Journal of Rural Studies 25 (2009) 98–107

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rural Studies

A play for rurality – Modernization versus local autonomy

a b s t r a c t

Keywords: It is common to understand the governing of rural space as the outcome of a conflict between some
Discourse theory romantic protectors of a lost past on the one hand, and the people who worry about creating economic
Alternative modernization values on the other. However, the power to shape the rural should not only be searched for in the open
Rural policies
struggle between protectors and developers, but also should be analysed at the level of discourse, in the
Norway
play between discourses about how to deal with the rural. In this paper I therefore present a modernist
Decentralisation
Local autonomy discourse and demonstrate how taken-for-granted truths about the rural – its history, its present and its
future – are made possible by this discourse. Secondly, I will reveal how rurality takes on a different
meaning in an alternative to the modernist discourse, emphasizing local and regional autonomy. In
demonstrating that rurality is contingent upon a play between these two discourses, I want to provide
some new insights into an important force behind the persistence of ideas about rurality in Norway.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction has fallen from 90% in 1835 to 20% today. In addition, the
traditional space-specific rural socioeconomic systems have
Rural Europe could once have been described as socioeconomic themselves become urbanized or modernized, as have the rural
systems with distinct rural properties (Mormont, 1990). Rural inhabitants. The rural inhabitant is a dying creature: ‘‘Yet small-
areas consisted in the preindustrial phase in small communities scale societies everywhere are in the process of change and it is
with social control based on personal relationships, with local becoming unrealistic and almost absurd to consider distinct
institutions or local forms of economic cohesion. There were rural ‘peasant’, ‘folk’, ‘tribal’, or ‘rural’ societies in isolation. This is too
logics that could be distinguished from the logic that structured well-known to require emphasis’’ (Pahl, 1968, p. 287 [emphasis in
the world outside. But social, material, economic and technolog- original]).
ical changes have occurred in the West during the last 200 years I will not question whether this modernization process has
and these changes have had immense effects on the European taken place or if the above is a correct record of events. The process
periphery. Urban cultures and gesellschaft (Tönnies, 1963 [1887]) will be taken for granted, as the focus is turned towards the manner
emerged when the West was modernized, and we experienced in which our culture is dealing with these changes. By ‘dealing with’
the dissolution of the pre-modern rurality. This dissolution has is meant the way in which the rural is being approached, through
been described in the following way: ‘‘There is no longer one speech, thoughts about and actions towards the rural. I am
single space, but a multiplicity of social spaces for one and the ‘‘viewing not only the horizons of possible speech but also the
same geographical area, each of them having its own logic, its own horizons of possible actions’’ (Shapiro et al., 1988, p. 38). This
institution, as well as its own network of actors – users, admin- horizon I will name discourse. A discourse is an internally consis-
istrators etc. – which are specific and not local’’ (Mormont, 1990, tent way of speaking, thinking and acting. Aided by the concept of
p. 34). discourse I will in other words contribute to the understanding of
More and more this analysis also fits the Norwegian case. Even ‘‘how we come to know the ‘rural’’’ (Murdoch and Pratt, 1997, p. 55).
though urbanization is running more slowly in Norway than in The meta-theory that structures the following analysis is developed
many other countries, the share of inhabitants in rural Norway by Laclau and Mouffe (2001), but I believe that the argument can be
followed also by readers that are unfamiliar with this discourse
theory.
* Tel.: þ47 48 010 0546. In this paper I will examine what structures the governing of
E-mail address: jac@[Link] rural space. The main question is: How is the political and academic

0743-0167/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2008.06.005
 J.A. Cruickshank / Journal of Rural Studies 25 (2009) 98–107 99

room for maneuvering towards the rural structured?1 More Governmentality is a process through which the state is able to
specifically I will focus on a Norwegian modernization discourse penetrate earlier autonomous units, in our case rural societies. This
where national economic growth and decentralization are being autonomy is challenged by Governmentality. Lyson (2006) reminds
combined in the same political project. The way in which this us about a rural autonomy when he describes rural communities in
discourse structures the governing of rural space provides a new North America and Europe less than 150 years ago: ‘‘In this social
insight into an important force behind the persistence of ideas and economic context, the household, the community and the
about rurality in Norway. The findings in this paper will therefore economy were tightly bound up with one another. The local
complement common explanations for the dispersed pattern of economy was not something that could be isolated from society.
Norwegian settlement and the dominant role played by natural Rather the economy was embedded in the social relations of the
resources in our economy. household and the rural community’’ (Lyson, 2006, p. 293).
The following argument is organized around two discourses and Interaction in local communities takes place between ‘total’
the way in which they are being chained to rurality, thus making persons and the system of interaction is transparent. Administra-
the rural a meaningful category and producing actions towards tive and economic units coincide with the borders of the local
rural areas. I will first describe the modernization discourse and the community (Aarsæther, 1972), which can be regarded as a more or
way in which the rural has been chained together with the less self-regulating system. Governmentality puts aspects of such
elements that make up this discourse. Secondly I will present an communities together in an alternative fashion. The meaning of the
alternative modernization strategy, thereby revealing a rurality different aspects of rurality is for instance mediated through
that lies outside the version that has been produced in the a national rather than a local discourse. Human activity becomes
modernization discourse. Towards the end I will show how the two meaningful in a new way, namely through its productive contri-
discourses have merged and competed, how they have been played bution to the value creation of the national community. This
against each other, producing together a particular Norwegian changed approach to governing altered the way we related to the
approach to rurality. rural.
The present study is intertextual (Fairclough, 1995), which Three general concepts grew out of the rise of national states in
means that I have identified discourses from the reading of texts Europe. These were the people, the political economy (Rousseau,
from different important arenas in the public debate about rurality 1755; Foucault, 1978) and the governing of the people (Gov-
in Norway. 120 newspaper articles from three Norwegian news- ernmentality): The population of a nation did not primarely exist as
papers published between 1980 and 2005 have been singled out to people but as members of families, villages or local communities.
form the point of departure for the analysis. The analysis is also The feudal state was in this respect simply the sum of villages and
based on three White Papers on regional policies ([Link].50, the question of rule was about enforcing juridical sovereignty over
1972; [Link].25, 2004; [Link].21, 2006), three parliamen- a territory. People, however, were something qualitatively different
tary debates on rural policies (Stortinget, 1972, 2002, 2005), than families, and had to be governed in another way. People
a collection of the program notes of Norwegian political parties became visible through statistics, the science of the state: ‘‘pop-
from 1884 to 2001 (NSD, 2001), one White Paper on policies for the ulation has specific economic effects: statistics, by making it
fisheries ([Link].51, 1998) and two public investigations into the possible to quantify these specific phenomena of population, also
arrangement and effects of rural policies (NOU2004:2, 2004; shows that this specificity is irreducible to the dimension of family’’
NOU2004:19, 2004). In addition, several books and articles from (Foucault, 1978, p. 99).
some of the Norwegian researchers who have been central in the When these phenomena, irreducible to family, are discovered,
structuring of the debate about rurality form part of the analysis of the family as a governing model becomes insufficient and the
discourses (Brox, 1966; Hansen, 1968, 1995; Rasmussen, 1968, 1995; concept of economy changes dramatically. ‘‘The word Economy, or
Aarsæther, 1972; PAG, 1974; Kanstad, 1996; Nilsen, 1996, 2002; Oeconomy, is derived from oikos, a house, and nomos, law, and
Almås et al., 2003; Arbo, 2004; Bukve et al., 2004; Selstad and meant originally only the wise and legitimate government of the
Onsager, 2004; Brox et al., 2006). house for the common good of the whole family’’ (Rousseau, 1755,
p. 1). The purpose of economy is to cater for the family or the
2. The modernization discourse and the rural household. However, this economic rationality is not sufficient for
the governing of a nation of people: ‘‘To govern a state will there-
Western modernization in itself is believed to have sprung out fore mean to apply economy, to set up an economy at the level of
of a conceptual change during the Enlightenment when human the entire state’’ (Foucault, 1978, p. 92). The dependent variable in
reason replaced religion or popular belief as the ordering principle political economy is not family or local community but the common
of society. Humans installed themselves at the heart of the world good of the people of the nation. Political economy, the people and
(Foucault, 1998 [1966]); human reason and the seizure of nature Governmentality, in the Foucauldian presentation of this, provide
were the means towards freedom and happiness. Modernization each other with meaning. Political economy is the science that
was the victory of culture over nature. makes the new problems connected to the governing of people
Some fundamental linkages in this discourse are nicely occur. At the same time, political economy is the instrument
demonstrated by what Foucault has termed the process of Gov- applied to find the solution to the same problems.
