [Yet, lead us to expect, any rural permanence attained in the it was thought that] these transformations could be productivist era5 was deceptive, a lull before the storm. assimilated to the social objective of maintaining the Besides the presence of dissenting examples throughout family farm (quoted in Bove´and Dufour, 2001, pp. 59, (footnote 4), attention is immediately drawn to the uneasy 61, 63). ‘compromise’ that was present within actually existing The rise of productivism to such predominance stemmed productivism—productivism in esse—between producti- both from internal dynamics within an increasingly vism as a ‘pure’ vision—a normative productivism in capitalist agriculture (e.g. Overton, 1996)—albeit typically posse—and the moderating/moralising effect of ‘idyllic’ disguised in apolitical technocratic/modernisation terms— visions of rurality (Halfacree, 2003b). The latter, plus and a political desire to consolidate a structured coherence concerns over rural welfare etc., expressed in policy from for a rural Britain emerging from the turmoil of a World the Agriculture Act 1947—with its nod to ‘a social welfarist War (see Howkins, 2003, pp. 142–145). For example, the regime of rural support [with] roots in the 1930s’ (Marsden seminal 1947 Agriculture Act illustrated ‘legislation aligned et al., 1993, p.58)—to the Common Agricultural Policy— with ‘progressive’ farming in the technocratic y sense, with, for example, the Less Favoured Areas Directive—led technocracy defining itself as a discourse able to hold to an actually-existing ‘productivism’ that was much less technology and politics apart’ (Matless, 1998, p. 219). rigorous and consistent than the normative model would Thus, we had the statistical construction of the ‘national have led us to expect. This is one of the reasons why the farm’, whereby ‘the state sought to facilitate the transition from farming as a ‘way of life’ to farming as a commercial economic sector working to the discipline of efficiency 4There were, of course, many exceptions to this productivist hegemony, gains and technological modernization’ (Murdoch and which is, in any case, best seen as an ‘extended family’ (Herman and Ward, 1997, p. 320). Kuper, 2003, p. 50). For example, productivist agricultural practices were Deploying my model of rurality, the three elements of often tempered by the persistence of less capitalistically rational farming, buttressed by state welfare payments. Everyday rural lives were also not productivist spatiality are very briefly sketched in Table 1 always in tune with productivism. Remnants of less productivist (see also Wilson, 2001, Table 1). Crucially, this spatiality agriculture and other economic activities remained, and other rural was not just of significance to the farming community but practices impinged on daily life. filtered into almost every corner of rural life. In other 5Such a relative ‘stabilisation’ of rural space should not be seen as words, we can talk of productivist countryside and not just historically unique, however. For example, consider the era of High Farming in the middle part of the 19th Century, an era where again there of productivist agriculture. Thus, for example, the post-war were considerable spatial variations and contradictions within the system planning system comprised ‘a central component of the that ultimately came to the surface and led to depression years (Wild, ‘productivist’ regime’ (Murdoch et al., 2003, p.38). 2004). ARTICLE IN PRESS 130 K. Halfacree / Journal of Rural Studies 23 (2007) 125–141 coherence of the productivist rural was not as congruent rural regime (cf. Wilson, 2001), represented geographically and unified as is all too easily implied. as an increasingly regionalised rural (Halfacree et al., 2002; More generally, productivist spatiality has come under Murdoch et al., 2003). Nonetheless, although models such increasingly intense and probably fatal strain (see Drum- as that presented in Marsden (1998, pp. 17–18) are mond et al., 2000; Halfacree, 2006a) as all three facets of extremely useful for mapping the contemporary country- productivist rural space have faltered. Although I cannot side, they seem attuned to a rural spatiality that coheres in develop my argument here, ongoing rural change is being a contradictory and disjointed sense—for example, via driven less though idealist desires than due to producti- Marsden’s (1999) concept of the ‘consumption country- vism’s ultimate totalising failure. Both economic restruc- side’—and possibly in a congruent and unified sense in turing and social recomposition (Cloke and Goodwin, places where one ideal type predominates strongly. Put 1992; Marsden et al., 1993; Murdoch et al., 2003) have led slightly differently, the ‘differentiated countryside’ model is to productivist localities, productivist representations and very much an internal, even incremental, expression of productivist everyday lives being relativised as the three rural change, whereby such change is largely driven by facets of just one species of rurality. What Katz (1998) developments within capitalism as the dominant mode of terms ‘involution’, whereby market forces largely rework production, differences being more induced via involution internal subdivisions of space, expresses well what is than produced in a challenge to the dominant system. In emerging. There is a new intensive and extensive bout of Lefebvre’s (1991 [1974]) terms, change remains internal to the production of (rural) space. In particular, this change the abstract space of capitalism—a spatiality homogenised and restructuring is leading to a central emphasis on by exchange value but through the same logic also highly heterogeneity and difference in debates on what is coming differentiated—and does not suggest the kind of counter- ‘after’ productivism. However, is it a difference that is space that Lefebvre saw emerging from within the contra- induced or is some of it more produced? Is what is dictions of abstract space as elements within it could no emerging a rural spatiality characterised by a contradictory longer be contained internally and developed into the more and disjointed rural coherence but with a meta level ‘explosive’ condition of contradictory space (Shields, 1999, resolution (as Katz’s term would suggest), or a spatiality pp. 178–83). that is much more chaotic and incoherent, as more Alternatively, therefore, and in the spirit of Lefebvre’s fundamentally ‘different’ forms of rurality make them- more ‘open’ notion of the production of space and his goal selves known? for a fundamentally humanist differential space (Shields, 1999, pp. 183–185; Lefebvre, 1991 [1974], p. 52), we can extend our ideal type models to incorporate more clearly 3.2. Post-productivism potential rural futures and produced differences; a utopian dimension. Such a model also chimes with calls to add A number of academics have sought to model the post- more of ‘an actor-oriented and behaviourally grounded productivist condition. For example, drawing on the component’ into our understanding of post-productivism regulationist literature, Cloke and Goodwin (1992) talked that takes into account things such as farmers’ attitudes of a changing balance of economy, state and civil society and concepts of the self (Burton and Wilson, 2006, p. 96). exhibited through varied forms of rural structured coher- Through this sense of inherent indeterminacy, the spectre ence. A much more differentiated rural was suggested, an of more chaotic rural (in)coherence is raised. Such a model emphasis, as already noted, that has continued in will now be summarised (outlined more fully in Halfacree, subsequent work, such as that of Terry Marsden, Jon 1999). Murdoch and colleagues (e.g. Marsden, 1995, 1998; With the tensions between productivism in posse and Marsden et al., 1993; Murdoch et al., 2003). The latter productivism in esse noted above, there re-emerges the team’s well-known model of the emerging rural space divergence apparent around the famous 1942 Scott Report posits four ideal types within a ‘differentiated countryside’, on rural land use between the majority, who favoured a for example. bucolic future for agriculture refracted through a version Notwithstanding ongoing and often heated debates over 6 of the ‘rural idyll’, and a minority, who saw a more the term ‘post-productivism’, there seems general agree- explicitly capitalist future for the industry (Newby, 1979, ment that we are seeing the emergence of a multifunctional pp. 230–231; cf. Matless, 1998, pp. 220–221). Such a divergence was recognised in the official Policy Commis- 6The post-productivist concept is shrouded in controversy. Critique has been developed most with respect to its agricultural dimension (see Evans sion of the Future of Farming and Food (2002), envisaged et al., 2002; Potter and Tilzey, 2005; Wilson, 2001), where of central as an unwelcome ‘polarised countryside, with some concern is what is seen is an implicit or explicit overstatement of the extent areas zoned for intensive production while others to which productivist agriculture has been superseded. Such a sense of are turned over to environmental theme parks’ (p. 70). supersedence is not supported in the present paper and in my use of the More generally, and moving away from such dualist term post-productivism. I also acknowledge how the concept’s general applicability dissipates as we go away from Britain and we should take imaginings, attention can be given to the varied species of care not to overlook the British bias that bedevils the debate (Wilson, post-productivism that I have proposed in Fig. 2. These 2001). species represent the splitting of productivism from its ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Halfacree / Journal of Rural Studies 23 (2007) 125–141 131

Productivism (in esse) Post-productivism 3.2.3. Effaced rurality Many argue that the rural has, in effect, been effaced by the geographical development of capitalism; as Hoggart Super-productivism (1990) memorably put it, ‘Let’s do away with rural’. Thus, erstwhile rural places are dominated by distinctly non-rural spatialities, leaving rural space only as a ghostly presence, Productivism (in posse) Consuming idylls experienced through folk memory, nostalgia, hearsay, etc. + Here, locality, formal representations and daily lives have Moralising rural idyll Radical ruralities little significant ‘rural’ content and we must always look beyond rural space to understand such ‘rural’ places.

