{"word_count": 4003, "character_count": 26238}
IntroductionIn 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). In 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.How 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)MethodologyThe 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 sceneGamalost 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.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.Although 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.  Although 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 dairyAt 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. It 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). Several 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). The 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 – HardangerIn 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 DekanterThe 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?Looking 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? According 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-presentTo 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. So, 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 foodsAs 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. The 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. These 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).Action 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. Latour 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 helixConclusionWhy 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 Although 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.In 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… 