Journal of Arid Regions Geographic Studies

Journal of Arid Regions Geographic Studies

Dos and Don'ts of Rurality Logic in Iran: An Investigation on the Scientific and Academic Rural Studies Discourses

Authors
Reza Khosrobeigi Borchelouie
Jafar Javan
Abstract
Introduction
The central focus of the research on rural research in the scientific and academic spheres of Iran has focused on the issue of displacement and population movements and the need to organize the population and to maintain the current pattern of dispersion of rural settlements for at least 40 years. In other words, how can we prevent urban migration? Namely that is the stabilization of the population and, consequently, the survival of rural settlements. This concern is the result of the intellectual movement that arose in the 1940s and 1950s against the irregularities of modernity in the country and brought with it a new idea of the concept of rurality. It must be returned to its lost past (non-manipulation of rural life and agriculture by external forces and decentralization of policies). It was considered an alternative model for rural settlements, in which "local communities replace national economic growth" and the people, culture and rural businesses growth evolve within the separate category from the process of modernization. The village was supposed to be defined in its own right and free from any interventionist policies - bureaucratic and scientific institutions. In the further reign of hegemony with a new trick, it also penetrated this sense and added its own sticker of rurality. In this respect, preserving and maintaining the plurality and distribution of rural settlements (preventing displacement and migration) was the closest target to the concerns of the rural movement and could replace the local community approach and fake it, and somehow with this excuse (salvation the rural community, and its liberation from deprivation,) will reproduce the lost power of bureaucratic devices and academic circles in rural areas in another way: Where any intervention would distort the principle of the village and the degradation of its intrinsic values such as nature, culture, customs, traditions, and most importantly the remnants of the foundations of the identity of the Iranian community. The purpose of this essay is to follow the importance of how the commonly used concepts of rural development in our rural studies are produced and constructed through various approaches to rural areas in the scientific and academic circles What Iranian academic atmosphere faced in relation to discourses rurality gaps in terms of research methodology?
Materials and Methods
Since the village in its latest trends in rural research literature has been likened to an area in which clusters of anti-discourse discourse attempt to impose their thinking and actions on others; we propose discourse analysis as an appropriate way to clarify the changes that have occurred in rural studies in Iran. However, a growing number of studies in recent years have shown that discourse analysis is one of the most effective methods for this effort.
Discussion and Results
In the country's discourses, the "establishment of justice" (that is, the rural community, which is appropriate to the urban community, has the opportunity to develop) is the core of the central. The signs that are fixed around this particular node are the rural domains that dominate our academic and academic circles. For example, by investigating the existing documents, including specialized books and novels, articles, proposals, newspapers, oral works and interviews, the domination of village discourses as "issues", "sources" and " an area for growth "was recognized in the history of rural research. This orientation creates a chain of "equivalence" logic, which is an expression of the principle of comparison / compensation. Due to the impact of rural spaces on global trends and the promotion of internal reliance-based approaches, it was expected that local sovereignty would be enhanced through local communities, but the local community was placed within government interventions and functioned in terms of symbolic meaning which was rurality. Indeed, through this hegemonic intervention and the central comparison / compensation axis, a different meaning of rurality was established in contrast to the efforts of the rural movement, and where it was necessary to delegate power to the people and local independence, it was actually promoting centralization and elimination of local people (something that is acknowledged by some rural researchers).
Conclusions
Rurality in Iran is not simply due to the abstractions resulting from the industrialization and urbanization culture with a poetic image, and the material and natural aspects of the excess of rural production and the flow of wealth and capital to the economy, and especially the cities, are also material. In total, the rurality has the mental-mindedness (symbolically attached to it by the state and the scientific circles), as well as the material (which is in the old form of production that is in the process of exploitation for the benefit of the national economy), within alternative discourse is identified and analyzed with the teachings of modernity (the lack of consideration of local people and their natural and cultural heritage).With the genealogy of this discourse, we find that the body of the majority of the villages of the urban and urban areas of Iran, which is notorious for rural life and without having to experience the inhabitants of the villages, have been subjected to mental recognition in a city of a remote and alien village called the village. And do not have enough awareness of local responses to external currents. If they have a rural root, they have somehow reacted unconsciously to suppress their rural roots. Hence, rural communities have been subjected to a series of tests and sequential errors in the field of science by professors, students, and experts, something that always places the least attention on the local culture of the people. In general, with the prediction of rural future by current patterns, emerging patterns that are currently underlined by academia and academia around the world are neglected and destructive capacities of local behavior are not considered at the micro level.
