New representations of rural space: Eastern European migrants and the denial of poverty and deprivation in the English countryside

Journal of Rural Studies 59 (2018) 49–57

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rural Studies journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrurstud

New representations of rural space: Eastern European migrants and the denial of poverty and deprivation in the English countryside

T

Paulina MacKrell∗, Simon Pemberton School of Geography, Geology and the Environment, William Smith Building, Keele University, Keele, ST5 5BG, UK

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: EU8 migrants Rural Materiality Idyll Problem free

To date, there has been relatively little focus on Eastern European ‘accession’ (EU8) migrants' representations of the rural in Western Europe. Through drawing on research conducted in England, this paper highlights how the materiality of the English countryside strongly shapes EU8 migrants' views of rural space. In turn, their representations of the rural as ‘idyll’, as social and cultural capital and as relational, coupled with their own moral values promoting self-sufficiency serve to perpetuate the rural as being ‘problem free’. Furthermore, the conflation of the rural idyll with ‘Englishness’ and ‘whiteness’ provides EU8 migrants living in the countryside with the opportunity to become involved in various aspects of rural community life. Consequently, the paper argues that their actions, as well as their representations of the rural, further contribute to the cultural ‘screening out’ of rural problems.

1. Introduction This paper provides a number of new and significant insights into representations of rural space – and more specifically the English countryside - from the perspective of a new ‘minority’ population in the UK, namely Eastern European ‘accession’ (EU8) migrants.1 First, the paper asserts the importance of the materiality of the rural in shaping EU8 migrants' representations and practices in the rural. This includes the importance of different elements of the built and natural environment and which combine to inform a view of the rural as a predominantly idyllic space. Second, the paper highlights how the importance of the rural idyll and the English countryside as being ‘therapeutic’ and a place that individuals aspire to live within, rather than move from, leads to EU8 migrant representations of the rural as being relatively ‘problem free’. Third, whilst various studies have explored issues of racism, discrimination and processes of ‘othering’ in the English countryside (Garland and Chakraborti, 2006; Burdsey, 2013) the focus has predominantly been around minority ethnic communities who are ‘visibly different’ (Pemberton, 2016). Consequently, there has been a conflation of rurality with Englishness and ‘whiteness’ (Burdsey, 2013). However, little attention to date has been placed on the extent to which EU8 migrants – and who are predominantly white – have been ‘othered’ and subject to racism and discrimination in rural England. Hence the extent to which such individuals have become self sufficient and/or participated in rural community life is also considered. As such,

∗

1

it is argued that whilst EU8 migrants may contribute to welfare ‘by local for local’ (Gallent et al., 2015), at the same time their actions may exacerbate on-going challenges of the (in) visibility of rural problems, and the role of governments and policy makers in responding. Following the enlargement of the European Union (EU) in 2004 considerable numbers of EU8 ‘accession’ migrants moved to other European countries, including the United Kingdom (UK). However, unlike previous patterns of migration, EU8 migrants moved to rural areas as well as urban areas (McCollum et al., 2012). The most up-todate and reliable figures from the 2011 UK Census estimate that 64,326 EU8 migrants live in rural areas of England, out of a total EU8 migrant population of just over one million (1,085,351; Office for National Statistics, 2011). Whilst constituting only 0.68% of the total rural population in England, the impacts of the influx of EU8 migrants has been quite significant in many rural locations (Trevena et al., 2013). A key driver for the movement of EU8 migrants into rural areas has been the availability of employment in a number of sectors, including agriculture, food processing, hospitality and services and manufacturing (Jentsch, 2007). Moreover, whilst much discussion has taken place in England of the impact of EU8 migrants on local labour markets (including their experiences) and on access to services (for example, see Jentsch et al., 2007; Chappell et al., 2009 and Findlay and McCollum, 2013), no research has yet focused on EU8 migrants' representations of the English countryside. Nor has there been any consideration of the implications of

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. MacKrell), [email protected] (S. Pemberton). The accession countries of Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovenia and Slovakia.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.01.009 Received 17 July 2017; Received in revised form 12 January 2018; Accepted 26 January 2018 Available online 22 February 2018 0743-0167/ Crown Copyright © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Journal of Rural Studies 59 (2018) 49–57

P. MacKrell, S. Pemberton

past, in North America, the Transcendentalists viewed the rural as a place for betterment and to enhance the life of city and rural residents alike (Gallent, 2014a, pp.302–304). Such perspectives highlight that the countryside cannot be viewed within a shared cultural frame. Indeed, Halfacree (1993) has explored the rural as a social representation and a lay discourse, rather than a specific material location – and highlighted how it could be formed through a variety of personal experiences and ‘traditional’ handed-down beliefs informed by literature, the media, the state and family and friends. Social representations may therefore give different meanings to the rural (da Silva et al., 2016) and with Bell (2006) differentiating the ‘countryside in the mind’ (the ‘second rural’) to the material countryside (the ‘first rural’). Woods (2009) has noted that in recent years there have – at least in Anglo-centric circles – been attempts to rematerialize the rural and to conceptualise the rural as a hybrid and networked space. As such, it has been argued that the remaining distinctiveness of the rural lies in its differing physical material characteristics that are recognised as ‘rural’ (Dymitrow and Stenseke, 2016). In turn, these characteristics may serve to ‘animate and produce effects (both) dramatic and subtle’ (Bennett, 2010, p.6), and with “heterogeneous entities aligned in a variety of ways … …(so that) there is no single vantage point from which the panoply of rural or countryside relations can be seen” (Murdoch, 2003, p.274). In sum, the representations and actions of individuals are informed by the effect of the entanglements between subjects (individuals) and objects (rural place) as they become folded into each other (Hetherington, 2003). To this end, there has been little attention to date of representations of rural space by rural ‘others’, and in particular new rural ‘minority’ populations, such as EU8 migrants (Rye, 2014). Yet the English countryside has increasingly become a place of settlement for new immigrant populations from Eastern Europe. For example, Polish migrants (the largest group amongst EU8 nationals) have been recorded in every local authority area across the UK (Jentsch et al., 2007; Pollard et al., 2008) and have helped to reverse population decline in rural areas (de Lima and Wright, 2009: Jentsch et al., 2007; Trevena et al., 2013). Nevertheless, we know comparatively little of the importance of the materiality of the rural – vis a vis other influences – in shaping EU8 migrants' rural representations. What we do know, however, is that broader representations of the rural focused around the physical and material characteristics of rural space have shaped notions of a rural idyll – certainly in Western European contexts (Gallent, 2014b) – and involving a “set of ideas about rural areas as aesthetically pleasant and desirable places to live in” (Woodward, 1996, p.60). As far back as McLaughlin (1986), this has served to render problems of the rural – such as poverty or deprivation as invisible. Indeed, Woodward (1996) highlighted how many participants in a large-scale study of lifestyles in rural areas in England (the ‘Rural Lifestyles Project’; also see Cloke and Milbourne (1992) and Cloke et al., 1994) generally denied the existence of deprivation in the rural. In addition, through focusing on how discourses of the rural operate with reference to deprivation, she also identified how deprivation was often constructed as a 'necessary' element of rural life; as such, individual's lifestyles – which might otherwise be seen as deprived – were constructed as a natural outcome of specific ways of living in the countryside (Woodward, 1996, pp.62–63). Similarly, Milbourne (2014) noted more recently how community, landscape and nature were seen as compensating for elements of material deprivation in Wales. He also drew attention to the ways in which people were largely reluctant to define themselves as poor or identify problems with their everyday lives (Milbourne, 2014, p.577). Beyond the denial of deprivation, Woodward (1996, pp.63–65) also pointed out how deprivation was often concealed due to the importance of the rural idyll, and which given its historically specific social construction meant that deprivation in the countryside was seen as a historical problem. Deprivation in rural England was also identified as arising from a personal failure of individuals, and with such individuals