Effaced rurality 3.2.4. Radical visions Fig. 2. The diverse species of post-productivism. The previous three species of post-productivism, although seemingly contradictory at first sight, nevertheless may be unified at the meta level through their basis in capitalist spatial involution. In contrast, what I’m calling moralising rural idyll, the possibility that any sense of rural ‘radical visions’ strive for the production of a truly different space is now conceptually redundant, and a utopian rural form of rural space. Consideration of such visions not only space potential. Other researchers may well suggest other extends the scope of rural possibilities but also raises key species, of course. issues concerning the ideological underpinnings of the other species of rural space ‘on the table’ today. Radical 3.2.1. Super-productivism visions imagine produced rather than induced difference: This vision re-states the spatiality of productivism in a they seek to ‘shatter’ the ‘system’ (Lefebvre, 1991 [1974], p. more explicit form, shorn of its moral dimension. The 372) and take rural development in a fundamentally capitalist ‘logic’ of abstract space is fully released with this different direction to that which dominates today. Speci- productivism in posse. An emergent super-productivism is fically, a radical rural is not ‘internally acceptable’ apparent in the practices of agribusiness, the genetic (Lefebvre, 1991 [1974], p. 396) to the spatial ‘logic’ of modification of plants and animals, and biotechnology capitalism in its rural setting. On the ground, in its trial by generally. Formal representations position land solely as a space, it will feature centrally a struggle between this drive productive resource linked to profit maximisation and for produced difference and the gravitational pull of agriculture as just another area ripe for neo-liberal reform dominant spatialities towards the ultimate conformity of under the World Trade Organisation (Potter and Tilzey, a reduced difference. It is to one sub-species of ‘radical 2005). ‘Nature’ is very much seen as ‘an accumulation ruralities’, which as an overall category have been strategy’ (Katz, 1998; see Goodman and Redclift, 1991). neglected to date in discussions of emerging rural Indeed, such is the physical impact of super-producti- spatialities, which we turn for the rest of this paper. vism—its ‘monoscape’ of sameness (Pretty, 2002)—that everyday lived rurality has little scope to diverge from the 4. Radical rural spaces representation. ‘Radical ruralities’ can take many forms. For example, 3.2.2. Consuming idylls from the Far Right, one is judiciously reminded of the anti- In direct opposition to super-productivism’s spatiality, capitalist ruralism nurtured in Nazi Germany (Bramwell, this vision takes and develops the erstwhile moderating 1985). In this section, though, I concentrate on a sub- element of the old productivist representation, namely its species—arguably the most significant with respect to rural moral angle as expressed most strongly through pastoral Britain today—that draws from the established and deep ideas of ‘community’ (Murdoch and Day, 1998). Here, a foundational wells of communism and, most of all, rural locality may have an agricultural backdrop but its key anarchism (see Anarchist FAQ, 2006; Blunt and Wills, spatial practices are consumption-orientated: leisure, re- 2000, Chapter 1; Pepper, 1993) but is most clearly sidence, counterurbanisation, dwelling, contemplation. The manifested in such things as ‘direct action’-orientated formal representation tends to be some version of the rural ‘green’ politics (e.g. Plows, 1998; Seel et al., 2000; Wall, idyll (Halfacree, 2003b). However, unlike super-producti- 1999). To emphasise that this radical rural is not somehow vism, the extent to which everyday lives in the rural just reactive, I would also suggest that it has links with conform to this spatial imagination vary, reflected, for recent initiatives in more ‘constructive’ green politics: from example, in ‘local’ versus ‘newcomer’ disputes to battles Dobson’s (2003) ecological citizenship that foregrounds the within the planning arena over what are ‘suitable’ search for ‘sustainability’, to Wall’s (2005) engagement developments in rural locations (e.g. Murdoch and with an anti-capitalist economics, to celebratory statements Marsden, 1994). such as Notes from Nowhere’s (2003) We are Everywhere. ARTICLE IN PRESS 132 K. Halfacree / Journal of Rural Studies 23 (2007) 125–141

To explore further this green ‘radical rurality’ requires, there is ‘alternative’ back-to-the-land migration (Halfacree, as the proposed model emphasises, bringing together— 2006b). This usually seeks to combine farming at the scale congregating, corralling—the assorted strands encom- of the smallholding (Holloway, 2000) and below, with a passed under this general heading. Again with evidence degree of food self-sufficiency and an ethics that centres mostly from Britain, this convergence will be attempted our relationships with all human and non-human actors using the three facets of rural spatiality already outlined. (livestock, crops, soil, ‘nature’, etc.) in the land-working There is overlap between the categories but this is to be ‘network’. This movement of such critically ‘committed’ expected given the need always to consider the three facets people to seek to live within the countryside, from both in relation to one another. Most attention is given to urban and other rural locations, challenges the mainstream representations. This reflects the nascent character of much stereotype narrated in Champion’s (1998) ‘counterurbani- of what I am discussing; ideas, representations and values sation story’ (Halfacree, 2001a). Again, it is important to undergoing trial by space or sometimes still at the pre-trial note that back-to-the-land experiments are found across stage. As such, radical rural localities and lives are much the global North (e.g. Hagmaier et al., 2000; Jacob, 1997; more fragmentary. They should not be seen, however, as Meijering et al., 2007; Schwarz and Schwarz, 1998; Urbain, simply flowing from representations. Such reductionism is 2000). anathema to the model of spatiality deployed here and A second distinctive practice is the adoption of over-emphasis on representations is particularly rejected by ‘permaculture’ or, at the very least, organic forms of the underlying ethos of a movement that prides itself on agricultural production. Permaculture is a term that was ‘learning by walking’: ‘Rather than seeking a map to defined in the 1970s as ‘the harmonious integration of tomorrow, we are developing our own journeys, individu- landscape and people, providing their food, energy, shelter ally and collectively, as we travel’ (Notes from Nowhere, and other material and non-material needs in a sustainable 2003, p. 506). way’ (quoted in Schwarz and Schwarz, 1998, p. 125,my emphasis). Thus, whilst it involves things such as organic 4.1. Localities farming it is certainly not reducible to it as it represents a more total and holistic outlook (Mollison, 1988). Think The radical rural locality identified revolves around also here of Pretty’s (2002) idea of ‘agri-culture’, with its environmentally embedded, decentralised and relatively emphasis on reconnecting people, land and the elements self-sufficient and self-reliant living patterns. The best and processes of nature. Associated with these practices are expression of this is what is known as low impact a landscape and a landscape aesthetic that often diverges development (LID). This is an idea associated most markedly from the conventional farmstead with its strongly in Britain with the activist and ‘alternative’ standardised farm-buildings, surrounded by medium-large planner Simon Fairlie, especially as expressed through fields. the organisation Chapter 7 (2006; also Halfacree, 2004a) Third, although the perceived economic practices in- and its magazine that he edits, Chapter 7 News (superseded scribing the radical rural locality are likely to focus on in 2006 by The Land). Fairlie (1996, p. xiii) initially defined agricultural forms of production (see also Fairlie, 2001— a LID as: ‘one that, through its low negative environmental discussed below), these are accompanied by numerous impact, either enhances or does not significantly diminish other activities. This point emphasises the link between the environmental quality’. If this is still a bit opaque, he went radical rural and both a productivist emphasis on on to outline a number of characteristics a LID is likely to agriculture and a post-productivist emphasis on activities possess. These are listed in Table 2 and developed in a beyond agriculture. The other activities range from range of publications (notably Dobbyn et al., 1999). forestry—again, with a holistic emphasis on sustainable Associated with the overall practice of LID are a number practice—to environmental education and craft industries. of more specific activities that inscribe the locality. First, Interestingly, a recent report for England’s Former Countryside Agency (Collins, 2004) noted a revival in craft working since 1980, reflecting increased demands for Table 2 their products. Indeed, if its present growth rate was to Nine criteria for low impact development continue it is estimated that in 15 years the number of  Temporary people involved could exceed those engaged in farming.  Small-scale Craft working experiencing this growth include such trades  Unobtrusive as farriers, workers with wood, brickwork restorers and  Local materials repairers, dry-stone wallers and stone masons.  Enhances biodiversity  Consumes few non-renewables Fourth, the radical rural locality is linked to the  Generates little traffic immediate perception of sources (local producers), destina-  For sustainable purposes tions (local markets), flows (small-scale transportation)  Positive environmental benefits and connections (e.g. seasonality) of locally produced and consumed goods, especially agricultural. These strongly (Source: Fairlie, 1996, p. 55). placed-based practices all express the concept of ‘localisa- ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Halfacree / Journal of Rural Studies 23 (2007) 125–141 133