ernmentality (Foucault, 1978). In his approach, Foucault visualizes In this process of Governmentality then, family and local
a dramatic change in the relationship between the state and civil community are marginalized, reduced from a model to a segment
society, which is maybe the property of modernization that has had internal to population (Foucault, 1978), while the political economy,
the most fundamental effect on the meaning of rurality. people, wealth, resources, and the governing of this at the national
level are fixed to each other in what we can term a modernization
discourse. This new discourse has slowly developed in parallel to
1
This question has been raised earlier, although without the discourse-analytical the emergence of national states, a process where the state
vocabulary: ‘‘What have come to interest me more and more – also academically – suppresses the family and local community as principles of orga-
is exactly the public debate about the rural problems. What is the structure of this nization. Western modernization, or to be more precise, the
debate?.It is not so much the knowledge about local economic adaptations, the
development of local communities or commuting patterns that we are lacking – as
modernization of northern Europe, is, according to Bauman (1992,
the understanding of the processes that makes such knowledge a premise for p. 6) ‘‘first and foremost the centralization of social powers previ-
actions in public and private institutions’’ (Brox, 1995, p. 150 [my translation]). ously localised’’. This Governmentality and modernization of the
100 J.A. Cruickshank / Journal of Rural Studies 25 (2009) 98–107

nation characterise also the discourse through which the Norwe- that the experienced order of nature is dependent upon the human
gian Labour Party started to articulate the welfare state after the mind. Nature does indeed exist independently of our thoughts, but
Second World War. I will now elaborate on the Norwegian case. its orderliness is a result of the way our consciousness is arranged.
At the end of the Second World War half of the Norwegian Our knowledge about reality is thus limited to what humans can
population was still living in rural settlements and the majority of recognize, or in other words: We do not adjust to reality, reality
these people were engaged in primary industries (Hansen and adjusts to us. This changed view of the world can be traced in many
Holt-Jensen, 1982). This dominantly rural society was not seriously areas. Man adopts the idea that the fruits of nature are limited
restructured to any extent before the Labour Party came to domi- (Malthus, 1807) and based on this understanding human produc-
nate Norwegian politics for 20 years in the post-war period. Jens tion earns a special position in our understanding of economy. This
Arup Seip, Professor of History, gave a much talked about lecture in Copernican turn, as Kant himself termed it, can also be found in the
the Norwegian Society for Students (Det norske studentersamfund) economy of Ricardo (Foucault, 1998 [1966]). Ricardo’s economy
in the autumn of 1963, in which he contrasted Norway before and supports the recognition that the denial of the scarcity of nature is
after the Second World War. He talked about the Labour Party to be found in human production; the answer to the crisis intro-
before 1945 where ‘‘[t]here was furthermore Oslo, and there was duced by Malthus was human production. This is an important
the province with its own political life. What happened in 1945 was aspect of the modernist discourse, which I will return to. The one-
that Oslo seized total control over the province and that the Board party state in Norway was fairly explicit in its ambition to reduce
of the Labour Party crushed whatever backbone was left in the the dependency on nature. I claim that this discourse represents
parliamentary group.’’ (Seip, 1963, p. 31 my translation). a break, or an attempted break with the till then dominating
This is the common claim; a marked shift occurred in the discourse, which I will return to in the latter part of this paper.
procedure of government following the Second World War. The Anyway, following the Second World War a healthy national
logic of a new model was provided by the science of national economy became an undisputable prerequisite for the welfare of all
economy (Søilen, 2002). Indeed, the breakthrough of the science of inhabitants. Since then, the way in which some industries are
national economy in Norway is dated to the period 1835–1870 organized and the industrial and spatial structure of some regions
(Bergh and Hanisch, 1984), and attempts to nationalize rural areas can easily become a national economic problem. This move away
through economic policy instruments started early in the 20th from the local towards the national is pointed at in Britain as well:
century (Strøksnes, 2006). However, it could be claimed that the ‘‘the assumptions underpinning policy in the wartime and post-
nation and the political economy designed to govern the nation did war period relied upon a discourse which privileged the ‘national’
not operate with full strength prior to 1945. With the development over the ‘local’ and the ‘regional’’’ (Murdoch, 2003, p. 31). A non-
of the national budget from 1945 and the effort made to secure this functional adaptation in this becomes a concern for the whole
the necessary weight in the decision processes of the management nation; industries and regions hamper production in other indus-
of the state, national economic thinking in many important tries and regions. Subsidies to some regions and industries have to
respects was given primacy over other political special interests be financed by increased taxes in the rest of the nation.
(Søilen, 2002). These two changes – that one is forced to see the national
More than before one is forced to take into account the connections between the different industries at the same time as
connections between different economic-political initiatives: ‘‘The statistics make evident exactly the productive contribution from
national budgets gradually forced the economic debate onto a new these industries to the national economy – introduce a completely
track where it was not as easy as before to perform the pure and new process of meaning construction. An economic activity is
narrow sectored policy’’ (Bergh and Hanisch, 1984, p. 192 my meaningful, not for the family or the local community, but for the
translation). National economic theory thus started to have a direct national product. Increased welfare is henceforth a problem of
influence on practical policies and thereby also on the livelihood of optimization, where the most important question is: ‘‘what can the
the rural population and rural businesses. The welfare state labour force be used for and what can be gained from the productive
attempted to sort out and make the economic activities subject to effort’’ (Haavelmo in Bergh and Hanisch,1984, p.197 my translation).
management (Søilen, 2002): Norway followed the rest of the nations in the West in their
establishment of welfare states after the Second World War and in
In this situation we must in Norway give priority to the tasks
the introduction of a mixed economy. Most of the changes in
that have a substantial effect on our nation’s economy. We must
Norway that took place in the post-war period are still taken for
make a decision and make the most important one first. This
granted as ordering principles (Mjøset et al., 1994). Production per
decision, which can be crucial for how the building of our
head, subsidies, welfare, workforce, consumption, and utility
country will be continued, must not be decided on the basis of
became meaningful through their relationship to each other. The
the view of single groups or private interests. (Labour Party
welfare state was ‘‘the all-dominating way to understand the
1957, NSD, 2001 my translation).
problems and solutions in society and it characterized everything
The logic of this regime is well demonstrated by one of its in the political system’’ (Laclau and Mouffe, 2002, p. 240).
ideological leaders: ‘‘People have gradually, through scientific and I have now presented some of the characteristics of the
technical progress, managed to free themselves from the mastery of modernization discourse. In the following I will show how
the force of nature. They have managed to break free from the ties a particular version of rurality is produced when mediated through
put upon human life by nature.’’ (Brofoss in Søilen, 2002, p. 18 my this network of meaning. I will elaborate on two main character-
translation). Man is here attempting to place himself in the centre istics of rurality that have been produced by the modernization
of the world, in an autonomous position outside nature, which from discourse. These are the alleged disappearance of the pre-modern
now on is only regarded as our tool. Nature no longer possesses an rurality and the modernist neglect of rural cultures as value-
intrinsic value regardless of human objectives; it is mainly mean- creating units.
ingful to the degree that it is useful for human value creation.
Foucault (1998 [1966], p. 282) in this connection points to a turn, 2.1. The rural as unmodern
a change of direction, in Western culture in the transition to
Enlightenment, when he observes that ‘‘[t]he more man makes There is a widespread reproduction of the rural as a remnant of
himself at home in the heart of the world, the further he advances a pre-modern way of living in a ‘‘transparent community, in which
in his possession of nature’’. In this, he refers to Kant, who claimed everybody is visible and ‘everybody knows each other’’’ (Haugen
 J.A. Cruickshank / Journal of Rural Studies 25 (2009) 98–107 101

and Villa, 2006, p. 209). The rural is in other words a traditional However, this construction of rurality has been produced within
society that is not allowed to change unless it becomes non-rural. a modernist discourse as well. The rural category that emerges in
From this fixed version of the rural follows the claim that the rural– the modernization discourse was in other words portrayed as static
urban dichotomy, or continuum for that matter, is becoming and stable, in contrast to the dynamic urban way of life. Modernity
increasingly redundant and that it needs to be redefined (Pahl, was allowed to change, rurality was not. Instead, rural tradition and
1968; Mormont, 1990; Murdoch and Pratt, 1993). rusticity were to be protected (Pahl, 1968). To be sure, the increased
However, when it is claimed that the distinction between the attention towards rural societies as a separate form of civilization
rural and the urban is lost because the modern has overcome produced a rural identity, and a rural–urban dichotomy. But this
the traditional, the assumption is that the rural can be reduced dichotomy was also very much based on the existence or idea of the
to the traditional. I think that we should try to understand a little pre-modern and traditional rural societies. The dichotomy is still
more about what is assumed to be disappearing in the process of predicated on the assumption that rural space lies outside the
modernization. To address this I will take a postmodern approach. influence of modernity. As will become evident in the latter part of
Postmodernity, according to Bauman (1992), does not constitute this paper, the resulting dissolution of the rural category is not
a sudden break with modernity. Rather, it represents a reflexive necessary. I will apply a post-structuralist perspective (Murdoch,
turn; it is modernity conscious of its true nature. And reflecting on 2006) where I merge the mental and the material in order to reveal
modernity, we see that both the fixation of rurality and its disap- an alternative approach to rurality, but first I will turn to the second
pearance can be traced back to peculiarities of the modernization modernist construction of rurality: the split between rural culture
discourse itself. and production.
