Inheriting “Village Studies:” Why does the Rural Still Matter in Twenty-first Century India?

6Overall, the ambition of this special issue is therefore to address rurality through representation. Following a constructivist approach, we propose to define rurality, in line with the words of the human geographer, Michael Woods, as “an imagined entity that is brought into being by particular discourses of rurality that are produced, reproduced and contested by academics, the media, policy-makers, rural lobby groups and ordinary individuals” (Woods 2011:9). From this angle, we seek to explore “how different communities define and ‘know’ the rural” (Heley and Jones 2012:209), but also to take into consideration this polyvocality: who does speak for/about/of/against/with the village? These different aspects of the representations and practices of the “village” and its social components, contributing to the social production of rural space, are herein studied from a range of different disciplinary perspectives, such as history, political science, sociology, anthropology, and literary studies/theory.

The “Agrarian Crisis” Narrative

9The issue of “farmers’ suicides,” highlighted by the media, nevertheless hides other less visible aspects of the current “crisis” of the Indian countryside. The latter is actually a combination of three crises affecting rural social spaces: economic, social, and environmental, and resulting in multiple risks affecting first and foremost the most marginal within it. Far from being a crisis of peasant subsistence farming, this agrarian crisis in India is one of capitalist agriculture, dependent on world market prices, commercial crops, capital flow and chemical input. It directly affects small and medium farmers who have entered into “cash” crops cultivation, and the technological treadmill which goes with it in areas where this form of agriculture has spread and intensified. Undergoing a process of “secularization” (Vasavi 1994), agriculture is increasingly being defined as an economic enterprise. The question of “who speaks for the village” can here be replaced by the following questions: “Who is a legitimate farmer”? Who is the “good farmer”? Are the poor Adivasi cultivators and marginal peasants at all legitimate in continuing to exist vis-à-vis the current modernization of Indian agriculture? Facing disenchantment as well as multiple opportunities for exit, adult offspring are increasingly engaged in non-agricultural employment. While the agrarian crisis appears to be not only a crisis of social reproduction within the peasantry, but more durably a crisis of vocation—farming activities being increasingly looked down upon by farmers’ families themselves (Landy 2011:234)—the social resilience of the Indian farming habitus can also appear remarkable, particularly after wide-scale dispossession and displacement (Cabalion 2013). Who, then, in contemporary India does still wish to undertake farming?

10Addressing seriously the agrarian crisis would require recognizing the long-term processes and “everyday” social structures of gender, caste and religion engendering socioeconomic deprivation, inequality in access to resources and ecological degradation. However, as Richa Kumar reminds us, short-term and quick political responses predominate:

The response to indebtedness is a waiver of the current crop of loans, but what happens next year when farmers are forced to take new loans? The reaction to suicides is compensation, but does that help surviving family members to figure out a means of livelihood? Pest resistance is solved in the short term by producing more potent pesticides and more resistant varieties, but that fails to address the root cause of resistance—the monoculture paradigm itself. (Kumar 2016:104)

India is indeed facing the heavy environmental and health costs of the green revolution’s techno-economic package (Harriss-White and Janakarajan 2004), which has brought monocultures, hybrid seed varieties and large quantities of chemical fertilizers and pesticides to Indian agriculture. These costs still seem to remain largely unrecognized, though everyone is affected: laborers spraying pesticides and paying for it with their health, urban consumers paying for it with cheap, poisoned food, land paying for it with soil toxicity, farmers paying for it with their lives (Kumar 2016:166). This ecological crisis is undermining the long-term social reproduction of Indian farmers; that is, their very ability to farm in the future. While Prime Ministers call for a “second” (Singh 2011) or “ever” (The Times of India, 2017) green revolution and its correlative (bio)technological package at the policy level, the necessity for an alternative trajectory, viz. an agro ecological transition, begins to arise at the grassroots level. Some farmers’ movements are introducing “agronomical pluralism” (Münster 2016:229) by training themselves in agroecology, experimenting with natural/organic farming methods and seeking ways to escape the chemical market treadmill. Alternative agricultures, notably the natural farming movement “Zero Budget Natural Farming” in Punjab, Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh (Brown 2013, 2018; Thivet 2014; Münster 2016; Khadse et al 2018; Dorin 2018), have emerged in response to the ecological crisis. While they try to offer an alternative to exiting agriculture and to the problem of social reproduction of farmers, their claim for an authentic and “pure India” through the revival of a cultural heritage of Indian agricultural practices (Vasavi 2012; Münster 2014) raises new sets of questions on old issues: the reproduction of power relationships and potential marginalization towards other groups and religious and ethnic minorities living in the countryside.

