All participants repeatedly identified and described community in terms of geography. Its easy identification was considered a significant component of the success of rural community development (RCD).
When talking about community within rural townships, the initial and predominant understanding of residents is that a community is defined geographically. As illustrated in the following quote, when asked to describe “the community”, a number of participants immediately began describing the geographic features and landmarks that were either readily identified as iconic for the area or those that defined the boundary of the community:
“So, we’re really talking about I think south, the point-land. .. it’s a very linear, coastal type community. It’s on a road to nowhere, with nothing beyond [Rural area] essentially. It’s made up of probably two major towns – [Rural town one] with about 800 people, [Rural town two] 600, and all these little farming communities that ribbon off the main road.” (1a)
The geographic shape of the community was emphasised further by using hand movements or drawing mud maps while highlighting both the isolation and that a feature of two regions was there being no thoroughfare to another place. It was considered significant that people consciously entered these areas as their destination, rather than en route.
The rural community was thus defined by a geographic boundary and anyone living within the perimeter was described as being part of the community. However, the purpose of articulating the boundary affected its position. In this manner, community boundaries are a fluid process,
responding to subtle changes of purpose or need. For example, as in the previous quote, at times the geographic boundary encompassed all or a number of the townships in an area, depending on the reason for describing their community. An expansive approach to boundary placement was evident when describing the common experience of living in that area to an ‘outsider’ like the researcher, or when comparing their community with another rural area with whom they may compete for funding/facilities, or for economic viability.
In contrast, participants frequently identified boundaries between the townships in a rural area. “The community in [Rural town], you know they’re very close knit .. see themselves a little bit on the outer compared to places like [another rural town in region]. And they see themselves I think in some respects as poor cousins, as far as the council’s concerned anyway.” (2g)
Neighbouring smaller towns and rural areas that were included in the previous example were not included in this community identity. At times these community identities were strongly
differentiated by members, accenting the conflicting values and rivalry which to them were highly apparent:
“I think [Town a]’s really about the wild fishery and aquaculture; [Town b]’s really a timber town; [Town c] is about the history of the region, because that was the hub of the whole [Geographic area] before there was a road. .. I guess [Town c] is the commerce centre now of the area. [Town d]’s about wine and art, and, you know, an alternative lifestyle. .. Oh and people are different, you know they’re really different .. You know I hated them with a passion when they first arrived, and they used to tell us what to do and what not to do.” (1b)
The above quote describes the experienced differences between rural communities within twenty kilometres of each other within the region that was previously described and identified as the rural community. Distance is not a necessary component of establishing a community boundary, nor for differences to be felt and distinguished between geographically defined communities.
The following quote also demonstrates a strong sense of difference between two communities separated by a narrow waterway.
“And then you’ve got the [Geographic area]’s. Strange, all of them. Weird. Weird breed. Like they’re just different. I don’t know why.” (2a)
These communities share the same infrastructure based in one of the communities, for shopping and business. Yet despite this integration and close proximity, the communities are distinguished from each other by respective members and a sense of different identity is strongly expressed.
Participants, who reflected upon these geographically defined communities, attributed strength in rurality. The visibility of the edge of a populated - non-populated area as found in rural townships, is in contrast to cities and suburbs where it is more difficult to identify and contain a community defined by a distinct visual boundary. A clear geographic boundary marker contributed to a sense of identity for rural community members. It was argued by participants that a strong community identity is not equally found in non-rural areas due to a lack of distinct geographic boundaries.
“.. in a town of this nature which, you know, you can put a ring around it very easily. Not say like Caulfield in Melbourne; it’s very hard, I mean you can define it in a formal sense, but informally as a community you know, where does Caulfield begin and end and so on. But here you can. Well it’s got a heart. I mean it is a community, and it’s an identifiable community.
You know people say, ‘I come from [Rural town]’. If they live in Caulfield, they come from Melbourne or whatever. So you’ve got that.” (2c)
For many participants the geographical community provided meaning which cannot be fully
understood through a description of place, but needs to be experienced. Having drawn a mud map of the area to describe and introduce the researcher to the community, one participant concluded that
“.. you’ve got to see the set-up of it all, but now you can’t, but I’ll show you later on.” (2d) The participant later provided a tour of each of the small towns within the rural area, and narrated their history. There was a sense that the geography and physical structure of the rural community provided an insight into of the history and daily experiences within the community; that the geography could provide insight into the meaning, experience and sense of identity associated with being members of the community.
