A new way to understand urban-rural relations: Habitus studies of rural places 75Jóvér, V. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 72 (2023) (1) 75–85.DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.72.1.5 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 72 2023 (1) 75–85. Introduction According to Lipstadt, habitus studies can be considered “the spatial studies of lives” (Lipstadt, H. 2008, 38). These studies focus on the habitus of the individual, which is sig- nificantly shaped by the determining role of family and education. Some interpretations (Reed-Danahay, D. 2020) have argued that spatiality is an essential aspect of Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, while only a few stud- ies have so far emphasized the importance of place (e.g. Lindner, R. 2003; Neuhaus, F. 2015; Máté, É. et al. 2022). Among the place- based habitus studies, the present study focuses mainly on studies related to rural places. Since urban space is often used as a reference point in studies of rural places, I will also briefly mention the role of urban space in shaping the habitus of rural places. As well as using the concept of habitus as a theoretical framework, the analysis of the difference between rural places and urban places has long been addressed for a long time in social sciences. Studies used differ- ent perspectives to explore the components of the urban-rural relationship, including the few studies of place-based habitus that have been conducted in the last two decades. These works try to capture the relationship between place and habitus by interpreting Bourdieu’s much-debated concept of habitus in diverse ways. The present paper aims to provide an overview of the international aca- 1 Doctoral School of Earth Science, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/a. H-1117 Budapest, Hungary. E-mail: vanda.jover(at)hotmail.com; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6668-6082 A new way to understand urban-rural relations: Habitus studies of rural places Vanda JÓVÉR1 Abstract “Taken for-granted divisions of geographic space (such as centre and periphery) must be viewed according to Bourdieu, as the effect of distance in social space, i.e. the unequal distribution of the different kinds of capital in geographical space” – as Reed-Danahay, D. (2020, 17) puts it in their book about the spatial aspect of Pierre Bourdieu’s action theory. Field, social space, capital, disposition, and habitus are all essential components of Bourdieu’s theory, but what about places? This paper focuses on the importance of geographical space, place and scales in a habitus analysis and tries to show the possibilities the concept of habitus can offer in spatial studies. While research on the relationship between Bourdieu’s concept of habitus and spatiality is becoming increasingly popular (Berger, V. 2018; Németh, K. 2020; Reed-Danahay, D. 2020), still few scholars (e.g. Máté, É. et al. 2022) undertake place-based habitus analyses. The present paper aims to provide an overview of the international academic discourse on place-based (in this case mainly rural) habitus analysis. Considering a dozen empirical studies from different perspectives and in different geographical areas, I focus on the specific- ities of habitus analysis in rural places. After briefly introducing the concept of habitus and its critiques, I will describe the characteristics of habitus studies in rural places by presenting various views. Then, I will show how the relationship between rural and urban habitus studies suggests that habitus does indeed contribute to the persistence of urban-rural structures. Keywords: habitus, Bourdieu’s action theory, urban-rural structures, rural places Received December 2022, accepted February 2023. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6668-6082 Jóvér, V. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 72 (2023) (1) 75–85.76 demic discourse on place-based (in this case mainly rural) habitus analysis. After present- ing the approach and its critiques, I will illus- trate the possibilities of applying the concept of habitus as a theoretical framework in re- search on places. By comparing the defining elements of the methods and interpretations of the habitus of rural places that emerge from each study, I interpret the relationship between urban and rural habitus. As a result, I draw attention to novel aspects of habitus analysis that can contribute to understanding rural-urban relations. Methodology This study aims to comprehensively analyse the possibilities of interpreting the habitus of (rural) places. The concept of habitus, often disputed due to specific conceptual weak- nesses, offers several different interpreta- tions, mainly related to time and space. The present study does not aim to define habitus. It, however, undertakes to present different interpretations of habitus to show how the use of its concept as a theoretical framework can contribute to an understanding of differences, that are place-based. Using the Jstor database (January 2022), I will try to shed light on the particularities of habitus research in rural ar- eas and of rural habitus itself in the light of twelve empirical studies (plus one rather the- oretical approach from Dirksmeier, P. 2006). My paper is based on the different inter- pretations of habitus depending on the re- searchers´ stance and the subject, method, and conclusion of the research. I filtered for the common usage of words ‘rural’ and ‘hab- itus’ in the abstract, since geographical space, and above all rurality, is a key element in the present analysis. This study analyses all search results without exception, regardless of discipline (Table 1). The articles analysed here were all written after the year 2000, mainly by sociologists and anthropologists, the research areas are varied. In