The Economic and Social Review, Vol. 29, No. 3, July, 1998, pp. 233-257
A Community of Communities? Similarity and
Difference i n Welsh R u r a l Community Studies
GRAHAM DAY
University of Wales,
Bangor
Abstract: Work in the community studies tradition has been accused of perpetuating a static,
over-integrated conception of community. Recent critics of communitarian thought similarly
attack the idea of community for its exclusiveness, and for privileging unity over difference. A
review of the classic Welsh rural community studies shows that although much in them supports
these claims, they also allow an alternative conception of communities as loosely structured
networks lending themselves to subtle distinctions and flexible boundaries. This less repressive
version of community is endorsed by recent accounts of the social construction of community in
the context of changing rural social relations.
I INTRODUCTION
T
he w o r k produced by sociologists and anthropologists w i t h i n the genre
of c o m m u n i t y studies has never been p a r t i c u l a r l y easy to absorb i n t o
the m a i n s t r e a m of social theory and analysis. One reason often suggested for
t h i s is t h a t t h e w o r k i t s e l f has failed to be sufficiently c u m u l a t i v e ( K e n t ,
1981, p. 37; Crow and A l l a n , 1994, p . 195); whatever t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l m e r i t s ,
t h e various studies do not display enough c o n t i n u i t y and c o m p a r a b i l i t y to
allow useful generalisation, of the k i n d t h a t has been regarded w i d e l y as the
end goal of the social sciences. A l t h o u g h attempts have been made from t i m e
to t i m e to place t h e m w i t h i n some i n t e g r a t i n g theoretical f r a m e w o r k — for
example, W a r r e n (1963) and Stein (1964) i n the USA, Frankenberg (1966) i n
t h e U K — t h i s has owed more u s u a l l y to the i m p o s i t i o n of some predeter­
m i n e d perspective such as "bureaucratisation" or "modernisation" d e r i v e d
from the outside t h a n to any coherent i n t e r p r e t a t i o n generated from w i t h i n
t h e studies themselves. T h e i r value has been r a t h e r as case studies, to
provide relevant i l l u s t r a t i o n s , to suggest possible lines of exploration, and to
add some richness o f observation to the sociological diet. Consequently there
has t e n d e d to be a w i l l i n g endorsement o f R u t h Glass's somewhat g l i b
dismissal o f t h e c o m m u n i t y study as the sociologist's inadequate substitute
for the novel (Glass, 1966, p . 148).
W h e n t i m e has been found to pay serious a t t e n t i o n to the actual content o f
c o m m u n i t y studies, t h e n a p r e t t y consistent and very damaging set of critical
points have been made about i t , h a r m f u l enough to b r i n g about a l e n g t h y
p e r i o d d u r i n g w h i c h t h e y were l a r g e l y ignored. The recent resurgence o f
i n t e r e s t i n ideas o f c o m m u n i t y (Crow and A l l a n , 1994), l i n k e d i n p a r t to the
rise o f ideas o f c o m m u n i t a r i a n i s m , has b r o u g h t w i t h i t some e m p h a t i c
restatements of essentially t h i s orthodox critique, w h i c h is encapsulated w e l l
i n W r i g h t ' s v e r d i c t ( W r i g h t , 1992, p. 202) t h a t "the representation of com­
m u n i t y i n t h e studies was a h i s t o r i c a l ; i t relied on a model o f f u n c t i o n a l
e q u i l i b r i u m ; a n d i t could not cope w i t h change". T h i s comment is f a m i l i a r
e n o u g h n o t t o r e q u i r e m u c h e l a b o r a t i o n . R u r a l c o m m u n i t y studies i n
p a r t i c u l a r have been accused again and again of depicting the c o m m u n i t y as
a well-defined, r e l a t i v e l y self-contained e n t i t y , small i n size, and m a r k e d by
a n i n n e r coherence and s t r u c t u r a l consistency, t h a t behaves i n a system-like
w a y to m a i n t a i n the status quo and resist external pressures for change (for
example, B e l l and N e w b y , 1971; H a r p e r , 1989; Rapport, 1993, pp. 32-33).
S i m i l a r statements have been made about sociological accounts of small-town
communities, such as the classic "Yankee City" studies (Warner et al., 1963)
a n d Stacey's o r i g i n a l w o r k on B a n b u r y (Stacey, 1960) and they w o u l d also
apply, to some degree, to w e l l - k n o w n studies of w o r k i n g class communities,
m i n i n g villages etc. (Young and W i l m o t t , 1962; Dennis et al., 1969).
I t is t h i s image, or i d e a l , of c o m m u n i t y w h i c h is reproduced, and c h a l ­
lenged, i n some more recent responses to t h e g r o w t h of c o m m u n i t a r i a n
sentiments a n d practices i n B r i t a i n and the USA. A recent review notes the
fears w h i c h have been expressed t h a t any movement founded on a concern for
c o m m u n i t y life is l i a b l e to "degenerate i n t o some form of Fascist a u t h o r i ­
t a r i a n i s m " ( T a m , 1998, p. 32), w h i l e , i n a n i n f l u e n t i a l paper, I r i s M a r i o n
Y o u n g has attacked t h e ideal of c o m m u n i t y as i t is presented i n democratic
socialist p o l i t i c a l t h o u g h t , on t h e grounds t h a t i t "privileges u n i t y over
difference, immediacy over mediation, sympathy over recognition of the l i m i t s
of one's u n d e r s t a n d i n g of others from t h e i r p o i n t of view" (1990, p. 300).
Y o u n g has t h e u n u s u a l , i f n o t u n i q u e , d i s t i n c t i o n o f f i n d i n g a p o l i t i c a l
p o s i t i o n f r o m w h i c h i t is permissible to be "against" c o m m u n i t y (pace
W i l l i a m s , 1977, p. 112).
I n a more complete expression o f her objections, i n w h i c h we can see clear
echoes o f the charges t h a t have been levelled at the c o m m u n i t y studies
l i t e r a t u r e , she makes the following claims:
Insofar as the ideal of c o m m u n i t y entails p r o m o t i n g a model of face-toface relations as best, i t devalues and denies difference i n the form of
t e m p o r a l and spatial distancing. The ideal of a society consisting of
decentralised face-to-face communities is undesirably Utopian i n several
ways. I t fails to see t h a t alienation and violence are not only a function
of mediation of social relations b u t also can and do exist i n face-to-face
relations. ... The ideal of c o m m u n i t y ... totalises and detemporalises its
conception of social life ... I t provides no understanding of the move from
here to there t h a t w o u l d be rooted i n an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the contra­
dictions and possibilities of existing society. (Young, 1990, p. 302.)
W h i l e Young's analysis is projected forwards, to the future realisation of an
ideal, and is therefore addressed to the rhetoric of c o m m u n i t y r a t h e r t h a n to
the n a t u r e of actually existing communities, nevertheless m u c h of w h a t she
says fits closely w i t h arguments t h a t have been attached to sociological
representations of the realities of community. They also have been accused of
f a i l i n g to recognise the existence of conflict and division w i t h i n communities,
presenting instead a false impression of consensus and harmony, a n d there­
fore have been seen as incapable of p r o v i d i n g any explanation for change
other t h a n as a result of exogenous contingencies (Gibbon, 1973; Day, 1979).
W h a t Y o u n g objects to principally is the exclusiveness i m p l i e d by notions of
c o m m u n i t y . As she puts i t , the "desire for u n i t y or wholeness i n discourse
generates borders, dichotomies, and exclusions" (Young, 1990, p. 301) w h i c h
can lead to a forced homogeneity. T h u s the attempt to embody the discourse
of c o m m u n i t y i n f e m i n i s t and r a d i c a l p o l i t i c a l organisations is seen as
b r i n g i n g about u n w a n t e d exclusions, since any definition of w h a t members
have i n common necessarily implies some form of closure against "outsiders".
Y o u n g advocates instead a politics of difference, a vision of "inexhaustible
heterogeneity" and "irreducible p a r t i c u l a r i t y " of the k i n d w h i c h she considers
can be experienced between strangers i n the life of the city. T h i s contrast is
replicated elsewhere, more b l u n t l y , i n the assertion t h a t "community is about
closed systems and reified relations, a n d city, about openness and change.
T h i s difference is predicated u p o n d i f f e r e n t l i f e - w o r l d s a n d modes of
appropriating space". (McBeath and Webb, 1997, p. 249.)
There is no question b u t t h a t Y o u n g identifies correctly some of the
possible dangers associated w i t h ideas of community. I n p a r t i c u l a r she notes
t h e affinity between t h i s type of understanding of community, and "the desire
for identification t h a t underlies racial and ethnic chauvinism" (Young, 1990,
p. 312), a n d hence t h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t i n t h e context o f a r a c i s t a n d
c h a u v i n i s t i c society, appeals to c o m m u n i t y may be used to validate such
impulses. However, Young's argument is flawed by her readiness to a t t r i b u t e
a single m e a n i n g to the t e r m c o m m u n i t y , as i f there was only one w a y i n
w h i c h i t could be i n t e r p r e t e d . E v e n w i t h i n the l i m i t e d sphere of social
democratic thought, t h i s is an u n l i k e l y proposition. Furthermore, there r u n s
t h r o u g h her discussion the sort of confusion between normative and factual
claims about c o m m u n i t y t h a t has constantly bedevilled the use of the t e r m i n
sociology, despite t h e efforts of w r i t e r s l i k e B e l l a n d N e w b y (1976) t o
d i s t i n g u i s h our knowledge of w h a t community is from our beliefs about w h a t
we w o u l d l i k e i t to be. Other critiques of c o m m u n i t a r i a n ideas from a s i m i l a r
stance to Young's challenge precisely t h i s tendency to elide description w i t h
prescription i n m a n y of the accounts offered (Frazer and Lacey, 1993, p. 141).
T h i s begs t h e question of how w e l l grounded the normative claims are i n the
"facts" of c o m m u n i t y .
