Small Facts and Large Issues: The Anthropology of Contemporary Scandinavian Society Author(s): Marianne Gullestad Source: Annual

Review of Anthropology, Vol. 18 (1989), pp. 71-93 Published by: Annual Reviews Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155886 Accessed: 14/09/2010 05:38
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1989. 18:71-93 Copyright ? 1989 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved

SMALL FACTS AND LARGE ISSUES: The Anthropology of Contemporary ScandinavianSociety

Marianne Gullestad
Departmentof Anthropology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637; and Center for Research in the Social Sciences, University of Trondheim,N-7055 Dragvoll, Norway

INTRODUCTION
If anthropologyis truly to become a comparativestudy of society and culture, modem Europe and the United States must become an integral part of the subject matter. It is necessary to overcome the now often inevitable opposition between "us" and "them," between anthropology "at home" and "abroad."We have not only to look at "us" in the same way as we look at "them," but also to see "us" through "their"eyes. Many anthropologists therefore now recognize that it is an important task to identify and portraythe many versions of "us," as well anthropological as modestly to keep in mind that the polar opposition between "us" and "them"masks the fact that all the differentversions of "us"constituteonly a small fraction of the total social and cultural variation of the world. This is, I think, one useful perspective from which to look at the anthropological studies of contemporaryScandinaviansociety. Scandinaviais not quite "us"in the sense of being the home of anthropology,yet it is close to home. It is firmly a part of Western Europe, as well as being on one of its fringes. It is close to the anthropologist,but marginal in the discipline of anthropology.Together these ambiguitiesmake it possible to play creatively with the categories and thereby to contributeto deconstructingand breaking down the oppositions between "us" and "them," between on the one hand
71

0084-6570/89/1015-0071$02.00

72

GULLESTAD

anthropologicalstudies of Europe and North America, and on the other hand studies of the rest of the world. In addition, doing anthropologicalfield work in this region means doing small-scale studies in complex large-scale societies. This poses more acutely than elsewhere the questions of what the units of analysis are and how to trace the relationshipsbetween parts and whole. Most anthropologistsagree with Clifford Geertzthat small facts speak to large issues (59). The problemis just what kinds of issues and how large they can be. This is another general question that the anthropologyof Scandinaviamay serve to illuminate. One may discern a movement towards new ways of chopping up society and reconstructingthe relationshipsamong the pieces. For reasons of space, I limit this review to the anthropologyof Sweden, Norway and Denmark.' The languages of these countries are mutually intelligible and their histories are closely intertwined. However, within this region people are often more aware of the differences than the similaritiesin culture and ways of life.2 The anthropologyof these countriesis, contraryto the anthropologyof Iceland (116), with few exceptions an anthropologyof insiders and of outsiders who have settled in (49, 126, 127). Even with a limitation to mainlandScandinaviathe literatureis extensive, and the review cannot in any way be exhaustive.3 After spelling out the context for local anthropologies, I start out with a presentation of some studies and perspectives that may be considered as building blocks for more comprehensive analyses. The "small facts" that I have chosen to examine are ethnographicdata abouteveryday life. The focus of is not on "exotic"groups but on the "otherness" what is usually considered most ordinary,trivial, and mundane.I then presentthree attemptsto pull such ethnographiestogether into more comprehensivetheoreticalframeworks.As a preliminary shorthand, these attempts can be named after their central concepts: life-mode, class-culture, and overarchingcultural categories. The review outlines both the critical opposition as well as the areasof overlap and the complementarityof these three attempts.
'In the United States, Scandinavian studies in language and literature include Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands, and Finland. In Europe, however, Finland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands are generally included not in Scandinaviabut included in the Nordic countries. 2The recent history of the two anthropologicaldisciplines (social anthropologyand European ethnology) in the threecountriesis portrayedin several books and papers(21, 61, 77, 83, 94, 97, 103, 130). While the study of Scandinaviais a small partof social anthropologyas an academic discipline, it is the main part of Europeanethnology in these countries. 3I do not review the extensive and interestingliteratureon recent immigrantsto Scandinavia, nor do I treat the extensive literatureon the Sami. The works on the Sami, however, are scheduled to be reviewed by Sharon Stevens in Annual Review of Anthropology 1990.

CONTEMPORARYSCANDINAVIAN SOCIETY

73

THE PRACTICALCONTEXTS FOR LOCAL ANTHROPOLOGIES

Just as colonialism provided one kind of context for anthropologicalstudies, the anthropologyof modem Scandinaviacan be examined in relation to its welfare states. The "Scandinavianmodel" of social and economic development is characterizedby a strong emphasis on security, safety, equality, rationality, foresight, and regulation. One consequence of this is a belief in social engineering based on social science research. The welfare states encourage social scientists (including social anthropologists and European ethnologists)to do researchfor social planningand for generalenlightenment. Anthropology finds its niche in relation to other sciences in the context of welfare state organization. It complements other disciplines, particularly quantitativesociology, by attempting,in differentways, to be holistic and by taking cultural meanings seriously. Since the branchesof sociology with an interestin culture-the sociology of culture, the sociology of religion and the sociology of knowledge-are weak, a keen local interestin the anthropological perspectives has developed. Although relatively few, anthropologistsand Europeanethnologists have had noticeable national impact in the sense that they have been able to influence the concepts and the ways of thinking of other social scientists, planners, and politicians in their respective countries. Actual decisions are, and however, the result of many factors over which bureaucrats politicians do control. not have complete The reverse side of this local relevance is of course thatthe purely scholarly partof the work may suffer. Doing anthropologyat home in a peripheralpart of the Western world implies not only the oft-noted difficulty of taking too much for grantedbut also certain difficulties in presentation.Much research of potentialgeneralinterestto the discipline of anthropologyis writtenup and designed only for local consumption. Many writersfind it difficult to strike a to balance between local relevance and contribution the international developthat ment of the discipline (77). Thereforeit is important more anthropologists from outside the region get involved in this field and that more indigenous researchersare encouragedto sharpentheir argumentsby feeding their findings back into internationalanthropologicalcontexts. Not only the anthropologyof Scandinaviawould profit from this exposure, but also the motherdiscipline. The international discipline has over the years and become more turned in on itself by being heavily "constructed" jargonized. In contrast, the best anthropologyof Scandinaviais often well written, relatively sophisticated, and relevant to a wide readership.For good and for bad, anthropologicalfindings are folded back into local audiences and be-

74

GULLESTAD

come part of the process of how groups constantly define and redefine themselves.

BUILDING BLOCKS
The works examined in this section provide a set of anchoringpoints for the three totalizing perspectives that I discuss in the following sections. Until recently the most established way of approachingthe relationship between part and whole throughthe parts has been througha version of the community study. The most well-known example in this region is also one of the earliest:the British social anthropologist John Barnes's brief paper"Class and committee in a Norwegian Island parish," from 1954 (2). Other papers thathe wrote from the same fieldwork(3-5) are not as well known as this one. Through the social experience of a relatively marginal community in a complex society, combinedwith the (so the anecdotegoes) visual exposureto drying fishing nets, John Barnes was among the first to apply the moder concept of social networks. Few Scandinavianistshave, however, followed Barnes's and others' later formalizationsand quantificationsof network analysis (one exception is ref. 29). They have ratherbeen interestedin the content of social relations;what social networks do for people in terms of practical tasks and feelings of belonging (90, 136). Exchanges in so-called informalsocial networksmay be seen as alternativesor supplementsto the market or to state bureaucracies. Many social anthropologistshave also been interested in how togetherness and distance are socially and culturally regulated (67, 69, 80, 81, 90). These studies are inspiredby the traditionof British-stylesocial anthropology brought to Norway by Fredrik Barth.4 He emphasized the method of observation(with an emphasison participation) taughta set of and participant action-orientedanalyticalperspectives. Above all he suggested that societies of different scale can be comparedby looking at how social encounters are constructed on the micro-level (8, 9). FredrikBarthinspireda whole generationof studentsby his message of the community as an arena where people continually create and recreate their society and culture(see for instance6, 17, 22, 119, 122). An early studentof
'The main empiricalexample of ChapterI of Models of Social Organization(7) concernedthe symbolic interactionon a Norwegian fishing vessel. In 1966 Barthedited a small volume entitled The Role of the Entrepreneurin Social Change in NorthernNorway (6). The explicit focus of the volume is to demonstrate the usefulness of a theoretical perspective. Through a series of in community studies, the risks of entrepreneurship an egalitariansociety are illuminated.Fredrik Barth's influence on the anthropologyof Norway is evident in a Festschrift with this as a focus (28), but he has also inspired, directly or indirectly, social anthropologists and European ethnologists in Sweden and Denmark.

