“We Are Not Rural”: Different Discourses of Rurality in Türkiye

Abstract

Defining rural areas and distinguishing them from urban areas is becoming increasingly challenging, as the criteria for what constitutes "rural" and the complexities of rural-urban relationships are evolving in post-industrial communities. This paper explores the concept of rurality from both positivist and socio-cultural perspectives, drawing on empirical research conducted between 2014 and 2017 on Bozcaada, a small Turkish island. Previous studies on rurality in Turkey have predominantly adopted a positivist approach. Although these studies have categorized Bozcaada as a rural settlement, it is officially designated as an urban district within administrative boundaries. Therefore, this paper adopts a socio-cultural approach to define rurality, with a particular focus on how this unique situation influences residents' perceptions of rurality on the island, as revealed through in-depth interviews. During fieldwork, a majority of interviewees stated that Bozcaada is not a rural place. However, the characteristics they attributed to Bozcaada while describing the island were predominantly rural in nature. The residents' reluctance to label Bozcaada as rural may stem from the lay discourse of rurality in Türkiye, which is often associated with notions of backwardness and underdevelopment.

Keywords

• rurality
• definition of the rural
• perception of rurality

References

1. Akpınar, F., Saygın, N. and Karakaya, E. (2011) ‘Evaluation of the conservation activities in the historical settlement Tenedos-Bozcaada Island’, Sustainable Development and Planning V, 150, p. 329.
2. Brown, D. L. and Cromartie, J. B. (2004) ‘The nature of rurality in postindustrial society’, in Champion, T. and Hugo, G. (eds) New forms of urbanization: Beyond the urban-rural dichotomy. Hants: Ashgate Publishing Limited, pp. 269–283.
3. Cloke, P. (2006) ‘Conceptualizing rurality’, in Cloke, P., Marsden, T., and Mooney, P. (eds) Handbook of rural studies. London: SAGE, pp. 18–28.
4. Cloke, P. and Edwards, G. (1986) ‘Rurality in England and Wales 1981: a replication of the 1971 index’, Regional Studies, 20(4), pp. 289–306.
5. Cloke, P. J. (1977) ‘An Index of Rurality for England and Wales’, Regional Studies, 11(1), pp. 31–46. doi: 10.1080/09595237700185041.
6. Cloke, P. and Thrift, N. (1987) ‘Intra-class conflict in rural areas’, Journal of Rural Studies, 3(4), pp. 321–333. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0743-0167(87)90051-9.
7. Durmuş, H. (2006) Bozcaada`nin sosyo-ekonomik yapisi ve kulturu [Socio-economic structure and culture of Bozcaada]. Osmangazi Üniversitesi.
8. EUROSTAT (2018) Glossary: Rural area. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:Rural_area (Accessed: 20 October 2023).

9. Gülümser, A. A., Baycan-Levent, T. and Nijkamp, P. (2007) ‘Turkey’s rurality: a comparative analysis at the EU level’.
10. Gülümser, A. A., Baycan-Levent, T. and Nijkamp, P. (2009) ‘Mapping rurality: analysis of rural structure in Turkey’, International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, 8(2–4), pp. 130–157. doi: 10.1504/ijarge.2009.026223.
11. Halfacree, K. (1993) ‘Locality and social representation: space, discourse and alternative definitions of the rural’, Journal of Rural Studies, 9(1), pp. 23–37.
12. Halfacree, K. (2004) ‘Rethinking “Rurality”’, in Champion, T. and Hugo, G. (eds) New Forms of Urbanization. Hants: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 285–306.
13. Halfacree, K. (2006) ‘Rural space: Constructing a three-fold architecture’, in Cloke, P., Marsden, T., and Mooney, P. (eds) Handbook of Rural Studies. London: SAGE, pp. 44–62.
14. Halfacree, Keith and Boyle, Paul (1998) ‘Migration, rurality and the post-productivist countryside’, in Boyle, P and Halfacree, K (eds) Migration into rural areas: Theories and issues. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 1–20.
15. Hoggart, K. (1990) ‘Let’s do away with rural’, Journal of Rural Studies, 6(3), pp. 245–257. Labrianidis, L. (2006) ‘Human capital as the critical factor for the development of Europe’s rural peripheral areas’, The New European Rurality: Strategies for Small Firms, pp. 41–59.
16. Mormont, M. (1990) ‘Who Is Rural? or, How To Be Rural: Towards a Sociology of the Rural’, in Marsden, T. : L. (ed.) Rural Restructuring. London: David Fulton Publishers Ltd., pp. 21–44.
17. Moscovici, S. (1988) ‘Notes towards a description of social representations’, European journal of social psychology, 18(3), pp. 211–250.
18. de Noronha Vaz, T., Morgan, E. J. and Nijkamp, P. (2006) The new European rurality: Strategies for small firms. Hants: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
19. OECD (1996) Territorial Indicators of Employment; Focusing on Rural Development. Paris: OECD.
20. Öǧdül, H. G. (2010) ‘Urban and rural definitions in regional context: A case study on Turkey’, European Planning Studies, 18(9), pp. 1519–1541. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2010.492589.
21. Okumus, D. (2018) Rethinking Rural Transitions: The Case of Bozcaada, Turkey. Newcastle University.
22. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. M. (1997) Grounded theory in practice. Sage.
23. The Municipality Law (2005). Turkey. Available at: https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.5393.pdf (Accessed: 20 October 2023).
24. The National Rural Development Strategy 2014-2020 (2015). TBMM. Available at: https://kkp.tarim.gov.tr/UKKS (2014-2020).pdf (Accessed: 20 October 2023).
25. The Report of Rural Development Ad Hoc Commission (2019). Available at: http://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/KirsalKalkinmaOzelIhtisasKomisyonuRaporu.pdf (Accessed: 20 October 2023).
26. The Village Law (1924). Turkey. Available at: https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.3.442.pdf (Accessed: 20 October 2023).
27. Walker, P. and Fortmann, L. (2003) ‘Whose landscape? A political ecology of the “exurban” Sierra’, Cultural Geographies, 10(4), pp. 469–491. doi: 10.1191/1474474003eu285oa.
28. Woods, M. (2011) ‘The local politics of the global countryside: Boosterism, aspirational ruralism and the contested reconstitution of Queenstown, New Zealand’, Geojournal, 76(4), pp. 365–381.