T h e r e m a i n d e r of t h i s paper draws upon c o m m u n i t y studies conducted
w i t h i n r u r a l Wales to see to w h a t extent they conform to Young's charac­
terisation, a n d to determine whether i t is possible to construct from t h e m an
alternative, less repressive, understanding of community t h a n t h a t w h i c h has
been discussed so far. I t w i l l be suggested t h a t the Welsh studies represent a
coherent body of w o r k from w h i c h useful lessons can be learned. I t is not
presumed t h a t t h e y are u n i q u e i n t h i s respect; indeed, t h e r e are m a n y
parallels a n d points of comparison w i t h w o r k done i n I r e l a n d , Scotland and
r u r a l E n g l a n d over the same t i m e period, some of w h i c h have been h i g h ­
l i g h t e d elsewhere (Frankenberg, 1966; Day, 1979). A systematic comparison
and contrast of a l l these studies is beyond the scope of t h i s discussion. N o r is
the i n t e n t i o n here to reverse our u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the classic c o m m u n i t y
studies: the criticisms w h i c h have been made of t h e m are w e l l founded, and
i n c e r t a i n instances (Arensberg a n d K i m b a l l , 1940; Rees, 1950) can be
endorsed wholeheartedly (see for example Brody, 1973; Day, 1979). B u t i n
other cases, t h e orthodox c r i t i q u e i t s e l f can be seen as a p a r t i a l reading,
w h i c h does not do justice to the subtlety and sophistication of some of the
t r a d i t i o n a l analyses, w h i l e more recent studies can be shown to have moved
beyond the l i m i t a t i o n s of the earlier approaches into a very different k i n d of
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n (Cohen, 1985; Crow and A l l a n , 1994; M u r d o c h and Day, 1995).
I I RURAL WALES — C O M M U N I T Y W I T H O U T DIFFERENCE?
R a y m o n d W i l l i a m s described how w h i l e g r o w i n g up i n his Welsh border
village he acquired a set of assumptions about the meaning of community, as
e n t a i l i n g a recognition of certain forms of m u t u a l responsibility a n d social
obligation towards those who occupied the same place, w h i c h he later came to
appreciate as common property throughout a very wide area of W e l s h social
t h o u g h t (Williams, 1977, p. 113). These assumptions have been t r a n s m i t t e d to
a w i d e r audience, at least i n part, t h r o u g h the m e d i u m of W e l s h c o m m u n i t y
studies.
B r i t i s h r u r a l sociology m i g h t be said v i r t u a l l y to originate i n r u r a l Wales.
For a b r i e f period, Welsh scholars were at the forefront of the e x a m i n a t i o n of
r u r a l social issues, and t h e i r ideas and approach h a d a formative influence on
m a n y of t h e i r successors. F r o m t h e i r base i n the Geography d e p a r t m e n t of
t h e U n i v e r s i t y College of Wales, A b e r y s t w y t h , they made significant con­
t r i b u t i o n s to the development of c o m m u n i t y studies, and t h r o u g h t h i s they
helped embed c e r t a i n understandings of r u r a l life w i t h i n t h e e m e r g i n g
d i s c i p l i n e o f sociology. Subsequently, as these a s s u m p t i o n s came i n t o
question, so t h e i r w o r k was critically appraised, a n d largely excluded from
t h e centre o f sociological a t t e n t i o n . Nevertheless, t h e i r descriptions a n d
analyses of r u r a l Wales have a c o n t i n u i n g importance, b o t h as a k i n d of
yardstick against w h i c h change has often been measured, and as the explicit
a r t i c u l a t i o n of a set of values and beliefs w h i c h have been w i d e l y shared, and
r e m a r k a b l y i n f l u e n t i a l , i n d e t e r m i n i n g the policy agenda w i t h i n Wales. The
presumed n a t u r e of community plays a key role among these ideas.
A preoccupation w i t h documenting t h e social distinctiveness a n d value
of r u r a l life formed a central theme of the early W e l s h r u r a l c o m m u n i t y
studies. Those who undertook t h e m were influenced strongly by a preceding
generation of h u m a n geographers who already h a d begun to propagate an
image of r u r a l Wales as a distinct m o r a l order whose t r a d i t i o n s a n d w a y of
life preserved c u l t u r a l a n d s p i r i t u a l assets w h i c h were l a c k i n g elsewhere
(Gruffudd, 1994). As has been noted elsewhere (Day, 1979), the studies were
reticent about t h e i r theoretical standpoint. E x p l i c i t references to sociological
perspectives and concepts are few, and t h i s gives the studies the appearance
of simple, descriptive, accounts. Referring to the foundational W e l s h r u r a l
c o m m u n i t y study, Life in a Welsh Countryside by A l w y n Rees (Rees, 1950),
one of Rees's students a n d collaborators, Trefor Owen, comments t h a t i n
m a k i n g h i s s t u d y of t h e M o n t g o m e r y s h i r e v i l l a g e of L l a n f i h a n g e l - y n g N g w y n f a , Rees h a d "no p a r t i c u l a r methodological approach i n m i n d " ; w h a t
we get is an "integrated description" (Owen, 1986, p. 94). Even so, there are
clear selective p r i n c i p l e s at w o r k , a n d b e n e a t h t h e surface t h e o r e t i c a l
presuppositions can be discerned.
L l a n f i h a n g e l was chosen by Rees p a r t l y for practical reasons, b u t also
because i n his view i t occupied a particular position along the developmental
trajectory being followed by r u r a l Wales. As is common i n community studies,
life i n t h i s place is held to be at once distinct and unique, b u t also represen­
tative. A s a "relatively secluded and entirely Welsh speaking" community, the
most W e l s h of the Montgomeryshire parishes, L l a n f i h a n g e l represented a
pocket of W e l s h life t h a t was "out of touch w i t h trends i n W e l s h society"
(Rees, 1950, p . 14). Y e t at the same t i m e , i t was an exemplification of the
"essentially r u r a l c u l t u r e of Wales" (p. 108). I n his l a t e r review, O w e n
reaffirms t h i s position. He regards L l a n f i h a n g e l as both representative of
W e l s h r u r a l life at a c e r t a i n t i m e and also as an embodiment
of W e l s h
history. Hence he says " i t is difficult to find a better introduction to the r u r a l
life of Wales as a whole i n the first h a l f of the T w e n t i e t h Century" (Owen,
1986, p. 104, m y stress), w h i l e "the history of Wales, we are made to feel, bore
out Rees's findings i n his analysis of t h i s l i t t l e community". I n t h i s sense
L l a n f i h a n g e l seems less a real place w h i c h comes to life t h r o u g h Rees's
account t h a n an emblem of W e l s h distinctiveness — as Owen appears to
recognise w h e n he w r i t e s about the book's "useful generalities" and "lack of
p a r t i c u l a r i t y " . Rees's w r i t i n g is replete w i t h r e m a r k s designed to underline
the generalisability of w h a t he has to say, to other parts of r u r a l Wales, and
to other bygone times. I t s strength lies less i n the ethnographic detail t h a n i n
its i l l u s t r a t i o n s of more general assertions.
The c o m m u n i t y w h i c h Rees describes is a loosely bounded n e t w o r k of
social r e l a t i o n s h i p s spread across an ill-defined geographical space. The
absence of a centralised village settlement is said to be characteristic of r u r a l
Wales, the m a j o r i t y of the population l i v i n g i n scattered farms and cottages.
A l t h o u g h there are s m a l l clusters of public buildings, such as shops, pubs,
post offices, a n d places of w o r s h i p , the i n s t i t u t i o n s w h i c h frame social
relationships are family, neighbourhood, and religious affiliation. F a m i l y ties
are a l l pervasive, a n d are expressed i n a l l local social situations; Rees
famously cites the colloquial description t h a t they are "like a pig's entrails".
Members of the c o m m u n i t y meet one another i n a v a r i e t y of contexts, as
wholes, against a background of shared knowledge of family history, and local
i n v o l v e m e n t . M o s t are locally b o r n , a n d m a n y can trace t h e i r f a m i l y
attachment to the place back over several generations.
Life in a Welsh Countryside
does not allow the people of Llanfihangel to
speak for themselves; there are few, i f any, direct quotations. Instead Rees
gives voice for t h e m . I n his eyes, Llanfihangel constitutes "one of the most
sociable and friendly places imaginable" (Rees, 1950, p. 98). Among its people,
he claims, there is l i t t l e overt sign of discontent or conflict, and certainly no
s t r u c t u r e d social division. Members of the community know and understand
w h a t is expected of t h e m , and the l i m i t s of w h a t is permissible i n behaviour
a n d m o r a l i t y are policed, a p p a r e n t l y w i t h o u t dissent, by agents of t h e
community, such as the "lads" who are licensed to defend i t from threats from
w i t h i n as w e l l as from outside (Rees, 1950, p. 83). Conduct is governed by the
power of t r a d i t i o n , w h i c h has deep roots i n the Celtic past. Llanfihangel is
presented as a place where "the c o u n t r y m a n (sic) has continued to live i n a
w o r l d of his o w n , the standards of w h i c h differ from our i n d u s t r i a l c i v i l ­
isation" (1950, p. 30). I t is, i n short, I r i s M a r i o n Young's vision of pure hell!
As a sympathetic commentator concedes, i t appeared t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l ,
"surrounded by t h e smothering constraints of a closed and i n w a r d l o o k i n g
social system, was t o t a l l y unable to exploit his or her potential". B y contrast,
"the u r b a n w o r l d m i g h t generate anomie, b u t i t also gave t h e freedom to
experiment" (Carter, 1996, p. 7).
I n t h e absence of d e f i n i t e socio-spatial b o u n d a r i e s , t h e c o m m u n a l
solidarity of L l a n f i h a n g e l rested on "a continuous n e t w o r k of reciprocities",
revealed i n patterns of co-operation between neighbouring farms, and i n t h e
unwillingness of i n d i v i d u a l s to enter i n t o precise calculations of the terms of
t h e i r social exchanges. T h i s is made easier by the fact t h a t the community, as
depicted, is socially undifferentiated. Since the b u l k of the i n h a b i t a n t s are
employed i n small-scale f a r m i n g , Rees contends t h a t no significant i n t e r n a l
class distinctions arise. The m a i n class r e l a t i o n s h i p lies outside t h e com­
m u n i t y , connecting i t s members w i t h t h e local r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f a n
anglicised l a n d o w n i n g gentry whose w a y of life is set apart, economically,
politically and c u l t u r a l l y , from the lives of ordinary people. A m o n g the latter,
we are informed, there was l i t t l e concern w i t h "materialistic" judgements of
w e a l t h a n d power, a l t h o u g h great importance was attached to life style
characteristics such as a n u n a s s u m i n g m a n n e r , good r e p u t a t i o n , m o r a l
rectitude, and readiness to fulfil social obligations (Rees, 1950, p. 144).