CONTEMPORARYSCANDINAVIAN SOCIETY

75

Barth, OttarBrox, has in a series of books and publicationsabout Northern Norway (22-25, 27) developed this theme further. Rather than treating the national political system and class relations as given external conditions, he attempts, as it were, to explain Norway by specifying the processes that could be studied empirically on the local level. The making of the working class (and thus one of the most importantconditionsfor developing the Norwegian version of capitalist economy and socialist politics) depended upon local processes of succession, rights to resources, and household viability. The bargaining power of the industrial workers was related to the ability and opportunityof localized households to create their own adaptations.Through the very same processes local autonomy and national social and cultural variation were also maintained. Not only the economic aspects of subsistence productionand lower living costs, but also the social aspects of local ways of life, contributeto explain why "old fashioned"combinationsof tradecompetedwell with the opportunities offered by the growth centers of the economy. In his most recent book aboutthe region, Brox has summedup his work in a bold model of NorthernNorway's historicaldevelopment "fromcommons to colony" (25). A point he emphasizes throughouthis career (23) is that it makes no sense to treat NorthernNorway as a bundle of separateeconomic sectors (fishing, farming, fish processing industry, constructionwork, etc). One has to look at the strategiesof households for obtainingviability within the context of local communities, using a combination of many different resources. Northern Norwegians before the 1960s were not fishermen or farmers, but fishermen-farmers (fiskerbonder). Brox is intimatelyfamiliarwith the region he analyzes, but this information is often takenfor grantedratherthanspelled out. Whathe provides is a way of thinking about households, communities, and regions that has inspiredmuch discussion. Feminist anthropologists (52, 101) have, for instance, pointed out that the typical social pattern in Northern Norway until the 1960s was households consisting of male fishermen and female caretakersand farmers (omsorgsbonder), and that this is importantfor the understandingof the present changes in this region. In the 1970s local people were drawn into a regionaljob marketlinked to the growth in public and privateservice. In this process a North Norwegian regional identity was born (125). While Brox gives an overall picture of regional processes in Northern Norway, Lisbet Holtedahlprovides an ethnographicdescriptionand analysis of how individual women and men experience and creatively adaptto these changes (87-89). The local communityshe has studiedwent throughdramatic changes because of a new bridge connecting the communityto the mainland and the city of Troms0. Implicit in most community studies is often a sharp opposition between the communityand the "big society" (state bureaucracies

76

GULLESTAD

of the capital). Holtedahl gives this conventional approach a new twist. According to her, women and men in the community have adapted to the recent changes in different ways, with the consequence that the boundary between the community and the larger society now cuts right through the household (89). In spite of the new bridge, the inhabitants have begun to feel isolated. Young women experience this isolation as they attemptto keep the school and otherlocal institutionsin the community. Young men experience it as frustration with local people whom they perceive as old fashioned. Women are unhappy with the surrounding"big society"; men are unhappy with the local community. Holtedahl describes a whole series of changes in the women's lives: They start working in the fish-processing industry, become interestedin home decorationand new ways of cooking, startsewing circles for themselves instead of joining missionary associations to help others, go to restaurantsin Troms0, and get new ideas about romanticlove in marriage. However, rather than seeing a fundamental change in the community, Holtedahl views the women as maintaining "traditional multiplex relationships." These kinds of relationshipsare maintainedin the old women's missionary associations where everybody can participate, as well as in the younger women's sewing circles. An alternativeinterpretation thatboth are is expressions of different stages of modernity.The sewing circles may be seen as intimate and exclusive ratherthan as traditionaland multiplex (70). That intimacy and work are two conflicting foci for ruralwomen is a view that is taken by Liv Emma Thorsenin her study of Norwegian farmerwomen (133-135). In addition, there are other studies of ruralways of life framedas community studies (16, 86, 91, 136, 142), regional studies (106, 114, 118), studies of ways of life (31), or studies of women (20, 143). However, in spite of a pastoralisttendency, anthropologistsand European ethnologists in Sweden and Norway realized early that contemporarycities are exciting places for doing comparative ethnography. Inspired by Ulf Hannerz(76), they turnedto the cities. One of the Scandinavianpioneers was Ake Daun. Having published a local bestseller on a marginal community fighting for survival (34), he wrote Forortsliv [Life in a Satellite Town (35)], where he compareda satellite town in modem Stockholm to a working class neighborhood of the past. In the book he gives a detailed ethnographic portrayal of the familism of everyday life. One main contention is that inhabitantsof modem cities typically develop what he calls "a culture of indifference." People are neither hostile nor friendly to their neighbors, just indifferent. Daun phrases his argumentas a culturalcritique of a deplorable trend, and this may be seen as both a reflection upon and a reflection of Swedish culture. My own first book was based on field work in an old centralareaof the city of Bergen (65). The inhabitants belong sociologically to the workingclass (in

CONTEMPORARYSCANDINAVIAN SOCIETY

77

a wide sense of that term). What I have been interestedin, however, is not economic class, but social and cultural class. This old neighborhood in a modem city exhibits many local traditions and extensive contacts among neighborswho are often also relatives. It exemplifies the fact that the maintenance of class cultures is not necessarily contradictoryto a relatively advanced national economy. However, not all the nearestand dearestto people in this neighborhoodlive nearby. In the study on which the book Kitchen-TableSociety is based, I therefore went to some satellite towns in Bergen and followed the network relations of young working-class women to friends and friends of friends. Using this snow-ball method, I was able to portraya way of life extending beyond one particular neighborhood. The ethnography is focused on the conversations of young women around the kitchen table (66). All the studies I have mentioned so far rely on the analysis of household, neighborhood, and/or social network processes. Many good analyses of household activities have been done in Norway and Sweden. One beginning was made by Ingrid Rudie in a paper from 1969-1970 (122) and has been followed up by her and others (105, 123). Instead of taking the ideological for boundarybetween the privatefamily and its social surroundings granted,it is possible to examine carefully what clusters of personnelactually do different household tasks. This approachintegrates analytically studies of social networkswith studies of households, insofar as household membersmobilize network relations to perform specific household tasks. One example is the activity of young girls who regularlytake care of an unrelated neighborhood child for a fee. This activity system integrates the particularsubstantialunits of home (especially the homes of the child and the caretakers),peer group, and neighborhood(72). Other studies have focused on the relations between paid work and household activities. At the Work have examinedcarefullythe ResearchInstitutein Oslo, a groupof researchers relationshipbetween the organizationof household tasks, on the one hand, and on the otherhandthe husbands'work as sailors (19) and employees in the offshore oil industry(128). In both cases the husband'speriods at home are as challenging to the other family membersas the periods when he is at sea. The wife's main dilemmaconsists in being fully independentand competentwhile at the same time constantly keeping a place ready for the family father (19, 128). Much researchhas centeredaroundnotions of work (138-140) and how to conceptualize the importantand intangible household tasks (like ceremonial and care work) that are least comparableto traditionalproduction(33, 100, 123). This has led to discussions of how the division of tasks is negotiated between husbandand wife in marriageand how certaintasks are given special symbolic value as either masculine or feminine (15, 66, 123). Changingthe division of tasks is thereforemuch more than a purely practicaland organiza-

