Stable Mobilities and Mobile Stabilities in Rural Estonian Communities

Abstract

By analyzing the relations of communities and places in sparsely located rural areas, this article argues that rural community is not a stable unity tied to a place, but a phenomenon closely tied to its members’ connections to the interdependent concept of urban/rural, especially in terms of their mobility practices. In this study, the new mobilities paradigm was applied to reveal how everyday relational and routine aspects connected to material, structural, socio-cultural and economic conditioning dynamically intertwine to form a rural community. The analysis is based on three regional case studies in Estonian sparsely populated areas, which are diverse in terms of geographical location, demographic composition, type of settlement, history, and welfare conditions. By using qualitative in-depth interviews with people (N=60) who were involved with the locations, the article analyses everyday mobilities in these communities, especially in terms of interrelatedness to structural, social and material factors. The study has brought out interrelated themes that are connected to the use of rural representations in terms of individual and social self-reflection, the importance of social and material infrastructures, and the dynamics of these borders in communities and shaping community relations.

Everyday materialities, territorial bordering, and place-identity defined by recent administrative reform: reactions from Estonian dispersed ruralities

“…Our case studies contained territorial and community-based community representative assemblies whose members in some instances were involved in the municipality council. We study how these new emerging municipality districts, with their particular governance bodies and material investments, influence territorial identity dynamics, and how everyday mobilities shape these municipal structures (Nugin & Kasemets 2021). We also analyse how the local people with their social and cultural capital shape and mould the discourses of rural identities and how these discourses affect everyday living (Raagmaa 2002).…”

Emergent rural–urban relations in Covid‐19 disturbances: Multi‐locality affecting sustainability of rural change

“…In popular representations, the rural is often associated with stillness and stability (Jansson, 2013; Nugin, 2018; Woods, 2011), but in fact, the rural everyday is increasingly intertwined with complex mobility practices (Milbourne & Kitchen, 2014; Nugin, 2020; Pitkänen et al., 2017). Mobilities can be seen as the connective tissue of the rural and urban, which are entangled to immobility just as much as mobility (Cresswell, 2012; Nugin & Kasemets, 2021). People become increasingly committed to living arrangements that include several places of residence and mobilities in between.…”

“…Both in Estonia and Finland, the commuting distances for work can be rather long, and several new strategies of employment (e.g., distance working, working according to particular work cycles) have emerged among rural inhabitants (Nugin & Kasemets, 2021; Pitkänen & Strandell, 2018; Plüschke‐Altof et al., 2020). Similarly, in both countries, rural labour needs are increasingly being met by seasonal and temporary labour mobility coming from outside of the rural areas or even abroad (Pitkänen & Strandell, 2018; Rannanpää et al., 2022).…”

“…As Mai indicated, in times of crisis, the value of having a rural refuge becomes more accentuated and acknowledged. Though the notion of the rural as a safe and reliable place providing a traditional living (and food) has been strong also during the pre‐Covid era (Nugin & Kasemets, 2021; Shucksmith, 2018; Woods, 2011), the crisis affected how people initiated life decisions and practices and how they were reasoned.…”

Stewardship and everyday governance: Managing materialities in a south‐eastern village community, Estonia

“…Regional planning policy stakeholders regard the rise of the rural community movement with neo‐endogenous development as a positive response to the post‐socialist crisis in agriculture as well as a strategy for dealing with the growing economic, political, and social marginalisation of the rural population. The implications of relational developments related to the post‐productivist countryside in Estonia are studied, for instance, in the context of the tourism industry (Bardone et al., 2013; Kaaristo & Järv, 2012; Võsu & Sooväli‐Sepping, 2012), stakeholder conflicts (Bardone & Spalvena, 2019; Printsmann & Pikner, 2019; Sooväli‐Sepping, 2017), social stratification (Plüschke‐Altof, 2019) or mobile communities (Nugin & Kasemets, 2021). A recent neo‐endogenous governance‐oriented development is supported by the Administrative‐Territorial Reform in Estonia in 2017, which paid attention to the creation of functional local governance and the developing socio‐spatial infrastructure for regional networking.…”