Skip to navigation – Site map
Special issue on local food products and systems/Numéro spécial sur les produits et systèmes agroalimentaires locaux

Understanding the temporal ambiguity of local foods through ‘polytemporality’: the case of Norwegian gamalost fra vik (old cheese)

Atle Wehn Hegnes

Abstracts

In recent years, a range of ‘ambiguities’ has been identified and discussed in relation to what, in a broad sense, is denoted ‘local food’. Such ambiguous traits are often described as emerging in the tension between two or more opposing poles. However, using polarity as a basis for describing ambiguities simplifies the complexity of local food, and undermines the power of explanation to be found in analytical concepts that could instead unite the polarised dimensions. This article proposes an analytical approach for understanding the temporal ambiguity of a local Norwegian product using Bruno Latour’s (1993) concept of polytemporality. Drawing on case-study material about Gamalost (literal translation, “Old cheese”), the article focuses on the tension and fusion between traditional and modern production methods, and how this conspicuous ambiguity can be interpreted through the textual articulation of the natural, cultural, economic and political conditions that have influenced the evolution of this product.

Top of page

Editor's notes

Acknowledgements: The research for this paper was made possible by grants from the French-Norwegian Foundation within the project ‘Consumer Conceptions of Local Food’. For constructive comments and support on different stages, I thank my colleagues Virginie Amilien, Hanne Torjussen and Unni Kjærnes as well as the participants of the European Science Foundation workshop on ‘local food’, Bordeaux, June 2006. I also thank AoF reviewers and editors Georgina Holt for language editions, and Virginie Amilien for translation.

Publication history

Some parts of this paper have previously been published in Hegnes, Amilien and Torjusen (2006). Those co-authors are not responsible for the use made of the material in this paper. All views expressed in this paper are the author’s.

Full text

Introduction

1In recent years, a body of literature has given, more or less explicit, examples of ambiguities concerning different aspects of local food. Such ambiguities have been identified in relation to how:

  • EU Regulation 2081/92 is applied in different countries and understood by consumers (Barjolle and Sylvander, 2000);

  • local products evolve in the tension between nature and culture, tradition and modernity, and specialisation and standardisation (Amilien and Hegnes, 2004; Tregear, 2003; Murdoch and Miele, 1999);

  • local products are embedded in a tension between local and global (Fonte and Grando, 2006);

  • the term ‘local food’ itself, and its connection to the French term terroir is understood (Tregear, 2003; Bérard, 2005);

  • farmers’ markets as a consumption space for local food can be understood simultaneously as ‘conservative’ and ‘alternative’ spaces by consumers. (Holloway and Kneafsey, 2000);

  • direct agricultural markets, selling local food, are torn between the social and the economic (Hinrich, 2000); and

  • branding of local food culture can be both ethnocentric and chauvinistic in its presented authenticity (Tellström et al., 2006).

2In spite of these examples, ambiguity is often described as emerging in the tension between two, or more, opposing poles but without explicitly suggesting appropriate analytical tools for further enquiry. One of the main challenges is thus to develop a theoretical apparatus which exceeds and captures the ambiguities of local food. This need for new observations, new ideas and new configurations of ideas, which can be used to understand comparable phenomena1, has been emphasized by Tregear (2003) who calls for attention to the fact that studies of temporal properties of ‘typical’ products (many of which are also ‘local’), have been overlooked. In this article a rethinking is carried out by focusing on the term ambiguity. The relevance of ambiguity has been highlighted by different social scientists2, and in many respects ambiguity stands in contrast to the idea of the rational, so that social scientists “have defined concepts with rigor in order to represent dominant traits and tendencies univocally” (Levine, 1985: 8). Further, the article proposes an analytical approach for understanding one particular type of ambiguity of a local product by focusing on the tension and fusion between traditional and modern production methods. Drawing on case-study material, I use Latour (1993) to suggest a theoretical approach to show that Gamalost fra Vik can be understood as a polytemporal product, and that in order to understand the ambiguity of local food products it is necessary to turn to explanatory models that exceed and unite dichotomies.