78

GULLESTAD

tional endeavor. Practicaltasks have importantconsequences for feelings of identity and self-respect, and are related to expressions of love and care as parts of a system of gift exchange between spouses. More studies have focused on householdtasks thanon sexuality (117, 120). It is, however, possible to bring sexuality and householdtasks into relationby suggesting an implicit contradiction or field of tension between the new expectations of romantic sexuality and equality of household tasks. When spouses negotiate their division of tasks, a new form of legitimacy is now used. The idea of equality as sameness, formerlyappliedbetween individuals belonging to different families, is now also applied between spouses within families. However, spouses have also come to value falling in love and to have high expectations of sexual gratification.There are strong expectations that romanticlove last over time and that it be monogamous. On the basis of these changes it is possible to trace a logical contradictionbetween romantic love and the desired equality as sameness in the division of tasks, because romanticlove implies imagination,mystery, andthereforesome cultivationof otherness (68, p. 49). Apartfrom an importantbook by Asa Boholm (18), the study of kinship is so far almost nonexistent in the anthropologyof contemporaryScandinavian society. (In the anthropologyof Iceland more work has been done on kinship). The reason is probably not that kinship is unimportantbut that it is taken for granted, and this provides one illustrationof the much-noteddifficulty local anthropologistshave in transcendingtheir own pragmatic preconceptions. This is a condition that should be correctedin the nearfuture. A focused study of family and kinship would help to bring the emic distinctions back into the analytic deconstructionof household processes and household forms, and thereby to provide a more complex culturalunderstanding.The study of kinship is of course also culturallyimportantinsofar as symbols and metaphorsin many fields of discourse ultimately derive from kinship. The study of identity managementwithin households, communities, and ways of life is one main tendency in modem Scandinaviananthropology.In addition, anthropologistsand Europeanethnologists have over the years also entered a wide variety of other modem contexts to do ethnographicfield work. They turn in ever larger numbersto the study of social and cultural processes of factories (41, 64, 121) and offices (32), labororganizations(62), nursery schools (12, 42-44), tourism (141), sports (46, 104), the art world (49), punk groups (98, 99), homeless people (50), museums (45), hospitals (48, 92, 129), old people's homes (14), culturaland physical planning (60), ethnic confrontations (39, 44, 63, 124, 126), political rhetorics (26), and the folklore of the media and mass entertainment (96). Of particularinterest is a number of studies of children's social and cultural development (1013, 86, 119). The field is today characterizedby a promising variety of field sites and

CONTEMPORARYSCANDINAVIAN SOCIETY

79

theoreticalproblems. The studies reviewed so far should be seen as analytical and ethnographicbuildingblocks for the threerecentattemptsto createa more of comprehensive understanding social and culturalwholes that I discuss in to the following sections. Each totalizingperspectiveincorporates a greateror lesser extent these building blocks, but especially the first one has a different point of departure.

SOCIETY SEEN AS A SET OF INTERRELATEDLIFE MODES

The first perspective that can be used to draw together isolated studies into a more comprehensive patterncomes from Denmark. Among -social scientists in Copenhagen, there has for the last 10-15 years been a strong interest in developing a consistent and coherent mode of analysis based on historical traditionsin Copenhagen,particularly materialism.Exemplifying structuralist the school of the linguist Louis Hjelmslev, and building on the work of continental theoreticians such as Louis Althusser, Thomas H0jrup (84, 85) develops a theory of social structuresthat can clarify certain aspects of the conflicts between local communities and central authorities. H0jrup sees society as composed of a numberof contrasting"life-modes"that cannot be defined independently of each other. The three main types are the selfemployed, the ordinarywage-worker, and the career oriented life-modes. A fourth type, the bourgeois life-mode, is not analyzed. These life-modes are fundamentallydifferent in terms of their place in the economic and political is structure,and each has its own outlook on life. Their interrelationship one of opposition, competition, and mutual misinterpretation. The main differences among the life-modes is expressedin the meaningsof work, leisure, and family. The self-employed life mode is related to simple commodity production, with work and leisure considered as a conceptual unity;work is gearedto constantproductionon the partof and on behalf of the family, as an independentunit. The life-mode of the ordinarywage-workeris dependenton the capitalist mode of production.The workerdoes not own the means of production,and the time spent working has no intrinsicvalue for him or her. The purpose of work is the consumption of leisure time. Since the family is not a unit of production, family life takes on a meaning different from that of the selfemployed, where the whole family is involved in production. The career oriented life-mode is also directly dependenton the capitalist mode of production but is located in relation to it differently from the life-mode of the ordinarywage-worker. While the wage-workers sell time, the career oriented sell human capital. But unlike the wage-workers, who make demandson the business by makingcommon cause with colleagues, the

80

GULLESTAD

careerorientedstrive to be irreplaceable,and make demandson themselves to surpasscolleagues. In this life-mode it is not consideredmeaningfulto divide human activity into work and leisure. Work and leisure are joined, but in a way different from that in the self-employed life-mode. H0jrup sees empirically existing ways of life as variations on this basic scheme. Lone Rahbek Christensen(30) follows up by discussing the variations brought by women's new adaptations to work outside the family. Women may be housewives, ordinary wage-workers, career oriented, or self-employed (often together with their husbandson a family farm or in a family firm). The fact that women now have more choice augments the possible internalcombinationsin a family. Christensen'smore specific analysis is, however, so far too schematic to be convincing. To H0jrup and Christensen life-modes are conditioned by specific economic, legal, and political circumstancesas well as by corresponding ideological conceptions. When the special circumstancesare changed, the life-mode is threatened can be transformed.The ideological contentof the life-mode and may in such cases dictate people's efforts to preserve various material and organizationalcircumstancesor to find new niches that allow the life-mode to The process of continue in a new form. This H0jrupcalls "neoculturation." neoculturation may result in the life-mode's being recreatedor combinedwith others in new mixed forms. Fishermenwho have to earn a wage in order to survive are typical of a mixed form, containingpossibilities for self-defense in conflicts with the "purer" wage-earners.H0jrup'sempiricalillustrationscome from the Skive and Limfjord regions of northernJutland. H0jrupargues, among other things, thatthe self-employed life-mode is not at all a dying species in Denmark. Recent technological developments have contributedto its vigorous survival in transformed forms, in mixed forms, as well as in traditionalforms. Simple commodityproductionplays an important role in the agricultural sector, in fishing, in handicrafts,in the service sector, in trucking, and also in wholesale and retail trade. According to H0jrup's estimates, one third of the Danish population carry on this life-mode. He estimatesthat anotherthirdof the populationare purewage-earners,while the career oriented comprise about one sixth of the population. In the self-employed life-mode, freedom and independenceare important values. The values of self-sufficiency, frugality, and pragmatismare equally importantyet they are often impaired by adverse circumstances. Therefore this life-mode, not least in combinationwith wage-work, has been a particular obstacle to the ideology of equality and levelling of centralistwelfare state policies. The pure forms of the wage-earnerand the career life-modes have proven easier to reconcile with these goals. This argumentis close to the argumentationin works by people such as Brox and Daun, reviewed in the previous section. I therefore think that