I will now try to show exactly how the modernist discourse
is able to fix the meaning of rurality in the first place and how
in the next instance it is able to dissolve it in our present way of 2.2. Separating value creation and culture
life. The Kantian and modernist split between reality and our
ideas about reality (Foucault, 1998 [1966]), which I have already Modernity has produced two separate ruralities, almost as
pointed out, is core to my argument. Kant says: ‘‘appearances, as products of the urbanized industrial world. Modern rurality is
such, cannot exist outside us – they exist only in our sensibility’’ meaningful either as areas of value creation based upon the
(Kant, 2003 [1787], p. 148). From this assumed split between industrial exploitation of natural resources or as idyllic places, as
ideas and reality, other distinctions can be deduced: between remnants of the national culture. In this latter sense rurality is
the rural as a category of thought and what Mormont (1990, p. meaningful primarily as areas of recreation in nature. These two
30) calls ‘‘events’’ (increased mobility, increased heterogeneity versions of the rural are both contingent on one and the same
and new uses of the countryside), between what Murdoch and discourse. This discourse, as any discourse (Åkerstrøm Andersen,
Pratt (1993, p. 416) call ‘‘England in the mind’’ versus ‘‘lived 2003), makes it possible to approach the rural in a particular way,
experience’’. Aided by these distinctions the original meaning of but it also excludes themes, arguments and positions from where to
rurality, in other words the one that is about to disappear, can speak. What characterizes this discourse the most, or at least what I
be said to originate from one of two forces; both fixing the rural am most occupied with here, is the way in which production and
as traditional: culture are being split. To put it in another way, the modernist view
of the world suppresses many of the links between production and
1. Rurality is an empirical fact, a material, social and economic culture in rural places. Culture and value creation are not brought
reality that does not actually need to be mentally constructed together locally, or to be more precise, they seem increasingly to be
in order to exist. This is the pre-modern self-regulating joined together in a fundamentally non-local way.
community that I presented earlier. As mentioned, I do not We find this conceptual split between the productive country-
believe that it is possible to maintain this as a meaningful way side and its idyllic cultural aspects in many northern European
of dealing with a modern way of life. countries (Mormont, 1990; Bunce, 1994; Forsberg and Berg, 2003;
2. The other meaning of rurality is as a construction, as a mental Haase Svendsen, 2004). I will return to the Norwegian case after
category. In Norway this mental rurality emerged with the aid demonstrating how such a split is manifesting itself in the devel-
of a rural movement in the 1960s and 1970s, as a political and opment of the British countryside.
academic reaction towards technological and economic Critical voices arose in the 1970s in Britain against government
modernization (Brox, 1966; Almås, 2003; Arbo, 2004). support for agricultural production. The increased international
competition had led to unstable food prices, which in turn led to
The sociological studies of local communities in many European diminishing profitability in agriculture. Why should the state
countries during the 1950s and 1960s, so-called community or support agriculture when in the UK it produced more than the
ethnographic studies (Bourdieu, 2004), also took place in Norway domestic market could buy? (Marsden, 1993). In Britain, the mar-
during the 1960s. These communities were brought to people’s ginalisation of agriculture was far from new. Here, agriculture has
attention through comprehensive qualitative investigations clearly been subject to low priorities, first in the industrialization process
different from the methods applied by the one-party state (Søilen, in the 18th century when farmers in the countryside were evicted
2002). It was mainly sociologists that produced these new from their houses and recruited to factories in the cities (Bunce,
discourses: ‘‘The essential part of the research effort was put into 1994; Marx, 2005 [1867]). Secondly, agriculture was given low
the districts. Sociologists studied the living conditions in rural priority because other parts of the British Empire were able to
Norway and wrote reports about depopulation and emigration’’ produce the food more cheaply: ‘‘The economic development of the
(Schiefloe, 1991, p. 16 my translation). However, social anthropol- Empire had proceeded on the assumption that the UK would
ogists also participated: ‘‘One important direction in Norwegian supply manufactures, capital and migrants, and the rest of the
anthropology has, ever since the 1960s, consisted in detailed Empire would supply food and other primary products’’ (Marsden,
studies of economic and cultural changes in local communities’’ 1993, p. 48). Instead of stimulating their own agriculture the
(Eriksen, 1996, p. 146 my translation). A rural identity emerged emphasis was put on imports. Britain was, in the 19th and well into
from such studies (Barth, 1972) as well as from the increased the 20th century, the world’s largest importer of food and raw
attention towards reciprocity and horizontal relationships in materials. Adam Smith argued for economic growth aided by free
households and small communities. trade and condemned the mercantilist restrictions on industry and
102 J.A. Cruickshank / Journal of Rural Studies 25 (2009) 98–107

trade. This was especially well received among British politicians, From this conviction follows a focus on how humans can add to
traders and factory owners (Backhouse, 2002). the values available, through knowledge and technology: ‘‘The
There was indeed a period of growth in agricultural production knowledge-based societies and the knowledgeable individuals have
in the middle decades of the 19th century (Hobsbawm, 1968), and the future in their hands’’ (Moe in Aftenposten, 1988, my trans-
after the Second World War the so-called productivist agricultural lation). This discourse still functions very much as a conceptual
regime lasted until 1970 (Marsden, 1993; Halfacree, 1997b). These scheme, guiding both policies for rural areas and the academic
exceptions apart, the ideas about the countryside in Britain have production of knowledge about the rural. This modernist approach
mainly been dominated by an urban-based nostalgia (Bunce, to value creation and natural resources produces a particular version
1994). In the UK the bourgeoisie that emerged out of the urban- of rurality. Protecting the rural idyll and utilizing economic value
ization and industrialization process refined especially the scenic creation becomes a potential conflict. Florida (2002) is a typical
qualities of the non-urban landscape, constructing in the rural representative of this logic: ‘‘The geographical trends I will describe
what Bunce termed the ‘‘armchair countryside’’ (Bunce, 1994, p. in this book do ‘not’ favor the tightly knit old-style communities that
37). The rural, in the rise of the industrial city, became an idyllic are so often celebrated in our songs, stories and sentimental TV
alternative to urban environments, where scenic values and the commercials. [....] Such efforts are fruitless, since they fly in the face
connection to nature and community are at the core (Murdoch of today’s economic realities’’ (Florida, 2002, p. 12).
and Pratt, 1993). According to Bunce, this society is very much ‘Economic realities’ and rural communities are in other words
a product of middle-class urban and suburban dwellers, with few almost treated as incompatible. We therefore start to treat rural
rural experiences, seeking a way to distinguish themselves from culture more and more as a commodity, a way to attract creative
the urban working classes. The relative strength between the people (Florida, 2002) or as an industry in itself (Haraldsen, 2004;
discourses of rural production and the rural idyll through the last [Link].22, 2005). As I will demonstrate in the next section, this
three centuries has not been systematically investigated, to my is not the only way to understand rurality in relation to economic
knowledge, and researchers put different emphases on the values.
discourses (Hobsbawm, 1968; Marsden, 1993; Bunce, 1994; Half-
acree, 1997b). However, the central point here is the fact that 3. An alternative modernization strategy
a productivist discourse and the idyllic countryside seem to be
rather detached from each other. The link between rural produc- The modernist attempts to either preserve or modernize the
tion and culture has been neglected. rural, a rurality that it has itself produced, overlooks some very
In Norway we find the same distinction between idyllic rural important questions: Who should exploit natural resources? Who
communities and value creation. We do, for instance, see a trend should benefit from them and how should the benefit be distrib-
where the rural is more and more regarded as something exotic and uted? Using the Norwegian case as an example, I will now present
unmodern. In recent years we have produced TV series (Der ingen an alternative way of dealing with the rural where such questions
skulle tru, Røst, Himmelblå) and movies (Johnny Vang, Berlevåg are at the core.