3How consumers experience Gamalost has earlier been described3 in a paper which concludes that:

‘Consumers vary in their response to whether Gamalost really is traditional and authentic or an industrialised modern product. To bypass this ambivalence4, consumers of the enthusiastic groups (people who had a special interest in Gamalost) use different strategies to achieve their preferred taste and experience. The ordinary consumers (who had no special knowledge about or special interest in Gamalost) have other expectations and are characterised by a defensive strategy, often consisting of not buying the product because of its reputation. Contrary to the enthusiastic consumers they do not feel any special duality around this product. As a matter of fact, knowledge and information appear to be major tools in consumers’ conception and representation of the product.’ (2006: 284)

Methodology

4The analysis is focused on the textual articulation of the history of Gamalost production methods through an emphasis on the discourse advocated by different actors through their publications of how Gamalost production methods developed. The material consists of rather limited written documents, mostly historical but also contemporary, of which a systematic review is conducted in order to outline the evolution of this cheese. Few Gamalost-makers remain. This gave few options regarding data concerning the early years of production. Most of the empirical material is thus based on scholars’ interpretations, but some of the material consists of information given by cheese makers and lay persons. The aim of the analysis is to assess which assumptions underlie the Gamalost discourse and what image the texts try to project. In this process, abductive as opposed to inductive or deductive reasoning is made use of to emphasize the dialectical relationship between existing theory on local food and the Gamalost case-study. The study can be categorized as theory elaborating. This kind of case-study is developed according to different theoretical interpretations where ‘theory elaboration and construction confront specific established concepts and theories with new case-study material, to develop and modify existing theoretical generalisations’ (Andersen, 2003: 9).

Gamalost (Norwegian Old Cheese) – the contextual scene

5Gamalost is a traditional product known mainly from the west of Norway. Originally the cheese was made on mountain farms in the summer when dairy cows were taken to the mountains for grazing. Throughout history, Gamalost has undergone several modifications. From being a generic term embracing a diverse set of cheeses produced on a large number of mountain farms localized in different places in Norway, Gamalost is today mostly known as a specific and standardized traditional product, produced at Vik Dairy.5 Today, the production process is highly industrialized, but some of the production is still done by hand and parts of the recipe can be traced to the 18th century. The cheese is made from sour skimmed milk, today ripened by a single mould species, has a brownish colour and a sharp flavour. Despite its name, Gamalost is ready to be consumed after a couple of weeks. The cheese comes in three different package sizes: 1700g, 380g and 125g. ‘Gamalost’ is printed in gothic typeface and the packaging is decorated with traditional floral designs to connote olden days and long traditions. Gamalost fra Vik was registered for Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) in November 2006 but packages do not yet display the PGI logo.6

6Between 1900 and 1950, several studies concerning the production of Gamalost were carried out but were mainly concerned with chemical processes such as ripening7. After 1950, although some reports deal with production technology, most of the written material is concerned with the traditions and marketing of Gamalost. This thematic turn may, as we will see, be explained as part of the overall Gamalost evolution. Until 1950, much effort was made to improve and standardize production methods. This brought about studies aimed at reducing technological diversity of production.8 Following the decline in diversity of product from 1950, publications had a more retrospective approach.9 In brief therefore, from 1900-1950 the Gamalost discourse was looking to the future but from 1950-present was and still is looking back into history.

7Although sales of Gamalost have decreased during recent years,10 Gamalost in general, and Gamalost fra Vik especially, have for several reasons received increased attention from scholars. The following are just a few factors contributing to this increased attention on what is, in many respects, a marginal product:

  • grassroots mobilisation for the future existence of the local dairy in Vik through The Gamalost Project;

  • the new agricultural policy with increased focus on local food in Norway; and

  • Tine (the Norwegian Dairy Cooperative) applying for PGI labelling of Gamalost.