CONTEMPORARYSCANDINAVIAN SOCIETY

81

H0jrup's analysis of the far-reaching revitalization of the self-employed life-mode could to some extent be extended to Norway and Sweden, even if the agriculturalsector is smaller there. The life-mode perspectiveis a new way of choppingup society thatextends a traditional economic-class analysis. Since the concept of the life-mode unifies socially very different economic classes in society (84, p. 1979), it yields some fresh insights. However, in addition to the explicit logical approach, H0jrup also slips into the analysis insights derived from social anthropologicalperspectives oriented toward social practice. The fact that such perspectivesare not built into the mode of analysis is its weakest point. Even if H0jrupwarns againstreifying the concepts (84, p. 188), he himself empirical presents and discusses them as a set of ideal types. Contradictory materialdoes not falsify the threemaintypes but leads to furtherdivisions into subtypes and mixed forms. People "carry"life-modes, they do not create them, and life-modes are seen as competing with each other (85, p. 30). H0jrupsees no ideological similarities among the life-modes. To him and Christensenthe values and outlooks of each life-mode are never subvariants of a common culturebut are solely rooted in that life-mode itself. Ideological differences are seen as given (by the modes of production), not really as createdand maintainedby social actors, the result being that the life-mode is treatedas a "thing,"a concrete and measurableentity. Denmarkis seen as a collection of parts-in this case not communities or classes but life-modes. Contraryto the stated aim, the study thereforeleads to an atomisticinterest in life-modes ratherthan in patternsof culturaland social interrelationships. For planners and politicians it will be only too convenient to overlook the subtletiesof the subdivisions and mixed forms and to graspthe main division of society into a set of life-modes. By reifying life-modes into types, it may give planners the illusion of knowing the people, instead of giving them tools with which to analyze the changing subtleties and variationsof ways of life. What is needed is to incorporateinto the method not only social actorsand social practice but also a more sophisticatedtheory of culture. If people are seen as social actors, then life-modes display patternsnot because they have an essential logical existence outside people's lives but because men and women with characteristicdispositions continuously shape and reshapethese patterns. It will, for instance, be useful to distinguish analytically between on the one hand life-mode or way of life and, on the other hand, life-style. A life-mode may be defined more comprehensively as including economic, organizational,and culturalaspects of a way of life, while a life-style may be defined as the expressive or communicativeaspects of a way of life (75, Ch. 5).

82

GULLESTAD

CLASS FORMATIONAND CULTURE BUILDING

Comparedto the heavy hand of the Danish life-mode analysis developed by Thomas H0jrup and his associates, Swedish European ethnology is much more prolific, eclectic, and light-hearted(thoughno less ambitious).In Lund, Orvar Lofgren, Jonas Frykman, and their associates are not only excellent scholars but have also been given the necessary institutional backing to develop cumulative research projects of some scale. Ten researchers are involved in a project that so far has resultedin several books and articles (1, 53-58, 93, 107-112). Like Thomas H0jrupthey want to study society and cultureby approaching the totality rather than the local variations. Unlike H0jrup, however, they argue explicitly for an emphasis on agency ratherthan structure.With the Scandinavian elaborations of British social anthropology I outlined above they have combined influences from Americanculturalanthropology,Marxism, the French Annales school in history, and (not least) the civilization studies of NorbertElias. The theoreticalfoundationof the projectis discussed in a paper by OrvarLofgren (111) and in a small book in Swedish by Billy Ehn and Orvar Lofgren (47). The Lund group brings a historical perspective to the study of contemporary Scandinaviansociety. Startingin the present, the whole project may be seen as an ongoing dialog between past and present. Unlike most other Scandinavianprojects the empirical focus is neither inhabitantsof marginal regions nor working-class people, but the transformationsof the Swedish bourgeoisie into what these scholars see as the Swedish middle class. To analyze the culturalroots of the present, they move first a century (57) and then 50 years (56) back in time. Their aim is to focus on relations between culturallydistinctgroups and the dialectic processes wherebydifferentclasses and strata develop their identities and cultures. The project's first book, Culture Builders (57), is an exploration of the formativeperiod of Swedish bourgeois culturefrom 1880 to 1910. Bourgeois culture is contrasted to peasant culture and working-class culture. Orvar Lofgrencontraststhe very differentattitudestowardtime and timekeeping, as well as the uses and perceptionsof nature;he comparesgenderconstructsand patterns of child socialization, looks at the new polarization of work and leisure between public and private life, together with the new ideology of home and family life. Jonas Frykmandescribes and analyzes notions of dirt, pollution, and orderliness (discussing the emergence of a new ideology of health and cleanliness), as well as changing perceptions of sexuality and bodily functions. Together Lofgren and Frykmanseek to demonstrateconcretely the way the bourgeoisie constructedits culturaldominion throughthe rituals and routines of everyday life.

CONTEMPORARYSCANDINAVIAN SOCIETY

83

A sequel to Culture Builders was published in Swedish in 1985 (56). It deals with the remakingof the middle-classand working-classculturesduring the interwaryears, the period of the making of the Swedish welfare state. As partof the projectone of the authors,Lissie Astr0m, has done a separatestudy of how women receive, use, and transmita culturalheritage in this century (1). Even if they take great care not to view working-class respectability in terms of embourgeoisement, a copying of middle-class standards(111, p. 89), their main thesis is that bourgeois conceptions and ideologies become reified as "natural" common sense. Other social groups participatedin this building of cultureonly insofar as bourgeois culturewas developed in dependence upon and opposition to them. On the one hand they tend to see bourgeois culture as hegemonic by definition, in the Gramsciansense; thus the outcomes of the culture-building processes are seen as given. On the other hand, throughthe analysis of class strugglesthey seem to apply a more critical notion of hegemony. For my part, I see good reasons to question whetherthe contributions of other classes to "Swedishness" have not been more substantial. I returnto this point in the next section. After all, when Frykmanand Lofgren speak about bourgeois culture and working-class culture, the meanings of those terms are not so far from those of terms like part-culture,subculture, life-mode, or way of life. Each class has its "culture."They addresshow these culturesare interrelated historical in terms, but they do not address the question of what it is that ties them together, in culturalterms. While they do continuallycontrastthe classes on all matters they consider, they do not really discuss to what extent the differences are system-relatedcultural differences. Such a discussion is necessary in orderto make a more precise analysis of the nature of specific cultural processes-i.e. the extent to which specific class differences are either superficial variationsor form part of more fundamental changes of mentality. The notions of life-modes or class-cultures logically presuppose more inclusive culturalschemes, but these are missing not only in H0jrup's structurallife-mode analysis but also in Frykmanand Lofgren's perceptive analysis of cultural processes.

OVERARCHINGCULTURAL CATEGORIES
This question may be more directly addressedthrough a recent intellectual trend in which Frykman and Lofgren also participate. There is a growing interest in cultural processes in general and in particularfor what at first glance appearto be nationalcultures. Many researchersare interestedin what they think is typically Swedish (78, 82), typically Norwegian (95), and typically Danish (51, 79, 115, 127, 137) patterns of behavior, ideas, and

84

GULLESTAD

values. The trend has resulted in both popular books and more scholarly presentations.Since the beginningof the 1970s many people from Asia, Latin America, and southernEurope have immigratedto Scandinavia,particularly to Sweden, where about 10% of the population are now immigrants or descendantsof immigrants. Confrontedwith markedotherness at home, the indigenous Scandinaviansfeel both the need and the possibility of cultural self-reflection. In a recent paper (113), OrvarLofgren sets out to provide a foundationfor the study of what he calls the nationalizationof culture. He is looking for the processes whereby culturalelements are turnedinto national symbols. Since most other researchers are in fact not interested in the nationalizationof culturebut in typical patternsof behavior, ideas, and values on an everyday level, I suggest that a distinction should be made between (a) cultural processes within a nation and (b) national cultural processes. Typical phenomena within a nation are not necessarily typical only for that nation. It is useful to distinguish between implicit symbols, categories, and meanings of everydaylife and explicit nationalsymbols and ideologies. When creatingand using national symbols and stereotypes, people generally use as cultural resourcesmodes of thinkingand modes of living in everydaylife. To a certain extent creating national symbols and stereotypes implies transformingthe continuities of everyday life into the contrasts and symbolic inversions of stereotypesand explicit symbols. Nationalsymbols tend to be explicit cultural constructs, while what is shared on an everyday level may take the form of implicit culturalknowledge. National symbols are designed to be nationaland discontinuous-even if the "language"for creating them is internationalwhile what is sharedon an everyday level may also be sharedby inhabitants of neighboring nations and may thus be continuous across nations. Ake Daun builds on journalisticreportsand interviews with foreign workers in studying concrete ways of behaving and psychological personality characteristics.He emphasizes that Swedes are quiet, use few words, and make many pauses in conversations. Quietness (tystlatenhet) is a central value. Other central characteristics according to Daun are seriousness (allvar), avoidanceof conflict, and rationality(foirnufts-orientering) (36-40). Daun's method for generalizing about Swedish culture consists mainly in providing a list of culturetraitsby summarizingforeigners' observationsand in comparingnationsby using statisticalsurvey data (38, 40). Otherresearchers rely on reflection and imaginative speculation (102). Personally, I find these methods less satisfying than working through detailed contextualized ethnographyto make explicit the frameworksof implicit meanings (the way Daun himself workedin the book Forortsliv). Both interethnicencountersand ethnic stereotypes may then be among the strategic sources of data. When I studied various urbanNorwegian working-class subculturalways