As someone who regards h i m s e l f as belonging to the culture he describes,
Rees states t h a t he has struggled to gain some objective distance from i t ;
even so, t h e description is suffused w i t h value c o m m i t m e n t s , w h i c h cor­
respond fairly obviously to the anti-urban, p r o - r u r a l biases t h a t are i m p l i c i t
i n the construct of a " r u r a l idyll". Carter notes t h a t Rees's position is "entirely
engaged" (Carter, 1996, p. 3). The small Welsh r u r a l community serves as the
repository of certain i n t r i n s i c values, against w h i c h i t m u s t be judged. A n y
other judgement w h i c h relies upon external standards — such as regarding
its members as unambitious or conservative — is deemed to be unscientific
and i l l i c i t . (Rees, 1950, p. 144.)
Life in a Welsh Countryside lends itself to being regarded as an archetype
for t h a t phase of r u r a l sociology — "the halcyon days of an uncomplicated
r u r a l i s m " — d u r i n g w h i c h "researchers unfailingly sought to reconstitute an
o r i g i n a l state before t r a c i n g i t s t r a n s f o r m a t i o n and a d u l t e r a t i o n to t h e
present" (Sautter, 1990, p. 98). I t s central themes of i n t e g r a t i o n , h a r m o n y ,
a n d c o n t i n u i t y , even i f not explicitly couched i n such t e r m s , are strongly
m a r k e d by sociological functionalism, as is the readiness w i t h w h i c h a l l the
actions described, even those w h i c h to outsiders m i g h t appear to be acts of
petty maliciousness and v a n d a l i s m , i f not worse ( W r i g h t , 1992, p. 206), are
i n t e r p r e t e d as c o n t r i b u t i n g positively to the well-being of the social organism,
f o r m i n g p a r t of t h a t "completeness" of r u r a l life w h i c h enables i n d i v i d u a l s to
have such a strong and certain sense of belonging.
L i k e the e a r l i e r researchers i n I r e l a n d (Gibbon, 1973), Rees presents
h i m s e l f as h a v i n g the good fortune to witness t h i s form of life j u s t as i t was
c r u m b l i n g under the onslaught of development and "modernisation". Even i n
t h i s remote outpost o f the t r a d i t i o n a l way of life, "the l i t t l e c o m m u n i t y ...
t h r o u g h accepting c u r r e n t values and becoming p a r t o f the contemporary
economic system, is already i n the i n i t i a l stages o f the social a t o m i s a t i o n
w h i c h is general i n W e s t e r n civilization" (1950, p. 168). U l t i m a t e l y Rees was
despondent about i t s prospects of s u r v i v a l , b u t t h e loss, he felt, w o u l d be
profound, since:
T h e f a i l u r e o f t h e u r b a n w o r l d to give i t s i n h a b i t a n t s status a n d
significance i n a functioning society, and t h e i r consequent disintegration
i n t o a formless mass of rootless nonentities, should make us humble i f
p l a n n i n g a new life for t h e countryside. T h e completeness o f t h e
t r a d i t i o n a l r u r a l society — involving the cohesion of family, k i n d r e d and
n e i g h b o u r s — a n d i t s capacity to give t h e i n d i v i d u a l a sense o f
belonging, are phenomena t h a t m i g h t w e l l be pondered by a l l who seek
a better social order. (Rees, 1950, p. 170.)
T h i s conclusion is r e i t e r a t e d by Carter i n his i n t r o d u c t i o n to the recent
reissue o f t h e book, where he w r i t e s t h a t "everyone w i t h views as to the
source o f c o n t e m p o r a r y malaise w o u l d do w e l l to read Life in a Welsh
Countryside" (Carter, 1996, p. 10).
T h e r e could h a r d l y be a greater g u l f t h a n t h a t between Rees, a n d a n
exponent of the post-modern celebration of "difference" and the city such as
Young, a n d the w a y i n w h i c h Rees develops his argument lends considerable
weight to her l i n k i n g o f c o m m u n i t y w i t h forms of chauvinism. I n the Welsh
case, as Rees explains i t , the process of change was complicated by the fact
t h a t the forces involved were also synonymous w i t h anglicisation.
I t was not
j u s t the r u r a l i t y of Llanfihangel, and places like i t , t h a t was under attack,
b u t also t h e i r very Welshness. Indeed the t w o go together, i n Rees's view,
because t h e contrast between c o u n t r y a n d t o w n ( c o m m u n i t y and social
atomisation) corresponded to t h a t between the historic legacy of Welshness
on t h e one h a n d , a n d t h e i n t r u s i o n o f E n g l i s h values a n d modes o f
o r g a n i s a t i o n , such as c e n t r a l i s a t i o n a n d f o r m a l i t y , on the other. I n t h i s
M a n i c h e a n s t r u g g l e , even t h e spread o f such m o d e r n conveniences as
bathrooms brought w i t h i t the t a i n t of alien ways of living.
Rees's w o r k resonated powerfully w i t h sentiments prevalent i n Wales at
t h e t i m e , a n d i t s success s t i m u l a t e d a f u r t h e r wave o f W e l s h c o m m u n i t y
studies, done as postgraduate theses, as a result of w h i c h "a series of social
monographs was published depicting the static and family centred p a t t e r n of
r u r a l life i n Wales" (Gasson et al., 1988). R e t u r n i n g to the point made at t h e
start of t h i s paper, B e l l and Newby have questioned whether i t is possible to
d r a w any useful general conclusions from t h i s m a t e r i a l :
A n y a t t e m p t to give some u n i t y to the Welsh studies ... is prevented by
t h a t bane of c o m m u n i t y studies, non-comparability of data. I t is clear
t h a t w h i l s t these studies may be i n t r i n s i c a l l y satisfying i n t h e i r o w n
t e r m s , i t is by no means possible to synthesise t h e m i n t o s o m e t h i n g
more. T h o u g h p a r t of the same genre, they share no common framework
or theoretical position. Indeed most of t h e m lack any explicit theoretical
position and even basic descriptive i n f o r m a t i o n . (Bell and Newby, 1971,
p. 140.)
M u c h the same critique has been expressed more recently by Harper, who
refers to "a complete absence of common framework or theoretical position,
indeed most of these studies lack an i n d i v i d u a l theoretical position and t h i s
severely questions t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n to the general t h e m e o f r u r a l life."
(Harper, 1989, p. 165.) However, t h i s verdict is too harsh. There is a common
framework w h i c h unifies the A b e r y s t w y t h studies: a shared definition of t h e
essential n a t u r e of r u r a l Welsh society, w h i c h , as Harper herself notes, leans
heavily upon the conventional Gemeinschaft model of r u r a l community.
I n later publications, particular aspects and themes identified by Rees are
singled out for special attention because they are felt to focus on those t h i n g s
w h i c h h o l d t h e greatest value for members of the society (Davies a n d Rees,
1960, p. x i ) , i n c l u d i n g by i m p l i c a t i o n the various authors, who were t h e m ­
selves natives of r u r a l Wales. They present therefore an account of r u r a l
W e l s h c u l t u r e a n d social organisation as v i e w e d from w i t h i n , a n d w h i l e
each deals w i t h s l i g h t l y different issues, t h e r e is a consistency of v i s i o n
a t t r i b u t a b l e to the fact t h a t the various aspects, "although i n detail particular
to t h e i r localities, are not peculiar to t h e m . They are characteristic of r u r a l
c o m m u n i t i e s t h r o u g h o u t Wales ... The d e t a i l of one is explanatory of the
generalisation of the other" (ibid, p. x ) . T h i s statement challenges, i n the
W e l s h context, the distinction w h i c h H a r p e r draws between m a k i n g a c o n t r i ­
b u t i o n to the general understanding of r u r a l life, a n d producing p a r t i c u l a r ,
unrelated, insights i n t o "Welsh micro-culture" (Harper, 1989, p. 165). I n these
accounts, a c o m m u n i t y is a Welsh r u r a l community because i t displays these
specific characteristics, and w h e n i t ceases to do so, t h e n i t is either no longer
Welsh, or r u r a l , or more likely, both.
Thus the four reports included i n the volume on Welsh Rural
Communities
(Davies and Rees, 1960) can be regarded as a set of exploratory probes i n t o
the n a t u r e of Welsh r u r a l society, w h i c h together add up to a general p o r t r a i t
of its chief features. N o t h i n g i n these case-studies demands any fundamental
revision of Rees's description; instead, albeit w i t h some minor qualifications,
i t is reinforced, and elaborated. The centrality of the same basic relationships
is emphasised. I n Glan-llyn, Merioneth, for example, Owen informs us:
The i n t e n s i t y of social interaction w i t h i n the community, w i t h its basis
i n the i n t e r w e a v i n g of ties of k i n s h i p w i t h those of neighbourliness, co­
operation a n d j o i n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n chapel activities, has b u i l t u p a n
effective obstacle to the permeation of city ways. (Owen, 1960, p. 189.)
The same "web of reciprocity", b i n d i n g together an extensive network of small
family farms, is found i n the area surrounding the m a r k e t t o w n of Tregaron,
i n Cardiganshire, and i n Aberdaron, on the L l y n peninsula, where s t a b i l i t y
a n d i m m o b i l i t y of p o p u l a t i o n are h e l d to be necessary conditions for the
maintenance of " t r a d i t i o n a l alliances from generation to generation" (Jones
Hughes, 1960, p. 162). I n these places, people were held to be s t i l l close to a
peasant way of life whose "survivals, m a i n l y of a pre-industrial character ...
are today regarded as the h a l l m a r k s of W e l s h n a t i o n a l i t y a n d c u l t u r a l
separateness" (Jones, 1960, p. 123). The p r i n c i p a l "hallmark", of course, was
the Welsh language.
