3 Sociological Theories and the Great Emigration by B. Lindsay Lowell The great emigration from Norway took place in a relatively short span of four decades in the latter half of the nineteenth century. From that time to this, historians, sociologists, economists, geographers, and assorted other experts have pointed to certain factors associated with that phenomenon. Sociologists have devised several theories that explain the exodus by placing it against the larger backdrop of social change taking place at that time: the change from traditional to modern society. These theories purport to specify general factors that caused emigration, not just from Norway, but from almost any nineteenth-century society. Sociologists use specific hypotheses as their point of departure and then examine findings from available studies which support or fail to support each hypothesis. The core of this article is a discussion of the logic of three sociological theories and an examination of recent research that illuminates various hypotheses. Further, the accuracy of each theory's hypothesis will be tested with a statistical methodology employed to analyze all of Norway's 535 rural municipalities or communities (herreder) between 1870 and 1905. It is the overlap between the case-study findings and the statistical analysis of all Norwegian communities which permits strong conclusions to be reached as to the value of each competing theory. 53 54 B. Lindsay Lowell CHANGE AND RESPONSE (MULTIPHASIC response) THEORY Prevailing population theory in the 1960s interpreted emigration as part of the Malthusian drama of too many people for too little land.1 The population of Norway grew dramatically during the century preceding the mass departure. In the seventeenth century the population of eastern Norway increased over 150 percent, while western Norway experienced an increase ranging from 40 to 80 percent. By 1865, just prior to the start of mass emigration, Norway's population had experienced a half-century of spectacular and unprecedented growth. High levels of population density became particularly acute in the marginal areas - high mountains, elevated valleys, and the remoter parts of Çord districts. It is no wonder that Norway's foremost emigration historian, Ingrid Semmingsen , has argued that population pressure was a major reason behind the mass movement.2 Of course, Thomas Malthus, early in the century, had little notion of the range of transformations which would occur after his time. Urbanization and modern employment can create jobs and markets for goods which eventually absorb rural excess population. The population pressure mechanism implies a pressure on resources, but few contemporary NeoMalthusians argue that it was overpopulation alone that was responsible for the emigration. Neo-Malthusians argue that there is a connection between rural population density in traditional societies and a general tightening of economic opportunity as farms and jobs become scarce. They focus on the push created by high density agricultural populations, coupled , in the case of Norway, with a lag in urban development and employment in the modern sector of the economy. If overpopulation purportedly stimulates emigration, then the creation of non-agricultural jobs, assumed to be associated with increases in the urban population, is required to stop it. Figure 1 is a map of Norway that shows the percentage of all workers employed in non-agricultural secondary, or manufacturing, and tertiary, or service, sectors of rural com- Sociological Theories of Emigration 55 Fig. 1. Employment in secondary and tertiary sectors, 1875 and 1890. munities. The statistics for this map are based on official Norwegian census data.3 The map presents the major subregions of Norway as they are typically delineated.4 Here there is evidence that growth in non-agricultural employment was indeed somewhat slow between 1875 and 1890, although there were especially great concentrations of secondary employment in the south central and Oslo regions. In the Norwegian South there was a large concentration of tertiary employment associated with the role of shipping, mainly wooden sailing craft, in the region.5 Oslo, Bergen, Trondheim, and Stavanger were the largest cities at that time, and nearby rural areas were influenced by urban demand.6 Urban proximity created specialized agricultural production which demanded close control over the labor force. These peasants worked on farms where their labor was purchased to a greater extent than...
Read full abstract
Jul 1, 2011
M Carcereri + 1
Open Access