Keywords
rurality
Discourse
Logic
Rural Studies
Adger, W. N., Benjaminsen, T. A., Brown, K., & Svarstad, H. (2001). Advancing a political ecology of global environmental discourses. Development and change, Volume 32(4), pp 681-715. Bell, M. M. (2007). The two-ness of rural life and the ends of rural scholarship. Journal of rural studies, Volume 23(4), pp 402-415. Berry, B. J. L. (1976). Urbanization and counter-urbanization (Volume 11). SAGE Publications, Incorporated. Bobek, H. (1974). Zum Konzept des Rentenkapitalismus. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, Volume 65(2), pp 73-78. Bunce, M. (2003). Reproducing rural idylls. Country visions, pp 14-30. Bunce, M. F., & Bunce, M. (1994). The countryside ideal: Anglo-American images of landscape. Psychology Press. Buttel, F. H. (2003). Continuities and disjunctures in the transformation of the US agro-food system. Challenges for rural America in the twenty-first century, pp 177-189. Cheshire, L., & Woods, M. (2009). Rural citizenship and governmentality. Cruickshank, J. A. (2009). A play for rurality–Modernization versus local autonomy. Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 25(1), pp 98-107. Davies, B. B., & Hodge, I. D. (2007). Exploring environmental perspectives in lowland agriculture: AQ methodology study in East Anglia, UK. Ecological economics, Volume 61(2), pp 323-333. Dibden, J., Potter, C., & Cocklin, C. (2009). Contesting the neoliberal project for agriculture: Productivist and multifunctional trajectories in the European :union: and Australia. Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 25(3), pp 299-308. Duenckmann, F. (2010). The village in the mind: applying Q-methodology to re-constructing constructions of rurality. Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 26(3), pp 284-295. Ehlers, E. (1977). City and hinterland in Iran: The example of Tabas/Khorassan. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, Volume 68(5), pp 284-296. Foucault, M. (1999). Pastoral power and political reason. Religion and culture, pp 135-52. Frouws, J. (1998). The contested redefinition of the countryside. An analysis of rural discourses in the Netherlands. Sociologia Ruralis, Volume 38(1), pp 54-68. Gasson, R. (1986). Part Time Farming Strategy for Survival?. Sociologia ruralis, Volume 26(3‐4), pp 364-376. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections fiom the prison notebooks. New York: Intl. Pub. Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: ecological modernization and the policy process (p. 40). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Halfacree, K. (2006). Rural space: constructing a three-fold architecture. Handbook of rural studies, pp 44-62. Halfacree, K. (2007). BACK‐TO‐THE‐LAND IN THE TWENTY‐FIRST CENTURY–MAKING CONNECTIONS WITH RURALITY. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, Volume 98(1), pp 3-8. Halfacree, K. (2008). To revitalise counterurbanisation research? Recognising an international and fuller picture. Population, Space and Place, Volume 14(6), pp 479-495. Halfacree, K. H. (1993). Locality and social representation: space, discourse and alternative definitions of the rural. Journal of rural studies, Volume 9(1), pp 23-37. Harrison, D. (1992). Tourism and the less developed countries. Belhaven Press. Hidle, K., Cruickshank, J., & Mari Nesje, L. (2006). Market, commodity, resource, and strength: Logics of Norwegian rurality. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift-Norwegian Journal of Geography, Volume 60(3), pp 189-198. Hidle, K., Ellingsen, W., & Cruickshank, J. (2010). Political conceptions of second home mobility. Sociologia Ruralis, Volume 50(2), pp 139-155. Johansen, P. H., & Nielsen, N. C. (2012). Bridging between the regional degree and the community approaches to rurality—A suggestion for a definition of rurality for everyday use. Land Use Policy, Volume 29(4), pp 781-788. Kay, C. (2008). Reflections on Latin American rural studies in the neoliberal globalization period: a new rurality? Development and Change, Volume 39(6), pp 915-943. Laclau, E. (2000). Identity and hegemony: The role of universality in the constitution of political logics. Na. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. Verso. López-i-Gelats, F., Tàbara, J. D., & Bartolomé, J. (2009). The rural in dispute: Discourses of rurality in the Pyrenees. Geoforum, Volume 40(4), pp 602-612. Losch, B. (2004). Debating the multifunctionality of agriculture: from trade negotiations to development policies by the South. Journal of Agrarian Change, Volume 4(3), pp 336-360. Marsden, T. (1990). Towards the political economy of pluriactivity. Journal of rural studies, Volume 6(4), pp 375-382. Marsden, T. (1995). Beyond agriculture? Regulating the new rural spaces. Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 11(3), pp 285-296. Marsden, T. (1999). Rural futures: the consumption countryside and its regulation. Sociologia Ruralis 39, pp 501–526. Marsden, T. (2008). Agri-food contestations in rural space: GM in its regulatory context. Geoforum, Volume 39(1), pp 191-203. Massey, D. B., & Jess, P. M. (1995). A place in the world? Places, cultures and globalization. Milbourne, P. (Ed.). (1997). Revealing Rural" Others": Representation, power, and identity in the British countryside. A&C Black. Mingay, G. E. (1989). The rural idyll. Routledge. Mofid, K. (1987). Development planning in Iran: from monarchy to Islamic republic. Kingston Pr. Morakabati, Y. (2011). Deterrents to tourism development in Iran. International Journal of Tourism Research, Volume 13(2), pp 103-123. Murdoch, J., & Pratt, A. C. (1993). Rural studies: modernism, postmodernism and the ‘post-rural’. Journal of rural studies, Volume 9(4), pp 411-427. Nilsson, B., & Lundgren, A. S. (2015). Logics of rurality: Political rhetoric about the Swedish North. Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 37, pp 85-95. Peck, J., & Tickell, A. (2002). Neoliberalizing space. Antipode, Volume 34(3), pp 380-404. Ploeg, J. D. V. D. (1993). RURAL SOCIOLOGY AND THE NEW AGRARIAN QUESTION A Perspective from the Netherlands. Sociologia Ruralis, Volume 33(2), pp 240-260. Ray, C., & Ward, N. (2006). The futures of rural policy: The significance of rural futures studies. Discussion Paper 7, Centre for Rural Economy, University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. British journal of sociology, pp 173-205. Shucksmith, M. (1993). Farm household behaviour and the transition to post‐productivism. Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 44(3), pp 466-478 Slee, R. W. (2005). From countrysides of production to countrysides of consumption?. The Journal of Agricultural Science, Volume 143(04), pp 255-265. Smith, D. (2007). The changing faces of rural populations: ‘“(re) Fixing” the gaze’or ‘eyes wide shut’?, Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 23(3), pp 275-282 Somerville, P., Smith, R., & McElwee, G. (2015). The dark side of the rural idyll: Stories of illegal/illicit economic activity in the UK countryside. Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 39, pp 219-228. Svendsen, G. L. H. (2004). The right to development: construction of a non-agriculturalist discourse of rurality in Denmark. Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 20(1), pp 79-94. Terluin, I. J. (2003). Differences in economic development in rural regions of advanced countries: an overview and critical analysis of theories. Journal of rural studies, Volume 19(3), pp 327-344. Tilzey, M., & Potter, C. (2008). Productivism versus post-Productivism? Modes of agri-Environmental governance in post-Fordist agricultural transitions. Sustainable rural systems–sustainable agriculture and rural communities, Aldershot, UK, Ashgate, pp 41-66. Vesala, H. T., & Vesala, K. M. (2010). Entrepreneurs and producers: Identities of Finnish farmers in 2001 and 2006. Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 26(1), pp 21-30. Wilbur, A. (2013). Growing a radical ruralism: Back‐to‐the‐land as practice and ideal. Geography Compass, Volume 7(2), pp 149-160. Williams, R. (1973). The Country Andthe City. London: Chatto and Windus. Woods, M. (1997). Discourses of power and rurality: local politics in Somerset in the 20th century. Political Geography, Volume 16(6), pp 453-478 Woods, M. (2004). Rural geography: Processes, responses and experiences in rural restructuring. Sage. Woods, M. (2006). Redefining the ‘rural question’: the new ‘politics of the rural’and social policy. Social Policy & Administration, Volume 40(6), pp 579-595. Zografos, C. (2007). Rurality discourses and the role of the social enterprise in regenerating rural Scotland. Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 23(1), pp 38-51.

  • Receive Date 23 November 2022
  • Publish Date 21 June 2016