Why do people romanticize BPD

Land and rurality

Young families enthusiastically lease allotment gardens or fields from farmers, urban community gardens are springing up like mushrooms, country magazines are sold in the millions and wild herb collection courses are fully booked. There has never been more country feeling. The trendsetters of the "new rurality" are not, however, villagers, but mostly townspeople who try their hand at growing, harvesting and boiling. It is pointless to mention that these are mostly idealized ideas of rural life that have little to do with "real" conditions in the countryside or even in agriculture. [1] This is not really surprising, because the imagination of the rural always served as a counterpoint to (modern) city life. The current country renaissance is thus in a long tradition, because even the writers and painters of the early modern period did not have "real" country life in mind when they were looking for Arcadia and thus themselves created idealized places of longing in the form of shepherd idylls. The Enlightenment of the 19th century wrote the "songs for the farmer" not for the rural people, but for the educated middle class, who enjoyed the supposed naturalness of the farmers and sower. [2]

The antagonism between "unadulterated rural life" and "urban alienation" is deeply inscribed in the "source code of modernity", according to the cultural scientist Stefan Höhne. [3] Therefore, it does not go far enough to dismiss the idyllization of country life à la "Musikantenstadl" or "Landlust" as the bad taste of senior citizens and housewives. Rather, the question arises as to which images of the city and the countryside are generated. By whom, for whom? Or to put it another way: Which processes of social change does the New Rurality respond to?

Current social analyzes suggest that the (urban) middle class is deeply insecure, embittered, plagued by status panic and grinds itself to pieces in the hunt for work-life balance in the rush hour of life. [4] The "exhausted society" is looking for deceleration, authentic experiences, real nature, local experiences and community. [5] The rhetoric of loss drives us into the arms of a supposedly better, the good old days. The New Rurality responds to various social demands, excessive demands, sensitivities, longings and fears of late modernism.

Rural idyll

The extremely popular country magazines, which appear in millions of copies, appeal to user groups that are socially structurally different and finely balanced in terms of media analysis, just like the popular music programs that are no less popular, but both "work" with the idyllic representation of the countryside and agriculture: Thanksgiving and Oktoberfest, grape harvest, vintage tractors, autumn game menus - the topics of the latest "hay bale booklets".

The "rural idyll", like the village as a place of the "good life", has always been an integral part of the artistic and literary treatment of the country. [6] Since ancient times you can find the locus amoenus (the lovely place) idealized descriptions of nature, with the landscapes of Arcadia or the shepherd's literature (bucolic) similar leitmotifs, which flourished again in the Renaissance with the rediscovery of the ancient classics. In the 18th century, artists and intellectuals then discovered the man-made cultural landscapes as natural landscapes and extolled the beauty of rural work and rural areas. The first signs of a romanticization of natural landscapes can already be seen here, as a counter-image to the subjection of nature to increasingly economic goals. The cultivated nature should by no means be restored to its original state; on the contrary, the rural idyll should be preserved. [7]

While the up-and-coming (small) urban bourgeoisie longed for untouched nature and unspoilt rural folk in art, music and literature, with the advent of industrial society and increasing urbanization in the 19th century, the motif of anti-urbanity came to the fore. The country and the village became an explicit alternative to the alienating, dirty, sickening, anonymous big city. In the years to come, which saw various waves from rural romance (life reform, migrant bird movement) to land perversion (Nazi blood and soil ideology), the same ingredients for the imagination of the rural were always to be found - the "good life", community, closeness to nature and homogeneity. [8] The village is seen as a place of the "good life", tradition and preservation; Humans, animals and nature live in harmony with each other, which is reflected in the recurring daily and annual routine, in the work and construction methods as well as in customs. Rural society is seen as a poorly differentiated community that selflessly supports itself in all the hardships of life, and the village as a closed society that lives self-sufficient and is self-sufficient. The foreign disturbs and threatens the community.

The fact that the "real" conditions in the country often resembled an "emergency and terror context" [9] and that rural society was a strongly hierarchical society - just think of the innumerable forms of köttern, kossät, kätnern, hoofers and other forms of full, half, and quarter farmers - who severely sanctioned social deviations, were and still are seldom the subject of popular cultural performances. The peripheralization and emptying of rural areas, overuse of resources, poverty and unemployment disturb the image of rural idyll, in which gardens are always in bloom and mum makes jam.

Happiness lies in the country?

Not anti-urbanity, but the desire for closeness to nature and social togetherness, deceleration and mindfulness awaken the "longing of the city dwellers for the 'country" ". [10] And that in the past 60 years with a steadily increasing tendency: In 1956, the answer to the question "In your opinion, where do people generally get more out of life: in the country or in the city?" 54 percent of those surveyed said that this was the case in the city, whereas only 19 percent said that the country was more attractive. As early as 1977, the assessment had changed in favor of the country: 43 percent opted for rural life, only 39 percent for the city. Today city life appears to the respondents only half as attractive as rural life: In 2014, 41 percent voted for the country, 21 percent for the city. As a result, only one in five thinks city life is better. The majority of respondents assume that happiness is in the country anyway (23 percent of people in large cities, 38 percent of people in small / medium-sized towns and 54 percent of rural residents). Nevertheless, the influx into the cities remains unchecked. Only just under 32 percent of the population still lives in the rural surroundings or in rural areas. [11] In connection with the idea of ​​an intact community and good neighborhoods, there is also the assumption that loneliness is more likely to haunt city dwellers than rural dwellers (rural areas: 27 percent, urban areas: 39 percent). The city remains the space for survival in everyday life, while the country is the space for the imagination of a better life.