A t the t i m e of w r i t i n g , a l l the places examined were intensely Welsh, i n
l a n g u a g e a n d c u l t u r e , a n d o v e r w h e l m i n g l y nonconformist i n r e l i g i o n .
Religion figures p r o m i n e n t l y i n each analysis, the authors providing detailed
accounts of the social organisation and importance of chapel congregations
w i t h i n t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r localities. Rees's discussion of the way Welsh r u r a l
people evaluate one another is expanded upon i n E m r y s Jones's account of
Tregaron, a n d more especially i n the essay by Jenkins, who h i g h l i g h t s the
existence i n A b e r - p o r t h of status distinctions centred on contrasting ways
of life (Bucheddau)
w h i c h d i s t i n g u i s h respectable from less respectable
members of the society largely i n terms of the extent to w h i c h they conform to
norms of religious conduct (Jenkins, 1960). Once again the preface to the
volume assures us t h a t t h i s is not a merely local phenomenon, b u t "repre­
sents a fundamental social division w h i c h is more or less evident i n a l l Welsh
r u r a l communities". I t can be seen as expressive of the local c u l t u r e , as
relayed t h r o u g h the nonconformist chapel, whereas "cruder" class d i s ­
t i n c t i o n s , based on occupation and income, derive, l i k e other i n t r u s i v e
m o d e r n elements, from E n g l a n d , and represent "a p a t t e r n woven largely
outside ( w h i c h ) ... bears no relationship to earlier Welsh society." (Jones,
1960, p. 113.) This is a c l a i m w h i c h has been disputed subsequently, g i v i n g
rise to a debate on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between local "subjective" models of
stratification and objective patterns o f power and i n e q u a l i t y i n r u r a l Wales
(Day and F i t t o n , 1975; W i l l i a m s , 1978; Jenkins, 1980).
I n t h e i r t r e a t m e n t o f Welshness, these a u t h o r s c o n t r i b u t e d t o w a r d s
m a k i n g the r u r a l "a predominant and powerful metaphor i n the construction
of W e l s h n a t i o n a l i d e n t i t y " (Gruffudd, 1994, p. 33), since t h e y harnessed
conceptions o f n a t i o n a l i d e n t i t y to the features o f r u r a l life w h i c h t h e y
described. As happened elsewhere, a p a r t i c u l a r definition of the countryside
comes to serve as "the container of national i d e n t i t y and the measure o f social
change" (Short, 1991, p. 34). I t is a position reiterated, for example, i n t h e
recent strategy document of Wales R u r a l F o r u m , a n organisation dedicated to
acting at a grassroots, "community" level, where the section on C u l t u r e a n d
I d e n t i t y draws attention to:
a popular perception t h a t r u r a l communities r e m a i n the "Welsh
Heartland", providing the m a i n areas where Welsh is the major m e d i u m
o f social a n d economic i n t e r c o u r s e . T h e r e is g r e a t psychological
significance i n h a v i n g t h i s c u l t u r a l w e l l , w h i c h n o u r i s h e s a n d
replenishes the feeling of "Welshness" t h r o u g h o u t Wales. A n y t h r e a t to
t h i s resource is often seen as a t h r e a t to the very i d e n t i t y o f the W e l s h
people. (Wales R u r a l F o r u m 1994, p. 72.)
S i m i l a r l y , i n t h e i r p o r t r a y a l o f a "deeply r o o t e d c o m m u n i t y ethos
u n d e r p i n n e d by t a n g i b l e a n d i n t a n g i b l e aspects of W e l s h c u l t u r e " ( W y n
Jones, 1991), c o m m u n i t y i t s e l f comes near to b e i n g a p p r o p r i a t e d as a
distinctively W e l s h characteristic, one w h i c h can undoubtedly be exclusive, i n
t h e sense t h a t those w h o do n o t share t h e essential a t t r i b u t e s — more
specifically, who do n o t speak the language and w o r s h i p i n the chapels —
cannot t r u l y form p a r t of the society. W r i t i n g of Tregaron, Jones says t h a t
such people are destined to r e m a i n outsiders, for:
t h e p r i m a r y d i v i s i o n i n the society is between those w h o belong a n d
those who do not belong. ... A m a n who has l i v e d i n the t o w n for some
years can be a stranger, although he may have been accepted i n most
senses, and respected as a valued member o f the society. (Jones, 1960,
p. 98)
I I I RURAL WALES — COMMUNITY W I T H DIFFERENCE
These studies c e r t a i n l y leave us w i t h an impression o f r u r a l Wales t h a t
comes close to the D u r k h e i m i a n condition of mechanical solidarity, i n t h a t i t
exhibits a "social structure of determined nature", composed o f "a system of
segments homogeneous and s i m i l a r to each other" ( D u r k h e i m , 1964, p. 181).
A p p a r e n t l y each c o m m u n i t y replicates, to a greater or lesser extent, the same
basic elements, assembled i n such a way as to m a i n t a i n t h a t "order based on
settled and reciprocal social and economic relations of an avowedly t o t a l k i n d "
to w h i c h R a y m o n d W i l l i a m s has referred as characteristic of m u c h w r i t i n g
about r u r a l society ( W i l l i a m s , 1973, p. 48).
However, c o n t r a r y to some l a t e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , the boundaries of t h e
u n i t s described i n these studies are not h a r d and fast, or self contained, or
even static. Instead, the e n t i r e t y of r u r a l Wales is said to be held together by
t h e complicated i n t e r w e a v i n g o f social n e t w o r k s a n d f a m i l y relationships
w h i c h enable i n d i v i d u a l s to feel a s t r o n g sense o f belonging b o t h to a
p a r t i c u l a r place b u t also to a w i d e r c u l t u r e and society. T h i s s t r e t c h i n g o f
social bonds, from place to place, and from one social group to another, is the
basis on w h i c h r u r a l Wales can be said to form a " c o m m u n i t y o f com­
munities", a c l a i m w h i c h i n other contexts is broadened w i t h o u t difficulty to
include the i n d u s t r i a l and u r b a n communities of the South Wales valleys as
w e l l . I t also provides the basis on w h i c h i t is possible to see at least a g l i m m e r
of a chance t h a t c o m m u n i t y , after all, can be reconciled w i t h difference.
A s C r o w a n d A l l a n (1994) have shown, the conception of c o m m u n i t y as
rooted i n the organisation of social networks enables i t to be approached i n a
m u c h more f l u i d a n d d y n a m i c way. I t is characteristic o f a n e t w o r k , as
opposed t o a n o r g a n i s e d group, t h a t i t s boundaries are not precisely
delimited. Each i n d i v i d u a l or family/household u n i t stands at the centre of a
distinct, a n d unique, n e t w o r k o f its own, and consequently each occupies and
perceives a d i s t i n c t social w o r l d , many elements of w h i c h may be shared w i t h
others, b u t not a l l . Hence "community is never experienced i n a n i d e n t i c a l
w a y by everybody involved" (Crow and A l l a n , 1994, p. 183.) Because a n e t w o r k
is not closed, b u t always has the potential for f u r t h e r extension, its existence
m a y m a r g i n a l i s e c e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l s or categories, b u t w i t h o u t necessarily
excluding t h e m for ever, w h i l e the vagueness w i t h w h i c h l i m i t s are defined
creates a space for a m b i g u i t y , and for the f o r m a t i o n of new and imaginative
i d e n t i t i e s . V i e w e d i n these t e r m s , i t is i n a p p r o p r i a t e to conceptualise
c o m m u n i t i e s as d i s p l a y i n g " f i r m boundaries, fixed membership, a n d r i g i d
p a t t e r n of inclusion a n d exclusion" (Crow and A l l a n , 1994, p. 189).
T h e r e is m u c h s u p p o r t for t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e conception i n the W e l s h
examples. Thus, i n a n extraordinary reconstruction of the historical nature o f
c o m m u n i t y i n South-West Cardiganshire at the t u r n of the century, D a v i d
J e n k i n s confirms t h a t no boundaries could be d r a w n to isolate p a r t i c u l a r
c o m m u n i t i e s , n o r was i t possible to define a single centre for each
neighbourhood: r a t h e r , "there are different centres for different activities,
u s u a l l y t h e r e are several centres for each a c t i v i t y , a n d t h e y are not
necessarily t h e centres for those who live i n t h a t p a r t i c u l a r geographical
neighbourhood" (Jenkins, 1971, p. 7). T h i s is graphically i l l u s t r a t e d by a n
account of the w a y i n w h i c h neighbours' paths m i g h t cross as they made t h e i r
w a y to j o i n different, a n d incompatible, chapel congregations. F u r t h e r m o r e
J e n k i n s r e m a r k s how, a l t h o u g h they held an especially p r o m i n e n t p a r t i n
people's images of t h e c o m m u n i t y , only a m i n o r i t y of f a m i l i e s i n r u r a l
Cardiganshire actually remained on the same f a r m over generations; a great
deal of movement, i n v o l v i n g change a n d adaptation of social ties, occurred
over t i m e (Jenkins, 1971, p. 116; cf W i l l i a m s , 1963).
A s i m i l a r sense of an unfolding, ill-defined, yet i n t e g r a t i v e set of social
relationships u n d e r p i n n i n g Welsh r u r a l society emerged from a more recent
study i n central Wales where i t is stated that:
F a r m i n g constitutes very definitely a core economic activity, generating
a range of shared experiences a n d interests w i t h i n m u c h of t h e local
population ... However, the boundaries of the local a g r i c u l t u r a l system
are ill-defined, because i n d i v i d u a l farmers are t i e d i n t o q u i t e v a r i e d
relationships w i t h different markets, and direct economic l i n k s between
farms ... are l i m i t e d . Depending on t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e i r stock, t h e i r
volume of production, and the customary practices they have developed,
farmers make complicated and diverse arrangements for t h e i r i n p u t s
and outputs. The effect... is t h a t the farmers of the valley form p a r t of a
n e t w o r k of relationships t h a t spread across the whole of mid-Wales;
each farmer is differently located w i t h i n the n e t w o r k according to the
detailed w a y i n w h i c h s/he organises production and d i s t r i b u t i o n . (Day
and Murdoch, 1993.)