CONTEMPORARYSCANDINAVIAN SOCIETY

85

of life, I was aftersome time led to formulatequestionsaboutthe natureof the cultural frames organizing subculturaldifferences. The result of this quest may be regardedas a thirdkind of comprehensiveapproach.The approachis based on the analysis of roles, identities, encounters, and activity systems outlined in the section aboutbuildingblocks, as well as on influencesfrom the traditionin Americanculturalanthropology.I have formulated interpretative hypotheses about what I see as some central themes in Norwegian (and perhaps Scandinavian or northern European) culture: equality defined as sameness; home-centeredness;desire for peace and quiet; love of nature; stability; independence; self-sufficiency; and self-control (66-69, 73-75). The hypotheses are made in terms of the relevantsets of oppositions in which these categories occur. It is centralto the approachthat a cultureshould not be described by a list of traits but by tracing explicit and implicit relations between categories as well as between categories and social action. The analysis is done by identifying and spelling out the meaning of cultural categories (like "peace and quiet") that are used to justify, legitimate, and induce social action without themselves needing justification. This operationalizationenables one to avoid assumptionsabout total sharing:Many people may use the categories in roughly the same ways without necessarily investing them with exactly the same concrete meanings in social action (73, 75). The Norwegian egalitariantraditioninvolves not necessarily actual samedifference during social encounters ness but ways of under-communicating 67, 75). In their personallives, Norwegian men and women like to (2, 6, 17, "fit in with" friends, neighbors, and relatives. Two people define each other as alike by being accessible to each other. Inaccessibility, on the other hand, is a sign of perceived dissimilarity. Social boundariesbetween classes and groups do not disappearbut become subtlerand more hidden throughgraded distancing and avoidance (69, 75). The idea of equality as sameness is not incompatible with a very pronounced individualism: Norwegian men and women are individualistsby being independentand self-sufficient. In this way individualism and conformity are broughttogether. While Norway (like the other Scandinavian countries) is undergoing extensive social and cultural changes, the ideas of equality defined as sameness and individualismdefined as independence seem to be reinforced (67, 75). This approach complements the other two totalizing perspectives on an important point: Through the analysis of central cultural categories, it is possible to draw togetherthe analysis of differentlife-modes or class cultures in culturalterms. It is possible to highlight to what extent the differences of ways of life and life-styles are system-relateddifferences, in terms of being the product of an overarchingculture and social orderthat create and legitimate (directly or indirectly) these differences.

86

GULLESTAD

The way to do such an analysis is, in Scandinaviaas elsewhere, through painstakingattentionto ethnographicdetail. This procedureallows researchers in the long run to commute back and forth between, synthesis on the one hand and ethnographicdetail and embeddednesson the other. It is the main work to presentcontextualizedand task and the main thrustof anthropological embedded analyses of social organizationand culturalmeanings. In addition to and based upon this primarytask, we should not be afraidto make a leap into bold hypotheses formulatedas well-informedand well-qualified guesses about culturalschemes in a largerregion, even if this region is both close to home and contains complex structuresand systems. Anthropologists may choose either to be "scientific"by bolsteringtheir imaginationswith statistics or to cultivate and discipline their analytical concepts and intuitive interpretations.I think we should opt for the latter choice. Several recent studies exemplify this method. Billy Ehn has published a numberof well-writtenand insightfulbooks based on fieldworkin a variedset of institutions in contemporarySwedish society (41, 43-45). In Ska vi leka tiger? [Let's Play Tiger!] (43) he generalizes about Swedish culture from fieldwork in a nurseryschool. He sees striving for order (orden) as well as a fundamentaldoubt and insecurity (tveksamhet)as two central characteristics of what goes on in child pedagogies as well as in Swedish society at large. In an innovative and importantstudy of a Swedish church, the American anthropologistPeter Stromberg (132) concludes by comparing the churchmembers' symbols and experiences of grace with IngmarBergman's movies. He finds similar culturalpatternsand sees a tension between individual and community as central to Swedish culture. According to his analysis, many elaboratethe theme of the personaland social struggle culturalrepresentations involved in desperateswings between reserve and release, between isolation and social contact. The study of culturalcategories also includes developing an understanding of the historical backgroundof currentthemes. Here the Europeanethnologists in Lund have alertedus to the fact that some classes or groups may be more typical thanothers. One of the startingpoints of the projectin Lundwas the popular stereotypes of Swedishness, common to outside observers and natives alike. These stereotypesportraythe typical Swede as a nature-loving and conflict-avoiding person, obsessed with self-discipline, orderliness, punctuality, and the rational life. Most of these are middle-class virtues, according to Frykman and Lofgren. It is their view that the formerly bourgeois, now middle-class life-style has become the mainstreamSwedish culture in public discourse as well as in private life. In my view, there are reasons to question their contention, at least in its strongest formulation. Anthropological work in Norway has demonstrated how much Norwegian culture is influenced by the rural life-modes of its

CONTEMPORARYSCANDINAVIAN SOCIETY

87

recent past. The reason for this could be the fact thatpeople in the Norwegian upperclass have been less wealthy and more divided among themselves than the upper classes in Denmark, the southern part of Sweden, and other Europeancountries, both in the past and today. However, Thomas H0jrup's analysis of the revitalizationand ideological importanceof the self-employed life-mode in Denmarkmay also be used to back up such an argument. Many ideas and values regarded as typically of Scandinavianmay perhapsbe analyzed as extensions and transformations the self-employed life-mode. In fact, in a recent paper Jonas Frykman(55) suggests that it may be the
class-traveller who embodies most of what is regarded as typically Swedish

today. Swedes exhibit the highest social mobility of any nationality in Europe. Educatedpeople thus constituteby far the most heterogeneousstratum in society. The way of life of each class-travellerwill be influencedby at least two life-modes, the one left behind and the one entered into. According to Frykmanit is the insecurityof the class-travellerthat is expressed in what is often considered typically Swedish. In the analysis of the roots of "national"cultures and implicit cultural frameworkswithin and across nations, the study of religion should be much more importantin the future than it is today. I see religion not only as a subfield of society where 10% of the populationare active, but as a general cultural force. Some outside observers, such as Barnes, have written brief papers on religious life (4), but only Peter Stromberghas done a study with this as a focus (132). Most inside observers are completely silent on this point, thus revealing a local intellectualfolk ideology in which religion is not regardedas important.I see the examinationof connections between secular domains of life (like family, sports, internationalrelations, social planning) and religion as a fertile field for anthropologicalresearchin this region. The interconnectionsmay work both ways. On the one hand, since churchreligion to many people has lost its value as legitimationand integrationof everyday activities, they have to find their "ultimatemeanings"elsewhere. According to one hypothesis Scandinavianscreate unity, continuity, and integrationby working on the home as a physical framethatembodies a whole set of central culturalvalues (75). On the other hand, church religion may be transformed and revitalizedinto secularideas and values. The meaningsof the Norwegian notions of equality as sameness, self-control, and peace and quiet may, for of pietist instance, be relatedto the asceticism and the egalitarianism Lutheran lay-organized churches (71). Peter Stromberg (131) points to certain similarities among the various popular movements in Sweden in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The local labor party, the free church, and the temperancelodge preached global messages that instilled new value scales in their adherents.