The Changing Face of Rural Capitalism

12As evoked, the category of the rural stands disaggregated into multiple sub-fields of specialization and intervention delineating the very nature and regularity of certain phenomena traversing rural India—poverty, agrarian issues, displacement—and the fabric of public policies and knowledge configuration, particularly in the Indian field of social work, specifically designed to assess their evolution. It is therefore not surprising that studies known as “agrarian,” or falling in the larger category of “development” studies, have often been the most vital and instrumental in keeping an eye on rural existence, particularly from Marxist and Ambedkarite perspectives. In brief, after the 1970–1980s, everything happened as though studying rural India was a desirable task if it was to understand its backwardness or to herald the agency of its dominated people. In anthropology too, the scenario has long been to choose between understanding practices that had supposedly not changed, or the public and political contraptions intended to change them, in other words development programs or any public policy which would usher in social change.

14In the past few decades, the village has most notably disappeared behind what we could call “social group studies,” whether Dalit or Adivasi studies. Most Dalits and Adivasi inhabit rural areas, even the ex-Mahar of Maharashtra who have converted to Buddhism under the guidance of Ambedkar and who slowly continue to migrate as though following their leader’s historic injunction to leave villages (“What is a village but a sink of localism, a den of ignorance and narrow mindedness,” [Ambedkar 1979]). Taken in the dust of the Indian agrarian transition, they alternately become minor civil servants, construction laborers in cities, or mine workers. In other words, social group studies have been the study of groups defined or displaced by/from their rural condition of existence, or who may still carry within them a strong rural form of identification. The rural can be defined today as the underside of development, that is, a crucial site of dispossession and displacement, two words that may define appropriately the Indian rural experience of subalternity. Dispossession, however, needs to be understood conceptually beyond the mere experience of land eviction and embrace social relations of domination beyond the single dimension of the land-grabbing State. The privatization of higher education, for instance, appears to be a major social stake of struggles, both conditioned by and leading to an increased state of dispossession of the subaltern rural masses. Selling one’s piece of land for an improbable trajectory of success in the educational field is, for instance, more and more common and appears to be an accelerating factor in “depeasantization,” often subservient to a social position in the formal sector though frequently at the lowest rungs.

Rural Politics and Emerging Voices of Resistance

16Save for electoral politics and the representation of rural interests by formally constituted unions or pressure groups, rural politics indeed also include various social movements contesting the meaning and the use of rural space. Another way to make sense of rural politics is to cast aside our “passive imagination of the rural” which “sees the rural as largely defeated, washed over and worn out, its sell-by date exceeded, with little independence as a source of change in its own right” (Bell, Lloyd, and Vatovec 2010:209). Far from mainstream spaces, less visible representatives of the “rural,” such as socialist and communist struggle committees (sangharsh samiti) for forest, water and land rights (jungle, jal aur zameen adhikar) continue to form the backbone of the rural social movement across the country, however sleepy and small they may sometimes be in a period much infused with cultural nationalism. The circulation of activist capital is particularly high in these three spheres, yet does not quite overlap with the actors present in struggles against direct State dispossession and displacement (Cabalion 2014). Such type of convergence between various issue-based struggles is what social leaders wish to structure more durably in the Indian social movement. After displacement, many activists themselves concerned by resettlement disengage and disconnect from social action in the movement when they begin their new life, precipitating social movements against displacement in a situation of abeyance due to their sudden lack of activist manpower and/or direct support. Peasant and/or farmer movements as well as social movements against dispossession and displacement, however, share much in common when we consider that they concern actors who have little access to wage labor but face regular threats to their basic economic and social reproduction. The deformalization as well as the commodification of their existence in the face of land evictions, water privatization, and more broadly, degradation of their environment, are important dimensions of the experience of subalternity in Indian villages.

