Beyond binaries? Spatial possibilities in Southeast Asia

Abstract

The thoughtful and incisive responses to our article push us to address the central tension in our conceptualization of ruralization, which concerns how it both unsettles and reproduces binary thinking. On the one hand, we draw upon work in Southeast Asia that confounds binary mappings of urban versus rural space and associated divisions of labour in ways that redress the intellectual preponderance of the urban and urbanization. On the other hand, by proposing ruralization to do this, we arguably entrench a new variant of the binary (ruralization vs. urbanization). To address this tension, our response to the commentaries focuses on the ways in which they engage with the rural–urban binary. The conclusion briefly comments on the tricky pathways to theorize in step with the voices, practices, and imaginations of people in the Global South.

Rural space and the local food landscape: consumers’ construction of food localness through the politics of belonging

“…Secondly, this research also builds on recent research (Autio et al , 2013; Banerjee and Quinn, 2022; Bildtgård, 2013; Ducros, 2018; Fonte, 2008; Goszczyński and Wróblewski, 2020; Kneafsey et al , 2021; Palladino, 2020; Tellström et al , 2006) and expands our knowledge of local food products and brands’ attribute of “rurality” as to how it provides food with a spatial rootedness and territorial significance. Aligning with the most recent perspectives in the geography literature (de Olde and Oosterlynck, 2022; Gillen et al , 2022a, 2022b), this research shows that the urban–rural dichotomy is not an obsolete epistemological category through which to understand local food consumption and food localness constructions. This nuanced theoretical insight contributes to the food geographies and rural studies literature by shedding light into how local consumers’ discourses and practices distinguish between local (“rural”) and non-local (“urban”) food.…”

“…This nuanced theoretical insight contributes to the food geographies and rural studies literature by shedding light into how local consumers’ discourses and practices distinguish between local (“rural”) and non-local (“urban”) food. Moreover, this research further contributes to these literatures by showing that not only the urban–rural dichotomy functions as a territorial marker for spatial demarcations of local/non-local food (Gillen et al , 2022a, 2022b; de Olde and Oosterlynck, 2022) but also it works for local consumers relationally through fore/ground dynamics (Thompson et al , 1989).…”

“…Indeed, some researchers have gone as far as to define the urban–rural dichotomy as a “false dualism in geography” (Baird, 2022, p. 1), where rural space is constituted through complex dynamics of its own, concerning rural representations, practices and lived experiences, which cannot be simplistically reduced to a “residual” aspect of the non-urban (Gillen et al , 2022a, 2022b; Halfacree, 1993, 2006; Woods, 2011). However, “at the level of human lives, the spatial imaginary of the rural and urban continues to offer people a reliable if flawed spatial logic” (Gillen et al , 2022a, p. 4).…”

“…Indeed, some researchers have gone as far as to define the urban–rural dichotomy as a “false dualism in geography” (Baird, 2022, p. 1), where rural space is constituted through complex dynamics of its own, concerning rural representations, practices and lived experiences, which cannot be simplistically reduced to a “residual” aspect of the non-urban (Gillen et al , 2022a, 2022b; Halfacree, 1993, 2006; Woods, 2011). However, “at the level of human lives, the spatial imaginary of the rural and urban continues to offer people a reliable if flawed spatial logic” (Gillen et al , 2022a, p. 4). Indeed, even though local food is materially the product of hybrid (alternative/conventional local/global and rural/urban) spaces (Ilbery and Maye, 2005; McEachern and Warnaby, 2006; Morgan et al , 2006; Sonnino and Marsden, 2006; Woods, 2011), the consumer’s “geographical imagination” (Kneafsey et al , 2021) may still construct local food in binary terms.…”

The role of informal ruralization within China’s rapid urbanization

“…[…] If the whole world is urbanizing, it must also be ruralizing" 6 . Subsequently, inspired by the growing scholarship on hybridized rural-urban phenomena in Southeast Asia [7][8][9] , Gillen et al argued that 'more-than-residual' processes of ruralization do exist both within what would ordinarily be considered 'urban' spaces and in relation to the processes of urbanization through the everyday practices of ordinary people who pursue ways of living that defy rural/urban binaries in the aftermath of urbanization 10 .…”