88

GULLESTAD

Jonas Frykman(55) notes in passing that this may be one backgroundfactor for the extensive social mobility in Sweden: The free church made the members homeless in their communities but at home with God and the congregation, and thus preparedto break away. The question remains, however, to what extent the traits described as "typically Swedish," "typically Norwegian," or "typically Danish" are exclusively Swedish, Norwegian, or Danish. There are, for instance, obvious similarities among the egalitariannotions in the three countries and between the value placed on silence in Sweden and the culturalcategory "peace and quiet" in Norway. The problem is how to treat such similarities-as the same, as different versions of something similar, or as different cultural constellations with some family resemblance. This problem has to be confronted in the future anthropologyof the region. Equality as sameness and peace and quiet may then turn out to be comparableto honor and hospitalityin the Mediterranean world, where such questions have been discussed for a long time. It is also high time anthropologists starteddiscussing in what ways, to what and for what kinds of researchquestions the nation state is or is not a extent, relevant frame of analysis in this region. There is a need to discuss explicitly the possibility of a wider culture area and how it would have to be definedScandinavia,the Nordic countries, or some wider unit. This step is necessary if studies in this region are to develop into full-fledged contributions to comparative anthropology.

CONCLUSION
Taken together, the studies reviewed here demonstratethat in a double sense the small facts of everyday life constitute a fruitful entry point into an understandingof larger social and cultural processes. This fact is also reflected in the emerging use within Scandinavia of "everyday life" as a political symbol that has utopian overtones and that replaces more worn-out symbols like "community"and "neighborhood" (75, Ch. 10). Another theme running through most of the literature is how to deal analyticallywith social and culturaldifferences. These themes reveal that the relationship between anthropology and state is extremely complex: Even while criticizing bureaucratic centralization and standardization, anthropological studies tend both to reflect and to reflect upon some of the central ideas underpinningand informing the Nordic welfare states. The three totalizing attemptsI have dealt with are dramaticallydifferent in terms both of the academic traditionsinvolved and of the empiricalpoints of and anchorage;but thereare also strikingcomplementarities largeoverlapping areas. In my view it is both desirable and feasible to integrate the three

CONTEMPORARYSCANDINAVIAN SOCIETY

89

perspectives. Here I can only sketch a few lines along which such an integrationmight take place. Startingwith the action-orientedperspectivesreviewed in the first section, the concept of life-mode provides a more precise structural anchoringfor the analysis of processes of culture-building within and between what have so far been termedclass-cultures.The Lund approachprovides a historicalperspective, as well as a perceptive analysis of culturalclass struggles. This analysis could both profit from and contributeto a growing understanding overarchof ing culturalcategories. One useful linking concept is, I think, the concept of life-style. Individualpersons create and recreatetheir identities throughtheir life-styles. These processes may be relatedto overarchingculturalcategories, on the one hand, and anchored to structurallife-modes on the other (75). An integrationof the three approachescould provide an even more forceful anthropologicalperspective on the relationshipbetween small facts and the large issues in modem large-scale societies.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The writing of this paper has been supportedby a generous grant from the Norwegian ResearchCouncil for Science and the Humanities(NAVF). I also thank OttarBrox, Jan Terje Faarlund,Thomas H0jrup,JanetHoskins, David Koester, Orvar Lofgren, Raymond T. Smith, Peter Stromberg,and Terence Turner for helpful comments to the first draft. Literature Cited
I. Astrom, L. 1986. 1 kvinnoled. Om kvin-

2. 3. 4.

5.

6.

7.

nors liv genom tre generationer. Malmo: Liber. 212 pp. English summary Barnes, J. A. 1954. Class and committees in a Norwegian island parish. Hum. Relat. 7:39-58 Barnes, J. A. 1957. Landrights and kinship in two Bremnes hamlets. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 87:31-56 Barnes, J. A. 1971. The righthandand lefthandkingdoms of God: a dilemmaof pietist politics. In The Translation of Culture, ed. T. 0. Beidelman, pp. 1-18. London: Tavistock Barnes, J. A. 1978. Neitherpeasantsnor townsmen:a critiqueof a segment of the folk-urbancontinuum. In Scale and Social Organization,ed. F. Barth, pp. 1340. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget Barth, F., ed. 1963. The Role of the Entrepreneurin Social Change in Northern Norway. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget Barth, F. 1966. Models of social organization. Occas. Pap. Roy. Anthropol. Inst. 23.

8. Barth, F. 1972. Analytical dimensions in the comparison of social organizations. Am. Anthropol. 74:207-19 9. Barth, F. 1978. Scale and network in urbanWesternsociety. In Scale and Social Organization, ed. F. Barth, pp. 163-83. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget 10. Berentzen, S. 1979. Et samhandlingsperspektiv p'astudiet av barn. Tidsskr. Samfunnsforsk.20:394-415 11. Berentzen, S. 1981. Venninnerelasjoner og konfliktm0nstre. En sammenligning av to pikemilj0er. Pigeliv, pp. 49-67. Forumfor kvinneforskning,samrnummer I, Roskilde 12. Berentzen, S. 1984. Childrenconstructing their social world: an analysis of gender contrast in children's interaction in a nursery school. Dept. Soc. Anthropol. Occas. Pap., 36. Univ. Bergen (First published in Norwegian 1980) 13. Berentzen, S., Berggreen, B., eds. 1987. Barns sosiale verden. Perspektiverpd kontroll og oppvekst. Oslo: Gyldendal 14. Bjelland, A. K. 1982. Aldring og iden-

90

GULLESTAD av livet pa kontor. Nordiska museets Handlingar 108. Stockholm: Nordiska museet Danielsen, K. 1984. Identitetsforvaltning blant gamle damer pa Frogner. See Ref. 123, pp. 123-35 Daun, . 1969. Upp till kamp i Batskdrsnds! En etnologisk studie av ett samhdlle infor industrinedlaggelse. Stockholm: Bokf6rlaget Prisma Daun, A. 1974. Fo6rortsliv. etnologEn isk studie av kulturellfordndring.Lund: Bokf6rlaget Prisma Daun, A. 1984. Swedishness as an obstacle in cross-cultural interaction. Ethnol. Euro. 14:95-109 Daun, A. 1986. The Japanese of the North-The Swedes of Asia. Ethnol. Scand. 1986:5-17 Daun, A. 1989. Svensk Mentalitet. Stockholm:Raben& SjogrenBokforlag. In press (with English summary) Daun, A., Ehn, B., eds. 1988. Blandsverige. Kulturskillnader och kulturmoten. Stockholm: Carlssons Daun, A., Mattlar, C.-E., Arlanen, E. 1989. Personalitytraits and characteristics for Finns and Swedes. Ethnol. Scand. In press Ehn, B. 1981. Arbetets Flytande Grdnser. En Fabriksstudie. Stockholm: Prisma Ehn, B. 1982. Daghemmets ordningar. Antropol. Stud. 33:9-33 Ehn, B. 1983. Ska vi leka tiger? Daghemsliv ur kulturell synvinkel. Lund: Liber F6rlag Ehn, B. 1986. Det otydliga kulturm0tet. Om innvandrare och svenskar pad ett daghem. Stockholm: Liber Forlag Ehn, B. 1987. Museendet. Stockholm: Liber Forlag Ehn, B. 1988. Nationalfeeling in Swedish sport. Paperpresentedat the seminar "NationalCultureas Process: Hungarian and Swedish Experiences," Budapest, May 1-3 Ehn, B., ULfgren,0. 1982. Kulturanalys. Ett etnologisk perspektiv. Stockholm: Liber Forlag Elsass, O., Hastrup,K. 1986. Sykdomsbilleder. Medicinsk antropologi og psykologi. Copenhagen:Gyldendal Ericson, D. 1988. In the Stockholm art world. StockholmStud. Soc. Anthropol. 17. Univ. Stockholm. 179 pp. Espeland, W. 1981. Blommorfranr'annstenen. In Tradition och Milj6, ed. L. Honko, 0. Lofgren. Lund: Liber Finsen, H. C. 1986. Den danske smag. (Publishers catalogue). Copenhagen: ChristianEjlers Forlag Flakstad, A. G. 1984. Kan endring i