For t h i s reason, one of t h e f i r s t p r i o r i t i e s of a W e l s h f a r m e r on m e e t i n g
someone u n f a m i l i a r is to t r y to place t h a t person by s i t u a t i n g h i m or her i n
t e r m s of n e t w o r k connections. The w a y i n w h i c h social r e l a t i o n s h i p s are
organised allows farmers to exercise considerable choice as to w h e n , and how,
the n e t w o r k is activated. The presence of such overlapping or loosely bounded
social relations means t h a t Welsh r u r a l communities present us not w i t h the
awesome i d e n t i c a l i t y of D u r k h e i m ' s m e c h a n i c a l s o l i d a r i t y b u t w i t h a
p o t e n t i a l for subtle distinctions and v a r i e t y , to w h i c h the observer m a y be
oblivious.
Crow and A l l a n (1994, p. 186) suggest t h a t i t is the outsiders who are most
l i k e l y to miss the fine gradations w i t h i n communities. T h i s has not always
been the case i n r u r a l Wales. Frankenberg (1957) paid p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n to
t h i s i n his account of the village of T e n t r e d i w a i t h " (Glynceiriog), where he
shows t h a t w h i l e the c r i t e r i a used to establish belonging were recognisably
t h e same as those used elsewhere i n W e l s h r u r a l communities — k i n s h i p ,
chapel membership and Welshness, w i t h a bedrock attachment to home a n d
place of b i r t h — nevertheless t h e y were used i n a h i g h l y i n v e n t i v e a n d
flexible manner. There was agreement t h a t the village belonged to T e n t r e
people", b u t i t is not always obvious who should count as such; w h i l e the idea
of t h e "stranger" is a s h i f t i n g concept, such t h a t to be a stranger i n one
context does not necessarily make one a stranger i n another (Frankenberg,
1957, p. 19).
I n the same fashion, Jenkins's detailed consideration of the c e n t r a l i t y o f
k i n s h i p t e r m i n o l o g y to people's u n d e r s t a n d i n g of c o m m u n i t y i n South West
C a r d i g a n s h i r e demonstrates t h a t i t s use i n practice is far from inflexible
(Jenkins, 1971). H i s comments b r i n g out very clearly the delicate balance
between a n emphasis on consensus and organic u n i t y , and an a l t e r n a t i v e
sense of the degree of choice and ability to differentiate t h a t exists w i t h i n i t :
T h e s m a l l scale o f the society was a general condition of social life and
w i t h i n a l o c a l i t y people were inescapably concerned i n one another's
affairs ... T a l k of relatives and of relationships is pervasive, and not only
about t h e speakers' o w n k i n s m e n b u t about other people's as w e l l .
Conversations are shot t h r o u g h and t h r o u g h w i t h references to t h e
r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f people w h o are t h e subject of discussion ... B u t
r e m a r k a b l y widespread as is the i n t e r e s t i n k i n i t is also t r u e t h a t
knowledge about k i n , i n c l u d i n g one's own, varies from person to person
i n considerable measure ... w h i l e interest is widespread i t is n e i t h e r
u n i v e r s a l nor dispensable and i t does not appear t h a t t h i s is something
new. ... One has the impression t h a t there is a community of people who
can be discussed because t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s are k n o w n a n d t h a t
because t h e i r relationships are k n o w n they are r e c u r r e n t l y b r o u g h t to
m i n d (and yet) i t is the case t h a t the m a i n i n s t i t u t i o n s of the society are
such t h a t a m a n can choose not to "avow relationship" i f he so decides.
K i n s h i p considerations do not so dominate t h a t a m a n i n practice has no
option b u t to "avow relationship" and t h i s is certainly not a development
of recent years. (Jenkins, 1971, pp. 159-165.)
The d e p t h of local knowledge w h i c h can be b r o u g h t to relationships has
been a common theme of r u r a l c o m m u n i t y research. I t is one of the features
w h i c h gave rise to the concept of "total status" as a d i s t i n g u i s h i n g charac­
t e r i s t i c o f c o m m u n i t y ( P l o w m a n et al., 1962), b u t again t h i s can suggest a
perhaps impossible level of completeness. Jenkins's emphasis on the capacity
"not to k n o w " or to "disavow" shows t h a t we m u s t not assume communities
are m a r k e d by t o t a l homogeneity. The same point is made by Isabel E m m e t t ,
w r i t i n g about the N o r t h Wales t o w n of Blaenau Ffestiniog:
Those w h o have g r o w n up i n the t o w n have such a w e a l t h of knowledge
of each other as to make each encounter densely elaborate. M e n and
w o m e n are k n o w n as parents, as d r i n k e r s or non-drinkers, as singers
and speakers, i n some version of t h e i r w o r k records and i n some version
of t h e i r records as lovers ... Every aspect o f t h e i r life is used i n t h e
picture others have o f t h e m , b u t the knowledge varies from member to
member o f t h e i r c o m m u n i t y , each of w h o m has a different composite
version o f t h e i r different facets ... I n encounter after encounter, i n a very
large p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e t a l k , t h e t e r m "double m e a n i n g " is t o t a l l y
inadequate to convey the density of meanings, cross-references, aware­
ness o f ignorance here, a layer of knowledge there, a n d double, t r i p l e ,
q u a d r u p l e layers o f k n o w l e d g e a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g ... t h e s h a r e d
knowledge o f a p a r t i c u l a r place and its people enables a l l members to
p a r t i c i p a t e i n a continuous fashioning a n d t e l l i n g of t h e story o f t h e
place. ... i t is more a question of everyone h a v i n g a p a r t i n recognisably
the same play w h i c h they are j o i n t l y performing and m a k i n g a record of.
( E m m e t t , 1982, p. 208.) [For a comparable I r i s h example, see C u r t i n ,
1988, p. 83.]
F a r from being a n t i t h e t i c a l to difference, here c o m m u n i t y makes difference
i t s v e r y essence. B y t h e i r a b i l i t y to comprehend differences, a n d t h e i r
i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h a n d p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the ongoing "story", people convey
t h e i r membership of and belonging to the community.
IV USING "COMMUNITY" I N RURAL WALES
We have established t h a t c o m m u n i t y need not rule out difference; indeed,
i n some ways differences can flourish w i t h i n communities as members deploy
accumulated knowledge and m u l t i p l e c r i t e r i a to locate one another. However,
there are l i m i t s to the differences communities can encompass, a n d i n t h i s
sense I r i s Y o u n g is r i g h t : any categorisation (inclusion) m u s t i m p l y exclusion.
E x a m i n a t i o n o f the ways i n w h i c h such boundaries operate has been a major
theme of r u r a l sociology and geography for some t i m e (Pahl, 1966; Newby,
1980), and i t has been a recurrent topic o f research i n r u r a l Wales. T h i s is
because, l i k e other r u r a l areas i n the B r i t i s h Isles, r u r a l Wales has under­
gone extensive, and accelerating, social and economic transformations d u r i n g
t h e post-war period. (Day et al., 1989.) I n p a r t i c u l a r , i t has experienced
prolonged depopulation, a n d c o n t i n u i n g loss of locally b o r n people, accom­
panied more recently by a counteracting i n w a r d movement o f p r e d o m i n a n t l y
u r b a n emigres, m o s t l y from across t h e E n g l i s h border (Day, 1989; Cloke
et al., 1997). T h i s has left r u r a l Wales far more socially m i x e d . G i v e n these
social changes, i t is not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t analyses have become increasingly
preoccupied w i t h r e l a t i o n s h i p s among various categories o f i n s i d e r s a n d
outsiders, locals a n d newcomers, and w i t h the ways i n w h i c h the boundaries
of c o m m u n i t y and "belonging" are defined and redefined (Frankenberg, 1957;
E m m e t t , 1964; Day a n d Murdoch, 1993; Cloke et al, 1997).
For example, w h e n t h e conception o f r u r a l Wales as a "collection o f
c o m m u n i t i e s " surfaces again i n a study o f political life i n Cardiganshire,
carried out i n 1971 (Madgwick et al., 1973, p. 30), the idea t h a t the county as
a whole, let alone a l l o f r u r a l Wales, could form a single community is said to
exist only w i t h i n t h e i m a g i n a t i o n , as a powerful image, a l t h o u g h not one
w h i c h r e l a t e d to the d a i l y realities of l i v i n g (Madgwick et al., 1973, p. 226).
W h i l e t h e authors note some i m p o r t a n t continuities w i t h past patterns of life
and attitudes, they are also conscious of fundamental changes opening up the
W e l s h countryside i n ways w h i c h leave i t more o u t w a r d looking, specialised,
a n d p l u r a l i s t i c t h a n i t was before (1973, p. 44). The actual c o m m u n a l i t y of
l i v i n g , we are t o l d , is b e i n g eroded by d i v e r s i t y . Indeed there are major
cleavages w h i c h give rise to possibilities of polarisation, conflict, a n d t h e
d i s r u p t i o n of c o m m u n i t y : "latent conflict abounds" i n r u r a l Cardiganshire,
and i n t h i s context, the t e r m "community" itself becomes ambiguous and open
to polemical use (Madgwick et al., 1973, p. 227).
I n t e r e s t i n g l y , i n t h e l i g h t o f the earlier discussion of the Welsh countryside
as a m o r a l order, a depth o f attachment to established ways o f life, values,
a n d c u l t u r e of t h e area, along w i t h a fear of i m m i n e n t anglicisation, are seen
as being more t y p i c a l o f a lccal "elite" of teachers and M i n i s t e r s o f religion,
t h a n i t was o f t h e farmers and t r a d e u n i o n i s t s i n t e r v i e w e d , described as
" w o r k a d a y seculars" w h o took a more sceptical and relaxed view o f t h e i r
Welshness. T h i s provides a more precise location for those anthropological
accounts produced "from w i t h i n " , for they also represent very definitely the
views a n d standpoint o f a local, academic, W e l s h i n t e l l i g e n t s i a , who t h e m ­
selves are m u c h preoccupied w i t h the r e l a t i o n s h i p between "insider" a n d
"outsider" perceptions (Rees, 1950, pp. 112, 144; Davies and Rees, 1960, p. x i ;
Jenkins, 1980). They insist t h a t descriptions of community must be authentic
i n t e r m s o f insider views. For t h i s reason Jenkins questions the relevance o f
any s t u d y o f c o m m u n i t y w h i c h does not concern i t s e l f w i t h "how people
conceptualise t h e i r o w n society" (Jenkins, 1980, p . 117). Y e t i t is apparent
t h a t the standpoint from w h i c h they w r i t e represents only one among several
"inside" versions. I n t h i s regard, i t h a r d l y needs stressing now t h a t they are
a l l m e n , a n d t h a t women's views on c o m m u n i t y life i n r u r a l Wales barely
figure i n the accounts w h i c h they produce.