such representations. As such, a migrant-centred perspective of the rural is absent (Danson, 2007; Rye, 2014). In a UK context, ‘migrant lives beyond the workplace’ have also received little attention (see Spencer et al., 2007 for an exception; also Sumption and Somerville, 2009), and with even less reference to migrant lives in England's rural areas. This paper therefore responds to several gaps in knowledge and contributes to a wider body of literature presenting a new view of rurality (Cloke and Little, 1997; Little, 1999). Reflecting recent calls for a re-materialization of the rural (Woods, 2009, 2011) the paper highlights the importance of the physical and material aspects of the English countryside in shaping EU8 migrants' representations of rural space. In so doing, it also highlights the importance of the ‘rural idyll’ – as opposed to ‘anti-idyll’ imaginaries of the rural that have been reported elsewhere (da Silva et al., 2016). EU8 migrant's representations of rural areas in England as being problem free are also discussed. Comparisons are made between the English countryside and rural areas in Eastern Europe in respect of the rural signifying social mobility and ‘moving up’ as opposed to the rural as being problematic and the need to move out to ‘move on’ (Garapich, 2016). EU8 migrants' representations of the ‘idyllic rural’ relate to a number of previous research studies which have highlighted the continuing influence of the ‘rural idyll’ within national media and popular discourses, and a denial of poverty and deprivation in rural places (Cloke and Milbourne, 1992; Woodward, 1996). Previous research has additionally drawn attention to the sociocultural and natural contexts of place being constructed as compensatory factors capable of offsetting material problems in rural areas (Milbourne, 2014), and community inclusion and local cultural norms (for example, self sufficiency over welfare dependency) counterweighting rural poverty and perpetuating an insular approach towards the resolution of such issues (Milbourne, 2004, 2014). Thus questions arise in relation to the importance of EU8 migrants' representations in the cultural ‘screening out’ of problems in rural areas, as well as how such representations shape their own activities and relations with others in the English countryside. Garland and Chakraborti (2006, p.160) identify how the conflation of rurality with (rural) populations, which are English, homogenous and white serves to reinforce the marginalization of those who look visibly different from the ‘white norm’. However, Halej (2014) has highlighted how EU8 migrants have emphasized their whiteness for invisibility, cultural fit and residential choice. As a result, the degree to which such individuals are self-sufficient vis a vis engaged in providing formal and informal support to others also needs to be critically considered. Section 2 of the paper elaborates further on work undertaken in relation to EU8 migrants in the English countryside, the importance of the rural idyll in masking rural problems and the implications of the ‘othering’ of minorities in shaping levels of self sufficiency and welfare support in different rural communities. Section 3 outlines the research strategy and methods, including a justification for the selection of the case study area, the sampling framework and details of EU8 migrant interviewees. Section 4 presents and analyses the results of the research. It focuses on the importance of i) EU8 migrants' rural representations; ii) how these promulgate the rural idyll and the rural as problem free; and iii) the implications for rural community relations and the role of EU8 migrants in welfare provision. In the final section, EU8 migrants' representations of the English countryside are discussed, including the on-going neglect of government and policy initiatives addressing the problems of rural areas. 2. Rural representations, the rural idyll and the rural panacea Romantic notions of the rural in the West as reflective of a peaceful and past way of life have informed broader social constructions of the rural. However, whilst the Romantic movement of Europe viewed the rural nostalgically and to be preserved in order to anchor society to its 50

Journal of Rural Studies 59 (2018) 49–57

P. MacKrell, S. Pemberton

generating support from other individuals. Indeed, ethnic minorities may become reluctant to participate in village activities due to cultural and linguistic problems, by virtue that village life may be intertwined with church life (and usually the Church of England; see Magne, 2003), as well as the ‘customary’ visit to the village pub (and which can cause problems for those whose faith prevents the consumption of alcohol). Notwithstanding such processes of exclusion, they also point out that ethnic minorities in professional employment or who are well educated may be more likely of acceptance, and that this can vary according to local context – for example in respect of more affluent rural villages compared to those more deprived (Garland and Chakraborti, 2006, pp.165–168). But given that many new minority communities – such as EU8 migrants - in rural areas of England (and beyond) are predominantly white, important questions arise in relation to the extent to which they are involved in rural community life; the degree to which EU8 migrants are both willing and able to provide welfare support to others, and the extent to which they are receptive of such support. Halej (2014) has highlighted how EU8 migrants have emphasized their whiteness for invisibility, cultural fit and residential choice. But on the other hand, Hubbard (2005) and Bowden (2012) have drawn attention to the importance of ‘unmarked whiteness’ and that the settlement experiences of EU8 migrants may be informed by issues of ‘normalisation’ (perceptions by natives of how long EU8 migrants have been in the country and the passing of time); ‘investment’ (their perceived engagement in the local community); and ‘authenticity’ (perceptions of whether they have earned their placement through protecting the national ‘thing’; see Bowden, 2012). Consequently, the paper explores such issues, and the degree to which EU8 migrants – as a new minority rural population in the English countryside - are self-sufficient vis a vis engaged in providing formal and informal support to others.