titetskrise. Dept. Soc. Anthropol. Occas. Pap. 27. Univ. Bergen 15. Bjeren, G. 1981. Female and male in a Swedish forest region: old roles under new conditions. Antropol. Stud. 30-31: 56-85 16. Bjerring, B., Haslebo, G., Villadsen, S., eds. 1974. Lokalsamfund.Utvikling eller avvikling. En debatbog om samfundsutvikling og lokalsamfunn i Danmark. Esbjerg: Sydjysk Universitetscenter 17. Blom, J. P. 1969. Ethnic and cultural differentiation. In Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, ed. F. Barth, pp. 74-85. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget 18. Boholm, A. 1983. Swedish kinship. An explorationinto culturalprocesses of belonging and continuity. Gothenburg Studies in Social Anthropology,Volume 5. Gothenburg: Acta Univ. Gothoburgensis. 252 pp. 19. Borchgrevink, T., Melhuus, M. 1985. Familie og arbeid. Fokus p'asj0mannsfamilier. RapportNr. 27. Oslo: WorkRes. Inst. 252 pp. 20. Bratrein, H. D., et al., eds. 1976. Drivandes kvinnfolk.Troms0: Universitetsforlaget 21. Bringeus, N. A. 1972. Swedish ethnology today. Ethnol. Euro. 6:203-26 22. Brox, 0. 1964. Natural conditions, inheritance and marriage in a North Norwegian Fjord. Folk 6(1):35-46 23. Brox, 0. 1966. Hva skjer iNord-Norge? En studie i norsk utkantspolitikk.Oslo: Pax Forlag 24. Brox, 0. 1972. Strukturfacismenoch andra essder. Stockholm: Bokforlaget Prisma 25. Brox, 0. 1984. Nord-Norge. Fra allmenning til koloni. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget 26. Brox, 0. 1988. Ta vare pd Norge. Oslo: Gyldendal 27. Brox, 0. 1988. The common property theory: epistemological status and analytical utility. Paper presented at the 12th ICAES, Zagreb 28. Brox, O., Gullestad, M., eds. 1988. Pd Norsk grunn. Hyllest til Fredrik Barth. Oslo: Ad Notam 29. Caulkins, D. 1980. Community, subculture, and organizationalnetworks in Western Norway. J. Volunt.Action Res. 9:1-4 30. Christensen, L. R. 1987. Hver vore veje. Livsformer,familietyper kvindeliv. Odense: Etnologisk Forum 31. Christiansen, P. 0. 1982. En livsform pd tvangsauktion? Copenhagen: Gyldendal 32. Conradson, B. 1988. Etnologiska bilder

33. 34.

35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46.

47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

CONTFMPOR

A R Y SCA NDIN AVI A N SROCIETY

91

53. 54.

55. 56. 57.

58. 59. 60.

61. 62.

63. 64.

65.

66.

67. 68.

69.

kvinnearbeidetutl0se strukturendringer? pp. 64-83 See Ref. 123 Frykman, J. 1979. Ritual as communication. Ethnol. Scand. 1979:5462 Frykman, J. 1981. Pure and rational. The hygienic vision: a study of cultural transformations in the 1930s. Ethnol. Scand. 81:36-62 Frykman, J. 1989. Social mobility and national identity. Ethnol. Euro. In press Frykman, J., Lofgren, O., eds. 1985. Moddrna tider. Vision och vardagfolkhemmet. Stockholm: Liber Forlag Frykman,J., Lofgren, 0. 1987. Culture Builders: A Historical Anthropologyof Middle Class Life. New Brunswick: Rutgers Univ. Press (First published in Swedish 1979). Gaunt, D., Lofgren, 0. 1984. Myter om svensken. Stockholm: Liber Folag Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretationof Cultures. New York: Basic Books Gerholm, L. 1985. Kulturprojektoch projektkultur.En fall-studie av en kulLund:Liturpolitiskforsoksverksamhet. ber. 197 pp. (English summary) Gerholm, T., Hannerz, U. 1982. Introduction: the shaping of national anthropologies. Ethnos 1-2:5-35 Gerrard, S. 1985. Kvinners makt og avmakt. Et kj0nnsrolleperspektiv pa forvaltning av faglige interesser. Arbeidsnotat Nr. 3. Alta: Finnmarks Distriksh0gskole Gr0nhaug,R., ed. 1979. Utvikling,migrasjon og minoriteter. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget Gulbrandsen, 0. 1976. Samarbeidsideologi og interessekonflikt. Ardalsprosjektet, rapport Nr. 7. Oslo: NIBR/ ISO Gullestad, M. 1979. Livet i en gammel bydel. Livsmilj0 og bykulturpadVerftet og en del av N0stet. Oslo: Aschehoug. 170 pp. (An earlier version published 1975) Gullestad, M. 1984. Kitchen-Table Society. A Case Studyof the Family Life and Friendships of Young Working Class Mothers in Urban Norway. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget; Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. 357 pp. Gullestad, M. 1985. Livsstil og likhet. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. 162 pp. Gullestad, M. 1986. Equality and marital love. The Norwegiancase as an illustration of a general Western dilemma. Soc. Anal. 19:40-56 Gullestad, M. 1986. Symbolic fences in urban Norwegian neighborhoods. Ethnos 51(3):52-70

70. Gullestad, M. 1987. Samfunnsforsker paileting etteren "gr0nnplett."Sosiologi idag 1:55-80 71. Gullestad, M. 1988. Religious perspectives on secularizedeveryday life in Norway. In Religion as a Social Phenomenon, ed. E. Karlsaune,pp. 17-44. Trondheim:Tapir Forlag 72. Gullestad, M. 1988. Agents of modernity: children's care for children in urban Norway. Soc. Anal. 23:38-52 73. Gullestad, M. 1988. The meaning of peace and quiet in Norwegian everyday life. Paper presented at the Am. Anthropol. Annu. Meet., Phoenix, Ariz., Nov. 16-20 74. Gullestad, M. 1989. The meaningof nature as a culturalcategory in Norwegian everyday life. Folk. In press 75. Gullestad, M. 1989. Kultur og hverdagsliv. Pad sporet av det moderne Norge. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. 76. Hannerz, U. 1980. Exploring the City, Inquiries toward an Urban Anthropology. New York: Columbia Univ. Press 77. Hannerz, U. 1982. Twenty years of Swedish social anthropology; 19601980. Ethnos 1-2:150-73 78. Hannerz, U. 1983. Den svenska kulturen. RapportNr. 9. Prosjektet kulturteori for komplexa samhdllen. Univ. Stockholm. 28 pp. 79. Harbsmeier, M. 1986. Danmark: Nation, kultur og k0n. Stofskifte 13:4773 80. Haugen, I. 1978. Om forvaltning av utilgjengelighet. Tidsskr. samfunnsforsk. 19:405-14 81. Haugen, I., Holtedahl, L. 1982. Regulating togetherness. Acta Sociol. 25(1):3-20 82. Hjort, A., ed. 1983. Svenska livsstilar. Om naturen som resurs och symbol. Stockholm: Liber 83. H0jris, 0. 1986. Antropologien i Danmark, Museal etnografi og etnologi 1860-1960. Copenhagen: Nationalmuseet 84. H0jrup, T. 1983. Det glemte folk. Copenhagen:Inst. Euro. Folkelivsforsk. Statens Byggeforskningsinstitut(SBI) 85. H0jrup, T. 1983. The concept of lifemode. A form-specifying mode of analysis applied to contemporaryWestern Europe. Ethnol. Scand. 1983:15-50 86. Hollos, M. 1974. Growing Up in Flathill. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget 87. Holtedahl, L. 1977. Jenter og gutter i skole og lokalsamfunn. Om utviklingen av ulike roller. Forskningsnytt22 (12): 13-21 88. Holtedahl,L. 1978. Kanforhold mellom

