Traditionally, the urban and the rural have been regarded as opposite phenomena contributing to British national identity (Ward 66). At first glance, such a distinction between the urban and the rural as clearly distinguished phenomena appears legitimate since urban and rural areas usually differ significantly with regard to their population numbers, population density, ethnic diversity and other features.
The analysis presented in this blog post, however, emphasizes not only the constructedness of the idea of a shared national identity but, moreover, reveals that even a model distinguishing between urban and rural identity is too simplistic to grasp the complex concept of British identity in its entirety. Even though the brochures of both the rural and the urban areas investigated in this blog post undoubtedly show shared tendencies with regard to their self- image and identity within their ‘group’, it must not be ignored that each of the analyzed brochures is indicative of a distinctive variation of British identity unique to this specific place. For instance, a focus on nature – usually regarded as a feature of a rural concept of identity – is also predominant in both the brochures on Glasgow and Cardiff. Similarly, not only do the rural areas investigated in this analysis show a strong connection with history and tradition, but the same can be said of the urban areas, especially the Welsh and the Scottish cities.
The results presented in this blog post stress the necessity to question the traditional, universalist concept of British identity for the sake of an approach on a meso or even micro level which takes into account the specific features and background of the respective area in order to define a more concrete idea of identity detached from constructed categories like ‘nation’, ‘rural’ or ‘urban’.
Source
Ward, Paul. Britishness since 1870. London and New York: Routledge, 2004.
British Identities 
This project aligns with the blog’s overall objective to demonstrate that British identity is best interpreted as multi-layered and multifaceted. I find it interesting that, as you point out in your introduction, while urban populations rely significantly on the idea of traditional rural life in Britain in the creation of their identities, they are in the majority and thus can be assumed to have very little authentic experience of life in a rural area. This would explain the mythical air surrounding the idea of rural life in British culture and why it is still so pervasive. Another aspect I found striking albeit not surprising is the (near) lack of a mention of multiculturalism in brochures about rural areas. Considering the fact that Britain is a multicultural nation this begs the question of how far multiculturalism can and will truly spread and if and when it will also become relevant to rural communities.
LikeLike
I found it most interesting that your analysis of urban and rural British identity shows the interconnectedness of the terms: As you demonstrated, tradition and history are not only connected to the representation of rural identity, as one might expect, but also urban identity in the cases of Glasgow and Cardiff. Consequently, urban and rural identity seem to form a spectrum rather than polar opposites.
Furthermore, it furthered my understanding of the flexibility of the concept. You analysed tourist brochures which implies the representation of British identity to foreigners. As these do not necessarily need to come from another country, I apply the term to anyone foreign to the promoted region. Thus, while people might grow up as locals to either rural, less rural, less urban or urban areas they will probably move somewhere else throughout their lives. Accordingly, their perspective of what constitutes rural and urban Britain will change and their identification as rural, urban or in-between Brit will adapt.
LikeLike