Overview of this Special Issue

17To tackle these different facets of the rural in India, this volume brings together multiple disciplinary perspectives and a variety of empirical studies to critically examine the place and relevance of studying the village and rurality. The articles are drawn from a panel convened at the European Conference of South Asian Studies (ECSAS) in Paris in July 2018. What we hereby attempt is not to speak for rural transformations in the subcontinent altogether, but on the contrary to assert the need to study these transformations from multiple perspectives, voices and situations: caste issues, agrarian relations, rural-urban interactions, rural development and rural politics.

18The first article by Girija Joshi addresses the hegemonic category of the village constructed by the colonial imagination by deconstructing historically the myth of the “eternal village.” While India was imagined as a “land of villages” by colonialism, Joshi deals with the particular case of the “Delhi frontier” (rural Haryana), that is, nomadic pastoral populations in the early nineteenth century. She demonstrates that in this mobile agrarian frontier, kinship categories had historically crystallized around the control of land. By implication, kinship was a vehicle of State formation, whose boundaries were determined at least in part by the pragmatic consideration of resource consolidation. Joshi’s appreciation of the political dimension of kinship thus brings complexity to our understanding of rural politics, highlighting that the “village community” was far from being a historically stable polity.

19In the second article, Ritanjan Das examines a two-decade old process of land acquisition and development in Rajarhat, a former rural settlement in the Indian state of West Bengal, to characterize the transformation of villages amidst rapid urbanization in neoliberal India. Originally made up of almost 50 villages and now a satellite township of the state capital Kolkata, Rajarhat offers “an intriguing window to the subtle, yet multifaceted transformation of socio-economic relations within the remnants of erstwhile rural spaces.” Ritanjan Das engages with the new expressions of caste consciousness around the processes of displacement and dispossession due to the Kolkata new town project. While forceful land grabbing and limited compensations reducing farming opportunities for the villagers did not lead to caste-based mobilisation, new forms of economic engagements (“syndicate-raj”) contributed to the reproduction of distinct segregations between lower and upper-caste habitations, but also between Muslims and non-Muslims, the spatiality of caste reemerging in Rajarhat “urban” villages.

20In the third article, Vikramaditya Thakur explores subaltern agency and the changing nature of leadership in rural western India among the Bhil Scheduled Tribe or Adivasi group in the wake of the anti-dam movement initiated by urban middle-class activists of the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA; also Save Narmada Campaign). Drawing on fieldwork data along with oral history, archival research, government records, vernacular records and dailies, Thakur analyses the politics of displacement and resettlement due to the Sardar Sarovar dam on River Narmada as a lived experience of two ordinary Bhil men from the submergence villages in Maharashtra state across three decades from 1985–2016. He shows how the NBA-led movement acts as a form of political education for the two Bhils who assume leadership, displacing both traditional Bhil leaders and external activists to guide their community deftly to the resettlement colonies by making claims on the Indian state, and help recreate life and livelihood for themselves and their fellow Bhils in the new setting.

21In his contribution, Jonathan Galton deals with the “village in the city,” drawing on a year’s ethnographic fieldwork in a Mumbai neighborhood (the Delisle Road BDD Chawls). He reflects on how villages are represented and recreated in a contemporary urban context and how migrants themselves “speak for the village.” In particular, he examines how a “simulacrum of the village” arises from circulation migrations, through the phenomenon of Gramastha Mandals, village-run committees that buy and rent chawl (tenement) rooms to single male migrants from their own villages. Originally established in the heyday of the city’s cotton mill industry more than fifty years ago, many Gramastha Mandals’ rooms now house a third generation of migrants studying or working, mainly in the margins of the shining world of Mumbai city. They offer a window into village life and rural Maharashtra through the young men living in these rooms and perpetuate a sense of village belonging and nostalgia. Constant flows of people, money and ideas between village and chawl contribute to recreate the village in Mumbai through festivals and food practices. However, while residents claim the rooms promote an urbane egalitarianism, they are frequently exclusive spaces, created in the context of historic divisions between communities back in the village. Jonathan Galton shows that their strict eligibility criteria can have the effect of preserving and possibly reinforcing village social divisions, specifically between caste Hindus and Dalit Buddhist communities.