8Although there has been an increasing focus on Gamalost, most focus has until now been on the history11 or myths of Gamalost12, or the way of producing Gamlaost13. Also, Brendehaug and Groven (2004) discuss the present status of the product and potential to increase market share. Thus, few attempts have been made to provide knowledge about how to analytically conceptualize the mutual relationship between the traditional and modern traits that have been separately identified, and how these contribute to the evolution of the product as it appears today.

The evolution of Gamalost – with particular focus on production at Vik Dairy.

From mountain farm to dairy

9At the time when Gamalost was made only on mountain farms, the production process was to a great extent influenced by local conditions and no specific method prevailed. In spite of this diversity of early production methods, it is common to distinguish between two main methods; the Sogn14 and the Hardanger.15 This categorisation was first described, although not named, in 1774 by the Bishop Prof. J.E. Gunnersus16. The introduction of off-farm dairies in Norway represents the first step towards the standardization of Gamalost, no definite method was followed until Gamalost-making became a part of the dairy industry” (Funder, 1946: 11). The new methods for making dairy Gamalost were mainly represented by variations of the Sogn and Hardanger methods, although some variations were still to be found.

10It is interesting to look further also into why dairies were introduced, and why the use of mountain farms decreased. Private dairies were established in Norway at the beginning of the 1800s but after the first cooperative was founded in 1856, the cooperative dairy industry continued to increase and still dominates the milk processing sector. The development of cooperative dairies was mainly motivated by “greater economic autonomy and control by the farmers themselves” (Gjerdåker 2004). The development of dairies also had implications for the range of mountain farms. Potthoff (2003) points to several reasons why the seasonal use of mountain farms decreased after the mid-19th century: “…introduction of dairies in the villages, an increase in wages, demand for higher product quality, cultivation of pastures close to the permanent farms, changes in the agricultural sector and society in general” (2004: 158).

11Several dairies established in the 19th century produced Gamalost. The expansion in dairy farming led to an increased cooperation within the industry and in 1881 the first nationwide organisation, Den Norske Meieriforening (the Norwegian Dairy Association), was founded. The forerunner of TINE BA (which today owns the Vik Dairy) was established in 1928. TINE Norske Meierier (TINE Norwegian Dairies) was introduced in 1992 and after extensive reorganisation in 2002, TINE BA became the official name of the company.17 When the production of Gamalost moved to the dairies, there were no professional dairy workers who could carry out production and so dairymaids were engaged to do this work. In the years 1935-1940, 12-17 dairies were producing approximately 260 tons of Gamalost a year. However, production on mountain farms is believed to represent still a considerable proportion of total Gamalost production at the time (Funder 1946:17).

12The first attempt to establish a Gamalost dairy in Vik was in 1874 but, due to lack of knowledge about how to run a cooperative, these plans were abandoned. The dairy was finally established in 1897 and has been in operation since. Although there were people with knowledge of how to make Gamalost, the cheese had a poor quality. Dairy maids made the cheese in Vik until the beginning of WWII by which time, working in a dairy had become a profession and traditional dairy maids were replaced by girls trained in cheese making18 This profesionalisation occurred approximately at the same time as the production of Gamalost was moved to a new dairy at Vik and switched from the Sogn to the Hardanger method.

From several dairies and two methods to one dairy and one method – Hardanger

13In the period from the introduction of dairies until 1991, at the most 28 dairies produced Gamalost and total production amounted to around 500 tons. Due to rationalization in the organization of Norske meierier, in 1985 it was decided that Vik dairy would be the only Gamalost dairy. Prior to this decision several dairies had already ceased production or merged. There were numerous arguments for having only one Gamalost dairy, including parity in milk price for producers and better resource use through specialised dairies19. Since 1991, the Vik dairy has been the only Gamalost dairy in TINE BA.

From Hardanger to Dekanter

14The Hardanger method was developed further and in 1977 was replaced by the Dekanter method20. The recipe was almost the same as the Hardanger but new technologies were employed to improve the process.21 Conversion to the dekanter method was therefore the result of both technological progress and rationalisation of the production process. The combination of these features represents the most obvious and important factors in the standardization of Gamalost. Although transition to the dekanter method implied standardisation, the method itself has since undergone further standardisation. Since 1994, Gamalost production has been certified according to ISO standards,22 via a standardised production line, which is a much celebrated accreditation for the Vik dairy (Bergfjord, 1997: 111). In November 2006 Gamalost fra Vik was also registered for Protected Geographical Indication (PGI), as mentioned above.

