“The Normal Cabin's Revenge”

Abstract

This article asks what a hegemony of home cultures might be, given contemporary arguments for culture as performance rather than representation. It examines claims about "normal" cabins in Norwegian mountain areas through real estate advertising, regulatory disputes, ethnographic experience, media representations, and academic literature, and attempts to tie these into questions of temporality, through global economic changes and banal nationalisms. Starting from Gullestad's arguments for the house as a model of culture, the article questions the validity of hegemonic claims for mountain cabins and shows them to be constantly in the process of reproduction.

[Re]positioning second homes within leisure studies

“…Second home research has now also begun to emerge from countries and regions hitherto invisible to the academic gaze such as South Africa, Russia and Ireland (Visser 2003;Fitz Gerald 2005;Nefedova and Pallot 2013). Even in countries where second homes are presented as an integral part of society, a (somewhat) normative experience, such as Norway, Finland and New Zealand, researchers are now questioning such representations of national identity (Abram 2012;Pitkänen 2008). However, even though the underlying raison d'être of the majority of second homes may be recreation and leisure, this link seems to have largely been overlooked or forgotten; second home studies have been largely absent from the leisure studies literature.…”

The Norwegian trekking association: conditions for its continued existence with new tourism patterns.

“…Second homes (cabins or hytter) in rural areas, usually in the mountains or by the sea, are widespread in Norway and the Nordic countries (Müller, 2020). Traditionally, they have been built to a relatively simple standard of living (without facilities like electricity or running water), and their simplicity and the skills and labour required to stay in them add to their appeal (Abram, 2012;Kaltenborn & Clout, 1998). As the British anthropologist Pauline Garvey (2008, p. 203) discovered to her puzzlement, in Norwegian hytteliv, "the more crude and uncomfortable an experience the more authentic it is".…”

“…The widespread discourse of friluftsliv as an egalitarian practice and common good conceals its historical alignment with the priorities of urban elites (Gurholt, 2008;Gurholt & Haukeland, 2019). However, rising affluence in Norway has made both friluftsliv and hytteliv accessible to a broader population and driven an expectation for higher living standards and a higher level of comfort and convenience in cabins (Abram, 2012;Vittersø, 2007). Still, the traditional view of friluftsliv continues to be sanctioned by government entities and officials (Flemsaeter et al, 2015), as well as used as a basis for educating Norwegian nature guides (Andersen & Rolland, 2018).…”

“…In Norway, outdoor recreation and free movement in nature are considered legal rights that should be accessible to all (Flemsaeter et al, 2015). Using and owning cabins is central to many Norwegians' lives; second homes comprise one-third of residential buildings in Norway, and half the population claims to own or have direct access to a cabin (Abram, 2012). Traditionally, these cabins were modest and built for a simple lifestyle, with no running water, water closets or luxury items (Abram, 2012;Kaltenborn & Clout, 1998).…”

“…Using and owning cabins is central to many Norwegians' lives; second homes comprise one-third of residential buildings in Norway, and half the population claims to own or have direct access to a cabin (Abram, 2012). Traditionally, these cabins were modest and built for a simple lifestyle, with no running water, water closets or luxury items (Abram, 2012;Kaltenborn & Clout, 1998). Although this trend has shifted with increased wealth (Nordbø et al, 2014;Tangeland et al, 2013), some authors identify a concurrent rise in demand for authentic experiences involving simple outdoor recreation (Engeset & Elvekrok, 2015;Svarstad, 2010;Varley & Semple, 2015).…”