![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The urban–rural gap remains to be one fundamental inequality in modern China; however, the symbolic boundary derived from such socioeconomic inequality is less examined. Centre on two parallel initiatives aimed at cultural empowerment for rural China—independent bookstores and public-subsidized libraries—this study tries to explicate the multidimensional nature of boundaries and emphasize the cultural mechanism of boundary reproduction under institutional layering environment. We draw from policy trajectories, media discourse, and first-hand interviews in two villages, and reveal that despite the idealized portrayal of bookstores as a public cultural centre for empowerment, the symbolic construction wielded by cultural entrepreneurs is not sufficient in dissolving social differences in a digitalized society. Local villagers are not part of the “cultural consumption as identity building” ritual therefore being excluded from an urban-and-consumption culture-oriented space. Moreover, local villagers adopt differentiated interpretive strategies towards culture-led regeneration projects, so that “rural culture” is merely the swirl of an empty signal in Baudrillard’s sense that does not bear the symbolic efficacy promoted by top-down initiatives.
Acknowledgment
We would like to express gratitude to Meiqi HE, Nan ZHANG, Min CHEN, Fei YANG, Lu TAN, and Dan LUO. Thank you for your help during field trips and in-depth interviews.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 The five rural branches were located and launched respectively in Bishan Village, Anhui Province, May 2014; Daijiashan Village, Zhejiang Province, October 2015; Chenjiapu Village, Zhejiang Province, May 2018; Xiadi Village, Fujian Province, September 2019; Beilong Village, Yunnan Province in May 2020.
2 In this article, we adopt the conceptual distinction between symbolic boundaries and social boundaries: symbolic boundaries are “conceptual distinctions made by social actors to categorize objects, people, practices, and even time and space,” and social boundaries are “objectified forms of social differences manifested in unequal access to and unequal distribution of resources (material and nonmaterial) and social opportunities” (Lamont and Molnár Citation2002, 168).
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Cheng Zeng
Cheng ZENG is a doctoral candidate at the School of Media and Communication, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, where she explores the intersection of culture, inequality, and institutions in relation to transformative media systems. Her research focuses on the diversity and distinction of cultural production, critical analysis of cultural policies, as well as the broader issue of media and social change.
Chen Mu
Chen MU is an assistant professor and master’s supervisor in the School of Humanities at Tongji University. Her main research interests are in urban culture and everyday life. She has been presiding over the Chinese National Social Science Foundation’s Youth Program of Art Studies, “Research on the Evolution Mechanism and Development Strategy of Public Cultural Space in Chinese Urban Communities.”