my view, it is important to under- line that the studies analysed here all high- light the dimension of the place. Many inter- pretations of Bourdieu’s concept tend to be more concerned with definitional precision, often ignoring the spatial aspects of habitus. In contrast, the present paper focuses on the possibilities arising from examining the rela- tionship between habitus and (rural) places. The concept of habitus and some of its critiques In the second half of the 20th century, Pierre Bourdieu developed the first comprehensive description of his theory to understand simi- lar patterns of action (Bourdieu, P. 1977 [orig- inally written in French, first published in 1972]). Habitus, which is part of Bourdieu’s theory of action, is also commonly used in Table 1. The authors of the empirical studies analysed here* Published Authors Research field Research area 2001 2004 2005 2008 2009 2010 2012 2014 2014 2015 2016 2019 Ilahiane, H. Corbett, M. Bender, S. Funnell, R. Watt, P. Pini, B., Price, R. and McDonald, P. Benson, M. and Jackson, E. Koo, A., Ming, H. and Tsang, B. Seeberg, V. Ling, M. Lai, L. Requena-i-Mora, M. and Moreno, G.M. Anthropology Sociology Anthropology Sociology Urban Studies Sociology Sociology Sociology Education Sciences Anthropology Anthropology Sociology Ziz Valley (Morocco) Nova Scotia (Canada) Japan Southwest Queensland Essex (England) Queensland (Australia) London neighbourhoods Hebei province (China) Western China Shanghai neighbourhoods Rural China Spain *With the date of publication, and the author’s research field. 77Jóvér, V. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 72 (2023) (1) 75–85. everyday language, with a history of the con- cept going back to the work of Aristotle. In one of Bourdieu’s formulations (2009), habi- tus is a system of enduring dispositions that, drawing on experience, functions as a pattern of perception, evaluation, and action in every moment of the present. In Bourdieu’s view, actions are often explained by examining the ‘coercive and constraining’ effects of social structure (for more on this, see Fáber, Á. 2017). In Bourdieu’s interpretation, habitus plays a key role in the cementing of existing inequalities. Bourdieu argues that everyone has a habitus, which can be interpreted as a stable framework of action. Habitus, thus, forms similar individual and social patterns of practice based on experience. But this ac- tion frame does not mean a static fixedness of experience of the past, it also gives the possi- bility to react to the impulses of the present. Although habitus is not one of Bourdieu’s best-known concepts, it is undoubtedly the most controversial, mainly because of its la- tent determinism (Reay, D. 2004). The concept of habitus has mostly been criticized (King, A. 2000) for providing an “overdetermined ex- planation of social action” (Jackson, P. 2008, 165), essentially ignoring the factor of individ- ual freedom of choice. Bourdieu, P. (1990) de- scribes habitus as a limited number of choices that the agent can make. The same habitus can lead to different actions, in which the ‘field’ as- sociated with the action plays a significant role. In Bourdieu’s words, “practice is the result of a dialectical relationship between situation and habitus” (Bourdieu, P. 2009, 213). The field in question, like habitus, is part of the conceptual framework of Bourdieu’s practice theory. In Bourdieu’s theory of ac- tion, fields constitute the ‘objective’ structur- al system of social space. The fields interact through their specific ‘rules of the game’ with both the action and the habitus. The habitus it- self is activated through contact with the field and results in different practices depending on the context (Fáber, Á. 2018). An important attribute of fields is that they are “things that objectively exist in reality and can be exam- ined by empirical methods” (Fáber, Á. 2018, 68). Interpreting the interrelationship between field and habitus, the field can be imagined as a social medium, for example, the scientific field, where specific rules of the game prevail. The agent’s habitus reacts with this field to produce practices that conform to the field´s set of rules. This does not mean, of course, that the same habitus in interaction with oth- er fields cannot lead to different actions, nor does it mean that the practices typically ad- opted in a given field are compatible with the rule system of other fields. In Fáber’s interpre- tation of Bourdieu, habitus “operates without problems only in the context in which it has been acquired” (Fáber, Á. 2018, 57). Conceptual considerations for understanding the habitus of rural places Besides, the critiques highlighted above, of particular interest here are those related to the application of the habitus concept in geogra- phy. In their debate with Entrikin, J.N. (2001) and Casey, E.S. (2001) on habitus, Entrikin argues that the use of Bourdieu’s concept in geography (1990) leads to misunderstandings, not only of the individual´s relationship to space but also of key concepts such as place and space. The concept of habitus assumes that agents in similar positions within a given field can be associated with similar disposi- tions and hence similar actions (Jackson, P. 2008). This leaves us wondering how we can attribute a habitus to a neighbourhood, or even a village, and what relationship habitus has to space in general. In various studies of habitus, the influence of family, education, or work often plays a role, but physical space is relegated to the background of the analysis. If we assume, as Berger puts it, that “habitus is created by incorporating the constraints of social space” (Berger, V. 2018, 142), and if we consider “appropriated” physical space or even a particular place, as social, then we must take into account not only the constraints of social space in the Bourdieusian sense but also the character of the space or the place itself. (Social reality, according to Bourdieu, is objec- Jóvér, V. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 72 (2023) (1) 75–85.78 tified in appropriated physical space, for more on this see Bourdieu, P. 1996.) Appropriated physical space, whether we think of the rela- tions within a city or the rural-urban divide, is “similarly like fields, a space of struggle” (Berger, V. 2018, 149). Considering this fur- ther, “habitus guides spatial practices and the shaping of spaces” (Berger, V. 2018, 148), cre- ating certain structures, and we can assume that these structures also reflect on the habitus that creates them. In my opinion, it may be a conceptual gap to attribute a certain habitus to a concrete place, but the study of habitus in relation to place wants to draw attention to the fact that space or place can also have a structuring, habitus-forming effect, a specific set of rules that essentially shape practice. According to Reed-Danahay, D. (2020), the concept of habitus is Bourdieu’s most important contribution to spatial studies (which is not exclusively limited to social space) and can shed light on the links be- tween social practices and (appropriated) physical space. Reed-Danahay even con- cludes in their interpretation of habitus that it is almost inseparable from spatiality. As Bourdieu argues “social space tends to be translated, with more or less distortion, into physical space” (Bourdieu, P. 2000, 134). Consequently, habitus, which is closely re- lated to the position in social space, is also linked to physical space. In Reed-Danahay’s interpretation, for Bourdieu “social space is an underlying structure of symbolic classifi- cation that is expressed and constructed by the positioning of and relationships between habitus and physical space” (Reed-Danahay, D. 2020, 16). In the following, I will show that considering the empirical studies discussed here, research in rural areas shows specifici- ties not only in the methods of analysis but also in the interpretation of habitus. Different perceptions of habitus in rural settings – Literature review Researchers of habitus have used various methods to reconstruct the creation and persistence of spatial and social structures. In spatial studies, there have been few exam- ples of analogous studies, and most of them have focused on urban space (e.g. Lindner, R. 2003; Neuhaus, F. 2015). In urban habitus, the daily routine appears as a part of habi- tus to a different extent (Neuhaus, F. 2015), i.e., a set of semi-consciously repeated daily actions, like going to work or shopping. In contrast, the authors focus on other elements in the rural habitus, such as the role of fam- ily, tradition, or work in shaping the habitus. Studies of urban habitus tend to focus on the functioning of the city and the impulses that affect it, while the increasingly competitive field of cities requires diversity and speci- ficity to be marketable. (Although not using the concept of habitus, building on lifestyles, attitudes and daily activities Fabula, Sz. et al. [2021] illustrates essentially similar results on urban diversity.) Consequently, the habitus of cities presents a more colourful, less uni- form picture than that of the rural habitus, in which general preconceptions of the city and urban existence play an important role. Urban and rural concepts, however, coincide in the analysis that habitus is based on op- posing dispositions. Rural habitus cannot be characterized regardless of the urban habitu- al elements, and also the characteristics of cit- ies or urban districts can be better interpreted in the light of the rural habitual elements. Considering the studies discussed here, the rural habitus gives the impression of a coun- terpart to Dirksmeier’s specific conception of the urban habitus. Dirksmeier, P. (2006) re- lates urban habitus in general to the capital of the individual living in the city. (According to Bourdieu’s (1990) theory, every individu- al has capital that is not necessarily material but can be economic, symbolic, or cultural). In Dirksmeier’s theory, ‘urban behaviour’ is a kind of surplus on the scale of an individ- ual’s capital. The extent of the surplus may vary according to the perception of a given urban space and may accordingly influence the individual’s position in the social space. In this interpretation, the acquisition of ‘ur- banity’ (certain habits, behaviours, dialects) 79Jóvér, V. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 72 (2023) (1) 75–85. may represent a capital surplus for an indi- vidual living in a rural area, even if no real change in the individual’s social status oc- curs (for more about the habitus as ‘social sense of place’, see Németh, K. 2020). Take, for example, the memorable ‘up-and-coming’ figure in classic literature, Julien Sorel, who expected his spatial mobility to lead to prog- ress in social space. Moving from the coun- tryside to the city or from a small town to the capital can often mean an increase in cultural capital and prestige. These indicate above all the acquisition of a set of tools (‘place-based cultural capital’) that makes the agent com- patible with the new environment. An exam- ple could also be Pierre Bourdieu, who “from a rural family in the South of France, became an emblematic figure in French intellectual and scientific life” (Fáber, Á. 2017, 45), and in the process, Bourdieu’s habitus underwent an organic change. This could also imply that the possession of a rural and an urban habitus are mutually exclusive, with the indi- vidual either possessing the ‘surplus capital’ of urbanity or not. As in the case of urban spaces, stigmatiza- tion and selective belonging can be observed in rural studies. Selective belonging is a form of response to stigmatization (Wacquant, L. 2007) when a group of residents of a neigh- bourhood with a dubious reputation wants to distance themselves from the community. To do so, they draw cognitive (or even tan- gible) boundaries around themselves to por- tray their neighbourhood as better situated (Watt, P. 2009). Whether it is the Ziz Valley in Morocco (Ilahiane, H. 2001), or Peckham in London (Benson, M. and Jackson, E. 2012), habitus can play a key role in the (de)valu- ation of certain places. Conscious reflection, based on which the agent shapes their actions, clothing, etc. to ‘fit the place’, can over time become semi-conscious, and automatic. This mechanism impacts the ‘quality’ of the place, contributing to the maintenance of existing structures. This is not only a feature of cities and neighbourhoods but can also be observed in rural areas, within or between municipal- ities, and can be the basis of segregation. People with different ‘place-based’ habitus can often no longer recall the real cause of the conflict over time. Their experiences in the past persist in their habitus and influence the structures of the present. In the words of Jackson, habitus can be “a central mechanism in the reproduction of political, social, and economic structures” (Jackson, P. 2008, 166). Exploring rural habitus – Different approaches to ruralism In the following, I present the defining ele- ments of the rural habitus. By highlighting the differrent interpretations of habitus ac- cording to the researcher’s views, as well as the object, method, and conclusion of the re- search, I will try to show how the concept of habitus can help to understand spatial differ- ences. In their study of habitus in Morocco, Ilahiane, H. (2001) focuses on a marginal so- cial group, the Haratin (freed slaves), living in an area close to the Sahara. They consider habitus as a norm of action that drives the individual to do the ‘right thing’. Hence, the practice is a product of habitus, and the agent reproduces the belief about the right action, excluding the possibility of other modus operandi. The author presents, through in- depth interviews and by reflecting on histor- ical factors, the coexistence of three groups of people who have lived in the same area for a long time, the Arabs, the Berbers, and the Haratins. The Haratin people have his- torically been an ‘oppressed’ social group, like women, but gradually gained the right to land ownership and political representation as a result of French colonialism. Despite the change in power relations, however, the ever more common hostility towards each other and the discourse of ‘us and them’ has not decreased but come to the forefront. Accord- ing to the formerly ‘privileged’ inhabitants, the habitus of the Haratins stigmatizes the perception of the whole region, and they foresee the birth of a new Somalia. Here, the image of Somalia is being used by politicians as a negative vision. (For more on the spa- Jóvér, V. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 72 (2023) (1) 75–85.80 tial dimensions of fear produced by politics and Othering, see Sági, M. 2022a.) Despite the disappearance of legal distinctions, the society living here does not question the negative preconceptions of the other side, and the antagonism is deeply embedded in their actions. Ilahiane, H. (2001), in their in- terpretation of habitus, sees the individual as highly vulnerable to the habitus of their group, which may be explained by the strong structuring influence of religion. Despite the economic capital and power acquired by the Haratins, ‘Monsieur le Capital and Madame de la Terre’, in Marx’s words, still haunt the habitus of the villages of the Ziz Valley (Ilahiane, H. 2001). Funnell, R. (2008) has researched the role of rural habitus in individual decisions in small rural towns in Southwest Queensland. In their interpretation, habitus is not a pure academic concept. Funnell draws attention to rural forms of disposable capital, which can be sharply divided along the lines of biological sex. The body and the experien- tial capital that is embedded in it play a key role in their study of local men. Similar to Funnell, R., Bender, S. (2005) writes about the importance of embodied capital. He ex- amined the relationship between body and place in a Japanese community, analysing the tradition of “Taiko” drumming. Of the studies analysed here, Bender’s research highlighted the most the importance of em- bodied capital and the connection between ’local bodies’ and ’local places’. The body capital gained in rural places, the experience of physical work in a rural environment, and a strong physique are difficult to build on in the context of urban living because they are not necessarily advantageous for administra- tive work traditionally associated with cities. Funnell, R. (2008) highlights not primarily the social structures in rural areas but the prejudices against urban life, which make holders of capital acquired through agricul- tural activity stay due to the limited utility of their experience. The author, like Bourdieu, argues for the role of education, and gender, in shaping habitus. Similarly, the close link between rural hab- itus and agriculture is emphasized in another study of rural Australia (Pini, B. et al. 2010). In their study, the authors analyse the emer- gence of certain categories, such as the rural working class, and the role of education, con- structed in the context of the urban-rural con- trast. They, like Funnell, R. (2008), describe gender, the development of physical skills instead of theoretical knowledge acquired in school, and, in this context, the body with its embedded habitus as key factors in the rural habitus. This form of embodied capi- tal is a recurrent element in habitus linked to rural places, which, in contrast to urban habitus analyses, divides habitus according to