being reluctant to complain of deprivation or poverty due to cultural and historical norms in rural areas based around community ‘self-help’ and a reluctance to access welfare support from the state (Woodward, 1996, p.64). Finally, Woodward (1996) also noted how deprivation was ‘othered’ and seen as more a problem of the urban rather than the rural (p.65). Similar arguments relating to the importance of socio-cultural and natural contexts of rural places offsetting material problems have been discussed in various studies conducted by de Gialidino (2006) in South America, Shubin (2010) in Ireland and Russia and Milbourne (2014) in Wales. With reference to the latter study, individuals defined as ‘poor’ discussed their situations more in terms of their everyday social, cultural, and natural worlds than in relation to personal income and material consumption (Milbourne, 2014, p.578). However, such arguments have been based predominantly around the representations and experiences of the native (white) rural population. Calls have therefore been made for a closer examination of how such representations and experiences may vary for different groups – including ‘rural others’ (Milbourne, 2004, 2014; Woodward, 1996). Hence given the increasing prevalence of EU8 migrants in the English countryside it is pertinent to explore the degree to which their representations perpetuate the rural as being ‘problem free’, and the influence of the ‘rural idyll’ therein. A discussion of cultural and historical norms in the countryside and the socio-cultural contexts of rural places segue into concerns relating to the importance of local community in mitigating problems such as rural poverty and deprivation. In this respect, several points are of relevance. First, there is a need to critically unpack the ways in which local cultural norms impose on those living in rural areas. Mirroring discussions of historically specific constructions of the rural idyll, a number of studies both within the UK and beyond have pointed to the importance of strong, established, local systems of informal support for those experiencing problems. For example, Kerr (1968) noted ‘self help’ as a defining feature of those experiencing poverty in 19th Century rural England, whilst Bradley et al. (1986) identified a ‘rhetoric of rural England’ which combines a set of values such as commitment to the community, nationalistic spirit and antipathy towards dependence on state welfare, and which can vary according to an individual's class and background (Woodward, 1996). Developing this point further, Milbourne (2004) argued that an emphasis on community inclusion in rural areas can help to offset social exclusion whilst at the same time lead to an insular focus on tackling rural problems. Similarly, in the United States, Sherman (2006) illustrated how informal work and selfsufficiency were promoted in rural communities over welfare dependency. Thus welfare support has been constructed more in relation to systems of informal support ‘by local people for local people’ in rural areas rather than a reliance on the state for welfare support (Gallent et al., 2015). Such reliance may undermine efforts to highlight and respond to the problems of those living in rural areas. Equally, the ability of individuals to both express the problems that they face, as well as the extent to which they are able to draw on local networks to access support from both within and beyond their community, can vary. Milbourne (2014) in rural Wales draws attention to ‘insider-outsider’ divisions and those deemed to be ‘deserving’ or non-deserving’ of both informal and formal support, and with the ‘non-local’ (non-Welsh) population poor being labelled as ‘out of place’. Chakraborti (2010) and Garland and Chakraborti (2006) identify that whilst the process of ‘othering’ may be applied to any village ‘newcomer’, it can be especially marked for those who look visibly different from the ‘white norm’. In the context of England, they argue that the idea that rural populations are homogenous and white is still potent and that there is a long-standing conflation of rurality with notions of ‘Englishness’ and ‘whiteness’ (Garland and Chakraborti, 2006, pp.159–160; also see Matless, 2008 and Askins, 2009). Consequently, they note a number of challenges facing minority ethnic individuals in becoming involved with rural community life, as well as

3. Methodology For this study, a qualitative research design and methodology were adopted given the need to discover and explore EU8 migrants' representations of rural space, and the implications for their experiences and practices in the English countryside. Whilst Bulgaria and Romania also joined the EU in 2007, restrictions on individuals’ movement to other EU countries for work remained in place in many areas until 2014, including the UK. As the research presented in this paper commenced in 2014, the focus was therefore restricted to EU8 migrants given that it was possible to explore their representations, experiences and practices in the English countryside over a much longer period. The research strategy involved the use of a case study approach as it provided an inclusive investigation of real-life experiences and events (Yin, 2009). Based on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) 2011 Rural-Urban classification, the North West of England was selected as the case study region. The percentage of EU8 migrants living in rural areas constituted 4.71% of the total EU8 population in the region (England 5.92%), but unlike other regions of the UK, there was a noticeable ‘spread’ of EU8 migrants across a broad spectrum of different sized rural settlements with differing population densities. This provided the opportunity to explore EU8 migrant representations in a number of different rural settings. In addition, due to the challenges of engaging with EU8 migrants, the North West was also selected given that the researchers were already familiar with the area and had previously conducted work with EU8 migrants in the region. Therefore there was the potential to recruit a suitable pool of individuals to participate in the research. In total, 30 in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with EU8 migrants living in rural North West of England region in order for individuals to discuss and reflect upon their representations of rural space, as well as their experiences and practices (Table 1). Given the challenges of recruiting individuals, a combination of purposive and snowball sampling approaches were adopted. Whilst this may lead to particular biases emerging in relation to the self-selection of 51

Journal of Rural Studies 59 (2018) 49–57

P. MacKrell, S. Pemberton

Table 1 EU8 research participants. Number

Gender

Age

Country of Birth

Marital status

Children

Length of time in the UK (years)

Highest educational qualification

Employment status

Occupationa

1

Female

34

Poland

Partner

12

A Level

Employed FT

2

Female

35

Poland

Married

2 (1 < 18; 1 > 18) 0

7

Degree

Employed FT

Sales and Customer Service Occupations Process, Plant and Machine Operations

3 4

Female Female

33 34

Poland Latvia

Married Partner

2 (< 18) 1 (< 18)

12 12

Degree A Level

Unemployed Employed FT

5 6 7 8 9 10

Male Female Male Female Female Male

27 34 18 25 48 42

Poland Poland Poland Poland Poland Poland

Married Single Single Married Married Single

3 12 3 3 4 9

Vocational Degree Vocational Degree Vocational Vocational

11 12

Male Male

27 25

Poland Poland

Single Single

1 (< 18) 0 0 2 (< 18) 1 (< 18) 2 (1 < 18; 1 > 18) 0 0

7 5

A Level Degree

Employed FT Employed FT

13

Male

36

Poland

Partner

0

12

Vocational Qualification

Employed FT

14 15

Male Male

28 60

Poland Poland

Partner Married

1 (< 18) 3 (> 18)

3 12

Degree Vocational Qualification

Employed PT Employed PT

16 17 18

Male Female Male

48 52 28

Lithuania Lithuania Poland

Single Single Married

0 2 (< 18) 0

8 8 2

Vocational Qualification A Level A Level

Employed FT Employed FT Employed PT

19

Male

31

Poland

Married

0

8

Vocational Qualification

Employed FT

20

Female

59

Poland

Married

3 (> 18)

10

A Level

Employed FT

21 22

Female Male

32 31

Poland Poland

Married Married

2 (< 18) 0

2 4

Vocational Qualification A Level

Unemployed Employed FT

23 24 25

Male Female Female

31 28 36

Poland Poland Poland

Married Married Single

0 1 (< 18) 0

7 11 12

Degree A Level A Level

Unemployed Unemployed Employed FT

26 27

Female Male

28 35

Slovakia Poland

Single Single

1 (< 18) 0

8 10

Degree Vocational Qualification

Employed PT Employed FT

28

Male

21

Slovakia

Single

0

1

Vocational Qualification

Employed FT

29 30

Male Male

20 28

Poland Czech

Single Single

0 0

1 8

Vocational Qualification Degree

Employed FT Employed FT

a

Qualification Qualification Qualification Qualification

Employed FT Employed FT Employed FT Unemployed Unemployed Employed FT

Manager, Directors and Senior Officials Elementary Occupations Professional Occupations Elementary Occupations

Manager, Directors and Senior Officials Skilled Trades Occupations Sales and Customer Service Occupations Sales and Customer Service Occupations Skilled Trades Occupations Caring, Leisure and other Service Occupations Elementary Occupations Elementary Occupations Caring, Leisure and other Service Occupations Caring, Leisure and other Service Occupations Caring, Leisure and other Service Occupations Unemployed Process, Plant and Machine Operations Unemployed Unemployed Sales and Customer Service Occupations Professional Occupations Process, Plant and Machine Operations Administrative and Secretarial occupations Elementary Occupations Skilled Trades Occupations

According to Office for National Statistics (ONS) Standard Occupational Classification.

