Suchergebnisse

ABSTRACTPastoralism is defined here as a system in which humanity mediates the relation between land and animals. The paper argues that the conventional idea of pastoralism as a pure relation between animals and land obscures indigenous resource management systems such as that of the Sámi, with its seasonal variations in both labour and pasture. This management is exercised through flexible social groupings which mediate the relation between the size of the herd and the capacity of the pasture. The fact that there is no historical evidence of overgrazing in a general sense in Sámi areas must be seen in connection with this management system.

Reindeer herding in Finnmark has been widely perceived during the last few decades as a perfect example of the tragedy of the commons. The present article claims that this discourse relies on flawed assumption regarding land tenure. Our historical analysis of the term 'common' in relation to resources in Finnmark shows the term to reflect a misunderstanding of local categories, practices, and concerns related to pastures, territories, and natural resources more generally. In this sense, it exposes a case of 'mistaken identity' between the formal legal conception of 'commons' and the customary rules and thinking of reindeer herders. We turn to different strands of critical institutionalism to analyse the processes of institutional change that have allowed these errors and misunderstandings to be formalised and naturalised in the current governance system. We show that a process of institutional bargaining between the Norwegian Parliament, the Sámi Parliament, and the International Labour Organisation has recently re-enforced an alien conception of a 'commons' to which ambiguous groups of people have equivocal rights. In parallel, a process of institutional layering of new regulatory actors and rules on top of existing ones has taken place. This regulatory ratcheting has resulted in the blurring of the authorities and jurisdictions intrinsic in the customary tenure system. Moreover, the new layers of regulations have actively overemphasized the Sámi customary obligation of sharing resources to legitimize the new, ambiguous, conception of commons. This process is explained as one of institutional bricolage based on naturalisation by analogy and authority processes that allow certain powerful actors to influence the production of institutional arrangements favourable to them. All three processes underline the negotiated, dynamic nature of institutional change. We propose this integrative analysis of institutional and general social dynamics is beneficial in studying commons as everyday practices affecting natural resource governance.

Reindeer herding in Finnmark has been widely perceived during the last few decades as a perfect example of the tragedy of the commons. The present article claims that this discourse relies on flawed assumption regarding land tenure. Our historical analysis of the term 'common' in relation to resources in Finnmark shows the term to reflect a misunderstanding of local categories, practices, and concerns related to pastures, territories, and natural resources more generally. In this sense, it exposes a case of 'mistaken identity' between the formal legal conception of 'commons' and the customary rules and thinking of reindeer herders. We turn to different strands of critical institutionalism to analyse the processes of institutional change that have allowed these errors and misunderstandings to be formalised and naturalised in the current governance system. We show that a process of institutional bargaining between the Norwegian Parliament, the Sámi Parliament, and the International Labour Organisation has recently re-enforced an alien conception of a 'commons' to which ambiguous groups of people have equivocal rights. In parallel, a process of institutional layering of new regulatory actors and rules on top of existing ones has taken place. This regulatory ratcheting has resulted in the blurring of the authorities and jurisdictions intrinsic in the customary tenure system. Moreover, the new layers of regulations have actively overemphasized the Sámi customary obligation of sharing resources to legitimize the new, ambiguous, conception of commons. This process is explained as one of institutional bricolage based on naturalisation by analogy and authority processes that allow certain powerful actors to influence the production of institutional arrangements favourable to them. All three processes underline the negotiated, dynamic nature of institutional change. We propose this integrative analysis of institutional and general social dynamics is beneficial in studying commons as everyday practices affecting natural resource governance.

- ; Reindeer herding in Finnmark has been widely perceived during the last few decades as a perfect example of the tragedy of the commons. The present article claims that this discourse relies on flawed assumption regarding land tenure. Our historical analysis of the term 'common' in relation to resources in Finnmark shows the term to reflect a misunderstanding of local categories, practices, and concerns related to pastures, territories, and natural resources more generally. In this sense, it exposes a case of 'mistaken identity' between the formal legal conception of 'commons' and the customary rules and thinking of reindeer herders. We turn to different strands of critical institutionalism to analyse the processes of institutional change that have allowed these errors and misunderstandings to be formalised and naturalised in the current governance system. We show that a process of institutional bargaining between the Norwegian Parliament, the Sámi Parliament, and the International Labour Organisation has recently re-enforced an alien conception of a 'commons' to which ambiguous groups of people have equivocal rights. In parallel, a process of institutional layering of new regulatory actors and rules on top of existing ones has taken place. This regulatory ratcheting has resulted in the blurring of the authorities and jurisdictions intrinsic in the customary tenure system. Moreover, the new layers of regulations have actively overemphasized the Sámi customary obligation of sharing resources to legitimize the new, ambiguous, conception of commons. This process is explained as one of institutional bricolage based on naturalisation by analogy and authority processes that allow certain powerful actors to influence the production of institutional arrangements favourable to them. All three processes underline the negotiated, dynamic nature of institutional change. We propose this integrative analysis of institutional and general social dynamics is beneficial in studying commons as everyday practices affecting natural resource governance.

Indigenous peoples, like the Sami of Fenno-Scandinavia, continue to be the object of museum display in ethnographic museums. Most of these exhibits focus predominantly on culture history via objects that reveal the quality and richness of indigenous cultures, with less emphasis on the political struggles that indigenous peoples are involved in. This paper is a reflection on the experiences in making a museum representation of a modern indigenous movement – the struggle of Sami in Norway for recognition and rights as an indigenous people. The project was meant not just to present a new way to represent indigenous peoples, but also to be designed as an argument in the ongoing ethnopolitical discourse on equity and difference in Sami-Norwegian relations.

Indigenous peoples, like the Sami of Fenno-Scandinavia, continue to be the object of museum display in ethnographic museums. Most of these exhibits focus predominantly on culture history via objects that reveal the quality and richness of indigenous cultures, with less emphasis on the political struggles that indigenous peoples are involved in. This paper is a reflection on the experiences in making a museum representation of a modern indigenous movement – the struggle of Sami in Norway for recognition and rights as an indigenous people. The project was meant not just to present a new way to represent indigenous peoples, but also to be designed as an argument in the ongoing ethnopolitical discourse on equity and difference in Sami- Norwegian relations