Pergamon 0743-0167(95)00046-1 Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 69 78, 1996 Copyright (~) 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved (1743-(1167/96 $15.1)(t + 0.(14) Discourses of Rurality: Loose Talk or Social Struggle? Andy C. Pratt Department of Geography, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, U.K. Abstract -- This paper is critical of the existing usage of 'rural' and 'rurality'. It does not simply dismiss the terms as either irrelevant, wrong, or as a chaotic conception. The paper attempts to plot the implications, and account for the existence, of a multiplicity of meanings of the term 'rurality'. Rather than adjudicating on the 'right' or 'wrong' use of the term it is suggested that the disputation over the use and meaning of the term 'rurality' demonstrates the rupture of sign and signification that has been discussed in debates concerning ideology and hegemony, and more recently post-structuralism. The paper argues in favour of a productive dialogue between Gramscian notions of political struggle and post-structuralist concerns with language and meaning. It is suggested that a more adequate explanation of social change should be sensitive to the multiple discourses that constitute our 'reality' ('urban' or 'rural'), and the resources that are mobilised in their favour. Introduction This is an exploratory paper which offers an indicative discussion of the value of incorporating some recent theoretical and methodological devel- opments with regard to the analysis of texts (language, pictures, etc.) into debates about the transformation of the rural in contemporary societies. The aim of this paper is to focus specifi- cally upon the usage of rurality. The term gained common usage in the U.K. linked with locality in the early 1980s. Whilst locality did, after much debate, gain some credibility and international attention, the term rurality continues to attract dispute. In fact the term was first dismissed as a 'chaotic conception' by Urry (1984) in the book Locality and Rurality edited by Bradley and Lowe (1984) that, ironically, did much to popularise the use of both terms. However, as readers of the Journal of Rural Studies will be well aware the term rurality has refused to lie down and die. In spite of the protestations of writers such as Hoggart (1990), the term is as popular as ever (see Halfacree, 1993). The latest turn in the debate, one which seems to have breathed new life into it, is that related to discussions of post-modernity and post- structuralism. The debate has developed very quickly; perhaps too quickly (Philo, 1992; Philo, 1993; Murdoch and Pratt, 1994; Murdoch and Pratt, 1995; Halfacree, 1995; Jones, 1995; Cloke et al., 1995; Cloke and Little, in press). What I want to do in this paper is to slow the pace of development by looking back to the period of transition between more traditional discussions of rurality and the post- modern and post-structuralist versions. I want to argue that there are some important intermediate steps; and, that the break is not as clear or as clean as it is often presented. In short, I want to argue for a continuing dialogue between late-Marxian debates and those of the post-modern and post-structural. With these points in mind this paper is careful to not simply dismiss rurality as either irrelevant, wrong, or a chaotic conception. Instead it considers the impli- cations, and accounts for the existence, of a multi- plicity of meanings of the term rurality. Rather than adjudicating on the 'right' or 'wrong' use of the term the paper suggests that the disputation over the use of the term demonstrates the rupture of sign and signification, or word and fixed meaning, that has been recently discussed in debates concerning post- structuralism. The argument presented in this paper does not support a blind acceptance of post- 69