Advertisement

Rural Milieus in East-Central Europe — Gendered Attitudes to Post-modern Values

  • Éva G. Fekete
Part of the New Geographies of Europe book series (NGE)

Abstract

Post-modern societies are often considered to be connected with a strong appreciation of nature, culture and safety (Soule and Lease 1995, Sellamna 1999). The environmental and social aspects of economies are gaining in importance and the adoption of information technology is reducing the importance of physical distance. These processes are part of post-modernisation and may lead to a change in the assessment of under-development, especially in rural peripheries. While new societal framework conditions have the potential to create a new developmental path, rural peripheries often find themselves in a dual cultural trap. On the one hand, rural policies in remote or structurally weak regions often adhere to the paradigm of modernisation, while rural economies find it difficult to compete since they are frequently far from the market, below the threshold of economy of scale and lack skilled labour and financial and social capital. With regard to assets like unspoilt nature or cultural heritage the regions might have more potential for following a post-modern path of development, however local actors are often not ready. Against this backdrop it is a key hypothesis of this chapter that the transformation of societal values in a globalised world also offers favourable opportunities, in particular for the less developed areas in East-Central Europe.

Keywords

Rural Development Healthy Food Female Preference Rural Woman Food Sovereignty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Acker, J. (1990), Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations. Gender & Society, June 1990, 4, 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aylesworth, G. (2005), Postmodernism, in Zalta, Edward N. (eds), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/postmodernism, (accessed 11 November 2014).Google Scholar
  3. Baracs, G. E. (1997), A nők és a mezőgazdaság (Women and agriculture), In T. Kovács (eds) A fenntartható mezőgazdaságtól a vidékfejlesztésig, IV. Falukonferencia (Pécs: MTA Regionális Kutatások Központja), 465–468.Google Scholar
  4. Baudrillard, J. (1981), For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign (St. Louis, MO.: Telos Press).Google Scholar
  5. Bauman, Z. (1992), Intimations of Postmodernity (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
  6. Berényi, I. (1997), A szociálgeográfia értelmezése (The interpretation of social geography). (Budapest: Eötvös Kiadó).Google Scholar
  7. Boutilier, R. (2005), Views of Sustainable Development: A Typology of Stakeholders’ Conflicting Perspectives. New Horizons in Research on Sustainable Organisations, Simon Fraser University. Canada: Greenleaf Publishing, 21–37.Google Scholar
  8. Burton, J. (1990), Conflict: Human Needs Theory (New York: St. Martins Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cloke, P. and Little, J. (eds) (1997), Contested Countryside Cultures: Otherness, Marginalisation, and Rurality. (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
  10. Cook, P. (1990), Back to the Future: Modernity, Postmodernity and Locality (London: Unwin Hyman).Google Scholar
  11. Eisenstadt, S.N. (2000), Multiple Modernities. Daedalus, 129(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
  12. Gare, A. (1995), Postmodernism and the Environmental Crisis (New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
  13. G.Fekete É. (2009), Post-Modern Values and Rural Peripheries, in Understanding and Shaping Regions: Spatial, Social and Economic Futures. Annual Conference of Regional Studies Association. Leuven, Belgium, 2009.04.06–2009.04.08.Google Scholar
  14. G.Fekete É.. (2010), The Role of Women in the Development of Rural Areas in a Post-Socialist Hungary. Analele Universitatii de Vest Din Timisoara Seria Geografie, 19, 27–38.Google Scholar
  15. G.Fekete É. (2011), A természet, kultúra és részvétel alapú posztmodern fejlődés helyi társadalmi feltételei elmaradott rurális térségekben (Conditions of Rural Communities for post-Modern (Nature, Culture and Social Participation Based) Revitalization of Rural Spaces) Final Study of OTKA 72743 (Manuscript) (Miskolc: Észak-magyarországi Regionális Kutatásokért Alapítvány).Google Scholar
  16. Giddens, A. (1991), The Consequences of Modernity (Cambridge: Polity Press).Google Scholar
  17. Goubman, B. (1998), Postmodernity as the Climax of Modernity: Horizons of the Cultural Future. Philosophy of Culture Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, in Boston, Massachusetts from August 10–15, 1998. Article 4.Google Scholar
  18. Habermas, J. (1987), The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Frederick Lawrence (trans., (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  19. Harrison, D. (1988), The Sociology of Modernization and Development. (London: Unwin Hyman).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harvey, D. (1989), The Condition of Postmodernity. (London: Basil Blackwell).Google Scholar