for between one and 12 years and with around 35% of interviewees (n = 11) being in the UK for five years or less. It is also important to note that interviews were conducted with those EU8 migrants self-defining as living in rural areas (n = 30), but which closely correlated with the ONS Rural-Urban classification. Around two-thirds (n = 20) identified that they had previously lived in a rural area before moving to the UK, whilst the remaining interviewees had lived in urban areas (n = 10). Each interview lasted between 45 min (minimum) and 2 h (maximum). Most interviews were carried out in the migrants’ native language given the language proficiencies of the researchers – for example, in Polish, Czech, Slovakian, or, where that was not possible, in English. All interviews were fully transcribed (and translated into English) and then analysed using NVivo software. Full ethical approval was secured prior to the research commencing. The research was undertaken from various ‘cultural insider’ (Ganga and Scott, 2006) positions, given that some of the researchers and participants shared similar ethnic, cultural, national, religious and linguistic heritage. Clearly, being in such position can be advantageous when researching migration, including understanding spoken and unspoken language, as well as idiosyncratic cultural references (see Easterby-Smith and Malina, 1999).

individuals, the key selection criteria related to their country of origin. As such, a focus on ‘within group’ differences was less important in relation to the main focus of this study. Notwithstanding this, an attempt was made to select a variety of interviewees according to their age, economic status, occupation, education, marital status, family status and length of time in the UK. Participants were recruited using informal contacts and networks of the researcher, including social network sites, such as ‘Eastern Europeans and Poles in Lancashire’. Table 1 highlights how the majority of interviewees were Polish (around 80% of respondents; n = 24), along with others from Latvia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Slightly more males (n = 17) were interviewed than females (n = 13) and with a diversity of ages ranging from 18 to 60. Around 40% had children under 18 (n = 12) and the majority (80%) was employed at the time of the research (n = 24) in a range of occupations, notably ‘Elementary’, ‘Caring’ and ‘Sales’ (broadly reflecting the wider EU8 population in the UK) and predominantly low income work. This was despite two-thirds of the sample having either an A-level equivalent or degree level qualification. Such information can act as a proxy for economic status as questions relating to income were not included in the interview schedule given that the predominant focus was on exploring migrant representations of the rural. In addition, individuals had been in the UK 52

Journal of Rural Studies 59 (2018) 49–57

P. MacKrell, S. Pemberton

as the ideal country property”. ‘Rural heritage’, the so-called ‘time spaces’ of the rural (Woods, 2011), such as churches, castles and ruins were also strongly perceived as an integral element of the materiality of the rural and informed EU8 migrant representations of the English countryside. Hence individuals consistently highlighted the importance of the built and natural environment as being ‘idyllic’ and problem free. This contributes to the physical invisibility of issues such as poverty or deprivation compared to the city (see Francis and Henderson, 1992; Milbourne, 2004; Shucksmith, 2000), and reinforces national media and popular discourses that serve to deny the presence of poverty in the rural (Cloke and Milbourne, 1992):

4. Results and analysis 4.1. EU8 migrant representations of the rural: the reassertion of materiality and the rural as a therapeutic and relational space Rural materialities are often understood through a range of distinctive elements, such as productive activities and agriculture, (low) population density and physical (in)accessibility, as well as consumption patterns (Halfacree, 1993, 2006; 2007). Furthermore, describing and understanding the rural through the materialities of the natural environment has led to a dominant perception of the countryside as ‘idyllic’ space (Short, 2006; Rye, 2014). The pure, natural aesthetic appeal of rural landscapes is perceived as encapsulating intangible elements, such as fresh air, quietness and peacefulness. In this respect, EU8 migrants held idyllic perceptions of the rural and with the physical and material attributes of the countryside being of considerable importance when discussing their representations of English rural life. Such representations were formed via media representations of the English countryside presented through television, film and tourism websites in both Eastern Europe and the UK, and which were framed in the context of the landscape of rural England. They were also shaped through ‘informal’ representations in the form of social media and photographs:

The cottages are incredible, it's hard to believe that they are real and people actually live there. They are like a picture from an old book, or a movie! …..It is perfect (Interviewee 6, Polish female aged 34). and I guess we get something they don't have – fresh air, beautiful views, outdoor space, some kind of freedom – and they have things we don't have – theatres, massive cinemas, etc. – but I think we are richer – in experiences. I choose rural (Interviewee 3, Polish female aged 33). Consequently, EU8 migrants – in line with native non-migrant populations – discussed how problems of the rural were nowhere near as problematic as the urban – “the urban is where the real poverty is … ….everything is better in the rural” (Interviewee 20). Nevertheless, it must be noted that a minority of EU8 migrant interviewees, and particularly those in lower paid occupations, recognized problems of housing affordability and implied that the concept of the rural idyll might be compromised by rural poverty. This perspective is consistent with the work of Dymitrow and Brauer (2016) and Woods (2011) who identify that rural landscapes and clichés are often stereotyped concepts that may obfuscate issues and lead to issues of deprivation remaining unaddressed.

My friends visit many rural places in the UK. I watch their Facebook photos with jealousy; the views and the greenery are spectacular. Their photos showed me the real English countryside (Interviewee 23, Polish male, aged 31). Other EU8 migrants noted how rural landscapes often noticed on route to and from work were “unique, exceptional and distinct” (Interviewee 9, Polish female aged 48), and served to inform their representations of the rural. Consumption-based activities in the form of leisure and recreation and different products of the rural also provided the opportunity for embodied consumption (Crouch, 2006) by EU8 migrants and which were primarily based around the natural landscape, for example, “the rural is fresh air. I breathe it”’ (Interviewee 26, Slovakian female aged 28), and “the rural is the sound of birds” (Interviewee 2, Polish female aged 35). Trees, fields and pastures produce the countryside as both a living and a working space (Woods, 2010, 2011). Rural discourses of nature are also framed by taxonomies of flora and fauna that dictate the relationship between humans and non-humans, and establishes the spaces to which particular forms of life belong (Jones, 2003; Buller, 2004). Certain plants are designated as ‘garden plants’ and as such featured in EU8 migrants' representations of the rural idyll, as in the cliché of flowers around the door, or the notion of the ‘country garden’ (Woods, 2011). In addition, the importance of ‘more than human’ features of the rural such as animals was also of relevance to their representations. EU8 migrants perceived animals as being inseparably inscribed in the rural landscape. This point supports Woods’ (2011) arguments that rural space is shared with non-human life, and which shaped EU8 migrants overall representations of the rural:

4.2. Rural idyll and the therapeutic and relational rural The dominance of the rural idyll has informed processes of counterurbanisation from the city by affluent professionals in the UK (Phillips, 2002). But in terms of EU8 migrants, those who indicated that they had a choice to live in the rural (around two-thirds of our interviewees) were employed in both high and low skilled occupations. Their representations of rural England informed a view of the rural as offering social and cultural capital, and with in-migration viewed as a process of ‘moving up’ the social ladder. Many migrants felt proud of being able to live in the English countryside, which was seen as affluent, a home to the middle class, problem free and an exclusive area. It has been reported how community belonging and attachment to landscape are often more significant than material hardship and social exclusion for the native rural population experiencing poverty (Milbourne, 2014). Whilst this was also evident for EU8 migrants, reference to the rural as a space of therapy was an additional factor of significance that offset problems of living within the rural. Smith and Phillips (2001) have noted the therapeutic value of rural areas as a means to ‘self realisation’ and the ability of individuals to ‘find themselves’. More specifically, Askins (2009) illustrated how the rural was of therapeutic value to individuals with African, Caribbean and Asian backgrounds in the UK in terms of their ability to relieve stress and to generate health benefits from being in natural surroundings. Conradson (2005) has also highlighted the need to focus on therapeutic experiences and the ways individuals interact with therapeutic landscapes, rather than a focus on landscape qualities alone. He identified a number of factors that enhance or detract from the therapeutic potential of a particular landscape. These include i) the presence of other individuals which may lead to positive interpersonal interactions,

