Abstract
This article examines peasants’ goals and means of negotiation in the reallocation of land or enclosure reform called storskifte in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century in Southwest Finland. It stresses the agency of peasants and their actions in the quest for best practices. The study is based on the meeting minutes of the storskifte reform of 230 villages with mainly freeholders or crown tenants as stakeholders. This article shows how peasants balanced between individualism and collectivism in their decision making because their goals were opposite. They aimed to increase the freedom of work and decision making in the household economy. At the same time, the cooperation with neighbours was an important method of decreasing the workload and costs of farming. Sources indicate that peasants made agreements with each other so they could combine both goals. They achieved independence as farmers as well as low costs by combining consolidation of land with mutual agreements about cooperation in specific issues, but they allowed each other to do individual decisions, too. This kind of flexible solution-seeking behaviour provides a new perspective on the discussion about peasants and agricultural change.
Highlights
This article examines peasants’ goals and means of negotiation in the reallocation of land or enclosure reform called storskifte in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century in Southwest Finland. It stresses the agency of peasants and their actions in the quest for best practices
The study is based on the meeting minutes of the storskifte reform of 230 villages with mainly freeholders or crown tenants as stakeholders
This article shows how peasants balanced between individualism and collectivism in their decision making because their goals were opposite
Summary
I undersökningsområdet fanns det i genomsnitt 4,9 gårdar i en by. Byarna var alltså ganska små. Det finns mycket som tyder på att livet inte var oproblematiskt i en by där alla gårdar hade rätt till samma jord. Kinkku var en liten kronogård och hade inte möjlighet att tävla om röjningsmark med större granngårdar.[27] I en sådan situation var storskiftet ingen bra förrättning för dem som hade uppodlat mer än de hade rätt till. Bönderna gjorde sällan motstånd mot storskiftet, men om de gjorde det var orsaken vanligen rädsla för att förlora uppodlingar.[28] Till exempel ville hälften av bönderna i ett stort skifteslag med femton byar i Hvittis ha storskiftet i utmark medan den andra hälften var emot detta eftersom de, på goda grunder, befarade att de skulle gå miste om resultatet av sitt arbete.[29]. Därför kunde bönderna se storskiftet som en möjlighet till förändring.[32]
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: 1700-tal: Nordic Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.