22The last article by Angela Eyre explores the history of Indian novels in English representing the village, through the comparison of the setting, publication and reception of two novels. She analyses the representations of one means of radical social change: the peasants’ participation in organized rebellion. Mulk Raj Anand’s The Sword and the Sickle (1942) narrates a historical uprising in Awadh in 1921–1922. Neel Mukherjee’s book, The Lives of Others (2014), alternates between describing the story of Naxalite peasant insurgency between 1967 and 1970 and one about a bourgeois family in Calcutta. An Epilogue dated 2012 connects the historical movement to present Maoist insurgencies. In both novels an outsider to the village introduces revolutionary ideas and, in both, local conditions are connected to national and global ones. Whereas The Sword and The Sickle ends with limited hope for political change within a future Independent nation state, The Lives of Others ends with despair and impending violence and the reasons for this difference are explored. While both novels have voiced peasants’ grievances in different ways, Eyre shows how some reviewers almost completely focused on the expression and legitimacy of revolutionary violence, obscuring almost completely the peasant struggles. Anand’s story was subsumed by concerns about India’s role in the Second World War, while some responses to Mukherjee’s novel condemned its representation of violence. The novels therefore raise questions not only about who speaks for the village, but also about who is listening and which voices one hears. The violent suppression of peasants’ resistance and the “slow violence” that affect, for instance, rural families starving to death are most often left unheard.

Ambedkar, B.R. 1979. “Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development.” Pp. 131–53 in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches. Vol. I. Education Department, Government of Maharashtra.

Anon. 2017. “‘Make Way Not for 2^nd Green Revolution, but for Evergreen Revolution,’ says PM Narendra Modi.” The Times of India, 26 May. Retrieved July 11, 2019, (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/​articleshow/​58856754.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst).

Bell, Michael M., Sarah E. Lloyd, and Christine Vatovec. 2010. “Activating the Countryside: Rural Power, the Power of the Rural and the Making of Rural Politics.” Sociologia Ruralis 50(3):205–24.

Bhalla, Gurmail Singha, and Gurmail Singh. 2009. “Economic Liberalisation and Indian Agriculture: A Statewise Analysis.” Economic and Political Weekly 44(52):34–44.

Bo Nielsen, Kenneth. 2018. Land Dispossession and Everyday Politics in Rural Eastern India. London; New York: Anthem Press.

Breman, Jan. 2007. The Poverty Regime in Village India: Half a Century of Work and Life at the Bottom of the Rural Economy in South Gujarat. New Delhi; Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Breman, Jan, Peter Kloos, and Ashwani Saith. 1997. The Village in Asia Revisited. Delhi/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brown, Trent. 2013. “Agrarian Crisis in Punjab and ‘Natural Farming’ as a Response.” South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies 36(2):229–42.

Brown, Trent. 2018. Farmers, Subalterns, and Activists: Social Politics of Sustainable Agriculture in India. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Burawoy, Michael. 2009. “The Global Turn: Lessons from Southern Labor Scholars and Their Labor Movements.” Work and Occupations 36(2):87–95.

Cabalion, Joël. 2014. “La Question Sociale de la Dépossession.” Mouvements 77:25–33.

Cabalion, Joël. 2013. “Des Existences Paysannes au Fil de l’Eau, Le Grand Barrage Gosikhurd et Les Déplacements de Population.” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, EHESS.

Chakravorty, Sanjoy. 2013. The Price of Land: Acquisition, Conflict, Consequence. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Corbridge, Stuart and John Harriss. 2000. Reinventing India: Liberalization, Hindu Nationalism and Popular Democracy. Cambridge, England: Policy Press.

D’Costa, Anthony and Achin Chakraborty, eds. 2017. The Land Question in India: State, Dispossession, and Capitalist Transition. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Deshpande, R.S. and Saroj Arora, eds. 2010. Agrarian Crisis and Farmer Suicides. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Dorin, Bruno. 2018. Mission ZBNF Andhra: Illustrated Mission Report. New Delhi: Centre de Sciences Humaines.

Dube, S.C. 1967. Indian Village. New York; Evanston: Harper & Row.

Dumont, Louis and David F. Pocock. 1957. “Village Studies.” Contributions to Indian Sociology 1:23–41.

Dumont, Louis. 1980. Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and Its Implications. Translated by M. Sainsbury et al. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press.

Durkheim, Emile. 1897. Le Suicide. Etude de Sociologie. Paris: Alcan.

Establet, Roger. 2002. “Le suicide en Inde au Début du XXIe Siècle.” Sociologie 3(2):117–43.

Fuller, C.J. 1993. “Misconceiving the Grain Heap: A Critique of the Concept of the Indian Jajmani System. Pp. 33–63 in Money and the Morality of Exchange, edited by J. Parry and M. Bloch. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Gallo, Ester. 2015. “Village Ethnography and Kinship Studies: Perspectives from India and Beyond.” Critique of Anthropology 35(3):248–62.

Ganti, Tejaswini. 2012. Producing Bollywood: Inside the Contemporary Hindi Film Industry. Durham: Duke University Press.

Halbwachs, Maurice. 2002. Les Causes du Suicide. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Hall, Peter A. and Michèle Lamont. 2013. Social Resilience in The Neoliberal Era. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Harriss-White, Barbara and S. Janakarajan, eds. 2004. Rural India Facing the 21^st Century: Essays on Long Term Village Change and Recent Development Policy. London; New York: Anthem Press.

Heley, Jess and Laura Jones. 2012. “Relational Rurals: Some Thoughts on Relating Things and Theory in Rural Studies.” Journal of Rural Studies 28(3):208–17.

Jha, Himanshu Praveen and Gerry Rodgers, eds. 2016. The Changing Village in India: Insights from Longitudinal Research. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Jaffrelot, Christophe. 2018. “Le Capitalisme de Connivence en Inde sous Narendra Modi.” Les Etudes du CERI, Study No. 237. Retrieved July 18, 2018 (http://www.scuebcesoi.fr/​ceri/​fr/​content/​le-capitalism-de-connivence-en-inde-sous-narendra-modi).

Jodhka, Surinder S. 2016. “Revisiting the Rural in 21^st Century India.” Economic and Political Weekly 51(26–27):5–7.

Jodhka, Surinder S. 2012. “Agrarian Changes in the Times of (Neo-Liberal) ‘Crises’: Revisiting Attached Labour in Haryana.” Economic and Political Weekly 47(26–27):5–13.

Jodhka, Surinder S. 2007. Who Will Speak for the Village? Agrarian Change and Marginalizing Ruralities in Contemporary India. Presented at Department of Sociology: University of Pune.

Jodhka, Surinder S. 2006. “Caste and Democracy: Assertion and Identity Among the Dalits of Rural Punjab.” Sociological Bulletin 55(1):4–23.

Jodhka, Surinder S. and Paul D’Souza. 2009. “Rural and Agrarian Studies.” Pp. 118–84 in Sociology and Social Anthropology in India, edited by Y. Atal. New Delhi: Pearson Education.

Khadse, Ashlesha, Peter Rosset, Helda Morales, and Bruce G. Ferguson. 2018. “Taking Agroecology to Scale: The Zero Budget Natural Farming Peasant Movement in Karnataka, India.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 45(1):192–219.

Kumar, Richa. 2016. Rethinking Revolutions: Soybean, Choupals, and the Changing Countryside in Central India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Laferté, Gilles. 2014. “Des Études Rurales à l’Analyse des Espaces Sociaux Localisés.” Sociologie 5(4):423–39.

Lagrave, Rose-Marie. 1980. Le Village Romanesque. Le Paradou: Éditions Actes Sud.

Landy, Frédéric. 2011. “Une Majorité Délaissée? La Situation Ambiguë des Campagnes de l’Inde.” Pp. 229–48 in Dynamiques des Espaces Ruraux dans le Monde, edited by M. Guibert and Y. Jean. Paris: Armand Colin.

