Land or people? On the iatrogenesis of conflation

Abstract

In a wish to abandon essentialism to contingency, this paper looks into whether the rural-urban binary could be a cultural burden so incompatible with the layered realities of advanced deprivation that instead of helping the deprived, it deprives the help of its carrying capacity. Departing from the idea that cultural mechanisms are capable of allowing for conceptual dichotomies to create oppression, this paper addresses the concepts of 'rural' and 'urban' as potentially counterproductive ideas in policy and planning when deployed in areas of severe social deprivation. Using a Swedish example, this problem is addressed in the context of a recently finalized development project, whose focus of approach shifted from 'urban' to 'rural'. We demonstrate how 'rural' and 'urban' are not neutral spatial qualifiers but problematic filters superimposed onto the already problematic concept of "social sustainability". Here, we draw on the principle of iatrogenesis, which denotes any benevolent action that inadvertently produces undesired outcomes. We argue that since many areas lack the presumed conceptual foundation for a specific brand of action, development programs labeled as 'rural' or 'urban' are not only likely to fail, but also to potentially cause harm. We conclude that more context-sensitive understanding of the human condition beyond inflexible labeling is needed in order to arrive at more adequate interventions.

Intimate Partner Violence in Small Towns, Dispersed Rural Areas, and Other Locations: Estimates Using a Reconception of Settlement Type

“…There is good reason to be troubled by the use of BJSUSR in its current form. Generally, as has been cautioned for decades (Champion ; Dewey ; Dymitrow and Brauer ; Hoggart ; Newby ), the “rural,” “suburban,” and “urban” of BJSUSR are not discrete categories and should not be treated as such. Contrary to the within‐classification homogeneity upon which the use of BJSUSR is premised, research shows that there is tremendous diversity within “rural” areas, within “suburbs,” and within “urban” areas.…”

Deprivation and the Rural‐Urban Trap

“…It is rather an empirical study conducted to illustrate a deductive argument, namely that the universality, persistence and specific conceptual properties of the rural‐urban binary are likely to maintain (or possibly contribute to) harm in certain types of environments (cf. Dymitrow & Brauer ). Since it is extremely difficult to pinpoint measurable cause‐and‐effect linkages between rural‐urban thinking and the complex phenomenon of deprivation on account of a two‐case study, the principal contribution of this paper is to serve as a consciousness‐raising call for further, large‐scale interrogations into the implications of overextended rural‐urban spatialisations.…”

Poverty and social exclusion: An alternative spatial explanation

“…Apart from measurable economic and organisational losses, what still remains to be solved is, above all, those social problems aggravated by misguided attempts at eliminating them (Woodward, 1996;Shubin, 2007;Lawson et al, 2008;Dębski et al, 2010;Dymitrow, Brauer, 2014;Ramakrishnan, 2014;Dymitrow et al, 2017). Since these problems often go hand in hand with the trauma of all concerned stakeholders, particular attention should be paid to the causes responsible for creating zones of poverty, especially when previous remedial measures have failed (Sanandaji, 2012;Taleb, 2012;Dymitrow, Brauer, 2016) (1).…”