WHAT IS RURAL?
: DECONSTRUCTING ‘RURALITY’
Rural Development Paper
For the Degree of
Bachelor of Arts in Social Work
Academic Year - 2015-18
By
Soumashree Sen
Under the Guidance of
Dr. Sridhar Modugu
Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS)
Tuljapur Campus
Maharashtra 413601
March 2018
WHAT IS RURAL? : DECONSTRUCTING ‘RURALITY’
INTRODUCTION
My paper attempts to re-visit the sociological concept of ‘rural’. To define rural, is simple
and complex at the same time. It is simple because the term ‘rural’ already has a
commonsensical definition attached to it – who is rural, what is rural. It is with this definition
that my paper aims to look into the parameters justifying such a definition and exploring if
the represented conventional constructs of ‘rural’ hold true. It is important to re-define and
re-present such a construct so as to reach a more intersectional understanding, rather than a
deterministic and reductionist one.
The paper begins by trying to look into the definitions established by political leaders
of India in their nationalist imaginations. Thereafter it explores socio-cultural dimensions like
ethics, occupations and lifestyle which make up the basis of who is rural and what is
considered as rural. Subsequently it evaluates the validity of such indicators in determining
the concept of rurality.
DEFINING THE RURAL
Marsden and Flynn(1993:201) states how a step by step growth process of modernisation
borders on moulding rural habits, and the space itself for its people, re-defining what rurality
is.
[Link] (2003) says there are four ways of defining a rural space in the social
science framework -
1. Whatever diverges from the conceptualisation of an urban space, is rural, where the
rural is always in a lesser position than urban.
2. The empirical indicators of migration, livelihood, living conditions, land use and
other “socio-spatial characteristics”.
3. Social relations of production related to capital use and accumulation in the primary
production.
4. The commonsensical construct of what is rural as per socio-cultural aspects.
Pandey argues how agriculture as the primary means of livelihood has taken a sharp
decline and shifted towards urban migration and settling into industrial jobs more common in
the urban space. He adds how there has been continual change in patterns of lifestyle,
consumption practices resulting in a need to integrate the rural geographically with areas
closer to urban centres. There has also been a cultural shift in ways of interaction, ideas of
recreation, choice of consumer products leading to a varying definition of the ‘rural’ at the
national, regional and international level (Pandey, 2003). The concept of universalising a
‘rural’ is therefore flawed. Pandey poses us to compare villages in Orissa with villages in
Kerela, and highlights how both would be defined as rural, because it is not urban but differs
starkly in socio-cultural aspects and empirical indicators. Thus it takes us back to this paper’s
enquiry - “What determines the Rural!”
THE ‘RURAL’ IN NATIONALIST IMAGINATIONS
Gandhi defined the Indian village as a system of representative governance. The electing of
five representatives by a class of people who would be governing the social affairs of each
caste under the Panchayati system for Gandhi was a form of democracy. He compared and
contrasted the idea of ‘village republics’ as a political symbol with the Western form of
governance. In fact he uses the concept of village as a symbol to highlight how the Indian
thinking was as advanced and modernist as the Westerners. For Gandhi the village embodied
India’s ‘real’ social and cultural values. He had not specified what the ‘real’ values were.
However through his political career he drew comparisons of the Westernised Indian cities
being hubs of evils like alcoholism, disease and pollution against the Indian villages which
were uncorrupted and had to bear the adverse effect of such cities.
He viewed villages as being against industrialisation and hence more environment
friendly and sustainable. He gave a call to the villages to return back to what their actual roots
are, encouraged handicrafts and the traditional ways of living. He categorically stated that the
industrial means of development was only a recent trend and might bring in handsome wages,
but does not guarantee happiness; in fact it was a nexus of exploitation at the cost of innocent
villagers. The village for him was the epitome of good values; where people lived together
with minimal needs, helped each other and did not exploit each other like in capitalist
economies. It was not just advanced in governance but also successful in maintaining the
value system.
Gandhi spoke about two flaws in the village - the problem of health and sanitation and
the other of untouchability. He said villages were “centres of orthodoxy” as compared to
cities which were more socially liberal and hence refrained from untouchability. However,
though he worked to abolish untouchability and and praised the Shudras as children of the
God “Harijans”, he wanted them to change themselves “for example, wanted them to
‘observe common cleanliness’, “refrain from eating meat of dead animals and from drink,
send their children to schools, remove untouchability among themselves” (Jodhka, 2002).
Gandhi’s view of the village had a reformist approach. He viewed the village lifestyle as an
alternative to Western industrialisation and violent socialism. ‘Village-ism’ was not just a
better alternative to these, but catered to the majority of the Indian population who lived in
villages through his philosophy of ‘ahimsa’, non-violence.