When I think of rural, the first thing I associate it with is the rural animals: horses, sheep and cattle. They are part of the rural look! (Interviewee 21, Polish female aged 32). Beyond the natural environment, EU8 migrants also made extensive reference to the built environment. For example, stonewalls were discussed by EU8 migrants as being a distinct and integral element of the natural environment and landscape, yet were also recognised as being human-made. Rural property was a further feature that was discussed. Stone cottages and country estates were described as charming, spacious, and inscribed in the rural landscape. These representations corroborate Woods' (2011, p.231) argument, that one of the most powerful components of the rural idyll is “the image of the rose-covered cottage 53

Journal of Rural Studies 59 (2018) 49–57

P. MacKrell, S. Pemberton

ii) the possibility for ‘personal renewal’ through encounters with wilderness, iii) the importance of human, non-human and material entities in different spatial contexts (and alluding to the importance of therapeutic places; see Thrift, 1999) and iv) the ability to distance oneself from home demands. Our research highlighted that a number of these claims were of relevance for EU8 migrants. For example, rural areas were seen as therapeutic spaces derived from the landscape as well as through their practices of landscape interaction. Key features cited were the natural surroundings, the landscape, greenery, peacefulness, fresh air and presence (and sounds) of rural fauna. But an interesting factor – and over and above existing commentaries - was made by EU8 migrants sharing accommodation, or who had large families. Such individuals stated that outdoor rural space provided the opportunity to ‘feel free’ and to ‘be themselves’, as well as providing the opportunity for societal encounters with friends and family, especially through walks or picnics. As such, the rural acted as an escape ‘from a crowded home’. Hence its therapeutic value was particularly important for those EU8 migrants who lived in rented accommodation and/or shared a bedroom. Additionally, rural space was therapeutic for offsetting work pressures and home demands. This was the case for all EU8 migrants but especially for those who were employed in occupations such as farming, manufacturing and hospitality that required long hours, which were often physically demanding, and where migrants “almost never got to see the sunlight” (Interviewee 5, Polish male aged 27). Accordingly, the rural was identified as having a positive influence on physical and mental health:

opportunity), rather than on issues of rural poverty or deprivation in England. Being ‘poor’ in the English countryside was a choice rather than being an integral part of rural living: I don't understand how someone could be without a job, or any money here? You either have to be really unfortunate or really stupid. I never found it difficult to find jobs (Interviewee 30, Czech male aged 28) and A village in the UK and a village in Poland – there are two different things. I think that rural places and people here are a lot richer; here you see Land Rovers outside people's houses, back home usually some old rusty cars …. poverty everywhere (Interviewee 8, Polish female aged 25). Hence the contrast between rural England and the rural ‘back home’ related to both visual and material aspects of the countryside, but also living and working conditions including the quality of housing, the ease of mobility and the availability of services. Rural England was seen – in contrast to the rural in EU8 countries - as a space where life was easier and which offered opportunities, and where dreams could be achieved. 4.3. EU8 migrant self-sufficiency and welfare provision In the United States, Sherman (2006) noted how those experiencing rural poverty were more likely to be self-sufficient and seek informal support than become welfare dependent. Similarly, in rural Wales Milbourne (2014, p.576) pointed out how ‘community’ – as an aggregating concept – promotes particular moral discourses of rurality and welfare involving self-reliance, and as a legacy of paternalism. Whilst our study did not focus in issues of migrant poverty per se, it was apparent that a strong work ethic pervaded EU8 migrant interviewees and which was based around the need for self-sufficiency:

I first moved here because I needed a break, to escape from my chaotic, busy lifestyle. I can slow down and feel that I am alive again. The rural space, the nature of it, works like an everyday therapy for me (Interviewee 6, Polish female aged 34). Reference was also made to opportunities for embodied consumption of the rural as a therapeutic activity – through walking, trekking, cycling and climbing – as being seasonal. During the winter, walking and trekking were more popular for EU8 migrants, whilst in the summer a wider range of therapeutic activities were discussed given that migrants stated that they felt safer and could be outside for longer. Whilst such claims could also be made for the non-migrant population, what did emerge was a strong emphasis on the rural as providing a ‘free of charge’ form of mental and physical therapy. This was important for EU8 migrants on lower incomes and not widely discussed in other studies:

I don't like to bother anyone, share my problems. It is my problem, not someone else's - so I just get on with things (Interviewee 16, Lithuanian male aged 48). The need for self-sufficiency contributed to a lack of involvement by some in rural community life and to provide welfare support to others. A lack of time to become involved in community activities was also reported by a number of EU8 respondents, whilst others who were ‘new’ to an area were less aware of the opportunities to become involved. Language barriers were also referred to, as well as historical political ‘baggage’ and a lack of trust in the state. This meant that EU8 migrants were less likely to participate in local elections (and despite being eligible to do so; see Driver and Garapich, 2012). Nevertheless, the majority of interviewees noted how they were making active contributions to their rural community in a number of ways given that their whiteness helped to avoid experiences of racism or discrimination (Halej, 2014). This is in contrast to other ethnic minorities in rural England whom are often excluded from village life on the basis of their visible difference from the ‘white norm’, and with rurality conflated with notions of “Englishness” and “whiteness” (Garland and Chakraborti, 2006, p.160; also see Matless, 1998; Askins, 2009). Some EU8 migrants therefore went as far as saying that they “felt lucky” (Interviewee 8) to be white as otherwise they would be more susceptible to discrimination and ‘othering’. They felt that being ‘white’ made them less visible and therefore eased the initial integration process and the ability to blend in. Moreover, it was perceived that whiteness, along with other characteristics such as having a similar culture and religion, would help in their acceptance by local residents, and who they felt were reluctant towards, if not against population change in their rural communities:

We don't have to drive anywhere, so we save money, and then we save money again by not having to have to pay for the gym membership – our outdoor is free of charge. And when you try to save money things like that are double important (Interviewee 8, Polish female aged 25). Beyond the therapeutic rural, a relational perspective of the English countryside was also a key driver behind EU8 migrants' idyllic view of rural England. A consideration of ‘relational rurals’ (Heley and Jones, 2012), including the ‘embodied rural’ and a ‘trans-rural’ perspective (connecting one rural in an international chain of rurals) have previously been discussed (see Askins, 2009). But less consideration has been placed on how migrants directly compare ‘different rurals’ in a comparative sense with respect to their representations and experiences. Whilst interviewees commented upon how quality of life in both rural and urban areas had improved considerably in Eastern Europe over the last twenty years, older individuals referred to historic problems of rural poverty and deprivation in Eastern Europe. Hence living in rural England was perceived as being relatively unproblematic compared to the situation in their countries of origin. In essence, EU8 migrants – regardless of socio-economic status – focused more on how their experiences compared to ‘back home’ (and with such areas being portrayed as poor and with individuals being alienated and lacking

You'll see only white people here. My friend has a husband who's an Arab and a Muslim …. .I don't think they'd feel good here. 54

