Place‐based identity: A model

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the topic of place‐based identity, including how place has both objective and subjective components that are best understood within the system of urbanormativity. This model is then situated within the Reconceptualized Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity and implications for student affairs practices are shared.

Country Bumpkin or City Slicker? The Role of Place of Living and Place-Based Identity in Explaining Place-Based Resentment

“…Place as a social identity is complex and consists next to the subjective component analyzed in this paper also an objective component (Cain 2021). The subjective and objective component are not completely independent of one another, however, they do not necessarily have to overlap.…”

“…Interaction with one’s place of living leads to a place attachment through which individuals define themselves, and who they are becomes interlinked with where they are (Munis 2021; Stedman 2002). Place of living fulfills a number of different functions: It is a physical space with a certain landscape, there are a number of spatial settings and local services, but a place encompasses also human activities and interactions with the local community and, lastly, even psychological processes such as shared feelings, memories, attitudes, and values (Cain 2021; Daneri, Krasny, and Stedman 2021; Schulte-Cloos and Bauer 2021; Stedman 2002).…”

Confidence Across Cleavage: The Swiss Rural–Urban Divide, Place‐Based Identity and Political Trust

“…While such local or regional identities certainly matter, too — especially in federal Switzerland (see also Müller, 2013; Schroedter et al., 2015) — this new research defines place through different attributes such as socioeconomic composition, values, political power or the common feeling of being left behind (Cramer, 2016; Hochschild, 2018; Maxwell 2020; Wuthnow, 2018; Zumbrunn & Freitag, 2023). This is why place can form an identity through a number of characteristics, e.g., a spatial dimension such as the landscape, a political‐economic dimension, as for example universities are usually located in cities, shared social experiences, e.g., a higher likelihood of mingling with foreigners in cities, or a symbolic understanding of the place and its values (Bell, 1992; Cain, 2021). These social groups then provide their members with prescriptions on beliefs and behaviour and can thus shape their levels of political trust (Borwein & Lucas, 2023; Hogg, 2016; Huddy, 2001).…”

Strengthening rural college student career development

“…The concept of "urbanormativity" (Fulkerson & Thomas, 2019) contends that modern society views urban and suburban as both preferred and normal, and therefore, the areas that fall outside of this area are both literally and figuratively on the periphery (Crain & Newlin, 2021). Several rural education scholars raise the issue of urbanormativity as rationale for greater focus and study on rural students and populations (Ardoin & McNamee, 2020;Cain, 2020;Crain, 2018;Thomas & Fulkerson, 2019). Secondly, beyond just small populations and remote locations, rurality is also a set of cultures, beliefs, and mindsets that are not easily boxed into boundaries on a map (Ardoin & McNamee, 2020;Crumb et al, 2023).…”