I n subsequent analysis, there has been a n unavoidable tendency to equate
"outside" perceptions w i t h the viewpoint o f the E n g l i s h i n Wales, and to draw
t h e m a i n d i s t i n c t i o n between the E n g l i s h and the Welsh. W r i t i n g i n 1957,
F r a n k e n b e r g observes t h a t w h i l e the social life of P e n t r e d i w a i t h can extend
to embrace those who live and farm i n the s u r r o u n d i n g parish, and for major
events, other parts of n o r t h Wales, providing they share one or more "complex
i n f o r m a l ties" w i t h the villagers, those who are definitively disqualified from
membership are distinguished from Pentre people by class and occupation, by
r e l i g i o n , by language, and by place of b i r t h ; t h e y are not of r u r a l W e l s h
society, a n d even w h e n l i v i n g nearby, t h e y r e m a i n "nameless E n g l i s h
v i s i t o r s " (1957, p. 41). T h u s the outer bounds of c o m m u n i t y are set by
"Englishness", j u s t as for Rees the outer l i m i t s of L l a n f i h a n g e l were defined
by its relationships w i t h a distanced, anglicised, class of gentry.
S i m i l a r l y the d i s t i n c t i o n between the Welsh a n d the E n g l i s h provides the
o r g a n i s i n g p r i n c i p l e o f E m m e t t ' s s t u d y of L l a n f r o t h r e n i n M e r i o n e t h
( E m m e t t , 1964). She deploys her "outsider as insider" perspective to convey
an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of some of the exclusionary practices used to sustain local
i d e n t i t y i n t h e face of encroaching t h r e a t s . E m m e t t contends t h a t local
s o l i d a r i t y is achieved by u n i t i n g against the outside w o r l d of " E n g l i s h "
officialdom, a concept t h a t extends to cover the locally resident E n g l i s h
intelligentsia who had made L l a n f r o t h r e n i n t o a l i t t l e bohemian outpost, deep
i n W e l s h speaking r u r a l Wales. "Deviant" forms of local behaviour (such as
salmon poaching) are explained as an expression of anti-Englishness. B u t
E m m e t t also examines the pressures on local people, especially the young, to
choose between c o m m i t m e n t to local ways and standards, a n d along w i t h i t a
W e l s h i d e n t i t y , or absorption i n t o a w i d e r value system and ladder for social
m o b i l i t y , w h i c h opens the w a y to economic a n d social o p p o r t u n i t i e s far
beyond w h a t is available locally, b u t a t the expense of abandoning i d e n t i ­
fication w i t h place and community. I t seems t h a t identities can be chosen, b u t
t h a t the choices are fateful both for the i n d i v i d u a l and for the direction t a k e n
by r u r a l Welsh society. I n later work, E m m e t t develops an examination of the
different ways of being Welsh w h i c h were available, even w i t h i n the n a r r o w
confines of a s m a l l t o w n i n a r u r a l location ( E m m e t t , 1978). B y showing how
y o u n g people found effective ways of i n t e g r a t i n g novel aspects of w i d e r y o u t h
c u l t u r e i n t o t h e i r o w n s t r o n g a n d p e r s i s t i n g i d e n t i f i c a t i o n as W e l s h , a n d
local, she demonstrates somewhat against her previous assertions t h a t i t was
not necessary to leave the area to be "modern".
These contributions, a l l i n some sense made from "outside" or beyond the
local c u l t u r e , suggest t h a t as r u r a l Wales becomes more m o d e r n , so t h e
likelihood decreases t h a t any single, shared, representation of c o m m u n i t y can
serve to u n i t e an increasingly diverse social base. As a consequence of social
change, c o m m u n i t y w i t h i n r u r a l Wales becomes very clearly a contested
phenomenon, a n d competing definitions of c o m m u n i t y are a r t i c u l a t e d i n
opposition to one another. Hence understandings of the sort of place t h a t
r u r a l Wales is, or should be, are employed more and more to safeguard i t as
the possession of some, b u t not of others ( B o r l a n d et al., 1992), w h i l e at the
local l e v e l discussion of c o m m u n i t y is rife w i t h references to "attack",
"defence", "resistance" or "counter attack" (Cloke and Milbourne, 1992, p. 366;
Cloke
al., 1997).
A l t h o u g h t h e r e has been no further thorough exploration of these issues
t h r o u g h t h e m e d i u m of a "holistic" investigation of a specific W e l s h r u r a l
c o m m u n i t y , they have been touched on to a greater or lesser degree i n more
recent contributions. I n keeping w i t h broader theoretical tendencies, current
w o r k is a i m e d more closely and consciously at investigation of the w a y i n
w h i c h views about such matters are expressed — a t t e n d i n g to the "voices" of
r u r a l i n d i v i d u a l s . The t u r n towards c u l t u r a l and l i n g u i s t i c analysis among
h u m a n geographers and r u r a l sociologists has inspired closer consideration of
t h e ways i n w h i c h people i n r u r a l contexts deploy social representations
(Halfacree, 1995), engage i n l a y discourses (Jones, 1995) or mobilise t h e i r
c u l t u r a l competences (Cloke et al., 1998) to make sense of t h e i r social worlds.
W h i l e these questions have been explored p r i m a r i l y i n the context of popular
u n d e r s t a n d i n g s o f t h e m e a n i n g a n d significance of t h e " r u r a l " i n con­
t e m p o r a r y society, i t is evident t h a t the idea of "community" works i n a very
s i m i l a r way. As we have seen already i n the Welsh example, conceptions of
c o m m u n i t y are closely e n t w i n e d w i t h notions of the r u r a l , and Halfacree's
w o r k on social representations shows how aspects of c o m m u n i t y and "com­
m u n i t a r i a n " behaviour weave i n and out of people's idea of r u r a l i t y . A m o n g
t h e m is a perception t h a t c o m m u n i t y signifies " i n s u l a r i t y , j u d g e m e n t a l i s m
a n d intolerance of diversity" (Halfacree, 1995, p. 15).
T h e most developed instance of such c u l t u r a l l y oriented w o r k i n Wales is
the investigation of " r u r a l lifestyles" by Cloke et al. (1995; 1997; 1998), w h i c h
employs q u a l i t a t i v e i n t e r v i e w data to show how respondents i n selected r u r a l
places t a l k about questions of community, r u r a l i t y and identity. The research
demonstrates convincingly t h a t as an organising framework, the contrast
between "Welsh" a n d "English" perspectives is significant, b u t grossly over­
simplifies a complex situation. Throughout the research reports, we are given
ample proof t h a t notions of Welshness and Englishness are used extensively
b y r e s p o n d e n t s to create images a n d stereotypes of social groups a n d
categories w i t h i n t h e i r various localities. T h i s yields competing constructs of
i d e n t i t y at local level (Cloke et al., 1997, p. 29). The authors themselves
suggest t h a t because E n g l i s h in-migrants and Welsh locals possess differing
c u l t u r a l competences and operate according to different assumptions about
r u r a l life, t h i s leads t h e m i n t o a m u l t i t u d e of misunderstandings, confusions,
and conflicts, reflecting the u n d e r l y i n g clash between t h e i r lifestyles. I n fact,
whereas comparable research i n E n g l a n d t h r e w up the notion of c o m m u n i t y
as "a s h i f t i n g negotiation of ideas, k i t h and k i n structures and other social
relations" (Cloke et al., 1997, p. 156), c o m m u n i t y i n Wales seemed to be l e n t
some stability by t h i s u n d e r p i n n i n g Welsh/English dichotomy. To t h a t extent,
one m i g h t say r u r a l Wales at the close of the t w e n t i e t h century continues to
be brought together i n opposition to conceptions of " r u l i n g England" ( E m m e t t ,
1964). A n d yet, even here, c o m m u n i t y is "tacitly understood as a negotiated
concept" (Cloke et al, 1997, p. 157).
T h i s is because, beneath some o f the cruder claims about t h e i n c o m ­
p a t i b i l i t y between the t w o identities, lie i n f i n i t e l y more subtle distinctions
a n d d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s . The s i m p l i f y i n g conception o f " E n g l i s h newcomers"
subsumes a h i g h l y diverse range o f c o n t r a s t i n g i n d i v i d u a l a n d social
identities (Cloke et al., 1997, p. 18; Day, 1989) and there is no reason to t h i n k
the W e l s h are any less diverse. Indeed, Cloke et al. draw a t t e n t i o n to Bowie's
statement, based on her reflections upon the experience of l i v i n g i n the r u r a l
county o f Gwynedd, t h a t whereas Wales may present "a coherent p i c t u r e o f
c u l t u r a l self-sufficiency and a f i r m sense o f i d e n t i t y " to the rest o f the w o r l d ,
once one penetrates beneath t h i s surface reflection then:
t h e u n p r o b l e m a t i c a n d monolithic n a t u r e o f W e l s h i d e n t i t y begins to
fragment. One is left not so m u c h w i t h a coherent notion of Welshness
... as w i t h a sense o f m a n y conflicting and i n t e r l o c k i n g definitions o f
i d e n t i t y w h i c h actively compete for symbolic space and public recog­
n i t i o n . (Bowie, 1993, pp. 168-169.)