Is PGI certification the end of the evolution for Gamalost fra Vik?

15Looking closer at the regulation on Protected Geographical Indication, sections describing: “product specification, method of production and the description of the product’s origin and link to the geographical environment”, the temporal ambiguity of Gamalost fra Vik becomes ever more apparent. Wheras the product specification and method of production gives a technical decription of a standardised dairy-produced cheese, the description of the product’s origin and link to the geographical environment reveals multiple products sharing a fragmented history. In light of this it is worth questioning if PGI will bring about further standardisation or evolution of the product and the production process?

16According to the history outlined, Gamalost fra Vik has undergone a two-fold evolution, driven by both traditional and modern production methods. This gives the product a complex image. The initial tradition was linked to several specific natural environments. In each environment particular skills and knowledge became customary through trial and error. One of two extremes that became dominant is today represented by Gamalost fra Vik. Although the product now produced at Vik shows marked variation from before the dairies emerged, Gamalost fra Vik is not an ‘invented tradition’23, but rather a ‘re-invented tradition’: “Tradition is not handed down from the past, as a thing or collection of things: it is symbolically reinvented in an ongoing present” (Handler and Linnekin, 1984:280). On one hand tradition is nostalgic and idealised, but on the other it is transferred and contemporaneous. Dairy-made Gamalost is thus not considered a revolution that breaks with continuity but as a continuous step towards improved efficiency and quality. At the other extreme, traditionally-made Gamalost underwent a crisis during the establishment of dairies in Norway. The traditional skills and knowledge for making Gamalost were transferred to the industrial sphere. Although the principles remained the same, this new production regime was oriented to consistency and stability of quality which today is formalised through the specifications set forth in the PGI regulation. Table 1 illustrates the chronological evolution of Gamalost production methods and certifications in different spaces. In addition, there are, and have always been, some producers still making Gamalost the traditional mountain farm way. The table should therefore be regarded as illustrative rather than definitive.

Table 1: Evolution of Gamalost cheese production methods 1600-present

Table 1: Evolution of Gamalost cheese production methods 1600-present

17To summarise: the different factors that have contributed to the standardisation of Gamalost, which have been identified, are as follows:

  • The introduction of dairies and milk cooperatives – when seen in a long term perspective, these have had great impact on the evolution of Gamalost production;

  • Technological and economic development – various studies have been undertaken to increase the quality of the product and to rationalize production methods.

  • Further formalisation of production methods through certification to ISO standards in 1994, and registration as Protected Geographical Indication in 2006.

18So, what is old and what is new in Gamalost fra Vik today? There are two main elements remaining from the initial way of making Gamalost; first, sour skimmed milk is still the basic ingredient, although the process of souring the milk has changed; and second, the process of flattening the mould and some other processes are still done by hand. The modifications introduced through producing the cheese in dairies mainly embrace contemporary hygiene standards and economic expectations, for example wooden moulds and shelves have been replaced by stainless steel, and the main craft processes have been mechanised. Today the cheese is also only ripened by a single mould species Mucor mucedo, whereas traditionally a variety of moulds were used, often including some Penicillium strains that gave the cheese a blue-green colour in the centre (Fosså, 2000). By contrast, the PGI specification states that the centre of the cheese should be a yellow-brown colour, thereby disqualifying the use of traditional moulds. This leaves a much regulated production method even though production is based on methods described in 1774 albeit in a different context. Being thus embedded in both tradition and modernity makes Gamalost a complex product to understand and raises the question as to how the evolution of a ‘local food’ can be understood in analytical terms, to which challenge the paper now turns.