mannskor) where rural communities and people are mainly inter- In spite of the attempted fixation of the rural that I have described
esting as exotic and different (Hidle et al., 2006). Whether the so far, we can claim that rurality in Norway did not become the idyllic
Norwegian countryside is portrayed as idyllic or disparaged in these pendant to rural production, as in Britain. This is due to an alterna-
stories is not the main issue here, but rather that the present link tive discourse that emerged, offering an alternative way of making
between the community and the ongoing value-creating activities rurality meaningful. In this alternative discourse the dissolution of
is neglected. A distinction is made between the value creation from rurality is denied and the split between urban and rural value
’rural production’ on the one hand and the rural cultures on the creation is instead treated as the most important distinction: ‘‘The
other. Norwegian economy has its basis in the rural. This is where our
I will try to explain how I think this distinction is made possible. exclusive natural resources are located and this is where the creation
As I pointed out already, I think that this split is related to of values in Norway mainly takes place’’ (Kanstad in Nordlys, 1994,
a modernist distinction between the human ideas about the world my translation). This latter purely economic argument for support-
and the world itself. In the Norwegian debate about rural issues we ing the rural economy – since it allegedly is the economic motor of
can follow this logic and easily identify a distinction between values Norway – gained ground from the beginning of the 1990s (Kanstad,
created by humans and values that spring from nature. There is 1996), and it still contributes to the structuring of the debate about
a rather common claim that only humans are capable of creating rural policies. The argument is made possible by a discourse where
values; humans are the cause, nature is one of many other means, rural culture and the way to create values from natural resources
and values are the result: ‘‘70% of Norwegian exports are based on cannot be separated. To understand how such an alternative
raw materials. This means that most of the creation of values takes discourse arose we can adopt a post-structuralist perspective, not
place abroad’’ (Lie in Aftenposten, 1991, my translation).2 In this and presupposing our object of study (Beck Holm, 2005). I will elaborate
in many similar statements the values inherent in our natural a little on this point in the following.
resources are excluded; the value creation is exclusively human. The When Mormont (1990) claims that the rural–urban dichotomy is
policy for increased value creation, following this distinction, is overtaken by events, that development has overturned the rural as
therefore exclusively focused on human competence and processing. a meaningful social category, he is, in my opinion, approaching the
There is no denial in the Norwegian debate that our nation is blessed rural within the boundaries of the modernization discourse. He is at
with rich natural resources such as petroleum, fish and waterfalls, the same time not taking the full advantage of a post-structuralist
but when it comes to the way values are created from these merging of the mental and the material. This ‘light constructivism’,
resources, there is a clear distinction between humans and nature. as I term it, (or social constructivism as opposed to constructivism),
exemplified with the assertion that ‘‘The rural is a category of
thought’’ (Mormont, 1990, p. 40), only gives limited weight to
language and discourse. Thus, light constructivism is not able to
2
fully recognize discourse as a reality-producing force. The rural,
The main empirical basis of this paper is 120 newspaper articles from three
Norwegian newspapers from 1980 to 2005. The articles were selected using the
when reduced to a mental category like this, is therefore regarded as
words rurality, value creation, economy, and natural resources as search criteria. the weak force in the face of economic and technological modern-
The newspapers are Nordlys, Aftenposten and Dagens Næringsliv. ization. What disappears from this analysis is the recognition that
 J.A. Cruickshank / Journal of Rural Studies 25 (2009) 98–107 103

the rural, as both an idea and as materiality, is brought into exis- reaction, Romanticism, took a different form in Norway. Out of the
tence with the aid of particular ways of dealing with the world, and bisection in the Enlightenment, where man is divided from nature,
the modernization discourse is just one out of many possible such and as a reaction to the Kantian demonstration of the limits to
meaning-making structures. When the rural therefore is regarded reason, a need to return to nature sprang up in European Roman-
as unmodern, from a modernist point of view, the version of the ticism. This took the form of nature fanaticism (Witoszek, 1998) and
rural that is being produced by alternative discourses remains a nature philosophy where soul and divinity were ascribed to
hidden. The whole analysis is trapped within the dominating nature (Beyer and Beyer, 1970). However, we did not experience
modernist discourse. In this section I would instead like to recog- this romantic fanaticism for nature in Norway: ‘‘the stormy weather
nize a rurality, mental and material, that is produced within an of National Romanticism around the turn of the century [the late
alternative discourse. 18th and early 19th centuries] reached Norway as a gentle breeze
Thoughts, actions and events do not have to be treated as only’’ (Beyer and Beyer, 1970 my translation and addition). There-
separate from each other. Actions and thoughts can be located fore, when one celebrates the people of nature in Norway, primitive
within the same meaning-making system, within one discourse, people, it is not like, as in Europe generally, only a romantic fashion,
and there can be several discourses. Following this post-structur- according to Witoszek (1998). She claims that the elite who con-
alist strategy it is possible to see a rurality that does not depend on structed the basis for the national awakening in the 19th century,
the existence of a real, existing, unquestionable rural way of life. the people who therefore to a large degree took part in the shaping
The rural is instead produced in different ways of dealing with the of modern Norwegian culture, did not have a romantic relationship
world. I will therefore claim that rurality is still being maintained, with nature:
but by rurality we then have to escape the modernist trap and be
They spent most of their lives in the countryside and they had
open to regard rurality as a particular way of representing and
their belonging and their roots in rural Norway. Even if we take
producing reality.
into account that they were rapidly being urbanized, the
The modernization discourse, through Kant, establishes a split
yeoman that the elite elevated to a national icon was hardly an
between human ideas about nature and nature in itself. The things
alien creature. For the radical Norwegian elite, nature and the
that we acknowledge are not valuable in themselves. It is
primitive people that they cheered and chanted, were not relics
unthinkable that economic values can arise outside human
of the past, but a foundation wall to build upon (Witoszek, 1998,
knowledge. Values are instead synonymous with human cognition.
p. 62 my translation).
An alternative Norwegian discourse breaks with this assumption,
as this quote from the Norwegian eco-philosopher Arne Næss The claim is that this understanding is core to the Norwegian
demonstrates: ‘‘Why should this philosophy [Kantianism] apply identity: ‘‘a dominating value system that has driven forward
only to human beings? Are there not other beings with intrinsic changes in Norwegian society for the last 200 years [....] No one in
value? What about animals, plants, landscapes and our very special, the last century [the 19th century] that had political or cultural
old planet as a whole?’’ (Næss, 1993, p. 71 my translation). Inter- leadership as their ambition could afford to ignore them’’ (Witos-
estingly, Næss dissociates himself from the mentioned Kantian zek, 1998, p. 44 my translation and addition). Næss’ deep ecology is
conception of nature. I will now try to establish that modernization in reality an extended version of these values from the Norwegian
in Norway, in addition to the story told so far, also took place within nation building.
an ecological knowledge system where, for a long time now, we This way of dealing with the relationship between nature and
have chosen to perceive the world through nature, instead of culture is not only evident in our remote past. Nilsen (1996), in
observing nature as divided from culture (Næss, 1974; Witoszek, a study from two small communities in the northern part of Nor-
1998). As I did with the modernist discourse in the first part of this way, points partly at this alternative logic in the household and the
paper I will both deconstruct the discourse by bringing to the fore sedentary perspective, which he regards as important mechanisms
its content and logic, as well as showing the historical emergence of structuring both economic and social adaptations locally. Using the
this alternative discourse. concept of life form (Højrup, 1983) he is able to show how nature,
At the same time as the earlier mentioned rural movement resources and the local adaptations to these are coupled and
articulated a cultural crisis in the 1960s and 1970s (Cruickshank, mutually influence each other. Local reciprocal systems adjusting to
2006; Cruickshank et al., in press), with their subsequent attempts the local resources are still structuring human behavior; they have
to find the way out of the crisis (Brox, 1966), an environmental crisis only taken on a little more ‘modern’ shape (Nilsen, 2003).