Journal of Rural Studies 59 (2018) 49–57

P. MacKrell, S. Pemberton

involvement in church-related activities, whilst involvement in other ‘traditional’ social activities - such as the local pub – was again dependent upon migrants' dispositions, including socio-economic status, language proficiency and length of time in the UK. Such visits to the pub were also deemed to be ‘non-mundane’ – visits were more sporadic and viewed as an opportunity to experience the “authentic rural life” (Interviewee 28, Slovakian male aged 21). Welfare that EU8 migrants provided to others included sharing transport with other migrants and non-migrants to take children to school or to attend Sunday mass at a church that was in a neighbouring village, as well as providing help with grocery shopping. EU8 migrants also undertook voluntary work and helped in maintaining the village, organising community events and with local fundraising activities to support local community infrastructure as well as those ‘in need’ (for example, through food-banks):

Everybody would notice them straight away, they'd talk about them and they just wouldn't be comfortable here. In a town you can disappear, but in a small village – everybody sees you, especially when you're different. And different doesn't mean good (Interviewee 1, Polish female aged 34) Therefore whilst discourses of localism have been mobilised in the countryside to exclude ‘rural others’ who are perceived as being visibly different, the whiteness of EU8 migrants meant that they were able to ‘blend in’ (Halej, 2014), and with discrimination based on ‘unmarked whiteness’ being less of a problem (Hubbard, 2005; Bowden, 2012) for a number of reasons. First, given that EU accession took place from 2004 onwards, and with many migrants moving into rural areas in the UK once they arrived, it was perceived by EU8 migrants that they had become increasingly ‘normalised’ in the English countryside with the passing of time. Second, given their widely reported work ethic and employment in rural industries (Jentsch et al., 2007), they also argued that they had ‘invested’ in both the rural and the UK more broadly. For other ethnic minorities in rural areas of the UK, it has been reported how professional status was a way for individuals to ‘blend in’ with middle class notions of respectability and to become accepted through “re-assuring white residents that they are not ‘scroungers’ of state benefits” (Garland and Chakraborti, 2006, p.165). The evidence in respect of EU8 migrants was quite similar in that those who held professional positions –and who were proficient in English - believed that it had helped them to gain respect from local residents and to ‘move up’ the ladder in the hierarchy of migrants. This was especially felt to be the case in ‘smaller’ rural communities where their visibility was more immediately apparent. Third, EU8 migrants argued that their whiteness supported their ‘authenticity’ (Bowden, 2012), although some individuals who had arrived in the rural more recently were more cautious and noted that they “stayed quiet” (Interviewee 17, Lithuanian female aged 52) and “did not bother anyone” (Interviewee 9, Polish female aged 48) in order to remain unnoticed and to “slowly ease in” (Interviewee 21, Polish female aged 32). Hence only after a period of time did they feel more comfortable in “opening up” as they wanted to become used to living in the community first (Interviewee 8, Polish female aged 25). But more implicitly, their responses also indicated that rather than being a victim, their lack of familiarity with visible diversity in Eastern Europe meant that they had purposefully moved to the rural in order to be “amongst other white people” (Interviewee 13, Polish male aged 36), and to position themselves in the hierarchy of ‘whiteness’ and ‘Europeanness’ (see Garapich, 2016). This was especially the case for EU8 migrants who had previously resided in more remote rural market towns or villages in Eastern Europe and who had experienced very little previous contact with non-white populations. Hence they were therefore more likely to be perpetrators of racism and discrimination towards others who were visibly different:

I participate in village stuff, especially for children, local nursery, etc. Sometimes I make cake and I bring it to the meetings and they love it. […] (Interviewee 21, Polish female aged 32) and When there is a gala every year I help with organization. We walk together in a parade and celebrate rural living. It may sound funny, but it really brings people together (Interviewee 4, Latvian female aged 34). However, the significance of such contributions is that the actions of EU8 migrants further contribute to the invisibility and insularity of approaches to resolve rural problems as reported in other contexts and for other non-migrant groups by Milbourne (2004, 2014). It also impacts on the uptake of welfare benefits by those who are entitled to do so (Sherman, 2006) and arguably consolidates a system of informal welfare support ‘by local people for local people’ (Gallent et al., 2015). Nevertheless, further research is required on which migrants or nonmigrants may be seen as ‘deserving’ or ‘undeserving’ in different rural communities and in different national contexts of immigration, welfare and employment. 5. Conclusion This paper is one of the first to offer a new view of rural space – and more specifically the English countryside – that hitherto has been less reported from the perspective of a rural ‘minority’ (Rye, 2014) - that of EU8 migrants. Alternative representations by rural ‘others’ such as EU8 migrants have been absent to date. But crucially, it does much more than this. First, it highlights the need to reassert the importance of the materiality of the rural (‘the first rural’) in shaping individuals' representations (‘the second rural’) and experiences and practices in the rural (Bell, 2007). In this respect, the research identified that EU8 migrant representations – regardless of age, gender or socio-economic status were overwhelmingly positive. Indeed, many EU8 migrants who participated in the study were employed in ‘lower level’ occupations and predominantly low-income work. Yet reflecting de Gialdino’s (2006) research in Brazil, they constructed their lives in largely positive terms. Socio-cultural and natural contexts of rural place compensated for offsetting more material problems of living in the rural (also see Milbourne, 2014). Elements of the natural environment and landscape were cited as being important in their representations of the rural, along with key aspects of the built environment such as stonewalls and cottages. Both combined to inform a view of the rural as a predominantly idyllic space. This is in contrast to other published work. For example, whilst the aesthetic character of the countryside has also been recognised and appreciated by EU8 migrants in Norway (Rye, 2014), such features of the environment were perceived more negatively through their correlation with de-socialised rural idylls and rural isolation. In contrast, EU8 migrants in rural England drew upon the materiality of the rural to

I am happy that we finally moved away from town. Where we lived before, there was lots of Black and Asian people, especially from India and Pakistan. I don't know their culture, I don't know these people, but I like to stay away from them, so here, in the village is perfect (Interviewee 10, Polish male aged 42). In terms of EU8 migrant involvement in community activity, the church was particularly important. The centrality of the church to village life has been reported extensively in England (see Magne, 2003), along with how it creates barriers to those from different religions. Indeed, the ‘twist’ in relation to previous research undertaken by Garland and Chakraborti (2006) was that such engagement and support by EU8 migrants (and particularly those from Poland) only took place when there was the presence of the Catholic Church, rather than the Church of England. This meant that there was an uneven coverage across the North West of England in respect of EU8 migrant 55

Journal of Rural Studies 59 (2018) 49–57

P. MacKrell, S. Pemberton

approval of proofs. We confirm that we have provided a current, correct email address which is accessible by the Corresponding Author and which has been configured to accept email from (p.a.grabowska@keele. ac.uk).