Table 3 Range of traveller sites suggested by Friends, Families and Travellers

 Permanent sites: Provision for business use, management in the hands of the residents. Development carried out by private landowners, groups of travellers, housing associations or co-operatives. Consideration given by local authorities to using own land leased to travellers, with development occurring on a self-help basis. Size according to circumstance. Some sites with minimal facilities to minimise environmental impacts, others with full range of facilities similar to established public sites.  Short-term sites: Minimal facilities and a size limit (perhaps ten living units); used for 9 months of the year. Gravelled hard standing, water, refuse skips and eco- or portable toilets.  Temporary nomadic residential sites: Exempted from licensing within the Caravan Sites and Development Act 1960. No permanent structures allowed; touring or holiday accommodation excluded; use to be restricted to six months in any 2-year period to allow land to rest between occupations. Could be sited on farmland (e.g. set aside or marginal land).  Neighbourhood sites: Network of small sites on public land, with stays of up to 3 months. Given sufficient density, sites could be used on rotational basis. Control in hands of local authorities; simple tax-disc arrangement as licensing system alongside facilities agreements.  Emergency sites: Lay-byes and verges recognised by police and local authorities as places where people travelling through district may stay for up to 7 days, depending on circumstances. Simple notice system (as in France) to denote where travellers may stop temporarily.

(Source: Friends, Families and Travellers, 1994). tion’, outlined in the next section, and challenge our Foundation (Simms et al., 2002), the British (Green Party, alienation from what we eat, etc. 2006; Woodin and Lucas, 2004), France’s Confe´de´ration Finally, migration flows will not be all one-way. Move- Paysanne (Bove´and Dufour, 2001) and, from the global ment between urban and rural, plus circulation within the South, Shiva (2000) and Parameswaran (2003), advocate rural, inscribe a kind of nomadism. These movements, this concept (see also Wall, 2005). It has been succinctly undertaken for a wide range of reasons (seasonal work, defined by the British Green MEP Caroline Lucas (2002, festivals and gatherings, etc.), challenge the urban–rural unpaginated) as: ‘a set of interrelated and self-reinforcing division. It is an issue I have discussed more fully in work policies that actively discriminate in favour of the more on travellers (Halfacree, 1996a, b). This nomadism may be local whenever it is y reasonable and conveniently further perceived within the radical rural locality through, possible.’ Advocates regard it as an essential component for example, the network of different function campsites for the building of a self-reliant and sustainable future; for for the travelling community advocated by the pressure example, it must be ‘a new end goal for the European group Friends, Families and Travellers, outlined in Union itself’ (Lucas et al., 2002, p. 6). In the ‘green’ Table 3. literature, localisation has clear links back to the idea of All of these practices seek to work together to inscribe a bioregionalism (Sale, 1985; also Devall, 1995), with its relatively distinctive rural locality. Of course, many of them scalar focus on the ‘naturally defined’ region rather than are already apparent today within more conventional rural the nation/state. Table 4 compares and contrasts a spatialities—think of organic production or smallholders— bioregional economy, polity and society with that of the but their convergence as practices and with the other facets ‘industrio-scientific’ world. Localisation also draws on of a radical rural spatiality has the synergistic emergent ideas such as Folke Gu¨nther’s ‘ruralisation’ strategy to effect—not least through the perception of difference—of reintegrate urban communities and their surroundings in inscribing the ‘radical rural’ I propose here. eco-units of around 200 people (Anon., 2002a). From a rural perspective, localisation tends to start with 4.2. Formal representations farming and then work outwards. This ties in with the definition of rural outlined below. Moreover, as Hines The brief account of some of the practices of a radical (2002, p. 30) recently noted, exploring the politics of food rural locality has already suggested something of their can bring home to people the broader critique of associated underlying representations. These representa- globalisation. It brings to the conscious level of everyday tions, on the one hand, imagine the countryside as a diverse life issues recognised internationally: such as food sover- home accessible to all. On the other hand, this accessibility eignty, the right of countries (or other geographical requires the reflexive effort of making some often very units)—as opposed to market forces—to control their food distinctive and challenging lifestyle choices. Countering the sector (APM World Network, 2003), a key demand of the ongoing socio-cultural purification of the countryside international radical peasants’ organisation (Via Campesi- cannot be achieved by an anything goes attitude or na, 2006; Herman and Kuper, 2003); tackling what is through what is disparagingly known as ‘lunching out’. perceived as the overwhelming powers over both producers Two key ideas that anchor the radical rural representa- and consumers of the supermarkets (e.g. Michaels, 2003; tion are localisation and the rural as rooted in land-based Spowers, 2002, pp. 228–232); and countering the social and activities. Starting with localisation, a range of commenta- ecological impact of increasing food miles, the distance that tors, including Hines (2000, 2002), the New Economics a specific item of food travels from the farm (or where it is ARTICLE IN PRESS 134 K. Halfacree / Journal of Rural Studies 23 (2007) 125–141