O v e r a l l t h e n , i n contemporary r u r a l Wales there is evidence of a p l u r a l i t y
of i d e n t i t i e s subject to negotiation a n d i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h i n p a r t i c u l a r local
settings (Cloke et al., 1997, p. 148). T h i s has major implications for the w a y i n
w h i c h we u n d e r s t a n d n o t only local senses o f b e l o n g i n g , b u t also t h e
processes t h r o u g h w h i c h n a t i o n a l identities are defined (Thompson and Day,
f o r t h c o m i n g 1999). There is broad endorsement by now o f the v i e w t h a t at
b o t h local and n a t i o n a l levels, c o m m u n i t y is something w h i c h is essentially
"imagined" (Anderson, 1983) or "constructed" (Cohen, 1985). I n other words,
i t is a concept w h i c h people deploy i n p a r t i c u l a r contexts, for p a r t i c u l a r
purposes. To comprehend i t s meanings, we have to consider therefore to
w h o m i t is addressed, i n w h a t situations, a n d for w h a t reasons. I n m a n y
circumstances, fuzziness and a m b i g u i t y about i t s l i m i t s are v i t a l to the w a y
i n w h i c h i t w o r k s ; the element o f "not knowing", or of being able to disregard
c e r t a i n facts, examined by Jenkins and E m m e t t , and the different layers or
degrees o f belonging to w h i c h t h e y a n d F r a n k e n b e r g refer, are crucial i n
enabling the flexibility and m a n i p u l a b i l i t y of i t s borders.
There is accumulating evidence t h a t the scope t h i s provides for c r e a t i v i t y
a n d inventiveness is at the heart of contemporary uses o f "community". W o r k
i n a v a r i e t y o f r u r a l contexts (Boyle and Halfacree, 1998) confirms t h a t the
meanings o f such categories as local, newcomer, insider, outsider, w i t h a l l
t h e i r colourful local v a r i a n t s , are not h a r d and fast, w i t h fixed memberships
closed for a l l t i m e , b u t are capable of f l u i d and dynamic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Thus
i n w o r k done on the language of "locals" and "incomers" i n Scotland, A l l a n
a n d Mooney (1998) comment on the b l u r r e d and problematic n a t u r e o f t h e
categories. They observe how, depending upon the context, the emphasis and
i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e t e r m s were "constantly a l t e r i n g and open to (re)interp r e t a t i o n " , so t h a t boundaries are "neither based solely u p o n l e n g t h o f
residence nor are t h e y necessarily clear cut. ( I ) t is also evident t h a t divisions
... are not insurmountable" ( A l l a n and Mooney, 1998, p. 290).
Despite t h e i r emphasis on the contested nature of representations and the
propensity t h i s has for creating disagreement and conflict, some of the recent
" c u l t u r a l " accounts are weakened by the absence of any close exploration o f
how t h a t contested n a t u r e is negotiated and resolved. T r e a t i n g c o m m u n i t y
solely i n t e r m s o f sets o f social understandings or m e n t a l constructs r i s k s
detaching t h e m from t h e actual social relationships among people i n w h i c h
t h e i r use is grounded, a n d t h u s losing sight of the w a y i n w h i c h t h e y are
negotiated i n a n d t h r o u g h local networks of i n t e r a c t i o n . Day and M u r d o c h
(1993) provide some W e l s h examples of such negotiations i n action w i t h i n the
c o m m u n i t i e s of t h e upper I t h o n V a l l e y , a n d show how the lines between
social categories are d r a w n differently i n different contexts, according to
v a r i o u s d i s t i n c t spheres o f co-operation a n d i n t e r a c t i o n . For instance,
d i f f e r e n t a t t i t u d e s are d i s p l a y e d t o w a r d s "outsiders" i n t h e sphere o f
formalised local political representation t h a n w i t h regard to involvement i n
social activities a r o u n d the village h a l l . However, i n none of the spheres are
t h e boundaries between "locals" and others sharply defined, and people can
be enrolled i n t o networks or pushed away from t h e m , for example, according
to w h e t h e r they show behaviours and attitudes t h o u g h t to be appropriate or
i n a p p r o p r i a t e to local styles of i n t e r a c t i o n . "Pushy" attempts a t p r e m a t u r e
i n t e g r a t i o n m a y lead to rejection, w h i l e a readiness to play a "helpful" role
m a y b r i n g acceptance. Cloke et al. (1997, p. 25) also note how barriers can be
" d i l u t e d " t h r o u g h local processes of a s s i m i l a t i o n and personal i n t e r a c t i o n .
Hence, " c o m m u n i t y " is l i k e the " r u r a l " i n not h a v i n g a fixed or even stable
referent (Boyle a n d Halfacree, 1998, p. 4) b u t is worked at, and w o r k e d out,
locally, for particular purposes, and i n particular settings.
A t t e m p t s to legislate w h a t is "really" a Welsh r u r a l c o m m u n i t y represent
efforts to police t h e boundaries o f belonging; b u t j u s t as F r a n k e n b e r g
explained i n his account o f life i n a small n o r t h Wales village forty years ago,
so today, the boundaries of c o m m u n i t y i n r u r a l Wales are moveable and open
to m a n i p u l a t i o n . The f l u i d i t y of social relations, and the lack o f any single
over-riding boundary defining criterion, ensures t h a t the lines between social
groups stay ill-defined. People who are enemies i n one respect m a y yet be
friends i n another, and different versions of membership a n d belonging can
continue to coexist as d i s t i n c t layers w i t h i n the subjective awareness o f the
individuals. So, w h i l e for most purposes, "new age travellers" m a y be f i r m l y
outside the p r e v a i l i n g conception of c o m m u n i t y , a n d "locals" m a y p u t rocks
across lay-bys to ensure t h a t t h i s is so, i n situations o f local action against
u n w a n t e d developments, the same people m a y provide a focus for, and even
leadership of, collective m o b i l i s a t i o n . Conversely, mothers w h o meet t h e i r
c h i l d r e n from the local school may be p a r t of the c o m m u n i t y for m u c h o f the
t i m e and for most practical purposes, b u t w h e n key issues arise t o u c h i n g on
t h e school's f u t u r e , t h e y m a y f i n d themselves d i s q u a l i f i e d f r o m f u l l
p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n discussion according to some other, t e m p o r a r i l y more
weighty, standard o f membership — such as t h e i r Welshness. As Boyle a n d
Halfacree (1998) suggest, there is considerable potential here to examine how
concepts o f c o m m u n i t y , l i k e those of the r u r a l , are invoked and enlisted i n t o
the networks of relationships t h r o u g h w h i c h people i n r u r a l areas are able to
act, a n d there is a powerful case for r e v i s i t i n g the t r a d i t i o n of W e l s h r u r a l
c o m m u n i t y studies i n order to b r i n g these newer insights to bear.
V CONCLUSION
T h i s review of the m a i n body of Welsh r u r a l c o m m u n i t y studies took as its
point o f departure I r i s M a r i o n Young's negative commentary on "community".
Hopefully, the discussion has gone some way towards qualifying the received
image o f r u r a l communities as w h o l l y "organic", closed, and t o t a l i z i n g . E v e n
i n t h e most u n p r o m i s i n g situations, of t r u l y remote a n d a p p a r e n t l y stable
social e n v i r o n m e n t s , t h i s rested on a selective version o f a r e a l i t y w h i c h
remained u l t i m a t e l y open-ended and capable of recognising, and responding
to, i n d i v i d u a l i t y . The appearance of a completely closed social w o r l d m a y owe
more to the way such communities present themselves, or were presented, to
the outside w o r l d , t h a n to t h e i r actual organisation. Y o u n g is r i g h t to suggest
t h a t t h e ideas o f c o m m u n i t y t h a t are contained i n t h i s body o f w o r k have
w i t h i n t h e m the p o t e n t i a l to become narrow, exclusive, and stifling, and can
l e n d themselves to incorporation w i t h i n racist, sexist, a n d e l i t i s t discourse
(for a recent discussion t o u c h i n g on t h i s point, see W i l l i a m s , 1995). B u t they
also suggest ways i n w h i c h a c t u a l c o m m u n i t i e s provide a f r a m e w o r k o f
u n d e r s t a n d i n g s and practices w h i c h is a l i v e to t h e differences between
people, adaptable to change, and capable o f accommodating divergent, as w e l l
as shared, identities. I t also has to be said t h a t Young's o w n enthusiasm for
celebrating d i s t i n c t i v e cultures a n d characteristics q u i t e p l a i n l y does not
extend to, among others, racists, sexists, xenophobes or homophobes (Young,
1990, p. 319). These exclusions are t a k e n as self-evident, a n d indeed i t is
difficult to envisage any form of social life, real or imaginary, w h i c h could
w o r k w i t h o u t m a k i n g such d i s t i n c t i o n s a n d separations. M u c h of the
fascination of recent studies of community lies i n showing how people manage
to sustain such boundaries conceptually w h i l e at the same t i m e subverting
t h e m i n practice.
REFERENCES
ALLAN J., and E. MOONEY, 1998. "Migration Into Rural Communities: Questioning
the Language of Counterurbanisation", i n P. Boyle and K. Halfacree (eds.),
Migration into Rural Communities, Chichester: John Wiley, pp. 280-302.
ANDERSON, B., 1983. Imagined Communities, London: Verso.
ARENSBERG, C , and S. K I M B A L L , 1940. Family and Community in Ireland,
Harvard.
BELL, C , and H. NEWBY, 1971. Community Studies, London: Allen and Unwin.
BELL, C , and H . NEWBY, 1976. "Communion, Communalism, Class and Community
Action: The Sources of the New Urban Politics", i n D. Herbert and R. Johnston
(eds.), Social Areas in Cities, Vol. 2, Chichester: John Wiley.
BORLAND, J., R. FEVRE, and D. DENNEY, 1992. "Nationalism and Community i n
North West Wales", Sociological Review, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 49-72.
BOWIE, F., 1993. "Wales From Within: Conflicting Interpretations of Welsh Identity",
in S. Macdonald (ed.), Inside European Identities, Oxford: Berg.
BOYLE P., and K. HALFACREE, 1998. Migration into Rural Areas, Chichester:
Wiley.
BRODY, H . , 1973. Inishkillane; Change and Decline in the West of Ireland, London:
Allen Lane.
