Working Group 2.7

Beyond the Boundaries - Exploring the Rural in Contested Contexts

Convenors: Sisko Telinkangas,University of Tampere, sisko.telinkangas@luukku.com (contact person)
Charles Geisler, Cornell University

 Marginality can be understood as being outside of both spatial and social relationships. Stereotypic definitions may contain either idealisation, or they may add negative value to those living far away from population centres, as if they were ‘a part of nature’. A remote village can have a low tolerance for social difference or spatial heterogeneity. Different people can be excluded at different times and in different social circumstances. Inclusions and exclusions may be rooted in particular histories, or they might be a localised account of the issues. Is the increase in tolerance only a fallacy and being a citizen of a welfare state the standard way to be? Should marginality be seen as a state of possibility, and not only as a state of deprivation? Is marginalisation a power play that justifies inequality and a disadvantaged status or robs “others” of the right to define and name themselves?

This Working Group will examine the concepts ‘margin’, ‘marginality’ and ‘other’ with a critical eye. The research methods that are normally used may fail to get to grips with the complexities of the remote countryside, multi-problem communities or marginal groups and individuals in the countryside. What are the significant characteristics of the studied communities? How do they influence the character of the research of those communities? Following from this, we can question the role of the research methods. Marginality also varies according to the understanding and the perceptive abilities and comprehension between the observer and the person observed.

The Working Group will concern itself with those areas of rural entrepreneurial activity which are perceived as ‘other’, in that they exist at the margins of business and at the boundaries of entrepreneurship and rural research. Entrepreneurship at and beyond the margins gives scope for entrepreneurial behaviour in formal/informal, legal/illegal, ethical/unethical, socially inclusive/exclusive modes. These activities are difficult to classify, can be extremely difficult to research and are subject to a level of ethical and moral scrutiny not associated with research into more mainstream entrepreneurial behaviour; yet they may offer scope for genuine innovation in ways which can become ‘mainstream’ entrepreneurship or contribute to it, because over time the boundaries will shift to accommodate or exclude such activities. In addition to different kinds of third sector economic activities, some of the following may also be included: Scientific research and innovation beyond legal frameworks; entrepreneurial activity within cultures, countries or groups where this is proscribed; illegal forms of labour organisation; proselytising by cults and religions; street trading and gang businesses; gang masters and immigrant labour and/or international trading, money laundering, smuggling and counterfeiting; drug/narcotic cultivation and distribution; pornography/sex working and prostitution. The examination of such activities may lead to provocative questions and answers and potentially radical solutions for societies: What is ‘rural business’? What is not ‘rural business’? Is entrepreneurship a moral or ethical concept? What are the ethical frameworks within which rural entrepreneurs, researchers and educators operate? Whose morality are we concerned with?

Curtailing property rights is a potent way to disentitle people. There is a strong tie between ‘alienisation’, forced ‘othering’, often through criminalisation or attribution of a national security threat, and alienation of property, that is, legal expropriation of possessions. The assets of ‘menacing’ strangers are thereby reduced, their status diminished, and their threat to those with property self-fulfilled. Curtailment of property rights varies across societies, but typically assumes various forms: punitive regulation, seizure, and invisibilisation/delegitimation of property norms. Immigrant and migrant populations, for whom entitlement is precarious, are often the target-object of such alienisation and dispossession.

We welcome empirical papers on any issue related to the general theme of contested activities and contexts in a rural setting, but also welcome theoretical papers which examine the issues alluded to above. Papers are invited from a wide variety of academic practitioners, spanning differing disciplines of rural research.

A panel could be used to discuss property rights. If you are interested in participating in such a panel, please let us know concurrently with sending in your abstract.