An evolutionary framework to depict Polytemporality of local foods

19As mentioned above, one objective of this study was to compile new conceptualisations appropriate to describe and explain the evolution and status of a local product, Gamalost fra Vik. Since ambiguity of modern vs. traditional is evident in the production method and the product, the study has identified different types of ambiguity, e.g. consumers’ perception of Gamalost and the use of PGI. And, in narrating a history of the cheese has conceptualised these ambiguities. Although each ambiguity is of explanatory value the analysis here presented focuses on temporal ambiguity.

20The temporal ambiguity of Gamalost evolves in a flux of diverse actors, innovations, traditions and regulations surrounding production. Although Gamalost fra Vik has traditional roots, Gamalost regulation, production and marketing exhibit a desire to go beyond the dualism represented in the dimensions of traditional vs. modern. The tension and fusion of modern and traditional traits culminate in the PGI accreditation of an old recipe employed within modern ISO certified production methods. Ideally the product should be produced in the original way whilst at the same time satisfying contemporary food hygiene standards and the demands of a free market. The logo and packaging depict the old days thereby framing the industrial process both euphemistically and nostalgically. Modern and traditional traits are thus characterized by a reciprocal tension, on which the existence of Gamalost fra Vik seems dependent.

21These findings imply that the evolution of Gamalost cannot be explained solely through prevailing dimensions in the literature on local food. To capture the diversity of Gamalost fra Vik it is necessary to turn to explanatory models that are capable of uniting the division that these dimensions represent. For this purpose, I draw on Latour’s (1993) concept of polytemporality. Indeed, parts of Latour’s analytical framework have previously been applied in food studies e.g. in discussing the interconnectedness between nature and culture24. Latour uses the term polytemporal as a way of overcoming a constricted sense of history so that, to interpret a contemporary phenomenon it is necessary to understand both historical and contemporary conditions. Latour primarily uses this concept to describe action. In essence then, the concept of the polytemporal requires relating an activity to more than one point or interval in time, at the same time:

‘Let us suppose, for example, that we are going to regroup the contemporary elements along a spiral rather than a line. We do have a future and a past, but the future takes the form of a circle expanding in all directions, and the past is not surpassed but revisited, repeated, surrounded, protected, recombined, reinterpreted and reshuffled…Such a temporality does not oblige us to use the labels “archaic” or “advanced” since every cohort of contemporary elements may bring together elements from all times. In such a framework our actions are recognized at last as polytemporal.’ (Latour, 1993: 75).

22Action is therefore recognised as polytemporal in relation to an object. Action itself is embedded in the present but also disembedded through its relation with an object. As Latour notes, “I may use an electric drill, but I also use a hammer. The former is thirty-five years old the latter hundreds of thousands” (Latour 1993: 75). The production of Gamalost fra Vik can be seen as analogous to this description of polytemporal action because the dairy may use a centrifuge to separate the curds and also hands for flattening the mould. These actions are thus objectivised through the product. Don Slater (1998) describes how this objectification process takes place: “In working on the world, individuals and societies recreate it in relation to their needs and projects. Their needs – their subjectivity, their meanings ‘for’ the world - are ‘objectivated’, take material form, in the objects they produce. The object world is, human subjectivity made manifest by remaking the world in its own lights (Slater 1998:103). In this manner the polytemporal methods and know-how used to produce Gamalost fra Vik are objectivised in the product, and the product, as well as the action of production, may then be understood as also reflecting polytemporality. There is an argument therefore for recognizing objects as polytemporal also.

23Latour used the spiral as metaphor for understanding polytemporality, here I posit the use of the double spiral, or helical, structure of the DNA molecule that is familiar to all as the ‘double helix’ (Figure 1). The two interwoven helixes represent the modern and the traditional dimensions of the product. The bonds connecting these two dimensions represent instances in the evolution of production methods.