These dynamics highlight the significance of the meaning associated with a rural community, the identity pertaining to the physically defined area, and the power of that as a collective identity. The importance was further demonstrated in peoples’ response to their rural community. Participants directly related their community activity to their feeling for the town:
“Well I’m in the Red Cross, .. the State Emergency Service .. Mothers’ club or Friends of the School .. Yeah I’ve never not been (laughs) – I’m a life member of the [Rural town] footy club. Yes, yeah. No I love the town and I just love things to go right for it. I just love it.” (2e) This emotional connection and contribution to a collective and personal identity was also described as a sense of belonging, and a safe a place that can be called home:
“.. But we all manage to have some sense of home, or form some sense of belonging somewhere. .. Yes. So it’s that sense of belonging, or it’s that sense of safeness ..” (3a)
Participants argued that community development activities were facilitated by being an identifiable community. The daily interaction and connectedness became associated with visible boundaries, which further brought commitment and action to achieving valued goals for the community. The
strength of meaning, identity and values which the rural boundary signified facilitated collective action. This was frequently described as the heart and soul of the community:
“That’s what I learnt about the [project] – the community’s got a soul, and underneath there’s a bubbling mass of people and humanity we’ve got here that argue and enjoy life together. They’re the real soul; they’re the hard core soul within the people. And that came out through this process .. That’s the only reason it [the project] happened, you know because of that soul. You couldn’t do it in many places I don’t think. .. Yeah, you know it’s just good. Pick your country town and they’ll do it every time for you.” (1b)
Loyalty was one of the values considered an important part of the identity associated with country communities but less so of suburban lifestyles.
“.. And I suppose that worries me a bit that perhaps loyalty isn’t in the city what loyalty is in the country.” (2e)
This was seen to contribute to the communities’ identity and capacity for collective response.
Three other aspects of the dynamics of living in a rural community were seen as strengthening the capacity for collective action. Participants frequently referred to their remoteness as creating an environment where:
“Because we’re so remote we know each other on a first name basis ..” (3b) And that knowing each other contributed to the ability to create collective action:
“The sorts of things you can do in a rural area where you know people.” (2f)
A second aspect was that there were highly visible processes and dynamics. These could be positive or negative, but as they were highly visible it was possible to know what would need to be
navigated. These processes were often described as gossip and politics.
“I mean that’s like all small communities. It’s all word of mouth. .. I mean you can get a bad name in 10 minutes, but a good name takes years. And this town’s terrible for that. Gossip. Which most small towns are.” (2a)
Participants identified that close connections were important influences in the communication of information. They clearly considered their networks and information flows to be different from city communities.
“That’s an example: ‘we [city based services] leave out brochures’ – it doesn’t work on the [Rural area]; people do not pick up brochures here. The way to get information around here is word of mouth.” (3b)
Communication within rural communities was not through advertising materials, but through relationships and networks. These were frequently informal processes occurring in community gathering spaces.
“.. the old pub my understanding is it has virtually always been the community centre meeting place. Even though there’s a Community Centre there, they still come here as well.” (2g)
A third aspect was in response to the geography symbolising the isolation and difficulty of access to resources. The responsibility for action thus fell within the community and if something was to be achieved, it was by working together.
“.. and that’s probably the beauty of it – I hate the expression, ‘the tyranny of distance’, but a tyranny of distance away from everybody else, because, but we know we’re all we’ve got down here, we’re more willing to work with one another.” (3b)
In summary, the data identified that the parameters of rural community were geographically defined for participants. The rural geography provided clear landmarks for boundaries with which to
determine a community. However, the boundaries and membership identified depended upon the purpose for defining community. At times the boundaries were between broader rural regions yet later distinct communities were described comparing one township to another within the region. It was contended that the capacity to identify clear geographic boundaries contributed to a strong sense of community identity and belonging which, as a motivation to be involved in community activity, facilitated RCD. Being an identifiable community brought highly visible processes and
dynamics, including responsibilities for action that were highlighted by the isolation, and also facilitated RCD.