Table 4 highly negative experience. Rather than adhere to our A bioregional versus an industrio-scientific world longstanding ‘anti-peasant ideology’ (Anon., 2002b, p. 3) and see rural life as an inherent ‘idiocy’ in need of a good Bioregional Industrio-scientific dose of progressive transformation, Fairlie mourns its Economy Conservation Exploitation eclipse by an urban interest that is ‘bidding to reduce [it] y Stability Change/Progress to a universal prescription of Tesco, televillages, tourism, Self-sufficiency Global economy and the hygienic culling of foxes’ (Fairlie, 2001, p. 11). This Cooperation Competition Polity Decentralisation Centralisation takes us to his definition of rural: Complementarity Hierarchy Diversity Uniformity rural means land-based. This is the only definition of the Society Symbiosis Polarisation rural that has any robust meaning y A rural economy, Evolution Growth/Violence if the term has any meaning at all, has its foundation in Pluriculture Monoculture the land and what it produces—animal, vegetable and (Source: adapted slightly from Pepper, 1993, p. 186; Sale, 1985, p. 50). mineral. A rural culture is distinctive because it grows out of the land. y Rural culture is rooted in the earth (pp. 9–10). originally produced) to the plate (e.g. Halweil, 2002; Sustain, 2006). Localisation’s alternative direction to food As clearly a very essentialist definition of rural, we may policy to that of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy have a number of issues with this (see earlier discussion, for (e.g. Lucas, 2002) would prioritise local production. This example). However, it does seem to underpin many radical would be achieved through a policy package that seeks to representations of a rural future, with historical echoes in bind capital to place through taxes, controls and other the ideas of William Morris, Kropotkin, etc., and present regulations (Lucas et al., 2002, Appendix 2; Woodin and day expressions through radical peasants’ groups such as Lucas, 2004).7 Via Campesina (2006) and France’s Confe´de´ration Pay- - Whilst agricultural (re)-localisation challenges represen- sanne (2004). For example, from the latter, Francois tationally, most directly, the super-productivist rural Dufour talks of the cornerstone role of ‘sustainable future, localisation tout ensemble is much broader. For farming’ for his vision of the future rural: example, when focusing on living patterns, it challenges the ‘Sustainable farming’ y is like a flower with many abstracted and aestheticised idyll-ised vision of a neatly petals. Everything holds together: the status of farmers, manicured and commodified rurality, since it prioritises the income, work-sharing, the quality of produce, the permacultural concerns about more holistic connections ownership of farms, respect for natural resources, between people and their environment over superficial equality between North and South. All these elements, appearances. like the petals on the flower, are inseparable, and if one This takes us to the second key representational anchor is missing, there is an obvious gap (quoted in Bove´and of the radical rural. In his explicitly polemical pamphlet, Dufour, 2001, p. 139, my emphasis). sub-titled A left wing defence of rural England, Fairlie (2001) takes issue with what he sees as the near obligatory A strongly land-based definition of rural also chimes fashion ‘for commentators on rural issues to accentuate the with Howard Newby’s (e.g. Newby, 1986) much earlier interdependence of rural and urban, and to play down the assertion that rural is fundamentally based on agriculture. differences’ (p. 2). The reason this perspective is so strong, There are a number of other key elements of the radical Fairlie argues, is because of the ‘pillage of the countryside rural representation. First, throughout, there is a strong by the town’ (p. 6). For example: ‘People and institutions ‘community’ discourse. This underpins, for example, much with an urban income have bought into the countryside, contemporary back-to-the-land migration just as it did in and are converting it from a provider of food and other the 1960s/1970s (Halfacree, 2006b). It is reflected in the commodities, to a dormitory and a playground’ (p. 7). As communal forms taken by many radical rural projects in he goes on to argue, this pillage has been facilitated by practice and on paper. This clearly has overlaps with the recent changes in rural planning practices and is advocated more communistic visions of everyday life that have long by the Government as a way out of the ongoing rural crisis. influenced utopian visions (Hardy, 2000). Hence, in my terms, an effaced rurality is being proposed. Second, there is the promotion of diverse and multi- Fairlie, turning Marx and Engels on their heads, recasts faceted meanings of land beyond that of a simple means of the subjugation of the country to the rule of the towns as a production. The ‘new’ crofting in Scotland (e.g. Jedrej and Nuttall, 1996; Mackenzie, 2006) exemplifies this well, with crofters’ very lived sense of nature, as well as their sense of 7 Clearly, there is a strong critique to be engaged with for such measures empowerment through land ownership. Groups such as the (see also Pepper, 1993), including the spectre of protectionism—even fascism (Various, 2001)—recognising the often highly exploitative Scottish Crofters’ Union argue that only through direct character of many small businesses, and even the failure to ‘name’ stewardship of the land is sustainability possible. They capitalism as the underlying problem (see Sayer, 2001). envision a lived and worked landscape, with humans ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Halfacree / Journal of Rural Studies 23 (2007) 125–141 135 integral to their environment rather than airbrushed from ‘closed spaces y where people who do not share certain the picturesque (sic.) picture (Jedrej and Nuttall, 1996). political standpoints y feel rather unwelcome, resulting Third, as already noted, much importance is attached to in homogeneity and y even sectarianism’ (Various, 2001, ecocentric and deep ecological beliefs (see Drengson and p. 552). Inoue, 1995; Pepper, 1993, 1996). Such ideas place humans A key consideration is the subversive aspect of the neither outside nor above the natural environment. A everyday life dimension of rural space (Lefebvre, 1991 generally altruistic valuation of the natural world features [1974]). On the one hand, there is nowhere where any strongly. A good expression of these ideas comes from the radical ruralities are so dominant that individual subver- US sociologist Devall (1995). Developing the ideas of the sion of them, for example, has much meaning, since such deep ecologist Arne Naess, he talks of the need to nurture ‘subversion’ is all too ‘normal’. In other words, they remain the ‘ecological self’, with its sensuous and intimate multi- very marginal and, in this respect, they retain a clear farious personal links with specific places, so different from utopian element, reflected both in Harvey’s (2000) utopia the abstract and reductionist ‘minimal self’ that is so strong of process (localities) and in his utopia of form (representa- in contemporary society. For the ecological self, ‘commu- tion). On the other hand, there is clearly subversion of the nity’ is not just a relation between people but takes in dominant representations and localities of the productivist, ‘animals, plants, trees, even the micro-organisms which super-productivist, idyllised and effaced rurals. This is the build the soil beneath our feet’ (Spowers, 2002, p. 310); kind of ‘symbolic challenge’ promoted by Melucci (1998 even, we might add, the soil itself. Here, we also see the [1988]), for example, albeit one that Lefebvre would imprint of bioregionalist ideas. consider inadequate. Recognition of a broader sense of community takes us Actual experiences of trying to live radical rural lives nicely onto the final key element of the radical rural tend to involve a mix of issues that speak of either representation noted here, one which typically threads itself empowerment or disempowerment. The former are noted through all of the others. This is the celebration of the in the next section. Experiences promoting disempower- values of physical labour, not for its own sake so much but ment, on the other hand, include the following: as a way of attuning to and appreciating our humanity and our place within the natural world. US radical Wendell Berry (2002, unpaginated) sees a prejudice against small  Discrimination: prejudice against perceived ‘hippies’, farmers that stems from ‘the idea that work is bad, and that misfits, troublemakers; especially in the more gentrified manual work outdoors is the worst work of all’ (also parts of the countryside. As Cloke (1993) pointed out Anon., 2002b). Revalorisation of such labour requires us to over a decade ago, many rural people have a long way to recognise how ‘The human body is a battleground within go before they even tolerate let alone accept ‘real’ which and around which conflicting socio-ecological forces difference. In addition, more ‘conventional’ migration of valuation and representation are perpetually at play’ to rural areas has also been associated with a desire to (Harvey, 2000, p. 116). Where revalorisation takes place, escape those seen as ‘different’, such as people from we can possibly see an ‘epiphany’ (Spowers, 2002, p.316) ethnic minorities (Robinson and Gardner, 2004). via embodiment. For example, a resident of the ‘radical  Insecurity: those attempting alternative experiments will rural’ communal experiment of Brithdir Mawr in Wales have to deal with issues such as evictions, challenges in could speak of the ‘sheer joyous, sensual, spiritual the planning process and economic insecurity (e.g. experience of getting your hands dirty, getting them in Webster and Millar, 2001). There is also the more the earth, mixing it with straw and slapping it on the walls’ general sense of uncertainty and precariousness at every (quoted in Maxey, 2002, p. 224) when describing working step that inevitably goes with trying to do something on their own dwellings. This takes us to the experiences of novel (Various, 2001). living radical rural lives.  Dropping out/introversion: as with utopian experiments generally (e.g. Hardy, 2000), one reaction to negativity 4.3. Everyday lives in terms of what one is trying to do is to turn inwards. Indeed, in echoes of much the 1960s/1970s back-to-the- This third element is hardest to illustrate through land experiments (Halfacree, 2006b), some groups strive emergent ideal type abstraction as it transports radical to drop out from the broader society into ‘counter- cultural retreat areas’ (Various, 2001, p. 552). To be ruralities—especially their representations—into the con- 8 text of ‘real’ places. In such places so much of everyday life ‘pitched up at the edge of reality’ may be beneficial and is entwined—networked (Massey, 1996)—with other rural rewarding for those involved but such experiences are and, of course, non-rural spaces. Abstractly, however, mostly disempowering in terms of passing the trial by one would imagine everyday experiences within a radical space, since they enhance marginality and ephemerality. rurality that celebrate and valorise the local and the 8This was the title of an earlier version of this paper and is a 1993 album individually meaningful, recognising the rural context by the ‘psychedelic’ dance band Astralasia (Magick Eye Records, Eye but not being shut off to extra-rural experiences. We CDLP 4), a group loosely associated with the sorts of ‘alternative’ ideas would also expect a lively diversity, since the aim is not for described in this paper. ARTICLE IN PRESS 136 K. Halfacree / Journal of Rural Studies 23 (2007) 125–141

Table 5 Contemporary examples of the radical rural in Britain (and beyond)

Name Description Homepage or other access point

England Affinity Woodland Workers Woodland based cooperative, Devon www.stewardwood.org Kings Hill Originally, ex-travellers’ ‘bender’ site, Somerset Fairlie, 1996; Halfacree, 2001a, b Tinkers’ Bubble Similar site, base of Simon Fairlie, Somerset Monbiot, 2004; Halfacree, 2001a, b Exodus Collective Defunct; from free rave scene, transgressed urban- Squall, 2003; Malyon, 1998 rural, Luton