gender. In the authors’ approach, educa- tion and teachers have a great responsibility in shaping the construction of rural areas, whether encouraging or cautioning students to continue their education. Their point of view reflects the assumption that for the in- dividual, further education is likely to open the way to an urban habitus. Corbett, M. (2004) examines, in their work on Nova Scotia, a frequent conclusion of pol- icy analyses, which argues that the primary cause of rural ‘underdevelopment’ is the under-education of rural youth. Through in- depth interviews, they describe the quality of ‘place-bounded cultural capital’ that plays a decisive role in decision-making through the habitus of interviewees. The issue of gender is also important in Corbett’s (2004) study, where they characterize educational institu- tions as traditionally gendered. They argue that women in the study have fewer oppor- tunities to make a living through physical labour, and, thus, more women typically take their chances on the school benches. (Similarly to Corbett, albeit with a different approach was taken, Timár, J. and Velkey, G. [2016] write about the structuring effect of gender on the migration decisions of people living in rural spaces.) Considering wom- en’s experiences in the field, Corbett, M. describes the school as a choice that general- ly offers the possibility of social and spatial mobility. In school, the individual gains the- 81Jóvér, V. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 72 (2023) (1) 75–85. oretical knowledge from unfamiliar places rather than practical knowledge from the place they know, i.e., ‘alienation’. Corbett concludes that the educational system and the place-bound habitus work against each other, with place-bound cultural capital, seemingly conflicting through education-ac- quired uniformed capital, opening the way to disaffiliation. Requena-i-Mora, M. and Moreno, G.M. (2019) investigated environmental aware- ness in the habitus of a rural community in Spain by conducting in-depth interviews. They described rural communities as gener- ally less wasteful, although the people they interviewed rarely described themselves as environmentalists. According to the authors, environmental awareness is not a conscious good deed in rural areas, but merely a mode of action ingrained as a result of socialization. Taking their conclusions further, the same el- ement of habitus, environmental behaviour, can be both reflexive and unconscious, de- pending on the place. What is a conscious pattern of action in the case of the urban so- cialized agent (although it may become rou- tine over time) is a natural way of practice in the rural habitus, the individuals do not re- flect on their actions in this way, nor do they identify themselves as environmentalists. Whether it is the study of the formation of an individual´s life course or the habitus of place, agricultural activity is a recurrent element in the rural concepts of habitus men- tioned in this paper. The Moroccan conflict referred to above was based on the distinct roles played by certain ethnic groups in ag- riculture, historically established and long legally regulated, while others contrasted rural cultural capital with urban cultur- al capital. The rural habitus, in the light of these studies, limits the capital that can be acquired by the agent, who, by choosing to try urban life, forgoes the knowledge offered by tradition and picks up an urban habitus. In the urban context, the rural habitus and its capital seem to be incompatible with ac- tion. Considering these studies there is an equivalence between rural habitus, agricul- tural activity, and the identification of rural areas, which contributes significantly to the low prestige of rural cultural capital in an urban context. According to Funnell, R. (2008), the traditional division of labour in rural habitus remains unchanged despite its change with the restructuring of agriculture. In their statement, Funnell, R. couples the urban-rural relation with the dimension of the ‘agriculture-industry contrast’, one of the most dominant elements in the construction of the countryside. Perhaps one of the most important findings of the studies analysed here is that almost all of them show urban habitus and the quality of urban capital forms over rural ones. This raises further questions about habitus´ role in preserving differences, given that the habitus studies themselves assume a strongly questionable hierarchical relationship. The above-mentioned habitus studies, how- ever, do not reveal what kind of habitus is eventually created by multiple migrations be- tween urban and rural areas over the course of life, whether there is a transition between the two, or what commuting entails (for more on this, see Németh, K. 2020). In their study on habitus, Koo, A. et al. (2014) analyse the impact of migration on the individual. Their interviewees are school-age children who, during their studies, are forced to relocate to large cities due to their parents’ pursuit of better income opportunities. They then even- tually return to their rural residence due to the specificities of the Chinese education sys- tem. Almost all of those interviewed have suf- fered a decline in their academic performance after returning to their school of origin, and their cultural capital gained in the city has not been of use in the rural school. To achieve what the authors call a ‘higher-qualified’ ef- fect, students who landed at urban schools acquired over time the dialect, dressing habit, and behaviour of the citizens, which were of little value and made integration more diffi- cult upon their return. According to Seeberg, V. (2014), the disproportionality of the edu- cation system is a major contributory factor to the location-dependence of the ability to Jóvér, V. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 72 (2023) (1) 75–85.82 build on cultural capital and, thus, cement- ing the urban-rural divide. Ling, M. (2015), writing on the stigmatization of vocational schools, describes a similarly contradictory relationship. While the tastes and dressing of students from rural places change, the big- gest tension is caused by the change in their work preferences. By studying in an urban school, students prefer indoor office work, which Ling, M. (2015) sees as conflicting with the state´s agenda of reproducing low-skilled service workers. The results of these studies suggest that not only the rural habitus is not adaptable to an urban context but also those with an urban habitus have difficulties in thriving in rural areas, and, thus, calling into question the hierarchical relationship sug- gested by previous findings. During mobility, the context of action changes, not only the place where the action takes place but also the field. Whether mobil- ity is a commute or a permanent change of location, the reflection on the changed context affects the individual´s habitus if the action toolkit they possess is not compatible with the new context. In addition, going back to the stable nature of habitus described above, it is important to mention Németh’s argument (2022) about Hadas’ concept of plural habi- tus (Hadas, M. 2021), according to which if habitus is constantly changing, how can it be defined as a (more or less) stable system of dispositions? Bourdieu, P. assumed (in Reed- Danahay’s interpretation, 2020) that the indi- vidual longs to feel at home and that mobility is linked to the feeling of happiness that this implies. Those who choose to migrate or com- mute in the hope of a ‘better life’ may acquire a very particular habitus. The newly emerging secondary framework of action, often called the split habitus, can prevent individuals from feeling ‘at home’ and comfortable in the spatial and social context in which they act. As a result of spatial mobility, the actor needs multiple sets of tools (for more on this, see Hadas, M. 2021). Moving between places often creates a sense of being an outsider, in essence never really feeling at home (Reed- Danahay, D. 2020). Certain habitus-shaping factors, such as gender, race or class, and capital embedded in the body, are more strongly reflected in rural than in urban habitus studies. The au- thors of the habitus studies presented above (Ilahiane, H. 2001; Funnell, R. 2008; Pini, B. et al. 2010) analyse the role of habitus almost exclusively in shaping men’s choices. Rural habitus in their reflection is characterized not only by the dominant element of agricul- ture but also (perhaps due to the individual positioning of the researchers) by masculine dominance and certain invisibility of other genders. The importance of gender in shap- ing habitus has been stressed by Bourdieu, P. and by those who have further developed his concept (McClelland, K. 1990; Reay, D. 2004). Belonging to gender, or not belonging to the dominant gender, can be embedded in the individual´s habitus in a comparable way to belonging to a religion, social class, race, or any group (for more about the powerful structuring effect of gender in urban spaces, see Sági, M. 2022b). Habitus leaves its mark on the body through actions, whether it is a strong physique due to physical work or a disposition to do or not to do certain things. The inclusion of geographical space, location, and scales (like the body itself) in a habitus analysis, and the use of the concept of habitus in geography in general, can, in my opinion, make an important contribution to the under- standing of existing urban-rural differences. In the following, I briefly summarize the findings of the empirical habitus studies listed here, with a particular focus on the in- terpretation of habitus, the methodology, and certain recurrent elements (body, gender, and class) that may contribute to the persistence of urban-rural differences. Furthermore, I am to provide a clearer understanding of the in- terpretations of the rural habitus, especially in the light of the studies analysed here. On the other hand, if I take into account that for Bourdieu reality is relational and “places and spaces are defined in relation to each other” (Berger, V. 2018, 149), then an understanding of urban habits(es) and their study is essential to the analysis of rural habitus. 83Jóvér, V. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 72 (2023) (1) 75–85. The majority of the studies listed here try to capture the rural habitus (more precisely, the habitus of different specific places with very similar elements) through the individual or group, mainly based on interviews. Most concentrate on the role of the rural place in shaping individual choices and life courses (Corbett, M. 2004; Funnell, R. 2008; Pini, B. et al. 2010; Koo, A. et al. 2014; Seeberg, V. 2014; Ling, M. 2015). They seek to show how the rural habitus (and the associated embodied agricultural capital, weak exchange-valued symbolic capital, family demands, etc.) con- tributes to the maintenance of existing struc- tures. Similarly, Ilahiane, H. (2001), Bender, S. (2005), Watt, P. (2009), Benson, M. and Jackson, E. (2012), and Requena-i-Mora, M. and Moreno, G.M. (2019) examine the persistence of structures through habitus, but they focus on practices rather than life course. The dimension of time appears in a completely different way in these studies, but they also highlight the structuring role of habitus. However, I would highlight two of the studies listed, which use a different method of analysis, moving away from the individual. Both Shavit and Lai look at a specific mediator (Shavit, Z. [2013] websites, Lai, L. [2016] the spaces of a traditional home) and use them to demonstrate the relationship between place and habitus. I