Violence, Spatiality and Other Rurals

Occidentalism, which treats the other as the same, can be detected in both the criminological and rural sociological treatment of violence in the sociospatial sites of rural countrysides. Criminology tends to mistakenly assume that violence in the modern world is primarily an urban phenomenon (Baldwin & Bottoms, 1976, p. 1; Braithwaite, 1989, p. 47). If violence in rural settings is encountered it tends to be treated as a smaller scale version of the urban problem, or the importation of an otherwise urban problem - as the corrupting influence of the gesellschaft within the gemeinschaft. Within much rural sociology violence is rendered invisible by the assumption that rural communities conform to the idealised conception of the typical gemeinschaft society, small-scale traditional societies based on strong cohesiveness, intimacy and organic forms of solidarity. What these bonds conceal, rather than reveal - violence within the family - remains invisible to the public gaze. The visibility of violence within Aboriginal families and communities presents a major exception to the spatially ordered social relations which render so much white family violence hidden. The need to take into account the complexity and diversity of these sociospatial relations is concretely highlighted in our research which has taken us out of the urban context and confronted us not only with the phenomenon of the violence of other rurals1, but also with fundamentally competing claims on, and conceptions of, space and place in the context of a racially divided Australian interior. This article represents the second installment of conceptual reflections on this research, with the first having been published in this journal in 1998.