was introduced (Næss, 1974; PAG, 1974). The relationship between However, in drawing upon these examples from the Norwegian
the industrial culture and nature was gradually described as a crisis. case I do not imply that non-modern ways of dealing with nature in
A green ideology emerged in Norway, bit by bit set up as a consis- local reciprocal systems or among rural ‘others’ cannot be pointed
tent philosophical system built on an ecological view of the world. at in other cultures (Hughes, 1997; Little, 1997; Philo, 1997). Ploeg
Næss (1974) was part of this movement, criticizing the one-party (2008), for instance, introduces the concept of the peasant ‘prin-
state and what he termed a production and consumption ideology. ciple’ and the process whereby farmers are able to strengthen their
However, several researchers (Beyer and Beyer, 1970; Reed and autonomy in the face of the state and agribusinesses. This principle
Rothenberg, 1993; Witoszek, 1998; Arbo, 2004) emphasize a much is based on a logic where the coproduction of man and environ-
older Norwegian relationship with nature that particularly gained ment is at the core, the interaction between man and his resource-
ground during the building of the nation in the 19th century. From base structures the discourse. Man ‘and’ living nature are the
about the time of this nation building and up to the interwar years production unit, not only man, and the struggle is for the autonomy
there prevailed in the Norwegian ‘‘a close connection between the and survival of this unit. Autonomy is secured by relying on
conditions of nature, mentalities and modes of living, with nature resources that are not controlled from the outside and by feeding
as the determining framework [....] The Norwegian national back the outcome into the resource base. The focus is here shifted
character was being anchored in nature’’ (Arbo, 2004, p. 3 [my from the rural–urban dichotomy to the conflict between peasant
translation]). Philosopher Gunnar Skirbekk claims that Norway is, and state/agribusiness.
‘‘[a] state that to a great degree builds its national identity on In the debate about regionalization in Norway we can point to
nature’’ (Skirbekk in Reed and Rothenberg, 1993, p. 6). the same way of chaining together nature and man. Here there is
Because the Kantian philosophy put down roots in European a call for autonomy on the local and regional level. There is
culture, but allegedly not to the same degree in Norway, the a demand for rights to exploit the resources locally and a struggle
104 J.A. Cruickshank / Journal of Rural Studies 25 (2009) 98–107

for the feedback of profits to the regions and communities that Obviously, like in the rest of the West, the modernization
make the most of resources (Kanstad, 1996; Bukve, 2004; process is the hegemonic explanation and acknowledged driving
NOU2004:19, 2004; [Link].12, 2006). ‘‘It is suggested that the force behind the economic and social changes that have occurred in
regions should also be permitted to call in a certain economic rent the rural Norway, particularly following the Second World War. To
from making the most of regional resources, and possibly also the degree that an alternative discourse is given relevance, it is
receive some economic compensation for securing national natural often in the form of resistance (Brox et al., 2006), protest (Cruick-
resources’’ (NOU2004:19, 2004, p. 135 my translation). In the shank, 2006) or counter-power (Nilsen, 2002) against the central-
debate about how to make the most of the resources from fisheries ization policies that follow from the modernization discourse.
in Norway we find the same logic. We find it, for example, in the These two approaches to development are treated as separate and
claim that it is in the interest of both local communities and in conflict. Especially during the 1960s and 1970s these two
a sustainable coproduction of man and living nature that the rights discourses were articulated as antagonisms, which means that they
to exploit the resources should remain locally (Nilsen, 2002; are mutually excluding and threatening each other (Laclau and
NOU2004:19, 2004; Hamnes, 2006; Strøksnes, 2006). All these Mouffe, 2002; Hansen et al., 2004; Hansen, 2005): ‘‘.in the case of
voices can be seen as expressions of an alternative way of dealing [Link] presence of the Other prevents me from being
with nature to a modernist and centralist discourse. totally myself’’ (Laclau and Mouffe, 2001, p. 125). The policy of the
The resistance towards reducing nature to simply an input factor One-party state; or what we have already termed modernization
in a value chain takes many forms, and all of them reject the clear based on the ‘‘centralization of powers previously localized’’
distinction between nature and culture. To understand values as (Bauman, 1992, p. 6) on the one hand, and a policy for decentral-
inherent in the resources themselves is maybe the most common ization on the other was for a period considered to be contradictory
approach among economists and social researchers dealing with or even different political projects (Brox, 1966; Brofoss, 1968;
natural resources (Brox et al., 1989; Østerud, 2002; Steinshamn, Hansen, 1968; Rasmussen, 1968).
2005). And my main argument here is of course that this approach, That the two discourses are competing was the hegemonic
this discourse, produces an alternative rurality. According to Nilsen understanding in both national economic theory and the political
(2006), for instance, communities on the coast of Norway experi- debate (Furre, 1973). This ‘order of things’ was increasingly being
enced growth from the 1950s onwards. However, this was not questioned as the discourses confronted each other, and this
because of the values added through the processing of fish, but process generated attempts at rearticulating the relation between
through the effect of the distribution of the margin of profits that decentralization and economic growth. Therefore, it seems that
springs from the sheer harvesting of the resource. Instead of one- some time during the 1970s a change occurred in the policies for
sidedly being occupied with how people add value to nature, this rural areas (Reiersen, 1972; Hansen, 1986; Rasmussen, 1995; Teigen,
approach takes for granted that ‘nature also adds value to culture’. 1996). I will suggest that what happened was that a new sedi-
The property of a natural resource, then, be it fish, water energy or mented structure was established, where the antagonism between
milk, is not its price on a market but its ability to produce culture and economic growth and decentralization was dissolved. This hege-
rural settlement. The policy implications would be to reduce the monic intervention chains together elements across discourses in
focus on lowering the costs of processing or adding values to natural a manner that changes their meaning (Stavrakakis, 2000), estab-
resources and instead focus on the effect of the distribution of the lishing a new discourse and a new political project.
margin of profits and the right to exploit natural resource. Following this line of thought I will not only recognise that there
An alternative to the modernist and centralist rurality can are competing discourses or ways of seeing the rural (Halfacree,
therefore be identified, although it was hard to see it when we 1997a; Murdoch, 2003), but I will also try to say something more
found ourselves inside the modernist trap. I have suggested some about the relation between discourses. I will open up for the
ways of describing this alternative discourse, through the logic of possibility that the approach towards the rural in Norway is not
the household, sedentarism or the peasant principle. However, I primarily structured through the competition between two
have been especially occupied with what they all have in common, discourses. This means that the resulting policies do not only
namely the rejection of the modernist split between man and depend upon who is able to exploit the context in order to gain the
nature, between ideas and reality. most influence: modernists or traditionalists. I would rather
suggest that rural policies are being structured by one discourse,
4. A play for rurality a Norwegian version of a Western modernization discourse, where
the contradiction between economic growth through moderniza-
The modernity discourse produces the rural as intrinsically non- tion and a policy that attempts to stimulate the living conditions in
modern or traditional and as areas of either recreation or human rural areas is eliminated (Stortinget, 2002, 2005; [Link].25,
production. The fight between modernists and traditionalists is 2004; [Link].21, 2006). I would like to present some possible
therefore essentially a fight that is structured within the modernist manifestations of such a discourse.
discourse itself. In Britain, for instance, pastoralism and modernism It is widely recognized that an important reason for the
are regarded as two contrasted perspectives and sets of values that economic growth and the increased welfare in our country, also
still co-exist, constantly in conflict with each other. The discursive before we became a petroleum nation, was the implementation of
fight between them is producing a differentiated countryside the welfare state and a mixed economy following the Second World
(Murdoch, 2003). However, in the Norwegian case I will claim that War. However, this modernist discourse of the Labour Party did not
this is not the end of the story. In this paper I have namely also fully succeed in disengaging human production from nature and
introduced an alternative discourse where man and nature are their neglect of the rural–urban dichotomy was ultimately denied.