  21. Hicks, S. R. C. (2004), Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault. (Tempe, New Berlin: Scholargy Publishing).Google Scholar
  22. van Hoven, B. (2001), Women at Work — Experiences and Identity in Rural East Germany. Area, 1, 38–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Inglehart, R. (1997), Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  24. Inglehart, R. (2000), Globalization and Postmodern Values. The Washington Quarterly, 23(1), 215–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Inglehart, R. and Abramson, P. (1999), Measuring Postmaterialism. American Political Science Review, September 1999, 665–77.Google Scholar
  26. Inglehart, R. and Baker W.E. (2000), Modernization, Cultural Change and the Persistence of Traditional Values. American Sociological Review, 65(1), 19–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jameson, F. (1991), Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press).Google Scholar
  28. Korf, B. and Oughton, E. (2006), Rethinking the European Countryside — Can We Learn from the South? Journal of Rural Studies, 3, 278–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Little, J. and Jones, O. (2000), Masculinity, Gender and Rural Policy. Rural Sociology, 65(4), 621–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Little, J. and Panelli, R. (2003), Gender Research in Rural Geography. Gender, Place and Culture, 10(3), 281–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lyotard, J.-F. (1984), The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Manchester: Manchester University Press).Google Scholar
  32. Lyotard, J.-F. (1988), The Difference: Phrases in Dispute (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).Google Scholar
  33. Macionis, J. J. and Gerber, L. M. (2011), Sociology. Chapter 24: Social Change: Traditional, Modern, and Postmodern Societies. Seventh Canadian Edition with MySocLab (Toronto: Pearson Education Canada).Google Scholar
  34. Meenai, Z. (2003), Empowering Rural Women: An Approach to Empowering Women through Credit-Based Self-Help Groups (Delhi: Aakar Books).Google Scholar
  35. Murdoch, J. and Pratt, A. C. (1993), Rural Studies: Modernism, Postmodernism and the ‘Post-Rural’. Journal of Rural Studies, 9(4), 411–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Perkins, E. (1996), ‘Feminist Ecological Economics and the Growth of Local Economies’. Paper presented at the Summer Conference on Feminist Economics of the International Association for Feminist Economics, American University, Washington DC, June 1996. http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/jshackel/iaffe/papers/Perkins.html, (accessed 11 November 2014).Google Scholar
  37. Prügl, E. (2011), Transforming Masculine Rule: Agriculture and Rural Development in the European Union (University of Michigan Press).Google Scholar
  38. Quintanilla Barba, C. (rapp.) (2010), Rural Women in Europe. Parliamentery Assembly, (Strasbourg: Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men), http://www.assembly.coe.int.Google Scholar
  39. Ray, C. (1994), Culture, Intellectual Property and Territorial Rural Development’. Sociologia Ruralis, 38(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sachs, W. (eds) (1992), The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power (London: Zed Books).Google Scholar
  41. Santrock, J.W. (2007), A Topical Approach to Life-Span Development (New York: McGraw-Hill).Google Scholar
  42. Schumacher, E.F. (1991), A kicsi szép. Tanulmányok egy emberközpontú közgaz-daságtanról. Budapest: Közgazdasági és Jogi Kiadó).Google Scholar
  43. Sellamna, N-E. (1999), Relativism in Agricultural Research and Development: Is Participation a Postmodern Concept? Working Paper 119, August 1999 (London: Overseas Development Institute).Google Scholar
  44. Shortall, S. and Bock, B. (2014), Introduction: Rural Women in Europe: The Impact of Place and Culture on Gender Mainstreaming the European Rural Development Programme. Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography. 10.1080/0966369X.2014.917819Google Scholar
  45. Soule, M. E. and Lease, G. (eds) (1995), Reinventing Nature? Responses to Postmodern Deconstruction (Washington, DC: Island Press).Google Scholar
  46. Sultana, A. (2011), Patriarchy and Women’s Subordination: A Theoretical Analysis. The Arts Faculty Journal, July 2010–June 2011, 1–18.Google Scholar
  47. Timár, J. (2004), Gendered Urban Policy-Making: The Role of Geographical Scale in Women’s Participation in Hungarian Local Governments, in G. Cortesi, F. Cristaldi and F. Droogleever (eds), Gendered Cities. Identities, Activities, Networks a Life-Course Approach (Rome: Societa Geografica Italiana), 227–243.Google Scholar
  48. Vattimo, G. (1988), The End of Modernity: Nihilism and Hermeneutics in Postmodern Culture. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press).Google Scholar
  49. Wallerstein, E. (1983), A modern világgazdasági rendszer kialakulása. (Budapest: Gondolat Kiadó).Google Scholar
  50. Woods, M. (2011), Rural (London, New York: Routledge).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Éva G. Fekete 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Éva G. Fekete

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations