Abstract
We seek to clarify some of the issues raised by Chris Philo [(1993), Journal of Rural Studies 9, 429–436] in his reply to our paper entitled ‘Rural studies: modernism, postmodernism and the ‘post-rural’’ [Murdoch, J. and Pratt, A.C. (1993), Journal of Rural Studies 9, 411–427]. We argue that a sociology of postmodernism would allow orthodox sociological tools to be used in the analysis of a changing social situation. These tools should be used reflexively and should be employed to show how the rural is the outcome of multiple sets of power relations. Sociological and geographical analyses can also be considered as social processes which give rise to particular conceptions of the rural. Thus, the practice of rural studies is also the practice of power.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