Scotland Assynt Crofters Trust Crofters, pioneering buy-out, northwest Highlands www.assyntcrofters.co.uk/ Isle of Eigg Trust Crofters, island, southwest Highlands www.scotland-inverness.co.uk/eigg.htm Knoydart Foundation Crofters, extremely remote, southwest Highlands www.knoydart-foundation.com/ Wales Centre for Alternative Technology Educational community, environmental charity, north www.cat.org.uk Wales Tepee Valley ‘Hippie’ tent-based community from 1976, west Wales McKay, 1996 Holtsfield Peri-urban chalet plotlands style community, Swansea www.thelandisours.org/campaigns/holtsfield/; Maxey, 2002 Brithdir Mawr Eco-village based round farmstead, west Wales www.brithdirmawr.com/ Lammas Intended low impact settlement, group established 2005 www.lammas.org.uk/ Networks Chapter 7 Key group campaigning for wider access to land www.tlio.org.uk/chapter7/ Diggers and Dreamers The guide to communal experiments in the UK www.diggersanddreamers.org.uk/ Dwell Well For ‘beautiful human habitats in harmony with www.dwellwell.org/ Nature’ Low-Impact Living Initiative Promoting greener lives www.lowimpact.org/ Living Villages Promoting ecological buildings and lifestyles www.livingvillage.com/index.html Eco-Village Network Linking sustainable settlement projects www.evnuk.org.uk/projects.html E. Hampshire Self-Sufficiency Local initiative going since 1978 www.fincabook.com/ehss/ehss.htm Group

 Disillusion: this can come, for example, from a feeling 5. Trial by space and the potential of radical rurality that nothing changes/nothing can really be done (Pepper, 1991). Again, and as I can attest, this is not Having illustrated something of each of the three uncommon amongst those involved in radical politics in elements of what I have labelled a radical rural general. spatiality, the final task of this paper is to consider how their combination can contribute to a rurality of produced difference, fought for through trial by space. Notwithstanding these commonplace experiences, plenty This contest takes rural coherence first to a state of of examples of attempts at producing a radical rural chaos and incoherence and then, if the trial by space is within Britain (and elsewhere) do exist today. There is not successful, to the possibility of a congruent and unified room here to outline even the range of these alternative radical rural (and the danger of a cultish rurality). rural places in any detail. Instead, Table 5 lists some Or, if the trial is unsuccessful, and if the ‘radical’ examples—from England, Scotland and Wales and three rural survives at all, we are left with a contradictory and ‘networks’—introduces them very briefly and gives an disjointed rural, where the erstwhile radical rural access point (via the internet where possible) for further becomes a ‘reduced’ difference, ‘forced back into the information that the reader can follow up. The table is system’ (Lefebvre, 1991 [1974], p. 382). In other words, a obviously not comprehensive, and some of the initiatives key question is whether the radical rurality introduced in may seem more appropriately chosen than others, but the last section can extend its re-working of rural space hopefully it gives some idea of where radical rural trials by beyond the sense of contradictory and disjointed but space are taking place today (also Meijering et al., 2007). ultimately induced differentiated rural that characterises There remains no substitute for visiting these experiments most maps of the post-productivist countryside proposed to appreciate and to evaluate critically their contribution to date. but hopefully the links given in the table provide an This question is clearly impossible to answer conclusively enticing introduction. without the gift of prophecy, so I note here some ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Halfacree / Journal of Rural Studies 23 (2007) 125–141 137 hopeful signs before cautioning against too much opti- reducing the intensity, chemical inputs and waste of mism. First, focusing specifically on the case of LID, there production, such as mixed cropping and organic agricul- are many factors promoting expansion. These are to be ture, to be (re)valorised and (re)vitalised. Indeed, some of seen in the general context of the ‘opening up’ of these approaches are even being institutionalised within countryside to often-novel developments, which seems an agri-environmental policy through grants, such as the intrinsic feature of post-productivism. These positive Organic Farming Scheme (DEFRA, 2006), providing factors include: opportunities that are being taken up by many small- holders (Holloway, 2000) and even by more explicitly  The search for ‘sustainability’/‘sustainable development’ counter-cultural experiments. For example, at Brithdir following and through the 1992 Rio Earth Summit’s Mawr (Table 5) around £7000 per year is obtained in grant Local Agenda 21. This is reflected in some local plans aid through putting their land into an Environmentally incorporating LID schemes, such as South Somerset Sensitive Area scheme, with commitments to manage this (1998), Milton Keynes (2000) and Pembrokeshire land to support and enhance a wide range of habitats (2002). (Brithdir Mawr, 2006).  Planning to some extent ‘coming around’ to an Increasing academic, popular and official recognition of acceptance of LID, helped by the discretion that is a the socio-economic exclusivity of the rural population defining feature of the British planning system. Hence, (Shucksmith, 2000), paradoxically, also presents opportu- the often unexpected receipt of temporary and even nities. Advocating a countryside that is heterogeneous and permanent planning permission by projects such as the multi-faceted brings with it a need both to recognise this Affinity Co-op., King’s Hill and Tinkers’ Bubble (Half- situation (Philo, 1992) and to do something to make the acree, 2001a, b). countryside more inclusive (Cloke, 1993). Consequently,  The general willingness of LID proponents to compro- for example, the 2000 government English Rural White mise and work with the system to some degree (Fairlie, Paper (DETR, 2000) claimed to seek ‘a fair deal for rural 1996). More generally, the rural manifestation of the England’. There is much here that can be drawn on to ‘new’ counter-cultural ‘DiY culture’ (McKay, 1998)is legitimise a greater socio-cultural opening up of the British 9 less focused on transgression. countryside. In this context, even the much-maligned  The growth of an informed infrastructure or network to travelling community received an official boost recently advise, support, publicise and thus seek to normalise in a major report. The Office of the Deputy Prime LID as an important form of development in the Minister’s Housing, Planning, Local Government and the countryside. Chapter 7 and the other networks noted in Regions Committee, after noting that 20% of the travelling Table 5 play a key-nurturing role in the ‘extended community have no legal place to park up, recommended family’ of LID that is emerging. that the Government re-introduce a statutory requirement  The links that many LID schemes have with the broader for local authorities to provide sites for their accommoda- community. Many LID schemes are strongly didactic tion (repealed in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act and do not suggest people trying to ‘drop out’ from the 1994) (ODPM, 2004). world as part of a ‘small-scale refusal to have anything Yet, in spite of these promising signs—and others that I to do with society’ (Howkins, 2003, p. 204). Thus, cannot cover here—we must certainly not expect the trial we see links between LID and organic agriculture, by space with which the radical rural is engaged to be easy. Local Exchange and Trading Systems, organic box On the one hand, we had the experiences promoting schemes supplying food directly from local producers, disempowerment that were noted in the last section. One etc. This sense of connectivity was seen as a key should also note from the outset the relatively small feature of Brithdir Mawr (Table 5), for example (Maxey, number of people committed to the radical rural project. A 2002). chaotic and incoherent rural is very much a site of struggle, and the practices, representations and lives arraigned Besides these encouraging signs for LID, other oppor- against the minority radical rural are formidable. Attempts tunities are emerging for radical ruralities more generally at a produced difference, incorporating politically con- (Halfacree, 2006b). For example, both back-to-the-land tentious issues such as land reform (Anon., 2002b; Herman migration and permaculture are given a green light with and Kuper, 2003), will have to confront considerable ‘industrial’ agriculture no longer being seen as the pressures to ‘return’ to the dominant (capitalist) system, to normative model, enabling older forms and new ways of be recuperated. This was an experience that Lefebvre noted acutely: 9The earlier version of the paper (note 8) focused much more on the transgressive dimension, discussing, for example, the attacks made on Differences endure or arise on the margins of the travellers at ‘The Battle of the Beanfield’ (NCCL, 1986; Worthington, homogenized realm, either in the form of resistances or 2005) and on the Castlemorton Rave of 1992 (McKay, 1996). However, y whilst transgression certainly presents a ‘symbolic challenge’ (Melucci, in the form of externalities What is different is, to 1998 [1988]), I am not convinced it engages adequately with Lefebvre’s begin with, what is excluded y Sooner or later, ‘trial by space’ (cf. Bey, 1991). Hence, I have played it down. however, the existing centre and the forces of homo- ARTICLE IN PRESS 138 K. Halfacree / Journal of Rural Studies 23 (2007) 125–141

genization must seek to absorb all such differences, and 6. Conclusion they will succeed if these retain a defensive posture and ‘Small opportunities are often the beginning of great no counterattack is mounted from their side. In the enterprises’ (Demosthenes). latter event, centrality and normality will be tested as to the limits of their power to integrate, to recuperate, or to One can argue that radical visions will have most destroy whatever has transgressed (Lefebvre, 1991 potential to enter the mainstream when an opening [1974], p. 373). emerges during periods of crisis. This paper has suggested that such a period of crisis with respect to space is apparent Thus, whilst something like the recent success of LID in the British (and elsewhere) countryside today, as a can be put down to its willingness to be less transgressive formerly dominant productivism has increasingly been and more engaged with the planning system, there must be relativised as a shorthand for rurality and we increasingly concern that this leaves ‘a counter-project simulat[ing] have, at one level at least, a differentiated countryside. The existing space, parodying it and demonstrating its limita- paper has also sought to gather together, via a model tions, without for all that escaping its clutches’ (Lefebvre, promoting a three-fold appreciation of rural space, the 1991 [1974], p. 382). Indeed, it may even feed back into elements of what I have termed an example of the radical reinforcing that system. rural, in that it is a (potential) rural space that challenges For example, elements of any localisation of food and fundamentally the spatial logic ultimately underpinning the agriculture are susceptible to absorption into super- other species of post-productivism that are clearly emer- productivism. Consider organic production. Here, practi- ging. Finally, the last section argued that this radical rural cing a ‘truly’ localised rural geography does not stop at is engaged in a struggle—Lefebvre’s trial by space—where simply buying a product labelled ‘organic’ (Monbiot, victory would see produced difference challenge the 2001). Attention must always be given to where and induced and reduced differences characteristic of the how the organic commodity has been produced, and post-productivist mainstream. Thus, and not least because where it has been purchased (Anon., 2002a, b). Super- ‘radical politics has to begin and end in everyday life’ markets’ organic lines, often sourced abroad (raising (Merrifield, 2002, p. 79), what we now need is engaged food miles substantially), is a key issue (Michaels, research reporting on the trial as it evolves; acknowledging 2003). A recent study by Smith and Marsden (2004) also space as always embodied and dynamic. Such a study of showed how pressure in the form of a farm-based cost- ‘real lives’ will not just be concerned with people explicitly price squeeze, whereby supermarkets, in particular, push to attempting to live a ‘radical rural’ life but also with cut unit prices paid to producers, threatens the future neighbours and those farther afield, for these latter groups growth of organic production in the UK, just as it has long exploring especially the extent to which everyday rural lives been a key issue for conventional farmers. A potential express a radical aspect potentially subversive of otherwise limits to growth for organic products and other features dominant representations and practices. associated with a more radical rural, such as the importance of a local provenance in so-called alternative Acknowledgements agro-food networks, has also been suggested by Goodman (2003, 2004); also Hinrichs (2000). He speaks of how ‘The This paper has been a while in its production and I’d like market power of y corporate networks co-opts and to thank all of those who have heard parts of it in various subverts agrarian imaginaries’ (Goodman, 2004, p. 13). In interesting places y Most thanks, though, to Larch addition, any truly ‘radical’ vision must be wary of Maxey, Lewis Holloway and to the three referees, pandering to the ‘narrow ‘class diet’ of privileged income especially the person who clearly spent quite some time groups’ (Goodman, 2004, p. 13). to advise me how to produce a much improved version. At the same time as the radical rural risks recuperation, Responsibility for this final version is, of course, all mine. the other ruralities noted in my sketch of the post- productivist countryside (Fig. 2) grow stronger daily. References In a final example that suggests something of the full context of the radical rural trial by space, leading LID Anarchist FAQ [Frequently Asked Questions], 2006. An Anarchist FAQ. advocate Simon Fairlie has recently been engaged in a At: /http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/S. protest in Somerset (SW England) against the local council Anon., 2002a. The food: where will it grow? Chapter 7 News 10, 14–16. Anon., 2002b. A history of mice and cormorants. Chapter 7 News 10, 2–4. selling off their smallholdings (Fairlie, 2006; Guardian, APM World Network, 2003. People’s right to produce, feed themselves 2006). Such tenanted smallholdings are one of the few ways and exercise their food sovereignty. In: Fisher, W., Ponniah, T. (Eds.), people with limited income can enter farming today. Another World is Possible. Zed Books, London, pp. 161–172. However, with one local protestor observing how ‘The Baeten, G., 2002. The spaces of utopia and dystopia: introduction. house will probably go as a second home and the land will Geografiska Annaler 84 B, 141–142. Berry, W., 2002. The prejudice against country people. The Progressive, make £500,000’ (quoted in Guardian, 2006), we see April, unpaginated source. something of the power of consuming idylls (and possibly Bey, H., 1991. TAZ: The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological super-productivism). Anarchy, Poetical Terrorism. Autonomedia, New York. ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Halfacree / Journal of Rural Studies 23 (2007) 125–141 139

Blunt, A., Wills, J., 2000. Dissident Geographies. Pearson Education, Goodman, D., 2003. The quality ‘turn’ and alternative food practices: Harlow. reflections and agenda. Journal of Rural Studies 19, 1–7. Bove´, J., Dufour, F., 2001. The World is Not For Sale. Verso, London. Goodman, D., 2004. Rural Europe redux? Reflections on alternative agro- Bowers, J., 1985. British agricultural policy since the Second World War. food networks and paradigm change. Sociologia Ruralis 44, 3–16. Agricultural History Review 33, 66–76. Goodman, D., Redclift, M., 1991. Refashioning Nature: Food, Ecology Bramwell, A., 1985. Blood and Soil: Richard Walther Darre´and Hitler’s and Culture. Routledge, London. ‘Green Party’. Kensal, Bourne End. Gray, J., 2000. The Common Agricultural Policy and the re-invention of Brithdir Mawr, 2006. Homepage at: /www.brithdirmawr.com/S. the rural in the European Community. Sociologia Ruralis 40, 30–52. Burton, R., 2004. Seeing through the ‘good farmer’s’ eyes: towards Green Party, 2006. Homepage at: /www.greenparty.org.uk/S. developing an understanding of the social symbolic value of Gregory, D., 1994. Geographical Imaginations. Blackwell, Oxford. ‘productivist’ behaviour. Sociologia Ruralis 44, 195–215. Guardian, 2006. Council sell-off provokes Easter uprising down on the Burton, R., Wilson, G., 2006. Injecting social psychology theory farm. April 15th. into conceptualisations of agricultural agency: towards a post- Hagmaier, S., Kommerell, J., Stengal, Wu¨rfel, M., 2000. Eurotopia: productivist farmer self-identity? Journal of Rural Studies 22, Directory of Intentional Communities and Ecovillages in Europe. 95–115. Edge of Time, London. Champion, A., 1998. Studying counterurbanisation and the rural Halfacree, K., 1993. Locality and social representation: space, discourse population turnaround. In: Boyle, P., Halfacree, K. (Eds.), and alternative definitions of the rural. Journal of Rural Studies 9, Migration into Rural Areas. Theories and Issues. Wiley, Chichester, 23–37. pp. 21–40. Halfacree, K., 1996a. Out of place in the country: travellers and the ‘rural Chapter 7, 2006. Homepage at: /http://www.thelandisours.org/chapter7/S. idyll’. Antipode 28, 42–71. Cloke, P., 1993. On ‘problems and solutions’. The reproduction of Halfacree, K., 1996b. Trespassing against the rural idyll: the Criminal problems for rural communities in Britain during the 1980s. Journal of Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and access to the countryside. In: Rural Studies 9, 113–121. Watkins, C. (Ed.), Rights of Way. Policy, Culture and Management. Cloke, P., Goodwin, M., 1992. Conceptualizing countryside change: from Pinter, London, pp. 179–193. post-Fordism to rural structured coherence. Transactions of the Halfacree, K., 1999. A new space or spatial effacement? Alternative Institute of British Geographers 17, 321–336. futures for the post-productivist countryside. In: Walford, N., Everitt, Cloke, P., Jones, O., 2001. Dwelling, place, and landscape: an orchard in J., Napton, D. (Eds.), Reshaping the Countryside: Perceptions Somerset. Environment and Planning A 33, 649–666. and Processes of Rural Change. CAB International, Wallingford, Collins, E., 2004. Crafts in the English Countryside: Toward a pp. 67–76. Future. Countryside Agency Publications, Wetherby. At: Halfacree, K., 2001a. Constructing the object: taxonomic practices, /www.craftsintheenglishcountryside.org.uk/S. ‘counterurbanisation’ and positioning marginal rural settlement. Confe´de´ration Paysanne, 2004. Homepage at: /www.confederationpaysan- International Journal of Population Geography 7, 395–411. ne.fr.S Halfacree, K., 2001b. Going ‘back-to-the-land’ again: extending the scope DEFRA [Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs], 2006. of counterurbanisation. Espace, Populations, Socie´te´s 2001-1-2, Organic Farming Scheme. Details at /www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/ 161–170. schemes/ofs/default.htm.S Halfacree, K., 2003a. A place for ‘nature’?: new radicalism’s rural DETR [Department of the Environment, Transport & the Regions], 2000. contribution. In: Rural Geography Research Group/Commission de Our Countryside: the Future. DETR, London. At: /http://www. Ge´ographie Rurale (Eds.), Innovations in Rural Areas, CERAMAC defra.gov.uk/rural/ruralwp/whitepaper/default.htmS. 22, Clermont-Ferrand: Presses Universitaires Blaise Pascal, pp. 51–65. Devall, B., 1995. The ecological self. In: Drengson, A., Inoue, Y. (Eds.), Halfacree, K., 2003b. Landscapes of rurality: rural others/other rurals. In: The Deep Ecology Movement. North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, Roberston, I., Richards, P. (Eds.), Studying Cultural Landscapes. pp. 101–123. Arnold, London, pp. 141–169. Dobbyn, S., Fairlie, S., Fisher, M., Lainton, A., Langford, A., Morgan, Halfacree, K., 2004a. Challenging ‘a land only fit for commuters’: low E., Moyse, R., Say, J., 1999. Defining Rural Sustainability. The Land impact development in the British countryside. Swansea Geographer is Ours, Oxford. At: /http://www.thelandisours.org/chapter7/ 39, 10–17. defining.txtS. Halfacree, K., 2004b. Rethinking ‘rurality’. In: Champion, T., Hugo, G. Dobson, A., 2003. Citizenship and The Environment. Oxford University (Eds.), New Forms of Urbanization: Beyond the Urban-Rural Press, Oxford. Dichotomy. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 285–304. Drengson, A., Inoue, Y. (Eds.), 1995. The Deep Ecology Movement. Halfacree, K., 2006a. Rural space: constructing a three-fold architecture. North Atlantic Books, Berkeley. In: Cloke, P., Marsden, T., Mooney, P. (Eds.), Handbook of Rural Drummond, I., Campbell, H., Lawrence, G., Symes, D., 2000. Contingent Studies. Sage, London, pp. 44–62. or structural crisis in British agriculture? Sociologia Ruralis 40, Halfacree, K., 2006b. From dropping out to leading on? Examining the 111–127. evolution of British counter-cultural back-to-the-land movements. Elden, S., 2001. Politics, philosophy, geography: Henri Lefebvre in recent Progress in Human Geography 30, 309–336. Anglo-American scholarship. Antipode 33, 809–825. Halfacree, K., Kovach, I., Woodward, R. (Eds.), 2002. Leadership and Elden, S., 2004. Understanding Henri Lefebvre. Continuum, London. Local Power in European Rural Development. Ashgate, Aldershot. Evans, N., Morris, C., Winter, M., 2002. Conceptualizing agriculture: a Halweil, B., 2002. Home Grown: the Case for Local Food in a Global critique of post-productivism as the new orthodoxy. Progress in Market, Worldwatch Paper 163, Worldwatch Institute, Washington. Human Geography 26, 313–332. Hardy, D., 2000. Utopian England. Community Experiments 1900–1945. Fairlie, S., 1996. Low Impact Development. Jon Carpenter, Charlbury, E and FN Spon, London. Oxfordshire. Harvey, D., 1985. The Urbanization of Capital. Blackwell, Oxford. Fairlie, S., 2001. The Dowry. A Left Wing Defence of Rural England. Harvey, D., 1987. Flexible accumulation through urbanization: reflections Chapter 7 Publications, South Petherton, Somerset. on ‘post-modernism’ in the American city. Antipode 19, 260–286. Fairlie, S., 2006. Holding out. Guardian (Society Guardian section), 8th Harvey, D., 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity. Blackwell, Oxford. February. Harvey, D., 1996. Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Friends, Families and Travellers, 1994. Draft policy devised and adapted Blackwell, Oxford. by Friends, Families and Travellers Support Group. Newsletter, Harvey, D., 2000. Spaces of Hope. Edinburgh University Press, August, no pagination. Edinburgh. ARTICLE IN PRESS 140 K. Halfacree / Journal of Rural Studies 23 (2007) 125–141