regarded as co-producers. The struggle for autonomy and for being The modernist discourse failed at establishing hegemony. We can
able to remain sedentary is at the core of an alternative discourse. observe this in the story about the secret behind the economic
Rurality takes on a completely different meaning when it is chained success of the Nordic model. An important explanation of Norwe-
together with this latter discourse. Political discussions would in gian prosperity is not only the centralist discourse, but a peculiar
this alternative discourse not be about different ways of subsidizing Norwegian institutional organization: a political will to protect
rural areas. Political questions would more fundamentally be about natural resources from capitalist exploitation and to share the
regional and local autonomy from the State and who should benefit increased product from hydropower, fish and petroleum equally
from and be allowed to exploit natural resources. among the population. This redistribution will, in the next instance,
 J.A. Cruickshank / Journal of Rural Studies 25 (2009) 98–107 105

through increased demand in the economy, contribute to a more This merging of discourses can also be pointed at in many
general increase in prosperity (Senghaas, 1985; Brox et al., 2006; other policy areas: ‘‘Statements about rural policies and decisions
Nilsen, 2006). It is still considered our comparative advantage in have permeated Norwegian politics in many, maybe most, policy
international trade to be able to exploit natural resources for areas – defense policy, social policy, policy for local government,
exports. Our rich resources and the industries that have developed etc [....] The economic effort to the benefit of ‘maintaining the
a unique competence for mastering these resources are regarded as main feature of the settlement pattern’ in these policy areas has
the backbone of the Norwegian economy. Chained together with without doubt exceeded the initiatives in the regional [rural]
these moments is also the competence of the Norwegian authori- policies’’ (Rasmussen, 1995, p. 80 my translation). The concern
ties in managing and making the most of natural resources: ‘‘Nor- also for rural settlement seems to be part of the internally
way has an outstanding competence when it comes to managing consistent way of speaking, thinking and acting in most minis-
and making the most of resources’’ (Foreign Minister Godal (Labour tries and also in program notes from political parties. A final
Party) in Aftenposten, 1993, my translation). example is from 2004, when a publicly appointed committee
It seems in other words that the two discourses are blended went through the geographical dimension in the policies from 19
together in the debates about value creation: sectors (transport, local government, labour market, higher
education, energy, petroleum, agriculture, fisheries, defense etc.)
Instead of being worried that Norway is a significant supplier of concluding that: ‘‘The geographical dimension is different from
raw materials, we should look at the possibilities for growth sector to sector, but [.t]here are large contributions to rural
provided to us through our extensive export of raw materials. Of areas in many sectors, and the costs are in some cases relatively
course we should refine more, but our natural resources will high’’ (NOU2004:2, 2004, p. 17).
also, towards the next millennium, ensure that we can bring I have in this paper dismissed the assumptions about a neces-
home large profits from exports (Minister of Local Government, sary decline of rurality. The redundancy of the rural is not a truth,
Berge (Labour Party) in Nordlys, 1993, my translation). but is contingent on a modernist discourse. I have highlighted
a struggle that is not mainly a conflict between some romantic
One could interpret this statement as a compromise between
protectors of a lost past on the one hand, and the people who worry
two discourses, but I think we should be prepared to see it as the
about our nation’s value creation on the other. The power to shape
manifestation of a specific Norwegian modernization discourse.
the rural should, in my view, not just be investigated in this often
This is for instance evident in the mentioned populist agitation for
talked about struggle, but rather should be revealed in the play
an alternative discourse by the rural movement in the 1960s and
between discourses about how to deal with nature and natural
1970s, which did include also in their project the challenges facing
resources. This play is far from approaching an end and it has far
the national economy. National economic growth was not dis-
reaching implications beyond the question about the development
missed; there was simply a demand for the arrangement of:
of traditional rural communities. How to make the most of the
‘‘production on a small scale, combinations of occupations and
petroleum deposits in the Barents Sea is just one arena where this
producers’ co-operatives, as ‘modifications’ in general economic
play is taking place at present.
politics’’ (Brox, 1981, p. 36 my translation, emphasis added). Both
discourses are articulated within the same political project, as is also
5. Conclusion
the case in this governmental White Paper picked almost at random:
The purpose of this paper has been to understand more about
The government aims in the regional policies to protect the
what structures the governing of rural space. I therefore started out
main features of our settlement pattern, and to release the
by presenting the structure of a modernist discourse and how its
potential for value creation in all parts of the country
different elements have been chained together through history. I
([Link].25, 2004, p. 14).
then demonstrated how this discourse fixes the rural category as
This statement summarizes well what are the dominant issues a space that lies outside of modernity, therefore claiming that the
regarding the role of rurality in Norwegian society. It is an ambition meaning of rurality is dissolving in our modern way of life.
in Norwegian rural policies to stimulate increased value creation. Furthermore, the modernist discourse separates rural culture from
However, this ambition is not formulated and is not regarded as our nation’s value creation. This leads to a policy where knowledge
separate from the settlement goal, the aim of maintaining the and processing of resources are being elevated, while culture is
dispersed settlement pattern. There is not an established split being treated more and more as a commodity. I have treated this
between economic value creation and a cultural and moral, idyllic academic and political construction of rurality as an exercise of
discourse, to the degree that seems to be the case in many other power. Rural policies today seem, from this perspective, to be
western countries. motivated by the desire to protect vulnerable rural communities,
One further example is the politics for the Norwegian fisheries, without understanding that this vulnerability is not something in
where there of course are conflicts, but where we also find traces of itself (an sich), but rather must be seen as a result of a particular
the same dissolution of the antagonism between discourses. modernization approach to the rural.
Through the 1980s and 1990s the emphasis in the policies for I then went on to present an alternative discourse. Here man and
fisheries has varied between resource conservation, a dispersed nature are regarded as co-producers and the attention is turned
settlement pattern, profitability and employment. Critics claim that towards the traditional ‘‘rural’’ adaptations to the local labour
policies for fisheries are too market oriented, privileging a capital- market, the logic of the household and the local social networks.
intensive fishery at the expense of the more sustainable coastal These logics are reproduced in our present way of life, only in more
fisheries (Nilsen, 2002). However, both the modernist and the local modern shapes. Contrasting these two discourses, it becomes
autonomy discourse are still maintained in the debate, and policies evident that the policies for rural areas seem to overlook some logics
far from ignore the interests of the rural coastal population: ‘‘A and principles that still today guide the way many people and firms
robust structure in the fishing industry contributes to the mainte- organize themselves economically and socially. It also becomes
nance of a decentralized industry, through profitability and value evident that some important questions about the effect of the
creation’’ ([Link].51, 1998, p. 7). The policies for Norwegian feedback into the resource base are being suppressed. The existence
fisheries in other words are regarded as partly responsible for of this alternative modernization strategy also shows that the
maintaining a dispersed settlement pattern. modernist discourse is not the only way rural change comes about,
106 J.A. Cruickshank / Journal of Rural Studies 25 (2009) 98–107

at least not in the Norwegian case. I therefore suggested towards the Bunce, M., 1994. The Countryside Ideal: Anglo-American Images of Landscape.
Routledge, London.
end that we should consider whether Norwegian policies in general
Cruickshank, J., 2006. Protest against centralisation in Norway: the evolvement of
have developed an alternative modernization discourse, where the the goal for maintaining a dispersed settlement pattern. Norwegian Journal of
contradiction between economic growth and decentralization is Geography 60 (3), 179–188.
absent. Whether alternative discourses play a role in the construc- Cruickshank, J., Lysgård, H.K., Magnussen, M.L. The logic of the construction of rural
politics: political discourses on rurality in Norway. Geografiska Annaler, Series
tion of rurality in other cultural contexts than the norwegian could B, in press.
only be asserted through an analysis in which the rural is treated as Eriksen, T.H., 1996. Sosialantropologiske grunntekster. Ad notam Gyldendal, Oslo.
an open category, and not as something intrinsically unmodern. Fairclough, N., 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: the Critical Study of Language.
Longman, London.
The general message in this paper is that a post-structuralist Florida, R., 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work,
approach can contribute to broadening the present political and Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. Basic Books, New York.
academic conception of rurality. The way we structure rural policies Forsberg, G., Berg, N.G., 2003. Rural geography and feminist geography – discourses
on rurality and gender in Scandinavia and Britain. In: In Öhman, J., Simonsen, K.
today is very much restricted by discourses. Discourses are limiting (Eds.), Voices from the North: New Trends in Nordic Human Geography. Ash-
the room for maneuver in our approach to the rural. Being gate, Aldershot.
conscious of the way the discourses work and what they take for Foucault, M.,1978. Governmentality. In: Gordon, C., Miller, P., Burchell, G., Foucault, M.
(Eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, with Two Lectures by and
granted will hopefully contribute to generating alternative patterns an Interview with Michel Foucault. Harvester/Wheatsheaf, London.
in the way we develop the rural in the future. Foucault, M., 1998 [1966]. The order of things. In: Faubion, J.D. (Ed.), Aesthetics,
Method and Epistemology, vol. 2. The New Press, New York.
Furre, B., 1973. Distriktspolitikk – eit umogleg ord? In: Bergen, P.-p.a.i. (Ed.),
Acknowledgements Artikkelsamling 3. PAG, Bergen.