Figure 1. Diagrammatic representation of polytemporality based on the DNA double helix

Figure 1. Diagrammatic representation of polytemporality based on the DNA double helix

Conclusion

24Why then is it appropriate to use the concept of polytemporality for an analytical understanding of Gamalost in relation to history, tradition and time? I would like to point at one reason in particular why it is appropriate. Gamalost obviously has a tradition to look back on. This fact draws a distinction between products like Gamalost and invented products with a short history – such as, for instance, the walkman.25 However, although I suggest using the term polytemporality to better understand Gamalost, it may be appropriate to reflect further on the use of this concept. Would it not be possible to use this analytical term in relation to almost any kind of product? Most products are a part of both tradition and innovation, and can thus be ascribed to have a kind of polytemporality. Despite this blurred demarcation, I argue that the term polytemporality is more suited to describe local food that can be understood as related to both helixes at the same time. A polytemporal product is then a product with an ongoing tradition, or a re-invented tradition, rather than products with an invented tradition.26

25Although I have outlined in this paper certain events contributing to the standardising of Gamalost, the picture is more complex. For example, consumer preferences and demand have not been considered in detail. Looking further into such aspects, and to give an even thicker description of important historical aspects would contribute to a better understanding of this product. Nevertheless, my aim is to underline how the field of food studies can benefit from an approach that focuses specifically on the ambiguities of local food rather than avoiding them. Dimensions in earlier theoretical contributions can be revisited in relation to conceptualisations of ambiguity, and analytical tools for dealing with the already established categories of local food can be enriched through the adoption of different kinds of ambiguity.

26In addition to focusing on ambiguity in the temporal dimension of local food, other possible avenues of exploration include understanding the ambivalence of consumption created by ambiguity of production method, and moreover, to examine consumption itself as a polytemporal action. Or, one could pay attention to regulation mechanisms, for example set forth in the EU protected labelling schemes. The intention of Protected Designation of Origin is to promote and protect food products which are produced, processed and prepared in a given geographical area using recognised know-how.27 This kind of regulation implies ambiguity of place and space. The regulation is part of a transnational system promoting ‘deterritorialisation’ of trade in order to achieve ‘reterritorialisation’ of food products. Ambiguity lies in increasing globalisation and international legislation, which nevertheless favour conditions for particularisation and localisation. In this way, local food products are caught in an ambiguous relationship to place by being simultaneously detached and attached to both local and global culture. Making use of the concept glocalisation (Bauman, 1998; Robertson, 1995) could be relevant in such an analysis of ambiguity of place. However, using this term to gain more insight into local products may represent an ambiguity in itself…

Top of page

Bibliography

ABBOTT, A. 2001. “Seven Types of Ambiguity.” In A. Abbott, Time matters – On Theory and Method 64-96. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

AMILIEN, V. and HEGNES, A.W. 2004. “The Cultural Smell of Fermented Fish – About the Development of a Local Product in Norway.” Food, Agriculture and Environment 2: 141-147.

ANDERSEN, S.S. 2003. On a clear day you can see the EU: Case-study Methodology in EU Research. ARENA Working Paper 03/16. University of Oslo, Norway.

BARJOLLE, D. and SYLVANDER, B. 2000. PDO and PGI Products: Market, Supply Chains and Institutions. FAIR 1-CT95-0306 Final Report June. European Commission: Brussels, Belgium.

BAUMAN, Z. 1998. “On Glocalization: or Globalization for some, Localization for Others” Thesis Eleven 54: 37-49.

BÉRARD, L. 2005. “Local Food between Nature and Culture: From Neighbour Farm to Terroir.” Interview given in Anthropology of Food 5: 1.

BERGFJORD, K. 1997. Til jordbrugets ophjælp – ei reise i soga til meieriet i Vik gjennom 100 år. Sogn og Fjordane Meieri, Vik i Sogn, 128p.

BRENDEHAUG, E. and GROVEN, K. 2004. “Gamalost – Old Norwegian Cheese” in Mountain food products in Europe: Case studies describing 18 initiatives within the framework of the European project, 57-66. EUROMONTANA.

COFFEY, A. and ATKINSON, P. 1996. Making Sense of Qualitative Data, Thousand Oaks, Sage, 206p.

DOUGLAS, M. 1992. Purity and Danger – An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo, London, Routledge, 188p.

DU GAY, P., HALL, S., JANES, L., MACKAY, H. and NEGUS K. 1997. Doing Cultural Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman. London, Sage, 150p.