consider that this is a way of overcoming the contradiction that Bourdieu’s notion of habitus is primarily about the individual or the group and that these studies are trying to say something about space, but mostly about specific places. With varying emphasis, the body is a re- curring scale in the studies. Bender, S. (2005) (connection of local bodies to local places) and Pini, B. et al. (2010) (choosing body over mind) are more explicit about embodied capi- tal being inseparable from the place, but oth- ers (such as Funnell, R. [2008] or Requena-i- Mora, M. and Moreno, G.M. [2019]) also write about practices, embodied capital, linked to place. Gender is also a frequent element in close connection with the body, and is an important structuring factor about the rural habitus. The ‘traditional’ gender roles, the practices expected of the male body (physical work) and the spaces linked to it, as well as the spaces traditionally associated with women (in these studies, duties linked to the home, or school), determine the forms of capital that can be acquired or that are to be acquired, reinforc- ing the resulting possible emigration (mainly women) or staying (men). The most dominant central factor in writ- ings about the conflicting field of urban-rural relations (Corbett, M. 2004; Watt, P. 2009; Pini, B. et al. 2010; Benson, M. and Jackson, E. 2012; Shavit, Z. 2013; Koo, A. et al. 2014; Ling, M. 2015; Requena-i-Mora, M. and Moreno, G.M. 2019) is class. Class is an important cat- egory in Shavit’s bourgeois construction of the idyllic rural (2013), in Watt’s selective be- longing of the middle class (2009), in Ling’s stigmatization of migrant students (2015), in Requena-i-Mora‘s and Moreno‘s everyday practices of urban post-materialism versus rural poor (2019), in Benson’s and Jackson’s middle-class practices of space-making (2012), etc. They, following Bourdieu’s views, see the rural habitus as the result of a conflictual rela- tionship between dominators and oppressed, which contributes to the maintenance of struc- tures. The oppressor in this relation may be a capital-owning class, or even (as in all the China-focused studies cited here) the state itself. As a result of the symbolic violence exerted by oppressors, rural places, in the light of these studies, can be associated with a number of different socio-spatial construc- tions of urban-rural relations, from the idyll to the “troubled places” (Corbett, M. 2004), through post rural (Shavit, Z. 2013), or quasi rural (Watt, P. 2009). These are all spatial cat- egories that are closely related to perception, action patterns, and thereby to habitus. Conclusions Hence, Bourdieu’s concept of habitus (1990) is difficult to separate from place-bounded- ness and can, therefore, not only be under- stood in the context of social space. The rural habitus studies discussed here portray rural Jóvér, V. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 72 (2023) (1) 75–85.84 habitus as the agent´s capital, which plays a decisive role (depending strongly on fac- tors such as gender or class) in shaping an individual´s choices and life course. The an- alytical aspects of the rural habitus concepts examined here reflect a ‘multi-layered’ hab- itus, in which family plays a primary role, followed by educational experience and work, and the role of geographical place is also crucial. Differences in spatial habitus studies may arise from the different choic- es of study methods (justified by the urban/ rural context). Rural habitus studies use in- depth interviews providing a more nuanced understanding of individuals’ dispositions than either quantitative (Neuhaus, F. 2015), or qualitative (Molotch, H. et al. 2000; Lind- ner, R. 2003) studies in urban spaces. Overall, the spatial habitus studies show a hierarchical relationship between urban and rural areas. Considering rural habitus analyses, the availability of urban habitus of- fers the actor more opportunities, while the value of rural capital decreases as one moves away from the rural area. However, urban capital cannot always be utilized in a rural context. To use the metaphor of Blondeel, P. (2005), once an individual learns to perceive and behave in a group- and site-specific way, they will be able to read and write the map, whether in a rural or urban area. The relation- ship between rural and urban habitus studies suggests that habitus does indeed contribute to the persistence of urban-rural structures through the reproduction of social practices. Using habitus as a theoretical framework can help to understand the emergence and repro- duction of specific structures and differences in both urban and rural areas. R E F E R E N C E S Bender, S. 2005. Of roots and race: Discourses of body and place in Japanese “Taiko” drumming. Social Science Japan Journal 8. (2): 197–222. Benson, M. and Jackson, E. 2012. Place-making and place maintenance: Performativity, place and belonging among the middle classes. Sociology 47. (4): 793–809. Berger, V. 2018. Térré szőtt társadalmiság (Space formed by sociality). Budapest, L’Harmattan. Blondeel, P. 2005. Reading and (re)writing the city: the use of the habitus concept in urban research and development. Paper for the international conference: Doing, thinking, feeling home: the mental geography of residential envi- ronments. 14–15 October 2005, Delft, The Netherlands. Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Cambridge, Polity Press. Bourdieu, P. 1996. Physical Space, Social Space and Habitus. Oslo, Institut for sociologi og samfunnsgeografi. Bourdieu, P. 2000. Pascalian Meditations. Stanford CA, Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. 2009. A gyakorlat elméletének vázlata & Három kabil etnológiai tanulmány (Outline of at theory of prac- tice & Three etnographic studies on kabils). Budapest, Napvilág Kiadó. Casey, E.S. 2001. On habitus and place: Responding to my critics. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91. (4): 716–723. Corbett, M. 2004. ‘It was fine if you wanted to leave’: Educational ambivalence in a Nova Scotian coastal community 1963–1998. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 35. (4): 451–471. Dirksmeier, P. 2006. Habituelle Urbanität. Erdkunde 60. (3): 221–230. Entrikin, J.N. 2001. Hiding places. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91. (4): 694–697. Fáber, Á. 2017. Pierre Bourdieu ‘politikai fordulata’ (Pierre Bourdieu’s ’political turn’). Doctoral dissertation. Budapest, ELTE TáTK. Fabula, Sz., Skovgaard Nielsen, R., Barberis, E., Boros, L., Hedegaard Winther, A. and Kovács, Z. 2021. Diversity and local business structure in European urban contexts. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 70. (1): 65–80. Funnell, R. 2008. Tracing variations within ‘rural habi- tus’: an explanation of why young men stay, or leave isolated rural towns in Southwest Queensland. British Journal of Sociology of Education 29. (1): 15–24. Hadas, M. 2021. Outlines of a Theory of Plural Habitus. Bourdieu Revisited. London, Routledge. Ilahiane, H. 2001. The social mobility and the re-working of Bourdieu’s habitus on the Saharan frontier, Morocco. American Anthropologist New Series 103. (2): 380–394. Jackson, P. 2008. Pierre Bourdieu, the ‘cultural turn’ and the practice of international history. Review of International Studies 34. (1): 155–181. King, A. 2000. Thinking with Bourdieu against Bourdieu: A ‘practical’ critique of the habitus. Sociological Theory 18. (3): 417–433. Koo, A., Ming, H. and Tsang, B. 2014. The doubly disad- vantaged: How return migrant students fail to access and deploy capitals for academic success in rural schools. Sociology 48. (4): 795–811. 85Jóvér, V. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 72 (2023) (1) 75–85. Lai, L. 2016. Hygiene, Sociality, and Culture in Contemporary Rural China. Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press. Lindner, R. 2003. Habitus der Stadt – ein kulturgeo- graphischer Versuch. Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen 147. (2): 46–60. Ling, M. 2015. “Bad students go to vocational schools!”: Education, social reproduction and migrant youth in urban China. The China Journal 73. 108–131. Lipstadt, H. 2008. ‘Life as a ride in the metro’: Pierre Bourdieu on biography and space. In Biographies and Space. Placing the Subject in Art and Architecture. Eds.: Arnold, D. and Sofaer Derevenski, J., New York, Routledge, 35–54. Máté, É., Pirisi, G. and Trócsányi, A. 2022. Városi, falusi, mindkettő, egyik sem? Társadalmi habi- tusvizsgálat egy Tolna megyei falu, Gerjen példáján (Urban, rural, both, neither? A social habitus study exemplified by Gerjen, a village in Tolna County). In A vidéki Magyarország a pandémia korában: IX. Falukonferencia, Pécs, PTE, 185–196. McClelland, K. 1990. Cumulative disadvantage among the highly ambitious. Sociology of Education 63. (2): 102–121. Molotch, H., Freudenburg, W. and Paulsen, E.K. 2000. History repeats itself, but how? City character, urban tradition, and the accomplishment of place. American Sociological Review 65. (6): 791–823. Németh, K. 2020. Marginalizált térből átmeneti térbe. Egy térbeli-társadalmi mobilitási pálya megélt jelentései (From marginalized space to transitional space. Lived meanings of a spatio-social mobility trajectory). Szociológiai Szemle 30. (2): 50–71. Németh, K. 2022. From the pluralisation of habitus towards the theory of plural habitus. European Journal of Social Theory E-publication, 1–5. Available at https//journals.sagepub.com/doi/ abs/10.1177/13684310221117769 Neuhaus, F. 2015. Emergent Spatio-temporal Dimensions of the City. London, Springer. Pini, B., Price, R. and McDonald, P. 2010. Teachers and the emotional dimensions of class in re- source-affected rural Australia. British Journal of Sociology of Education 31. (1): 17–30. Reay, D. 2004. ‘It’s all becoming a habitus’: Beyond the habitual use of habitus in educational research. British Journal of Sociological Education 25. (4): 431–444. Reed-Danahay, D. 2020. Bourdieu and Social Space. New York, Berghahn. Requena-i-Mora, M. and Moreno, G.M. 2019. Another turn of the screw on the environmental opinions: Utilizing surveys and social discourses to investigate the social perception of environmental issues. Conservation & Society 17. (1): 38–50. Sági, M. 2022a. The geographical scales of fear: Spatiality of emotions, emotional spatialities. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71. (1): 55–65. Sági, M. 2022b. Kern, L.: Feminist City: Claiming Space in a Man-made World. Book review. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71. (3): 301–308. Shavit, Z. 2013. The bourgeois construction of the rural. Israel Studies Review 28. (1): 98–119. Seeberg, V. 2014. Girls’ schooling empowerment in rural China: Identifying capabilities and social change in the village. Comparative Education Review 58. (4): 678–707. Timár, J. and Velkey, G. 2016. The relevance of the political economic approach: The interpretations of the rural in the migration decision of young women and men in an economically backward region. Journal of Rural Studies 30. 1–12. Wacquant, L. 2007. Territorial stigmatization in the age of advanced marginality. In Urban Outcasts: A Comparative Sociology of Advanced Marginality. Ed.: Wacquant, L. Cambridge, Polity Press, 66–77. Watt, P. 2009. Living in an oasis: Middle-class dis- affiliation and selective belonging in an English suburb. Environment & Planning 41. (12): 2874–2892. Jóvér, V. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 72 (2023) (1) 75–85.86 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin Vol 72 Issue 1 75-85 2023 Vanda JÓVÉR: A new way to understand urban-rural relations: Habitus studies of rural places