He defined his form of a village as -
“My idea of village swaraj is that it is completely republic, independent of its
neighbours for its own vital wants, and yet interdependent for many others in
which dependence is a necessity. Thus every
villager’s first concern will be to grow its own food crops and cotton for its
cloth…Then if there is more land available, it will grow useful money crops,
thus excluding ganja, tobacco, opium and the
like…Education will be compulsory upto the final basic course. As far as
possible every activity will be conducted on the cooperative basis. There will
be no castes such as we have today with their graded untouchability…The
government of the village will be conducted by a panchayat of five persons
annually elected by the adult villagers, male and female, possessing
minimum prescribed qualifications.…To model such a village may be the work
of a lifetime. Any lover of true democracy and village life can take up a
village, treat it as his world and sole work, and he will find good
results…”[ Gandhi 1979:308-09] (Jodhka,2002).
Though Gandhi’s political philosophy centered around the concept of a ideal village
life, he had almost no experience of growing up in a village; neither did he have an ancestral
home.
Ambedkar’s idea of the Indian village was in stark contrast to that of Gandhi. He
regarded it as “the den of ignorance” and brought about a Dalit perspective which was absent
from both Gandhi and Nehru’s writings. He viewed the village as being an extension of the
HIndu civilisation, where Dalits were not considered Hindus. Thus the Hindus stayed in the
village, with their amenities and the avarnas or Dalits stayed out of the village in ghettos.
“The Hindu will not live in the quarters of the untouchables and will
not allow the untouchables to live inside Hindu quarters…Every Hindu village
has a ghetto. The Hindus live in the village and the untouchables live in the
ghetto” [Ambedkar 1948:21-22] (Jodhka, 2002).
A lot of his writings and approach towards the Indian village directly came from his
own experiences as a Dalit child in the village, where he faced the atrocities and humiliation
perpetrated by the upper castes. He recounted instances where the Dalits were not only
allowed to take part in the Hindu festivals like Diwali or Holi, but were also forced to do the
menial work during these festivals without being paid. Additionally they were not allowed to
construct houses which were more than two storeys, were made to wear horns on their heads
or brooms around their waist, not allowed to enter temples and were subject to severe
humiliation. The Dalit lifestyle was not synonymous with the village lifestyle and they could
only behave and live the way the upper castes prescribed for them. They were not allowed to
acquire land or wealth and were made to work as unpaid slaves in the fields of the upper
castes.
Ambedkar writes the only way the Dalits could subsist was by begging and their lives
were totally at the hands of the upper castes. He viewed positive projections of the Indian
village only as a means to be accepted by the British, because the honest situation in the
village was conflicting with Gandhi’s utopian idea of a village democracy. The very
framework and organising principles of an Indian village is based on exclusion. segregation
through which exploitation follows subsequently.
TRADITIONAL VILLAGE vs THE MODERN CITY
The construct of ‘rural’ is postulated on the rural-urban binary, where the ‘urban’ is seen as
modern, dynamic, fast, liberal versus the ‘rural’ as rigid, conservative, traditional and
orthodox. As we are on the rural vs urban dualism, it is pertinent to reflect on the
socio-cultural aspect of the ‘traditional rural’ and ‘modern-urban’.
There is no such thing as a completely pure tradition (Giddens, 1999). Giddens argues
how the perception that traditions are practices in use for centuries is a misconception and
most traditions are fairly newly constructed, defying the very identity of tradition. He states
that ritual practices and repetition of the same, generally by powerful members of society like
the upper castes in India builds to legitimise the construct of tradition.
In fact, tradition and modernity borders on a relationship of aiding each other.
Tradition often gives into modernity, to survive. There is a sort of symbiotic relationship
between both. In urban spaces, there is a pattern of public and commercial institutions to
ideologically move away from traditional value systems which are essentially deemed as
orthodox or regressive. However the question is - does tradition die? It does not, in fact it
persists everywhere, but in different forms. Tradition does not subsist in the ‘traditional’ way.
It often becomes commercialised, through kitsch - like Ganesha on the wall hanging, or holy
threads at a store in the mall. Similarly, it is often seen that a multinational company,
extremely ‘modern’ in approach still performs a ritual and throws flowers on the doorway, as
per the Hindu custom for prosperity appealing to their ‘traditional’ self.