FITZSIMMONS, M. and GOODMAN, D. 1998. “Incorporating Nature: Environmental Narratives and the Reproduction of Food.” In B. Braun and N. Castree (eds.), Remaking Reality: Nature at the Millennium, 194-220, Routledge, London.

FONTE, M. and GRANDO, S. 2006. A Local Habitation and a Name - Local Food and Knowledge Dynamics in Sustainable Rural Development. WP6 CORASON Local food production comparative report 2 August.

FOSSÅ, O. 1999. “How Old is Old Cheese? Gamalost in Coffin-shaped Boxes and Eccentric Jars.” In H. Walker (ed.) Milk beyond the dairy. Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery 144-160. Prospect Books, Totnes.

FUNDER, S. 1946. The Chief Molds in Gammelost and the Part Played by Them in the Ripening Process. A. W. Brøggers Boktrykkeri a/s, Oslo, 253p.

GJERDÅKER, B. 2004. “Continuity and modernity.” In R. Almås (ed.) Norwegian Agricultural History 264-293. Tapir Academic Press, Trondheim.

HANDLER, R. and LINNEKIN, J. 1984. “Tradition, Genuine or Spurious.” Journal of American Folklore 97: 273-290.

HEGNES, A. W., AMILIEN, A. and TORJUSEN, H. 2006. “The Cultural Taste of Gamalost fra Vik - Reflections About the Meanings of a Local Cheese.” In M. Kaiser and M. Lien (eds.) Ethics and the politics of food 280-284. Preprints of the 6th Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics.

HINRICHS, C. 2000. “Embeddedness and Local Food Systems: Notes on Two Types of Direct Agricultural Market.” Journal of Rural Studies 16: 295-303.

HOBSBAWM, E. 1983. “Inventing Tradition.” In E. J. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger (eds.) The Invention of Tradition 1-14. Cambridge University Press, UK.

HOLLOWAY, L. and KNEAFSEY, M. 2000. “Reading the Space of the Farmers Market: A Preliminary Investigation from the UK.” Sociologia Ruralis 40: 285-299.

LATOUR, B. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. New York, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 157p.

LEVINE, D. N. 1985. The Flight from Ambiguity – Essays in Social and Cultural Theory, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 248p.

LIEN, M. E. 1997. Marketing and Modernity, Berg, Oxford and New York, 308p.

MOBERG, J. 1997. Gamalosten. Det Norske Samlaget, Oslo, 92p.

MURDOCH, J. and MIELE, M. 1999. “‘Back to Nature’: Changing World of Production.” Sociologia Ruralis 39: 465-483.

NOTAKER, H. 2000. Ganens Makt. Aschehoug, Oslo, 333p.

NOTAKER, H. 2005. “Dairy Products: A Central Part of the Everyday Fare.” In Darra Goldstein and Kathrin Merkle (eds.) Culinary Cultures of Europe: Identity, Diversity and Dialogue 323-324. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

POTTHOFF, K. 2004. “Change in Mountain Summer Farming Practices: A Case-study From Stølsheimen, Western Norway.” Norwegian Journal of Geography 58: 158-170.

ROBERTSON, R. 1995. “Glocalization: Time-Space and Homogeneity-Heterogeneity.” In M. Featherstone, S. Lash, and R. Robertson (eds.) Global Modernities, 24-44, London, Sage.

SLATER, D. 1998. Consumer Culture and Modernity. Cambridge, Polity Press, 230p.

SÆBØ, A. I. 2003. Gamalost: stølsost og meieriost. Vik lokalhistoriske arkiv, Vik i Sogn, 27p.

TELLSTRÖM, R., GUSTAFSSON, I-B. and MOSSBERG, L. 2006. “Consuming Heritage: The Use of Local Food Culture in Branding.” Place Branding 2: 130-143.

TREGEAR, A. 2003. “From Stilton to Vimto: Using Food History to Re-think Typical Products in Rural Development.” Sociologia Ruralis 43: 91-107.