Halfacree, K., 1997a. Contrasting roles for the post-productivist countryside. –
a postmodern perspective on counterurbanisation. In: Little, J., Cloke, P.J. (Eds.),
The author thanks two anonymous reviewers for their valuable Contested Countryside Cultures Otherness, Marginalisation and Rurality.
comments on an earlier version of this article. I thank Ragnar Nilsen Routledge, London.
at the University of Tromsø, Hans Kjetil Lysgård at the University of Halfacree, K., 1997b. Postmodern perspectives on counterurbanisation. In: Little, J.,
Cloke, P.J. (Eds.), Contested Countryside Cultures: Otherness, Marginalisation
Agder and Hege Wallevik at Agder Research for their inputs and
and Rurality. Routledge, London.
comments in the process of developing this article. The study was Hamnes, L.A., 2006. Naken uten fisk. Aschehoug, Oslo.
funded by The Research Council of Norway. Hansen, A., 2005. Diskursteori -postmarxistisk hegemonianalyse hos Laclau. In:
Esmark, A., Bugge Laustsen, C., Åkerstrøm Andersen, N. (Eds.), Post-
strukturalistiske analysestrategier. Roskilde universitetsforlag, Fredriksberg.
References Hansen, A., Lyager Bech, S., Plum, M., 2004. Spillet om læring- en diskursanalyse af
brugen af læring på dagtilbudområdet. [Link]
Aarsæther, N., 1972. Lokalsamfunnet. In: PAG, Artikkelsamling 2, vol. 2, Bergen. diskursanalyse2 (accessed 15.05.07.).
Aftenposten, 1988. Strategier for å møte fremtiden. Article in newspaper Aften- Hansen, J.C., 1968. Hvor i Norge skal våre barn og barnebarn bo? In: Apenes, G. (Ed.),
posten 4/1 1988. ‘‘som det stiger frem’’. En antologi om norsk distriktsutbygging. Uni-
Aftenposten, 1991. Norge er et uland, mener ekspert. Article in newspaper Aften- versitetsforlaget, Oslo.
posten 4/4 1991. Hansen, J.C., 1986. Bosettingsmønsteret langs kysten: konsolidering eller fortsatt
Aftenposten, 1993. En historisk dag for Norge. Article in newspaper Aftenposten 6/4 konsentrasjon? UNIT, Trondheim.
1993. Hansen, J.C., 1995. Modeller for regional utvikling i Norge: Fra vekstsenter til
Åkerstrøm Andersen, N., 2003. Discursive Analytical Strategies: Understanding banan? In: Teigen, H., Nordgreen, R., Spilling, O.R. (Eds.), Langtidsliner i dis-
Foucault, Koselleck, Laclau, Luhmann. Policy Press, Bristol. triktspolitikk og tiltaksarbeid. Vett & viten: I samarbeid med Høgskolen i Lil-
Almås, R., 2003. Bygdesosiologi – frå prærien til fjell og fjord. In: Almås, R., lehammer – Østlandsforskning, Stabekk.
Haugen, M.S., Stræte, E.P. (Eds.), Ut i verden og inn i bygda: festskrift til Reidar Hansen, J.C., Holt-Jensen, A., 1982. Ressursene våre, vol. 1. Gyldendal Norsk forlag,
Almås. Tapir, Trondheim. Oslo.
Almås, R., Haugen, M.S., Stræte, E.P., 2003. Ut i verden og inn i bygda: festskrift til Haraldsen, T., 2004. Kartlegging av kulturnæringene i Norge økonomisk betydning,
Reidar Almås. Tapir, Trondheim. vekst og utviklingspotensial. Østlandsforskning, Lillehammer.
Arbo, P., 2004. Hva har (og hva kan) regionalforskning bety for regional utvikling og Haugen, M., Villa, Mariann, 2006. Big Brother in rural societies: Youths’ dicourses on
politikkutforming i Norge - Hva er mulig og hva er ønskelig? REGUT. In: gossip. Norwegian Journal of Geography 60, 209–216.
Avslutningskonferanse. Stjørdal 21–22, April 2004. Hidle, K., Cruickshank, J., Nesje, L.M., 2006. Market, commodity, resource, and
Backhouse, R., 2002. The Penguin History of Economics. Penguin Books, London. strength: Logics of Norwegian rurality. Norwegian Journal of Geography 60 (3),
Barth, F., 1972. The Role of the Entrepreneur in Social Change in Northern Norway. 189–198.
Universitetsforlaget, Bergen. Hobsbawm, E.J., 1968. Industry and Empire: an Economic History of Britain Since
Bauman, Z., 1992. Intimations of Postmodernity. Routledge, London. 1750. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.
Beck Holm, A., 2005. Samfundslivets grammatik - strukturalistisk analysestrategi Hughes, A., 1997. Rurality and ‘cultures of womanhood’. Domestic identities and
hos Saussure, Lévi-Strauss og Althusser. In: Esmark, A., Bugge Laustsen, C., moral order in village life. In: Little, J., Cloke, P.J. (Eds.), Contested Countryside
Åkerstrøm Andersen, N. (Eds.), Poststrukturalistiske analysestrategier. Roskilde Cultures Otherness, Marginalisation and Rurality. Routledge, London.
universitetsforlag, Fredriksberg. Højrup, T., 1983. Det glemte folk: livsformer og centraldirigering. Institut for
Bergh, T., Hanisch, T.J., 1984. Vitenskap og politikk: linjer i norsk sosialøkonomi Europæisk Folkelivsgranskning, Hørsholm.
gjennom 150 år. Aschehoug, Oslo. Haase Svendsen, G.L., 2004. The right to development: construction of a
Beyer, H., Beyer, E., 1970. Norsk litteraturhistorie, third utg. ed. Aschehoug, Oslo. non-agriculturalist discourse of rurality in Denmark. Journal of Rural Studies 20,
Bourdieu, P., 2004. Ungkarsballet: krise i bondesamfunnet. Pax, Oslo. 79–94.
Brofoss, E., 1968. Bosetting og lokaliseringspolitikk. Nasjonale problemer i et Kanstad, S.O. 1996. Verdiskapende bedrifter i distriktene: Sluttrapport fra Norges
internasjonalt perspektiv. In: Det Norske studentersamfund (Ed.), ‘‘som det forskningsråd. PTD-programmet.
stiger frem’’: en antologi om norsk distriktsutbygging: semesterets bok våren Kant, I., 2003 [1787]. Critique of Pure Reason, second ed. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
1968. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo. Laclau, E., Mouffe, C., 2001. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical
Brox, O., 1966. Hva skjer i Nord-Norge?: en studie i norsk utkantpolitikk. Pax, Oslo. Democratic Politics, second ed. Verso, London.
Brox, O., 1981. Fem forsøk på å planlegge Nord-Norge. In: Amdam, J., Veggeland, N. Laclau, E., Mouffe, C., 2002. Det radikale demokrati: diskursteoriens politiske per-
(Eds.), Planlegging for samfunnsendring: innføring i teoriar om samfunns- spektiv. Roskilde Universitetsforlag, Frederiksberg.
planlegging. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo. Little, J., 1997. Employment marginality and women’s self-identity. In: Little, J.,
Brox, O., 1995. Innsikt, makt og retorikk i etterkrigstida norske distriktspolitikk. In: Cloke, P.J. (Eds.), Contested Countryside Cultures Otherness, Marginalisation
Teigen, H., Nordgreen, R., Spilling, O.R. (Eds.), Langtidsliner i distriktspolitikk og and Rurality. Routledge, London.
tiltaksarbeid. Vett & Viten, Stabekk. Lyson, T.A., 2006. Global capital and the transformation of rural communities. In:
Brox, O., Eikeland, S., Hamre, J., Hanssen, K., Hoel, A.H., Nilsen, R., Olsen, J.H.T. 1989. Marsden, T., Cloke, P.J., Mooney, P.H. (Eds.), Handbook of Rural Studies. Sage,
Mot et ressursregime for nodlige bestander? Forprosjekt for fylkesfiskarlagene. London.
Brox, O., Storey, R., Bryden, J.M., 2006. The Political Economy of Rural Development: Malthus, T.R., 1807. An Essay on the Principle of Population. London.
Modernisation Without Centralisation? Eburon, Delft. Marsden, T., 1993. Constructing the Countryside. UCL Press, London.