develop representations of the English countryside as a utopian place an oasis of calmness and peacefulness. Only a small minority highlighted challenges of housing affordability and the problems facing individuals such as farm owners, and their struggle to find funding for improvement or investment. However, an interesting difference from research undertaken previously relates to the highly relational representations of the English countryside, and with EU8 migrants continually referring to the how rural England offered much more symbolic and cultural capital that rural England offered compared to ‘back home’. Furthermore, they also noted how the English countryside was therapeutic, as well as idyllic, and which together served to reinforce representations of rural areas as being ‘problem free’. Consequently, it is argued that EU8 migrants – as ‘silent actors’ contribute to the cultural screening out of problems in rural England, such as issues of poverty and deprivation through their representations. This was compounded by their experiences and practices in the rural. As such, it was evident that interviewees were highly self-sufficient for a number of different reasons and therefore reinforced the avoidance of formal (state) welfare support in the rural. But in addition, given their ‘whiteness’, there was some evidence of EU8 migrants becoming increasingly involved in rural community life and providing formal and informal welfare support to others. Again, this serves to reinforce longstanding and historic discourses of the English countryside, which contest the existence of issues such as rural poverty or deprivation. Indeed, rather than viewing poverty as a rural ‘necessity’ (Woodward, 1996), those who were interviewed simply did not see it at all, and with individuals ‘othering’ the problems of the rural to more urban contexts. Yet we end the paper on a more cautionary note. During the period in which the research was undertaken, the referendum on the UK's membership of the EU was held. The decision to leave the EU meant that some EU8 migrant interviewees were re-assessing their options and whether to stay in the English countryside or to leave England and relocate to another country. A number suggested that community relations had been affected following the EU referendum and that they had experienced more overt instances of racism and discrimination (see Harris and Charlton, 2016). Consequently, EU8 migrants cannot be seen as a firm and continuous source of rural community self-help: there is evidence that they may leave the rural - for other EU countries or return to their countries of origin (Remigi et al., 2017) if they too become ‘othered’ by the native rural population.

References Askins, K., 2009. Crossing divides: ethnicity and rurality. J. Rural Stud. 25 (4), 365–375. Bell, M., 2007. The two-ness of rural life and the ends of rural scholarship. J. Rural Stud. 23 (4), 402–415. Bell, D., 2006. Variations on the rural idyll. In: Cloke, P., Marsden, T., Mooney, P. (Eds.), Handbook of Rural Studies. Sage, London, pp. 149–160. Bennett, J., 2010. Vibrant Matter: a Political Economy of Things. Duke University Press, Durham. Bowden, K., 2012. Polish Identity in Rural England. Available from: https://ore.exeter. ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10036/4282/BowdenK.pdf?sequence=1, Accessed date: 23 December 2017. Bradley, T., Lowe, P., Wright, S., 1986. Rural deprivation and the welfare transition. In: Lowe, P., Bradley, T., Wright, S. (Eds.), Deprivation and Welfare in Rural Areas, pp. 1–42 Geobooks: Norwich. Buller, H., 2004. Where the wild things are: the evolving iconography of rural fauna. J. Rural Stud. 20 (2), 131–142. Burdsey, D., 2013. The foreignness is still quite visible in this town: multiculture, marginality and prejudice at the English seaside. Patterns Prejudice 47 (2), 96–116. Chakraborti, N., 2010. Beyond 'passive Apartheid'? Developing policy and research agendas on rural racism. J. Ethnic Migrat. Stud. 36 (3), 501–517. Chappell, L., Latorre, M., Rutter, J., Shah, J., 2009. Migration and Rural Economies: Assessing and Addressing Risks. The Economics of Migration 6. Institution for Public Policy Research, London Available from: www.ippr.org/publicationsandreports/ publication.asp?id=649, Accessed date: 25 May 2017. Cloke, P., Little, J., 1997. Contested Countryside Cultures: Otherness, Marginalistation and Rurality. Taylor and Francis Group, London. Cloke, P., Milbourne, P., Thomas, C., 1994. Lifestyles in Rural England. Rural Development Commission, Salisbury. Cloke, P., Milbourne, P., 1992. Deprivation and lifestyles in rural Wales: rurality and the cultural dimension. J. Rural Stud. 8 (4), 359–371. Conradson, D., 2005. Landscape, care and the relational self: therapeutic encounters in rural England. Health Place 11 (4), 337–348. Crouch, D., 2006. Tourism, consumption and rurality. In: Cloke, P., Marsden, T., Mooney, P. (Eds.), Handbook of Rural Studies. Sage, London, pp. 355–364. Danson, M., 2007. Fresh or refreshed talent: exploring population change in Europe and some policy initiatives. Int. J. Multicult. Soc. 9 (1), 13–34. Department of Environmental Food and Rural Affairs, 2013. 2011 Census Results for Rural England. [Online]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/260551/Census_Stats_-_Final.pdf, Accessed date: 21 June 2016. Driver, S., Garapich, M., 2012. ‘Everyone for themselves’: non-national EU citizens from eastern and central Europe and the 2012 London elections. In: Paper for the Elections, Public Opinion and Parties (EPOP) Conference, Available from: https://www. sociology.ox.ac.uk/materials/documents/epop/papers/EPOP_article_garapichdriver_ SEPTEMBER_07_mg.pdf, Accessed date: 13 July 2017. Dymitrow, M., Brauer, R., 2016. Land or people? On the iatrogenesis of conflation. Acta Geobalcanica 2 (2), 63–75. Dymitrow, M., Stenseke, M., 2016. Rural-urban blurring and the subjectivity within rural landscapes. Society, Environment, History 3 (1), 1–13. Easterby-Smith, M., Malina, D., 1999. Cross-cultural collaborative research: towards reflexivity. Acad. Manag. J. 42 (1), 76–86. Findlay, A., McCollum, D., 2013. Recruitment and employment regimes: migrant labour channels in the UK's rural agribusiness sector: from accession to recession. J. Rural Stud. 30 (1), 10–19. Francis, D., Henderson, P., 1992. Working with Rural Communities. MacMillan, Basingstoke. Gallent, N., 2014a. Connecting to the citizenry?: Support groups in community planning in England. Community Action and Plann. Contexts, Drivers and Outcomes 301–322. Gallent, N., 2014b. The social value of second homes in rural communities, housing. Theor. Soc. 31 (2), 174–191. Gallent, N., Hamiduddin, I., Juntti, M., Kidd, S., Shaw, D., 2015. Introduction to Rural Planning: Economies, Communities and Landscapes, second ed. Taylor and Francis, Abingdon. Ganga, D., Scott, S., 2006. Cultural "insiders" and the issue of positionality in qualitative migration research: moving "across" and moving "along" researcher-participant divides. Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 7 (3), 7. Garapich, M., 2016. London's Polish Borders: Transnationalizing Class and Ethnicity Among Polish Migrants in London. Ibidem-Verlag, Stuttgart. Garland, J., Chakraborti, N., 2006. ‘Race’, space and place: examining identity and cultures of exclusion in rural England. Ethnicities 6 (2), 159–177. de Gialidino, I.V., 2006. Identity, poverty situations and the epistemology of the known subject. Sociology 40 (3), 473–491. Halej, J.O., 2014. Other Whites, White Others: East European Migrants and the Boundaries of Whiteness. School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London [Online] Available from: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1460871/1/ Julia%20Halej%20final%20thesis.pdf, Accessed date: 10 December 2017. Heley, J., Jones, L., 2012. Relational rurals: some thoughts on relating things and theory in rural studies. J. Rural Stud. 28 (3), 208–217.

