Political implications of Generalisations

Modern vs Traditional

Today I was asked whether there are such things as "modern" and "traditional". Normally, I am inclined to jump into a typical answer - yes, there are such things, the distinction between two terms exist. Modernity is the way we do things now, in the current world, and traditional is the way your ancestors or parent's parent's generation conducted their actions and thoughts. So yes, there would be a clear difference between the two, and that is why people still continue to use the term.

But - that answer would only be a basic response that may hit the lower level of thinking. What this candidate failed to do is consider the deeper and more global agenda that these specialised vocabulary have. We use these terms because it is USEFUL to humans. Labels and stereotypes exist because to a certain extent, they ARE true, whether it be the appearance of the majority of the Asian population or even what is "traditional" or not.

Hence, labels and terms, classifications and categories all are STILL being used in modern days for policy making, political decisions and for important access needs such as applying for grants, determining whether a country is suitable for grants, schemes, special aid provisions and more.

Urban vs Rural 

I jump to the example of "Urban" and "Rural" , which was also a point raised in my mock interview today. Do these terms still apply today and is it right that we still use them ?

The first answer I can think of is that yes, there are clear distinctions between the two terms in what they mean. Urban areas can be categorized as areas of built up or man-made infrastructure, often but not always with a higher population density that it's rural counterparts. Urban areas are usually seen as more economically productive, more clustered and has it's own set of urban geographies. Culturally, socially, environmentally and politically, it is different from the rural areas.

Rural is usually generalized as poorer and less efficient in terms of production than the urban areas. Production may be higher for crops and products that are made directly from the earth, but in terms of revenue and money it is often significantly less. The demographics and social structures is distinct from urban areas, and some rural places may even have it's own culture and traditions.

But then - think. What about the rural/urban fringe ? Is that rural or urban ? Areas like this represent a blend of rural and urban , and this leads me to the idea these terms actually encapsulate a blend of both. Urban places, if you view it in a larger scale (eg a city like London) can have its "rural" areas, however small. Rural areas too can have patches of land where it's built up and full of bustling streets and people.

What WE, as human beings, NAME and LABEL as urban and rural are actually NOT completely urban or rural. 

We call it urban but areas are in fact hybrids. This raises the question of:

Why do we generalize areas and put labels that are not entirely accurate ? Are labels ever accurate in the first place ? 

The fundamental reason why we term areas Urban or Rural, Modern or Traditional, is that they are a necessity in human society. What I mean by that is policy makers, and political leaders, need these terms so that they can manage people, control groups of people, divide groups of people, easily and separate priorities.

It is very political - and by applying labels, it makes governing and running a society easier. For example, by labeling areas as rural, the authorities can focus on promoting a "rural access scheme" or "rural regeneration" scheme which can promote increased standards of living in the non-urban areas. Or, a negative example would be political leaders classifying a country as an LEDC (a western model as it implies a hierarchy where there's a top and bottom - one where the top is economic growth - is economics even a way to measure development  ? ) - the LEDC country can then "apply" for grants of aids from an MEDC nation. Hence geo-politics, conflicts and globalisation.

Everything, in Geography, is POLITICS in it's underlying framework. Even what we do everyday, and how we label things and define things, are political.