CARTER, H . , 1996. "Life i n a Welsh Countryside: A Retrospect", Foreword to reissue
of A.D. Rees, 1950, Life in a Welsh Countryside: a Social Study of Llanfihangel yng
Ngwynfa, Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
CLOKE, P., and P. MILBOURNE, 1992. "Deprivation and Lifestyles i n Rural Wales
— I I Rurality and the Cultural Dimension", Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 8, No. 4,
pp. 359-371.
CLOKE, P., M . GOODWIN, and P. MILBOURNE, 1995. "There's So Many Strangers
I n The Village Now: Marginalisation and Change in 1990s Welsh Rural Lifestyles",
Contemporary Wales, Vol. 8, pp. 47-74.
CLOKE, P., M. GOODWIN, and P. MILBOURNE, 1997. Rural Wales: Community and
Marginalization, Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
CLOKE, P., M . GOODWIN, and P. MILBOURNE, 1998. "Inside Looking Out; Outside
Looking In: Different Experiences of Cultural Competence in Rural Lifestyles", i n
P. Boyle and K. Halfacree (eds.), Migration into Rural Areas, Chichester: Wiley,
pp. 134-150.
COHEN, A., 1982. Belonging: Identity and Social Organisation in British Rural
Cultures, Manchester University Press.
COHEN, A., 1985. The Symbolic Construction of Community, London: Tavistock.
CROWE, GRAHAM, and GRAHAM ALLAN, 1994. Community Life an Introduction to
Local Social Relations, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
CURTIN, C , 1988. "Social Order, Interpersonal Relations and Disputes in a West of
Ireland Community, i n M . Tomlinson (ed.), Whose Law and Order? Aspects of
Crime and Control in Ireland, Sociological Association of Ireland.
DAVIES, E., and A.D. REES, 1960. Welsh Rural Communities, Cardiff: University of
Wales Press.
DAY, G., 1979. "The Sociology of Wales: Issues and Prospects", Sociological Review,
Vol. 27, pp. 447-474.
DAY, G., 1989. " 'A Million on the Move? Population Change and Rural Wales",
Contemporary Wales, Vol. 2, pp. 137-159.
DAY, G., and M . FITTON, 1975. "Religion and Social Status: Bucheddau and its
Implications", Sociological Review, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 867-891.
DAY, G., and J. MURDOCH, 1993. "Locality and Community: Coming to Terms with
Place", Sociological Review, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 82-111.
DAY, G., G. REES, and J. MURDOCH, 1989. "Social Change, Rural Localities and the
State: the Restructuring of Rural Wales", Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 5, No. 3,
pp. 227-244.
DENNIS, N . , F. HENRIQUES, and C. SLAUGHTER, 1969. Coal is our Life, London:
Tavistock.
DURKHEIM, E., 1964. The Division of Labour in Society, New York: Free Press.
EMMETT, I . , 1964. A North Wales Village, London: Routledge.
EMMETT, I . , 1978. "Blaenau Boys i n the Mid-1960s", i n G. Williams (ed.), Social and
Cultural Change in Contemporary Wales, London: Routledge, pp. 87-101.
EMMETT, I . , 1982. "Fe godwn ni eto: Stasis and Change i n a Welsh Industrial Town",
i n A.P. Cohen (ed.), Belonging: Identity and Social Organisation in British Rural
Cultures, Manchester University Press, pp. 165-197 and "Place, Community, and
Bilingualism i n Blaenau Ffestiniog", (ibid), pp. 202-221.
FRANKENBERG, R., 1957. Village on the Border, London: Cohen and West.
FRANKENBERG, R., 1966. Communities in Britain, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
FRAZER, E., and N . LACEY, 1993. The Politics of Community: a Feminist Critique of
the Liberal-Communitarian Debate, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
GASSON, R., G. CROW, A. ERRINGTON, J. HUTSON, T. MARSDEN, and M .
WINTER, 1988. "The Farm As a Family Business", Journal of Agricultural
Economics, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 1-41.
GIBBON, P., 1973. "Arensberg and Kimball Revisited", Economy and Society, Vol. 4,
pp. 479-498.
GLASS, R., 1966. Conflict in Society, London: Churchill.
GRUFFUDD, P., 1994. "Tradition, Modernity and the Countryside: the Imaginary
Geography of Rural Wales", Contemporary Wales, Vol. 6, pp. 33-48.
HARPER, S., 1989. "The British Rural Community: an Overview of Perspectives",
Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 161-184.
HALFACREE, K., 1995. T a l k i n g about Rurality: Social Representations of the Rural
as Expressed by Residents of Six English Parishes", Journal of Rural Studies,
Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 1-20.
HERBERT, D., and R. JOHNSTON (eds.), 1976. Social Areas in Cities, Vol. 2,
Chichester: John Wiley.
HUME I . , and W.T.R. PRYCE (eds.), 1986. The Welsh and Their Country, Llandysul:
Gomer.
JENKINS, D., 1960. "Aber-porth: a Study of a Coastal Village i n South Cardigan­
shire", i n E. Davies and A.D. Rees (eds.), Welsh Rural Communities, Cardiff:
University of Wales Press, pp. 1-63.
JENKINS, D., 1971. The Agricultural Community in South-West Wales at the Turn of
the Twentieth Century, Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
JENKINS, D., 1980. "Rural Society Inside Outside", i n D. Smith (ed.), A People and
a Proletariat: Essays in the History of Wales 1750-1980, London: Pluto Press,
pp. 114-126.
JONES, E., 1960. "Tregaron: the Sociology of a Market Town", i n E. Davies and
A.D. Rees (eds.), Welsh Rural Communities, Cardiff: University of Wales Press,
pp. 67-117.
JONES, O., 1995. "Lay Discourses of the Rural: Developments and Implications for
Rural Studies", Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 35-49.
JONES HUGHES, T., 1960. "Aberdaron; the Social Geography of a Small Region", i n
E. Davies and A.D. Rees (eds.), Welsh Rural Communities, Cardiff: University of
Wales Press, pp. 121-179.
KENT R., 1981. A History of British Empirical Sociology, Aldershot: Gower.
McBEATH, G., and S. WEBB, 1997. "Cities, Subjectivity and Cyberspace", i n
S. Westwood and J. Williams (eds.), Imagining Cities: Scripts, Signs, Memory,
London: Routledge, pp. 249-260.
MADGWICK, P.J., N . GRIFFITHS, and V. WALKER, 1973. The Politics of Rural
Wales, London: Hutchinson.
MURDOCH, J., and G. DAY, 1995. "The Same but Different: Notes on the Social
Construction of Community", Paper presented to the Annual Conference of the
British Sociological Association.
NEWBY, H . , 1980. Green and Pleasant Land? Social Change in Rural
England,
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
NICHOLSON, L. (ed.), 1992. Feminism I Postmodernism, London: Routledge.
OWEN, T.M., 1960. "Chapel and Community i n Glan-Llyn, Merioneth", i n E. Davies
and A.D. Rees (eds.), Welsh Rural Communities, Cardiff: University of Wales Press,
pp. 185-248.
OWEN, T.M., 1986. "Community Studies i n Wales: an Overview", i n I . Hume and
W.T.R. Pryce (eds.), The Welsh and their Country, Llandysul: Gomer, pp. 91-133.
PAHL, R., 1996. Urbs in Rure, London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
PLOWMAN, R., W.E. MINCHINTON, and M . STACEY, 1962. "Local Social Status i n
England and Wales", Sociological Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 161-202.
RAPPORT, N . , 1993. Diverse World Views in an English Village, Edinburgh
University Press.
REES, A.D., 1950. Life in a Welsh Countryside: a Social Study of Llanfihangel yng
Ngwynfa, Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
SAUTTER, G., 1990. "French Geography and the Rural World", i n P. Lowe and
M . Bodiguel (eds.), Rural Studies in Britain and France, Belhaven Press.
SHORT, B. (ed.), 1992. The English Rural Community: Image and Analysis,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
SHORT, J.R., 1991. Imagined Country, London: Routledge.
STACEY, M . , 1960. Tradition and Change: a Study of Banbury, London: Oxford
University Press.
STEIN, M., 1964. The Eclipse of Community, Harper and Row.
TAM, H . , 1998. Communitarianism:
a New Agenda for Politics and Citizenship,
London: Macmillan.
THOMPSON, A., and G. DAY, forthcoming 1999. "Situating Welshness: 'Local'
Experiences and National Identity", i n R. Fevre and A. Thompson (eds.), Nation,
Identity, and Social Theory, Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
WALES RURAL FORUM, 1994. A Strategy for Rural Wales, Llandysul.
WARNER, W.L., 1963. Yankee City, Yale: Yale University Press.
WARREN, R.L., 1963. The Community in America, Chicago: Rand McNally.
WILLIAMS, C , 1995. "'Race' and Racism: Some Reflections on the Welsh Context",
Contemporary Wales, Vol. 8, pp. 113-133.
WILLIAMS, G., 1978. "Social Ranking i n a Welsh Community", i n G. Williams
(ed.), Social and Cultural Change in Contemporary Wales, London: Routledge,
pp. 253-267.
WILLIAMS, R., 1973. The Country and the City, London: Chatto and Windus.
WILLIAMS, R., 1977. "The Importance of Community", reprinted i n R. Williams
(1989), Resources of Hope, London: Verso, pp. 111-120.
WILLIAMS, R., 1989. Resources Of Hope, London: Verso.
WILLIAMS, W.M., 1963. A West Country Village: Ashworthy, London: Routledge.
WRIGHT, S., 1992. "Image and Analysis: New Directions i n Community Studies", i n
B. Short (ed.), The English Rural Community: Image and Analysis, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 195-217.
WYN JONES, R., 1991. Rural Wales, Summer (cited i n Cloke and Milbourne 1992),
"Deprivation and Lifestyles i n Rural Wales — I I Rurality and the Cultural
Dimension", Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 8, No. 4.
YOUNG, I . M . , 1990. "The Ideal of Community and the Politics of Difference", i n
L. Nicholson, Feminism /Postmodernism, London: Routledge, pp. 300-323.
YOUNG, M . , and P. WILLMOTT, 1962. Family and Kinship in Bethnal Green,
Penguin.