Masculinity, rurality and violence

The assumption that the size, anonymity and weakened social controls of urban living generates social conflict, disorganization and higher rates of crime and violence has been an article of faith in much criminological and social scientific inquiry since the nineteenth century (i.e. Tönnies 1897; Shaw and McKay 1931; Levin and Lindesmith 1937; Nisbet 1970; Baldwin and Bottoms 1976; Felson 1994). The paper challenges this article of criminological faith and questions the utility of urban centric criminological theorizing about the causes of violence in rural settings. Drawing on descriptive data that show that rural men present a relatively high risk of inflicting harm upon themselves and others, this paper explores the larger socio-criminological question as to why this might be. The question is examined in relation to the processes of community formation that shape the everyday architecture of rural life. We explore how that architecture has historically valorized violent expressions of masculinity grounded in a relationship between men's bodies and the rural landscapes they inhabit - but how the legitimacy of these violent expressions are being challenged by sweeping social, economic and political changes. One psycho-social response to these sweeping social changes to rural life, we conclude, is a resort to violence as a largely strategic practice deployed to recreate an imagined rural gender order.

Crime, Rurality and Community

Criminology has tended to treat crime as predominantly an urban phenomenon. A review of the available, albeit rather limited, empirical evidence regarding crime and law and order in rural New South Wales (NSW) raises some doubts about the urban-centric focus of criminology and opens up a range of other interesting questions concerning the differential social construction of crime problems in some rural localities, in particular the tendency to racialise questions of crime and law and order. Rather than simply developing an empirical and theoretical account of urban/rural differences, however, the paper suggests a conceptual framework for local and regional studies drawing on the work of Norbert Elias and Robert Putnam.