Bukve, O., 2004. Funksjonsfordelingsstrid og regionaliseringsinitiativ. Mot ein norsk Marx, K., 2005. Kapitalen: kritikk av den politiske økonomien. Første bok. Kapita-
regionalisme? In: Amdam, R., Bukve, O. (Eds.), Det Regionalpolitiske regi- lens produksjonsprosess. Forlaget Oktober, Oslo.
meskiftet – tilfellet Noreg. Tapir akademisk, Trondheim. Mjøset, L., Cappelen, Å., Fagerberg, J., Transøy, B.S., 1994. Norway: changing the
Bukve, O., Onsager, K., Selstad, T., 2004. Teorier om regional utvikling. In: Selstad, T., model. In: Mjøset, L., Anderson, P., Camiller, P. (Eds.), Mapping the West
Onsager, K. (Eds.), Regioner i utakt. Tapir akademisk forl., Trondheim. European Left. Verso: In Association with New Left Review, London.
 J.A. Cruickshank / Journal of Rural Studies 25 (2009) 98–107 107

Mormont, M., 1990. Who is rural? or, how to be rural: towards a sociology of the Reed, P., Rothenberg, D., 1993. Wisdom in the Open Air: the Norwegian Roots of
rural. In: Lowe, P., Marsden, T., Whatmore, S. (Eds.), Rural Restructuring: Global Deep Ecology. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minn.
Processes and Their Responses. David Fulton Publishers, London. Reiersen, J.E., 1972. Bør vi bevare det nåværende bosettingsmønsteret i Norge? PAG,
Murdoch, J., 2003. The Differentiated Countryside. Routledge, London. Artikkelsamling 4, 2, pp. 32–46.
Murdoch, J., 2006. Post-structuralist Geography a Guide to Relational Space. Sage, London. Rousseau, J.-J., 1755. A discourse on political economy. [Link]
Murdoch, J., Pratt, A.C., 1993. Rural studies: modernism, postmodernism and the jjr/[Link] (accessed 11.09.06.).
‘post-rural’. Journal of Rural Studies 9, 411–427. Schiefloe, P.M., 1991. Nærmiljø i bysamfunn. Allforsk AVH, Trondheim.
Murdoch, J., Pratt, A.C.,1997. From the power of topography to the topography of power – Seip, J.A., 1963. Fra embedsmannsstat til ettpartistat og andre essays. Uni-
a discourse on strange ruralities. In: Little, J., Cloke, P.J. (Eds.), Contested Countryside versitetsforlaget, Oslo.
Cultures Otherness, Marginalisation and Rurality. Routledge, London. Selstad, T., Onsager, K., 2004. Regioner i utakt. Tapir akademisk forl., Trondheim.
Nilsen, R., 1996. Om å få orden på gjenstridige fjordfolk. Begrep og perspektiv i analyse Senghaas, D., 1985. The European Experience: a Historical Critique of Development
av periferiutvikling. In: Altern, I. (Ed.), Lokalsamfunn og lokalsamfunnsforskning i Theory. Berg Publishers, Leamington Spa.
endring. Universitetet i Tromsø. Institutt for samfunnsvitenskap, Tromsø. Shapiro, I., Reeher, G., Dahl, R.A., 1988. Power, Inequality, and Democratic Politics
Nilsen, R., 2002. Makt og motmakt på kysten. Makt- og demokratiutredningen Essays in Honor of Robert A. Dahl. Westview Press, Boulder, Colo.
1998–2003. I samarbeid med Unipub forl., Oslo. [Link].12, 2006. Regionale fortrinn – regional framtid. Kommunal- og region-
Nilsen, R., 2003. Kunnskapsbruk og argumenttyper i prosjektet ‘‘Kombinasjoner langs en aldepartementet, Oslo.
fjord’’. Plan: tidsskrift for samfunnsplanlegging, byplan og regional utvikling, 20–25. [Link].21, 2006. Hjarte for heile landet om distrikts- og regionalpolitikken.
Nilsen, R., 2006. Naturresursavhengighet og utvikling, unpublished. Kommunal- og regionaldepartementet, Oslo.
Nordlys, 1993. Smått er godt. Article in newspaper Nordlys 2/8 1993. [Link].22, 2005. Kultur og næring. Kultur- og kirkedepartementet, Oslo.
Nordlys, 1994. Distriktene subsidierer de store byene. Article in newspaper Nordlys [Link].25, 2004. Om regionalpolitikken. Kommunal- og regionaldepartementet,
29/11 1994. Oslo.
NOU2004:2, 2004. Effekter og effektivitet: effekter av statlig innsats for regional [Link].50, 1972. Tillegg til [Link].27 (1971–1972): Om regionalpolitikken og
utvikling og distriktspolitiske mål Effektutvalget. Statens forvaltningstjeneste, lands- og landsdelsplanleggingen. Miljøverndepartementet, Oslo.
Informasjonsforvaltning. [Link].51, 1998. Perspektiver på utvikling av norsk fiskerinæring. Fisker-
NOU2004:19, 2004. Livskraftige distrikter og regioner: rammer for en helhetlig og idepartementet, Oslo.
geografisk tilpasset politikk Distriktskommisjonen. Statens forvaltningstjeneste, Stavrakakis, Y., 2000. On the emergence of Green ideology: the dislocation factor in
Informasjonsforvaltning. Green politics. In: Howarth, D.R., Norval, A.J., Stavrakakis, Y. (Eds.), Discourse
NSD, 2001. Vi vil.! Norske partiprogrammer 1884–2001. Theory and Political Analysis: Identities, Hegemonies and Social Change.
Næss, A., 1974. Økologi, samfunn og livsstil utkast til en økosofi, fourth utg. ed. Manchester University Press, Manchester.
Universitetsforlaget, Oslo. Steinshamn, S.I., 2005. Ressursrenten i norske fiskerier. Samfunns- og nær-
Næss, A., 1993. Intrinsic value: will the defenders of nature please rise. In: Reed, P., ingslivsforskning, Bergen.
Rothenberg, D. (Eds.), Wisdom in the Open Air: the Norwegian Roots of Deep Stortinget, 1972. (1) Mål og midlar i distriktsutbygginga. (2) Regionalpolitikken og
Ecology. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minn. lands- og landsdelsplanlegging. Stortinget 3. mai 1973.
Østerud, Ø., 2002. Ressursmakt og grunnrente. In: Nytt oppl. (Ed.), Makt- og Stortinget, 2002. Debatt om kommunal- og regionalministerens redegjørelse om
demokratiutredningen 1998–2003 Oslo. distrikts- og regionalpolitikken. Stortinget 30. april 2002.
PAG 1974. Populistiske Arbeidsgrupper: Artikkelsamling 2, 3 og 4, Bergen. Stortinget, 2005. Regionalpolitikken. Debatt om Innst. [Link]. 273 (2004–2005), jf.
Pahl, R.E., 1968. The rural–urban continuum. In: Pahl, R.E. (Ed.), Readings in Urban [Link].25 (2004–2005). Stortinget.16. juni 2005.
Sociology. Pergamon, Oxford. Strøksnes, M.A., 2006. Hva skjer i Nord-Norge? Kagge, Oslo.
Philo, C., 1997. Of other rurals? In: Little, J., Cloke, P.J. (Eds.), Contested Countryside Søilen, E., 2002. Mot et samfunnsøkonomisk optimum: vitenskapelig økonomisk
Cultures Otherness, Marginalisation and Rurality. Routledge, London. politikk som verktøy i et funksjonalistisk styringsregime. Makt- og demokra-
Ploeg, J.D.v.d., 2008. The New Peasantries: Struggles for Autonomy and Sustain- tiutredningen 1998–2003, Oslo.
ability in the Era of Globalization and Empire. Earthscan, London. Teigen, H., 1996. Distriktspolitikken ved en korsveg? In: Aasbrenn, K. (Ed.), Opp og
Rasmussen, T.F., 1968. Hele folket i storbyer. In: Apenes, G. (Ed.), ‘‘som det stiger stå, gamle Norge: 16 artikler om distriktspolitikk og lokalt utviklingsarbeid.
frem’’. En antologi om norsk distriktsutbygging. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo. Landbruksforlaget, Oslo.
Rasmussen, T.F., 1995. De lange linjer i norsk distriktspolitikk og urban- Tönnies, F., 1963 [1887]. Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. (Community & Society).
iseringsdebatt. In: Teigen, H., Nordgreen, R., Spilling, O.R. (Eds.), Langtidsliner i Harper & Row, New York.
distriktspolitikk og tiltaksarbeid. Vett & viten., Stabekk. Witoszek, N., 1998. Norske naturmytologier: fra Edda til økofilosofi. Pax, Oslo.