Funding source This work was supported by Keele University Graduate Teaching Assistant Scholarship. Declaration of interest statement We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome. We confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved by all named authors and that there are no other persons who satisfied the criteria for authorship but are not listed. We further confirm that the order of authors listed in the manuscript has been approved by all of us. We confirm that we have given due consideration to the protection of intellectual property associated with this work and that there are no impediments to publication, including the timing of publication, with respect to intellectual property. In so doing we confirm that we have followed the regulations of our institutions concerning intellectual property. We understand that the Corresponding Author is the sole contact for the Editorial process (including Editorial Manager and direct communications with the office). She is responsible for communicating with the other authors about progress, submissions of revisions and final 56

Journal of Rural Studies 59 (2018) 49–57

P. MacKrell, S. Pemberton Halfacree, K.H., 2007. Trial by space for a ‘radical rural’: introducing alternative localities, representations and lives. J. Rural Stud. 23 (2), 125–141. Halfacree, K.H., 2006. Rural Space: constructing a three-fold architecture. In: Cloke, P., Marsden, T., Mooney, P. (Eds.), Handbook of Rural Studies. Sage, London, pp. 44–62. Halfacree, K.H., 1993. Locality and social representation: space, discourse and alternative definitions of the rural. J. Rural Stud. 9 (1), 23–37. Harris, R., Charlton, M., 2016. Voting out of the european union: exploring the geography of leave. Environ. Plann. 48 (11), 2116–2128. Hetherington, K., 2003. Spatial textures: place, touch and praesentia. Environ. Plann. 35 (11), 1933–1944. Hubbard, P., 2005. Accommodating otherness: anti-asylum centre protest and the maintenance of white privilege. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 30 (1), 52–65. Jentsch, B., 2007. Migrant integration in rural and urban areas of new settlement countries: thematic introduction. Int. J. Multicult. Soc. 9 (1), 1–12. Jentsch, B., Brian, M., de Lima, P., 2007. Migrant workers in rural Scotland: “going to the middle of nowhere. Int. J. Multicult. Soc. 9 (1), 35–53. Jones, O., 2003. ‘The restraint of beasts’: rurality, animality, Actor Network Theory and dwelling. In: Cloke, P. (Ed.), Country Visions. Pearson Edwards, London, pp. 283–307. Kerr, B., 1968. Bound to the Soil: a Social History of Dorset 1750-1918. Humanities Press, London. de Lima, P., Wright, S., 2009. Welcoming migrants: migrant labour in rural Scotland. Sociol. Soc. Policy 8 (3), 391–404. Little, J., 1999. Otherness, representation and the cultural construction of rurality. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 23 (3), 437–442. Magne, S., 2003. Multi-ethnic Devon: a Rural Handbook – the Report of the Devon and Exeter Racial Equality Council's Rural Outreach Project. Devon and Exeter Racial Equality Council, Devon, England. Matless, D.S., 2008. Writing English Landscape History Anglia, Zeitschrift Fur Englische Philologie, vol. 126. pp. 295–311. Matless, D.S., 1998. Landscape and Englishness. Reaktion Books, London. McCollum, D., Cook, L., Chiroro, C., Platts, A., MacLeod, F., Findlay, A., 2012. Spatial, Sectoral and Temporal Trends in A8 Migration to the UK 2004-2011: Evidence from the Worker Registration Scheme. CPC Working Paper Number 17. ESRC Centre for Population Change: Southampton. McLaughlin, B., 1986. The rhetoric and reality of rural deprivation. J. Rural Stud. 2, 291–307. Milbourne, P., 2014. Poverty, place, and rurality: material and sociocultural disconnections. Environ. Plann. 46 (3), 566–580. Milbourne, P., 2004. Rural Poverty: Marginalization and Exclusion in Britain and the United States. Routledge, London. Murdoch, J., 2003. Co-constructing the countryside: hybrid networks and the extensive self. In: Cloke, P. (Ed.), Country Visions. Pearson Edwards, London, pp. 263–280. Office for National Statistics ONS, 2011. Polish nationals in the UK. Migration Statistics Quarterly Report. ONS, Newport. Pemberton, S., 2016. Urban Planning and the Challenge of Super-diversity, Policy and Politics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/030557316X14748933439483. Available from: https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/generic/upweb/blog/2016/challenge-ofsuperdiversity-for-urban-planning.aspx, Accessed date: 21 July 2017. Phillips, M., 2002. The production, symbolisation and socialisation of gentrification:

impressions from two Berkshire villages. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 27 (2), 282–308. Pollard, N., Latorre, M., Sriskandarajah, D., 2008. Floodgates or Turnstiles? Post-EU Enlargement Migration Flows to (And from) the UK. Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) Discussion Paper. IPPR, London. Remigi, E., Martin, V., Sykes, T., 2017. In Limbo: Brexit Testimonies from EU Citizens in the UK. Createspace Independent, London. Rye, J.F., 2014. The Western European countryside from an Eastern European perspective: the case of migrant workers in Norwegian agriculture. Eur. Countrys. 4, 327–346. da Silva, D.S., Figueiredo, E., Eusebio, C., Carneiro, M.J., 2016. The countryside is worth a thousand words: Portuguese representations on rural areas. J. Rural Stud. 44 (4), 77–88. Sherman, J., 2006. Coping with rural poverty: economic survival and moral capital in rural America. Soc. Forces 85 (2), 891–913. Short, B., 2006. Idyllic ruralities. In: Cloke, P., Marsden, T., Mooney, P. (Eds.), Handbook of Rural Studies. Sage, London, pp. 133–148. Shubin, S., 2010. Cultural dimensions of poverty in rural Ireland and Russia. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 35 (4), 555–570. Shucksmith, M., 2000. Exclusive Countryside? Social Inclusion and Regeneration in Rural Areas. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York. Smith, D.P., Phillips, D., 2001. Socio-cultural representations of greentrified Pennine rurality. J. Rural Stud. 17 (4)), 457–469. Spencer, S., Ruhs, M., Rogaly, B., 2007. ‘Migrants’ Lives beyond the Workplace: the Experiences of Central and East Europeans in the UK. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York. Sumption, M., Somerville, W., 2009. Immigration in the United Kingdom: the Recession and beyond. Equality and Human Rights Commission. Migration Policy Institute, London. Thrift, N., 1999. Steps toward an ecology of place. In: Massey, D., Allen, J., Sarre, P. (Eds.), Human Geography Today. Polity, Cambridge, pp. 295–322. Trevena, P., McGhee, D., Heath, S., 2013. Location, location? A critical examination of patterns and determinants of internal mobility amongst post-accession Polish migrants in the UK. Popul. Space Place 19 (6), 671–687. Woods, M., 2011. Rural. Routledge, Oxon. Woods, M., 2010. Performing rurality and practising rural geography. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 34 (6), 835–846. Woods, M., 2009. Rural Geography. Sage, London. Woodward, R., 1996. ‘Deprivation’ and ‘the rural’: an investigation into contradictory discourses. J. Rural Stud. 12 (1), 55–67. Yin, R.M., 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods: Applied Social Research Methods, fourth ed. Sage, London.Further reading Chakraborti, N., Garland, J., 2011. Rural Racism. Routledge, London. Cloke, P., 2006. Conceptualizing rurality. In: Cloke, P., Marsden, T., Mooney, P. (Eds.), Handbook of Rural Studies. Sage, London, pp. 18–28. Office for National Statistics (ONS), 2016. Note on the Difference between National Insurance Number Registrations and the Estimate of Long-term International Migration 2016. ONS, Newport. Rogaly, B., 2006. Intensification of Work-place Regimes in British Agriculture, Migration Working Paper 36. University of Sussex, Brighton, pp. 1–18.

57