92

GULLESTAD 106. Lofgren, 0. 1980. Historical perspectives on Scandinavian peasantries. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 9:187-215 107. Lofgren, 0. 1981. On the anatomy of culture. Ethnol. Euro. 12(1):26-46 108. Lofgren, 0. 1984. The sweetness of home: class, culture and family life in Sweden. Ethnol. Euro. 14:44-64 109. Lofgren, 0. 1985. Wish you were here! Holiday images and picture postcards. Ethnol. Scand. 1985:90-107 110. Lofgren, 0. 1985. Ourfriends in nature: class and animal symbolism. Ethnos 34:184-213 111. Lofgren, 0. 1987. Deconstructing Swedishness: culture and class in modem Sweden. In Anthropologyat Home. ASA Monogr. 25, ed. A. Jackson, pp. 74-93. London: Tavistock 112. Lofgren, O., ed. 1988. Hej. det erfrcdn ftirsdkringskassan.Informaliseringenav Sverige. Stockholm: Natur och kultur 113. Lofgren, 0. 1989. The nationalization of culture: constructing Swedishness. Ethnol. Euro. In press 114. Nilsen, R., Reiersen, J. E., Aarsaether, N., eds. 1982. Folkemakt og regional utvikling. Oslo: Pax Forlag 115. 0stergard, U. 1984. Hvad er det "Danske" ved Danmark? Tanker om den "Danske veg" til kapitalismen, Grundtvigianismen og "Dansk" mentalitet. Den Jyske Historiker 29-30:85-137 E. 116. Palsson, G., Durrenberger, P. 1989. Introduction:Towards an anthropology of Iceland. In The Anthropologyof Iceland, ed. G. Palsson, E. P. Durrenberger. Iowa City: Univ. Iowa Press. In press 117. Park,G. K. 1962. Sons and lovers:characterological requisites of the roles in a peasant society. Ethnology 1(4):41224 118. Park, G. K. 1972. Regional versions of Norwegian culture: a trial formulation. Ethnology 11(1):3-24 119. Rasmussen, A. 1979. Om 'abli voksen. Tidsskr. samfunnsforsk.20:473-93 120. Rasmussen, A. 1984. "Darlig rykte"er kvinneskjebne. See Ref. 123, pp. 25373 121. Rosendahl, M. 1985. Conflict & compliance. Class consciousness among Swedish workers. StockholmStud. Soc. Anthropol.14. Univ. Stockholm.203 pp. 122. Rudie, I. 1969/70. Household organization: adaptive process and restrictive form. A viewpoint on economic change. Folk 11-12:185-200 123. Rudie, I., ed. 1984. Myk start-hard landing. Omforvaltning av kj0nnsidentitet i en endringsprosess. Oslo: UniversitetsforIaget

mennesker planlegges? Plan og arbeid 4:174-80 89. Holtedahl, L. 1986. Hva muttergj0r et alltid viktig. Om d vere kvinneog mann Oslo: i en nord-norskbygd i 1970-adrene. Universitetsforlaget 90. Holter, H., ed. 1982. Kvinner i fellesskap. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget 91. H0st, I. C., Wadel, C., eds. 1980. Fiske og lokalsamfunn. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget 92. Jensen, S. S., Nielsen, H., Samuelsen, H., Steffen, V. 1987. "Hvader meningen med kreft?" En antropologisk unders0gelse blandt danske patienter og Bebehandlere. Copenhagen: Kraeftens kaempelsesForlag 93. Johansson, E. 1989. Free sons of the forest. Story-tellingand the construction of identity among Swedish lumberjacks. In The Myths We Life by, ed. S. R. Thompson. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. In press 94. Klausen, A. M. 1981. Antropologiens historie. Oslo: Gyldendal 95. Klausen, A. M., ed. 1984. Den norske veremadten.Oslo: Cappelen 96. Klausen, A. M. 1986. Med Dagbladet til tabloid. Oslo: Gyldendal 97. Klein, B. 1986. Swedish folklife research in the 1980s. J. Am. Folklore 99(394):461-69 98. Krogstad,A. 1985. Fra gata til Skippergata. Antropolognytt7(3/4):24-54 99. Krogstad, A. 1989. Punk symbols on a concrete background: from external provocation to internal moralism. Soc. Anal. In press 100, Kugelberg, C. 1987. Allt eller inget. Barn, omsorg ochfoirvdrsarbete.Stockholm: Carlsson Bokforlag 101. Larsen, S. S. 1980. Omsorgsbonden-et tidsnyttingsperspektiv pa yrkeskombinasjon, arbeidsdelingog sosial endring. Tidssk. samfunnsforsk.21:283-96 102. Larsen, T. 1984. B0nder i byen. Pa jakt etterden norskekonfigurasjonen.In Den ed. norske veremadten, A. M. Klausen, pp. 15-44. Oslo: Cappelen 103. Liep, J. 1987. De l'histoire de la culture a la cultureet a l'histoire: l'evolution de l'anthropologie Danoise. Anthropol. Soc. 11(3):35-55 104. Lithman, Y. 1988. Kampandekroppar, moraliska kroppar-retorik och sosial kontroll i den tidiga gymnastiken. In Idrott, historia och samhdlle. Stockholm: Svenska idrottshist. foreningens arsskrift 105. Lofgren, 0. 1974. Family and household among Scandinavian peasants: an exploratory essay. Ethnol. Scandi. 1974:17-50

CONTEMPORARYSCANDINAVIAN SOCIETY
124. Sachs, L. 1983. Evil eye or bacteria. Turkish migrant women and Swedish health care. Stockholm Stud. Soc. Anthropol. 12. Univ. Stockholm 125. Saugestad, S. 1983. The emergence of a regional identity. Antropolognytt83(23):67-79 126. Schwartz, J. M. 1985. Reluctanthosts: Denmark's reception of guest workers. Kultursociologiske Skrifter, Nr. 21. Copenhagen: Akademisk 127. Schwartz, J. M. 1986. A note on anthropologyand childhood:the latent and manifestDanishness of Erik H. Eriksen. Paper presented at the Nordic Ethnogr. Meet. in Stockholm 128. Solheim, J., Heen, H., Holter, 0. G. 1986. Nordsj0livog hjemmeliv. Del I og II. Rapport, Nr. 35/36. Oslo: WorkRes. Inst. 270 pp. 129. S0rhaug, H. C. 1982. Ansatte og innsatte pa et psykiatrisk sykehus. Oslo Occas. Pap. Soc. Anthropol. 6. Dept. Soc. Anthropol., Univ. Oslo etnologi. 130. Stoklund, B. 1979. Europaeisk In K0benhavns Universitet 1479-1979, Vol. 2:87-120. Copenhagen: Univ. Copenhagen 131. Stromberg,P. G. 1983. An anthropological approach to a Swedish popular movement. Ethnos 1-2:69-84 132. Stromberg, P. G. 1986. Symbols of Community. The Cultural System of a

93

133. 134. 135.

136. 137. 138.

139. 140. 141. 142. 143.

Swedish Church. Tuscon: Univ. Ariz. Press. 127 pp. Thorsen, L. E. 1986. Work and gender. Ethnol. Euro. 16:137-48 Thorsen, L. E. 1987. Farmer women and intimacy. Ethnol. Scand. 1987:97109 Thorsen, L. E. 1988. Farmer women and the cultural meaning offood. Paper presentedat the 7th World Congr. Rural Sociol., Bologna, June 26-July 2 Thuen, T., Wadel, C., eds. 1978. Lokale samfunn og offentlig planlegging. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget Vestergaard,T. A. 1986. Blod og sindelag. En dansk grenselere. Stofskifte 13:5-22 Wadel, C. 1979. The hidden work of everyday life. In Social Anthropologyof Work.ASAMonogr. 19, ed. S. Walman, pp. 365-83. London: Academic Wadel, C. 1983. Dagliglivets organisering. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget Wadel, C. 1984. Det skjulte arbeid. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget Wagner, U. 1977. Out of time and place-Mass tourism and chartertrips. Ethnos 42(1-2):38-52 Yngvesson, B. 1978. Leadership and consensus: decision-makingin an egalitarian community. Ethnos 1-2:73-90 Zenius, M. 1983. Landbokvindeni det 20. adrhundrede. Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gad. 246 pp.