Expanding on the Gandhi vs Ambedkar debate on the Indian village and the
traditional lifestyle it is pertinent to contemplate on both arguments. Gandhi’s idea of the
village being the perfect form of civilisation lacked the ability to incorporate a Dalit
perspective. In fact when he states that it was the responsibility of the lower castes to change
themselves, it also shows his apathy to recognise the extent of subordination inflicted by the
savarnas on the avarnas. Moreover his reconstruction of the village, took an extreme position
on industrialisation which was irrational as per the modern means of production.
Ambedkar’s Dalit perspective is highly insightful in bringing about the flaws in an
often romanticized village life. However, his argument was socio-spatially limited to only the
rural. He negated the aspect, where a savarna individual even after migrating to an urban
space may hold the same ‘rural-traditional-casteist’ value system. In fact he himself, had
much difficulty in finding a home for staying in Delhi, the hub of Indian urban-ness owing to
his caste identity. At times, the casteism is more benevolent in nature, where a person may
claim to be non-casteist and employs people from the lower caste in his company but ceases
to promote them beyond a position.
In terms of socio-cultural aspects, rural value systems generally promote a guarded
female sexuality, or abstaining from alcoholism as per traditional value systems. When urban
migration takes place, a lot of such restrain on sexuality and alcoholism ceases and liberal
exploration of the same, often leads to the binary of a “pure-tradition’ versus the
“impure-modernity”. There is a sense of loss of the ‘true’ self, versus the ‘new found’. There
is this constant passive-aggressive contest of the “pure-traditional-village” against the
“corrupted-modern-city”, with no convergence of either.
“The urge to return to the rural identity/self and the ambition for city identity/self, both
desire to inflict 'self on the 'other' so as to hilate the other's threatening presence. The
paradox is that this disciplinary process fails to totally erase the 'other', as in order to 'self, it
has to have the 'other'. Thus, the simulated 'other' always haunts this imagined community of
'self’” ( Pandey, 2003).
EMPIRICISING THE RURAL
The construct of rural has primarily been evaluated primarily through qualitative studies.
Miller et al. conducted a typographic study to quantify rural culture. The study spanned
across three dimensions - occupational, ecological and a socio-cultural dimension. Forty three
percent of the variance was shown in socio-cultural indicators, more specifically - civil
liberty, racial segregation and abortion. The study had a part where they divided individuals
into two extreme sets of ‘rural conservatives’ and ‘urban liberals’ and the study results did
not deem a high variance in this absolute classification. The study found that a cultural
formation took place in adolescence more than place of birth, contrary to popular notion.
However due to the 43% socio-cultural variance, the study concluded an existing rural culture
in values and ethics.
CONCLUSION
The paper finds that the existence of a rural culture, based on social and cultural attributes,
cannot be denied. As has been already noted, rural and urban cultures diverge, despite
element from one finding its way into another in some form. The divergence gives rise to a
visible schism in socio-cultural dimensions. However, the approach towards the inspection of
the fine line between the rural and the urban as different socio-cultural entities should be
more intersectional. The Gandhi vs Ambedkar debate is reflective of how the village, as a
political symbol, can be perceived differently. The answer to the question “What consists
rurality” is an ever-changing one, since the definition of rurality metamorphoses on a
constant basis. Furthermore, with the lapse of time the urban is gradually merging with the
rural. With newer inventions finding their way into rural areas in an ever-increasing pace, the
stark traditional dualism that distinguishes villages from cities should be, in near future, even
harder to pinpoint. This may very well bring a profound impact on how inhabitants of an area
assert their identity, as socio-political and socio-economical paradigms shift.
REFERENCES
Mukhopadhyay, Anindita. "Caste and Power in Villages of Colonial Bengal." Caste and
III, no. 6. Accessed February 10, 2018. Economic and
Power in Villages of Colonial BengalL
Political Weekly.
Beteille, Andre. "The Tribulations of Fieldwork." ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY,
August 1972.
Deavers, Ken. "What is Rural?" Policy Studies Journal20, no. 2 (1992): 184-89
Giddens, Anthony. Tradition: Runaway World: How Globalisation Is Reshaping Our
Lives.London: London Profile Books., 1999.
Jodhka, Surinder S. "Nation and Village - Images of Rural India in Gandhi, Nehru and
Ambedkar." Economic and Political Weekly, August 10, 2002.
Miller, Michael K., and A. E. Luloff. Who Is Rural?: A Typological Approach to the
Examination of Rurality. Place of Publication: Not Identified Publisher: Not Identified 1980.
Pandey, Vikash N. "Re-presenting Rural: From Definition to Discourse." Sociological
Bulletin 5 2, no. 1 (2003): 32-52.
Srinivas, M. N. "Village Studies, Participant Observation and Social Science Research in
India." ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY, August 1975.