The purpose of this article is to explore contemporary representations and practices of the domestic dinner in the context of households in the process of establishing themselves and families in suburban Norway. The concept of a ‘proper dinner’ is the result of complex social and cultural processes. Cooking dinner is not only an act of caring for others, preparing a proper meal is also an act of positioning oneself. Cooking dinner is an important part of the symbolic production of socially and culturally acceptable feminine subject positions. The empirical analysis is based on in-depth interviews with 25 mothers of young children about how they think and act in their everyday dinner practice. The material shows clear limitations on individuality when it comes to dinner patterns. There is a network of social and cultural conventions that frame eating practices and distinguish between different dishes. These distinctions follow a clear temporal and spatial order. Dishes prepared from a common Norwegian ingredient, minced-meat, are used as an example of how dishes carry quite different social and cultural meanings.While there are several discourses surrounding dinner that offer different possibilities for action, some representations and practices are more ‘proper’ than others. Three distinct dinner models for proper meals are identified: the traditional, the trendy and the therapeutic.

No abstract

No abstract

We are living in the age of mad cow disease. Through large scale bulletins in the media, we have learned about food scandals that threaten both our health and our environment. This has raised problems like: Who can we trust? And what type of food production can be regarded as ethically defensible in our day and age? And finally, how does the precautionary principle apply to the way we evaluate food and risk. The likelihood of becoming sick from the next meal has probably never been less than it is today. Yet at the same time, we know less than ever about the long-term consequences of today's food production. Ulrich Beck argued more than 10 years ago that we are moving from “industrial society” to “risk society”. While industrial society was structured through social classes, risk society is individualised. Beck's individualisation thesis is central to being able to understand how individuals handle risks through composing their own risk identity profile. Because the different experts “dump their contradictions and conflicts at the feet of the individual” (Beck 1992:137), he or she has to find biographical solutions to handle risks. Where to live, what to eat, where to take a vacation, what clothes to wear, with whom to mingle and to have sex with is up to the individual. And it is not like in simple modernity anymore, when the regulatory authorities took care of the risks and kept the foods you should not eat out of the country. The reflexive burden is placed upon the shoulders of the individual. So is also the case when it comes to genetic modified foods and debates around this. Even if these new foods are labelled, the consumer has to choose which experts to believe before to buy and eat. It is not the case any more that all experts agree and that the public food control institutions will tell you what to do. In the future there will be new food scandals in Europe that will threaten health and the environment. Such food scandals will be a central feature in what people experience as “risk society”. Expertise in the social sciences will gradually be given a new role as “experts on peoples’ concerns”.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This article explores agricultural policies in an advanced capitalist country. It starts with the introduction of a model of family farming and explores the role of state intervention in agriculture. From these theoretical considerations the article proceeds to analyse Norwegian agricultural policy after the World War II. Two major periods arc observed. The first, lasting from 1945 to 1975, was marked by state support for extending production on some units and draining away the superfluous labour force from the others. The second lasting from 1975 to the early eighties, and called “the new agricultural policy”, was characterized by emphasis on national self‐sufficiency, support for small farms and marginal regions and equalization between farmers and manufacturing workers. Finally the consequences of this new agricultural policy arc analysed showing that it promotes overproduction and new rich farmers. A paradox emerges, showing that the concequences of the new agricultural policy legitimates state intervention of the “old” type (structure rationalization). Résumé čet article concernc les politiques agricolcs dans un pays capitaliste développé. ľauteur présente ?abord un modéle ?analysc de ľagriculture familiale et du rôle de ľintervention etatique dans ľagriculture; il analyse ensuite la politique agricole norvégienne depuis la seconde guerre mondialc. II distingue deux grandes périodes. La premiére, qui va de 1945 à 1975, se caractérise par Paction de ľEtat en faveur ?un accroissement de la production dans certaincs fermes, et ?une réduction de la main ?oeuvre dans ?autres. La seconde période, à partir de 1975, voit ľEtat mettre ľaccent sur ľauto‐suffisance alimentaire, Ic soutien des petites exploitations et ľégalisation des revenus des agriculteurs avec les catégories ouvriéres. ľanalyse des effcrs de cctte nouvelle politique conduit à constater quelle favorise la surproduction ?une part, et les agriculteurs riches ?autre part. Situation paradoxale done, dans laquelle les conséquences de la nouvelle politique tendent à légitimer ľintervention rationalisatricc typique de ľancienne politique agricole. Zusammenfassung Dieser Artikel untersucht mögliche agrarpolitische Maßnahmen in einem fortgeschrittenen kapitalistischen Land. Er beginnt mit der Vorstellung eines Modells der Familienbetricbs‐Landwirtschaft und untersucht die Rolle der staatlichen Intervention in der Landwirtschaft. Von diescn theoretischen überlegungen wird übcrgegangen zu den norwegischen Agrar‐politik nach dem 2. Weltkricg, wobei die Hauptperiodcn betrachtet werden. Die erste dauerte von 1945 bis 1975 und war gekennzeichnet durch staatliche Unterstützung für die Ausweitung der Produktion bei einigen Untemehmen und Abzug von überflüssigcn Arbeitskräften bei anderen. Die zweite dauerte von 1975 bis in die frühen achtziger Jahre und wurde “die neue Agrarpolitik” genannt. Schwergewicht wurde auf die nationale Selbsrversorgung, Unterstützung für Kleinbettiebe und benachteiligte Gcbietc und eine Angleichung zwischen Landwirten und Industrie...