Herman, P., Kuper, R., 2003. Food for Thought. Towards a Future for Melucci, A., 1998 [1988]. Social movements and the democratisation of Farming. Pluto Press, London. everyday life. In: Keane, J. (Ed.), Civil Society and the State, 2nd Hines, C., 2000. Localization—a Global Manifesto. Earthscan, London. edition. Verso, London, pp. 245–260. Hines, C., 2002. Local food, global solutions. Resurgence 210, Merrifield, A., 1993. Place and space: a Lefebvrian reconciliation. 30–33. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 18, 516–531. Hinrichs, C., 2000. Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two Merrifield, A., 2000. Henri Lefebvre. A socialist in space. In: Crang, M., types of direct agricultural market. Journal of Rural Studies 16, Thrift, N. (Eds.), Thinking Space. Routledge, London, pp. 167–182. 295–303. Merrifield, A., 2002. Metromarxism. Routledge, New York. Hoggart, K., 1990. Let’s do away with rural. Journal of Rural Studies 6, Michaels, L., 2003. What’s Wrong with Supermarkets? 3rd edition. 245–257. Corporate Watch, Oxford. At: /http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/ Holloway, L., 2000. ‘Hell on earth and paradise all at the same time’: the ?lid=705S. production of smallholding space in the British countryside. Area 32, Mollison, B., 1988. Permaculture: a Designer’s Manual. Tagari Publica- 307–315. tions, Tyalgum, Australia. Howkins, A., 2003. The Death of Rural England. Routledge, London. Monbiot, G., 2001. The organic bandwagon. Resurgence 205, 16–17. Ilbery, B., Bowler, I., 1998. From agricultural productivism to post- Monbiot, G., 2004. Living with the age of entropy. Znet, September. At: productivism. In: Ilbery, B. (Ed.), The Geography of Rural Change. /http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=56&ItemID Longman, Harlow, pp. 57–84. =6161S. Jacob, J., 1997. New Pioneers. Pennsylvania University Press, University Morgan, W., Munton, R., 1971. Agricultural Geography. Methuen, Park, Pennsylvania. Methuen, London. Jedrej, C., Nuttall, M., 1996. White Settlers. The Impact of Rural Murdoch, J., Day, G., 1998. Middle class mobility, rural communities and Repopulation in Scotland. Harwood Academic Publishers, Luxem- the politics of exclusion. In: Boyle, P., Halfacree, K. (Eds.), Migration bourg. into Rural Areas. Theories and Issues. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 186–199. Katz, C., 1998. Whose nature, whose culture?: private productions of Murdoch, J., Marsden, T., 1994. Reconstituting Rurality. UCL Press, space and the ‘preservation’ of nature. In: Braun, B., Castree, N. London. (Eds.), Remaking Reality. Nature at the Millennium. Routledge, Murdoch, J., Pratt, A., 1993. Rural studies: modernism, postmodernism London, pp. 46–63. and the ‘post-rural’. Journal of Rural Studies 9, 411–427. Lefebvre, H., 1991 [1947]. Critique of Everyday Life, vol. 1. Verso, Murdoch, J., Ward, N., 1997. Governmentality and territoriality. The London. statistical manufacture of Britain’s ‘national farm’. Political Geogra- Lefebvre, H., 1991 [1974]. The Production of Space. Blackwell, Oxford. phy 16, 307–324. Lefebvre, H., 1996. In: Kofman, E., Lebas, E. (Eds.), Writings on Cities, Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Ward, N., Marsden, T., 2003. The Differentiated Blackwell, Oxford. Countryside. Routledge, London. Lefebvre, H., 2003. In: Elden, S., Lebas, E., Kofman, E. (Eds.), Key NCCL [National Council for Civil Liberties], 1986. Stonehenge. NCCL, Writings, Continuum, London. London. Lucas, C., 2002. Relocalising the global food economy. BBC Lecture, Newby, H., 1977. The Deferential Worker. Allen Lane, London. Cardiff University, 1st May. At: /http://www.carolinelucasmep. Newby, H., 1979. Green and Pleasant Land? Hutchinson, London. org.uk/speeches/Relocalisingfood010502.htmS. Newby, H., 1986. Locality and rurality: the restructuring of local social Lucas, C., Hart, M., Hines, C., 2002. Look to the Local. A Better relations. Regional Studies 20, 209–215. Agriculture is Possible! Discussion document. Green Party/European Newby, H., Bell, C., Rose, D., Saunders, P., 1978. Property, Paternalism Free Alliance, London. At: /http://www.carolinelucasmep.org.uk/ and Power. Hutchinson, London. publications/indexCAPreport.htmS. Notes from Nowhere, 2003. We Are Everywhere. The Irresistible Rise of Mackenzie, A.F., 2006. A working land: crofting communities, place and Global Anticapitalism. Verso, London. the politics of the possible in post-Land Reform Scotland. Transac- ODPM [Office of the Deputy Prime Minister], 2004. Housing, Planning, tions of the Institute of British Geographers 31, 383–398. Local Government and the Regions—Thirteenth Report. Parliamen- Malyon, T., 1998. Tossed in the fire and they never got burned: the tary Stationery Office, London. At: /www.parliament.the-stationery- Exodus Collective. In: McKay, G. (Ed.), DiY Culture. Party and office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmodpm/633/63302.htmS. Protest in Nineties Britain. Verso, London, pp. 187–207. Overton, M., 1996. Agricultural Revolution in England: the Transforma- Marsden, T., 1995. Beyond agriculture? Regulating the new rural spaces. tion of the Agrarian Economy, 1500–1850. Cambridge University Journal of Rural Studies 11, 285–296. Press, Cambridge. Marsden, T., 1998. Economic perspectives. In: Ilbery, B. (Ed.), The Parameswaran, M., 2003. Participatory democracy. In: Fisher, W., Geography of Rural Change. Longman, Harlow, pp. 13–30. Ponniah, T. (Eds.), Another World is Possible. Zed Books, London, Marsden, T., 1999. Rural futures: the consumption countryside and its pp. 324–328. regulation. Sociologia Ruralis 39, 501–520. Pepper, D., 1991. Communes and the Green Vision. Greenprint, London. Marsden, T., Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Munton, R., Flynn, A., 1993. Pepper, D., 1993. Eco-socialism: From Deep Ecology to Social Justice. Constructing the Countryside. UCL Press, London. Routledge, London. Massey, D., 1992. Politics and space/time. New Left Review 196 Pepper, D., 1996. Modern Environmentalism: An Introduction. Routle- (November/December), 65–84. dge, London. Massey, D., 1996 [1991]. A global sense of place. In: Daniels, S., Lee, R. Perec, G., 1997 [1974]. Species of Space and Other Pieces. Penguin, (Eds.), Exploring Human Geography. A Reader. Arnold, London, Harmondsworth. pp. 237–245. Phillips, M., 2002. The production, symbolization and socialization of Matless, D., 1998. Landscape and Englishness. Reaktion, London. gentrification: impressions from two Berkshire villages. Transactions Maxey, L., 2002. One Path Forward? Three Sustainable Communities in of the Institute of British Geographers 27, 282–308. England and Wales. Department of Geography, Swansea University, Philo, C., 1992. Neglected rural geographies: a review. Journal of Rural unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Studies 8, 193–207. McKay, G., 1996. Senseless Acts of Beauty. Verso, London. Plows, A., 1998. Earth First! Defending Mother Earth, direct-style. In: McKay, G. (Ed.), 1998. DiY Culture. Party and Protest in Nineties McKay, G. (Ed.), DiY Culture. Party and Protest in Nineties Britain. Britain. Verso, London. Verso, London, pp. 152–173. Meijering, L., Huigen, P., van Hoven, B., 2007. Intentional communities Policy Commission of the Future of Farming and Food, 2002. Farming in rural space. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie. and Food: a Sustainable Future [The Curry Report]. Cabinet Office, ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Halfacree / Journal of Rural Studies 23 (2007) 125–141 141

London. At: /http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/farming/index/Com- Squall, 2003. Whatever happened to the Exodus Collective? Squall on-line. missionReport.htmS. At: /http://www.squall.co.uk/squall.cfm/ses/sq=2003021101/ct=2S. Potter, C., Tilzey, M., 2005. Agricultural policy discourses in the Sustain, 2006. Food miles. At: /http://www.sustainweb.org/chain_fm_ European post-Fordist transition: neoliberalism, neomercantilism index.aspS. and multifunctionality. Progress in Human Geography 29, 581–600. Tarrant, J., 1974. Agricultural Geography. David and Charles, Newton Pretty, J., 2002. Agri-culture. Reconnecting People, Land and Nature. Abbot. Earthscan, London. Unwin, T., 2000. A waste of space? Towards a critique of the social Robinson, V., Gardner, H., 2004. Unravelling a stereotype: the lived production of space. Transactions of the Institute of British experience of black and minority ethnic people in rural Wales. In: Geographers 25, 11–29. Chakraborti, N., Garland, J. (Eds.), Rural Racism. Willan Publishing, Urbain, J., 2000. Paradis Verts. De´sirs de campagne et passions Cullompton, pp. 85–107. re´sidentielles. Payot, Paris. Sale, K., 1985. Dwellers in the Land: the Bioregional Vision. Sierra Club Various, 2001. From resistance to revolution. Replacing capitalism with Books, San Francisco. networks of free, autonomous and self-reliant spaces—a Western Sayer, A., 2001. For a critical cultural political economy. Antipode 33, European perspective. In: Abramsky, K. (Ed.), Restructuring and 687–708. Resistance. [email protected], pp. 546–564. Schwarz, W., Schwarz, D., 1998. Living Lightly. Travels in Post- Via Campesina, 2006. Homepage at: /www.viacampesina.org/S. Consumer Society. Jon Carpenter, Charlbury, Oxfordshire. Wall, D., 1999. Earth First! And the Anti-Roads Movement. Routledge, Seel, B., Paterson, M., Doherty, B. (Eds.), 2000. Direct Action in British London. Environmentalism. Routledge, London. Wall, D., 2005. Babylon and Beyond: the Economics of Anti-Capitalist, Shields, R., 1999. Lefebvre, Love and Struggle. Spatial Dialectics. Anti-Globalist and Radical Green Movements. Pluto, London. Routledge, London. Webster, L., Millar, J., 2001. Making a Living. Social Security, Social Shiva, V., 2000. Stolen Harvest. South End Pres, Cambridge, MA. Exclusion and New Travellers. Policy Press, Bristol. Shucksmith, M., 2000. Exclusive Countrysides? Social Inclusion and Whatmore, S., 1993. On doing rural research (or breaking the Regeneration in Rural Areas. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York. boundaries). Environment and Planning A 25, 605–607. Simms, A., Oram, J., MacGillivray, A., Drury, J., 2002. Ghost Town Wild, T., 2004. Village England: a Social History of the Countryside. IB Britain. The Threat from Economic Globalisation to Livelihoods, Tauris, London. Liberty and Local Economic Freedom. New Economics Foundation, Wilson, G., 2001. From productivism to post-productivism y and back London. At: /http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/z_sys_publication- again? Exploring the (un)changed natural and mental landscapes of detail.aspx?pid=127S. European agriculture. Transactions of the Institute of British Smith, N., 1984. Uneven Development. Blackwell, Oxford. Geographers 26, 313–332. Smith, E., Marsden, T., 2004. Exploring the ‘limits to growth’ in UK Woodin, M., Lucas, C., 2004. Green Alternatives to Globalisation. Pluto, organics: beyond the statistical image. Journal of Rural Studies 20, London. 345–357. Woods, M., 2003. Deconstructing rural protest: the emergence of a new Soja, E., 1996. Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and- social movement. Journal of Rural Studies 19, 309–325. Imagined Places. Blackwell, Oxford. Woods, M., 2005. Rural Geography. Sage, London. Spowers, R., 2002. Rising Tides. The History and Future of the Worthington, A., 2005. The Battle of the Beanfield. Enabler Publications, Environmental Movement. Canongate, Edinburgh. Lyme Regis.