Young people in rural areas make decisions about the future, i.e., whether to stay or move away from their home area, within a context of diverse societal issues, experiences and social norms with rural connotations. Rural areas are often associated with far fewer educational and labour market options compared to urban areas. Such decisions also relate to young people’s sense of belonging, family ties and identity (Rönnlund, 2019). However, the distinction between rural and urban is in many ways vanishing, especially when it comes to the homogenisation of culture and the watering down of traditions and “regional variations” (Bæck U.-D. 2004). This observation was first made in the 1980s, as information technologies began to lead to the characteristics of urban settings being mixed with those of rural areas, resulting in what Hompland called “rurbanisation” (1984 in Bæck, 2004). Indeed, in recent decades, rural and urban areas are becoming increasingly integrated, as products and services become more accessible, especially with regard to digital tools that provide greater access to the same consumer products and services online.
This suggests that the local community is no longer the primary normative centre (Bæck U.-D. 2004), and that the younger generations’ sense of cultural belonging and their future hopes and dreams are forged elsewhere. These hopes and dreams are no longer place-specific, but elastic (Barcus & Brunn, 2010), and may change over time (Mærsk, Aagaard Thuesen, & Haartsen., 2023). Seen through this lens, the exodus of young people, whose cultural identity goes beyond that of their local community, becomes more explicable, as “our rural areas have become tightly interwoven with the rest of the world” (Cras, 2018).
Young people’s hopes and dreams are not necessarily tied to a particular space, but they are arguably framed by their own perceptions of what rural areas are, and how they compare to urban areas. For example, a Danish study shows that young people with strong academic records tend to envision their future in a way that aspires to urban lifestyles, and feel that they need to “get out to get on” (Dalsgaard Pedersen & Gram, 2018, p. 621). The research reveals that these young people’s connections to their local rural surroundings are marked by a complex mix of emotions, encompassing both attachment and detachment, as well as feelings of pride and entrapment (Dalsgaard Pedersen & Gram, 2018). However, there is also evidence to the contrary. A Swedish study shows how young individuals connect with their hometowns, and explores the correlations between this connection and their envisioned spatial prospects, which give rise to a choice between remaining “local” or opting for migration. The outcomes reveal that a strong sense of belonging significantly shapes young people’s development of a local identity. Nevertheless, there is no obvious direct link between their identification with their hometown and their inclination to stay there. Instead, the perceived and narrated associations with their hometown and other places, in combination with material conditions, social interactions, and practices, all contribute to young people’s articulated perspectives regarding their spatial futures (Rönnlund, 2019).
The perception of rural and urban areas as either traditional or modern, and therefore as safe or exciting, prevails. While rural areas offer perceptions of togetherness and safety, urban areas represent excitement and individuality (Tönneis, 1963 in Bæck, 2004). In a more recent publication, Syssner (2018) elaborates on this dualism, describing the countryside as “condition” and the city as “process”; the latter embodying creativity, renewal and progress. Furthermore, as Syssner points out, the countryside becomes the base level against which modernity and urban areas are measured. The countryside therefore acts as an antonym to the city, representing tradition and (slow) continuity.
While many depictions about the rural condition and ruralities tend to focus on the problems faced by rural people, rural areas are also often seen as embodying the good life and landscapes of leisure. The motivations and drivers that lead people to decide to stay in their home village or move away are not solely connected to imaginary spaces and symbolism. The depletion of welfare resources from peripheral communities is one of the key challenges faced by rural Nordic areas (Jonsson, Goicolea, Christiansson, B. Carson, & Wiklund, 2020). Different socio-economic groups have different possibilities and options when it comes to coping with or mitigating such processes.
Based on these considerations, young people who opt to stay in rural settings are often portrayed negatively as “left behind”, both literally and figuratively, and as such are seen as generally lacking in ambition and agency. They choose tradition and the slow life over excitement, progress and creativity. In a world where this type of perceived “upwards” mobility is synonymous with personal progress, to remain in one place is often seen as stagnating. However, new types of discourse point to staying as a potential privilege, and rural youth as possessing a particularly high degree of place-bound social and material capital – assuming that sufficient possibilities are available to them, as well as opportunities to pursue a sustainable lifestyle.