Top of page

Notes

1 Coffey and Atkinson, 1996: 156
2 Abbot, 2001; Douglas, 1992; Levine, 1985
3 Hegnes et al., 2006
4 Ambivalence refers to the coexistence of conflicting emotions created by ‘ambiguity’ i.e. the possibility for more than one explanation.
5 Vik is a municipality in the country of Sogn og Fjordane in the west of Norway.
6 Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) is one of three types within the government regulation for protection of designations on agricultural, fish and seafood products, which The Norwegian Food Branding Foundation administers. In the case of PGI the geographical link must occur in at least one of the stages of production, processing or preparation. http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/foodqual/quali1_en.htm.
7 Funder, 1946
8 For a more detailed review of this literature, see Funder (1946: 19-23).
9 For a more detailed review of this literature, see Fosså (2000).
10 Årsmelding (Annual report) 2005 TINE Gruppa p. 50.
11 Notaker, 2005 and 2000; Fosså, 2000
12 Moberg, 1997
13 Sæbø 2003; Bergfjord, 1997
14 Skimmed milk was made sour before and whilst it was heated to 33 deg C for 20 hours in a vat. Subsequently the milk was boiled for one hour. The curds then sank to the bottom of the vat, leaving the clear whey on top. After removing the whey, the still warms curds were poured into a mould, sometimes lined with a cloth to ease removal of the cheese (Fosså, 2003).
15 Skimmed milk was made sour before it was poured into the vat. The milk was heated, but not boiled. The still floating curds were lifted out of the cauldron and put into the cloth-lined mould. The cheese was then submersed in the whey again and boiled for half an hour. Occasionally, cheeses were made by this method without boiling, but this resulted in poor cheeses with poor keeping qualities (Fosså, 2003).
16 Funder, 1946
18 Bergfjord, 1997
19 idem
20 idem
21 The source material is still skimmed milk. After souring, the milk is coagulated by heating to 63 deg C. A decanter is used to separate the curds from the whey, hence the name, although the decanter is more accurately a centrifuge. A mill cuts the curds into a grainy substance, which is put into moulds, which are then lowered into vats of boiling whey for a couple of hours. After a further few hours rest, the cheeses are removed and placed on steel shelves, where they are sprayed with a pure mould culture, Mucor mucedo var. racemosus. After three days there is thick furry mould growth. The mould is then flattened by hand, a process which is repeated after another two days. The ripening period is surprisingly short, 12-14 days for a standard size cheese of 1.7 kg. The small 380 g cheeses ripen in only 8-9 days. In order to maintain an even degree of ripening, all cheeses are frozen at the appropriate stage. Freezing apparently has no adverse effects on the quality. Today, 5 million litres of milk are made into 200,000 kg of Gamalost each year (Fosså 2000:12).
22 http://www.iso.org/.
23 Hobsbawm, 1983
24 Fitzsimons and Goodman, 1998; Lien, 1997
25 For a more detailed description of the history and evolution of the walkman, see Du Gay, Paul et al. (1997).
26 Ibid.
Top of page

List of illustrations

Title Table 1: Evolution of Gamalost cheese production methods 1600-present
URL http://aof.revues.org/docannexe/image/458/img-1.jpg
File image/jpeg, 28k
Title Figure 1. Diagrammatic representation of polytemporality based on the DNA double helix
URL http://aof.revues.org/docannexe/image/458/img-2.png
File image/png, 19k
Top of page

References

Electronic reference

Atle Wehn Hegnes, « Understanding the temporal ambiguity of local foods through ‘polytemporality’: the case of Norwegian gamalost fra vik (old cheese) », Anthropology of food [Online], S2 | March 2007, Online since 20 April 2007, connection on 23 September 2017. URL : http://aof.revues.org/458

Top of page

About the author

Atle Wehn Hegnes

SIFO National Institute for Consumption Research, Oslo, Norway
a[point]w[point]hegnes(at)sosiologi[point]uio[point]no

Top of page

Copyright

Licence Creative Commons
Anthropologie of food est mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.

Top of page