Lerche, Jens, Alpa Shah, and Barbara Harriss-White. 2013. “Introduction: Agrarian Questions and Left Politics in India.” Journal of Agrarian Change 13(3):337–50.

Levien, Michael. 2012. “The Land Question: Special Economic Zones and the Political Economy of Dispossession in India.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 39(3–4):933–69.

Madan, Vandana. 2012. The Village in India. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Marriott, McKim, ed. 1955. Village India: Studies in the Little Community. Chicago: University Chicago Press.

Mishra, Srijit. 2014. “Farmers’ Suicides in India, 1995–2012: Measurement and Interpretation.” LSE ARC Working Papers, Working Paper 62.

Mishra, Srijit and Narasimha D. Reddy. 2010. “Economic Reforms, Small Farmer Economy and Agrarian Crisis.” Pp. 43–69 in Agrarian Crisis and Farmer Suicides, edited by R. S. Deshpande and S. Arora. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Münster, Daniel. 2014. “A Letter to Subhash Palekar, Natural Farmer.” RCC Perspectives 6:23–26.

Münster, Daniel. 2016. “Agro-Ecological Double Movements? Zero Budget Natural Farming and Alternative Agricultures After the Neoliberal Crisis in Kerala.” Pp. 222–44 in Critical Perspectives on Agrarian Transition: India in the Global Debate, edited by B. B. Mohanty. New Delhi: Routledge.

Münster, Daniel and Ursula Münster. 2012. “Consuming the Forest in an Environment of Crisis: Nature Tourism, Forest Conservation and Neoliberal Agriculture in South India.” Development and Change 43(1):205–27.

Münster, Daniel. 2012. “Farmers’ Suicides and the State in India: Conceptual and Ethnographic Notes from Wayanad, Kerala.” Contributions to Indian Sociology 46(1–2):181–208.

Omvedt, Gail. 2005. “Farmer’s Movements and the Debate on Poverty and Economic Reforms in India.” Pp. 179–202 in Social Movements in India: Poverty, Power, and Politics, edited by R. Ray and M. F. Katzenstein. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Rao, Niranjan G. and D. Narasimha Reddy, eds. 2008. Rural Transformation: Perspectives from Village Studies in Andhra Pradesh. Delhi: Danish Books.

Rao, Shakuntala. 2007. “The Globalization of Bollywood: An Ethnography of Non-Elite Audiences in India.” The Communication Review 10(1):57–76.

Reddy, D. Narasimha and Srijit Mishra, eds. 2009. Agrarian Crisis in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Selim, Samah. 2004. The Novel and the Rural Imaginary in Egypt, 1880–1985. New York: Routledge/Curzon.

Simpson, Edward. 2016. “Village Restudies: Trials and Tribulations.” Economic and Political Weekly 51(26–27):33–42.

Singh, Manmohan. 2011. “PM’s Address at 83^rd Foundation Day of ICAR.” July 16. Retrieved July 11, 2019 (http://www.pib.nic.in/​newsite/​erelcontent.aspx?relid=73296).

Srinivas, Mysore Narasimhachar, ed. 1955. India’s Villages. Bombay; Calcutta; New Delhi; Madras; Lucknow; London; New York: Asia Publishing House.

Sud, Nikita. 2014. “The Men in the Middle: A Missing Dimension in Global Land Deals.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 41(4):593–612.

Thakur, Manish K. 2013. “Of ‘Village Studies’ and the ‘Village’: A Disputed Legacy.” Sociological Bulletin 62(1):138–51.

Thivet, Delphine. 2014. “Chapitre 4. La Vía Campesina et l’Appropriation de l’Agroécologie.” Pp. 75–92, in Dynamiques des Agricultures Biologiques. Effets de Contexte et Appropriations, edited by A. Cardona, F. Chrétien, B. Leroux, F. Ripoll, and D. Thivet. Versailles: Editions Quæ.

Vasavi, A.R. 2012. Shadow Space: Suicides and the Predicament of Rural India. Gurgaon: Three Essays Collective.

Woods, Michael. 2003. “Deconstructing Rural Protest: The Emergence of a New Social Movement.” Journal of Rural Studies 19:309–25.

Woods, Michael. 2011. Rural. Oxon: Routledge.