scholarly journals Mot ei framtid for utmarksbeite – om beiting, sjølvkjensle og forståing mellom folk

2021 ◽  
pp. 67-92
Author(s):  
Bjørn Egil Flø

The once-proud graziers have begun to have doubts. They have begun to doubt whether everything they used to believe, everything that gave meaning to what they have been doing, still makes sense. This essay takes the reader home to the graziers and out into the Norwegian countryside: the mountains, forests and deep fertile valleys, the terrain the Norwegians call outfields (utmark). Based on conversations with graziers in different parts of Norway, this essay discusses the future of grazing in the outfields against the backdrop of the big, as well as the small, political and social issues that both the graziers and we as a society are facing. For the graziers are struggling with many questions today. Is it no longer ecologically sustainable to use the outfields resources for food production? Shouldn’t the outfields be a resource for the production of food and fibre anymore? Is there no place for grazing animals in the Norwegian mountains in the future? Grazing farmers are currently asking themselves these questions and more. They feel degraded and exposed in the public debate, and the feeling tears at their self-image and makes every day grey; it becomes increasingly difficult to find motivation for each day that passes. But what can be done to reverse this trend? What can the grazing farmers do themselves, and what do we others need to do for them, politically as well as socially? This chapter discusses the emergence of a new concept of outfields and how it has affected grazing in the outfields. The essay raises a number of important questions that we as a society need to address in the debate about the future role of traditional upland grazing areas in our landscape.

2012 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Dhoest ◽  
Hilde Van den Bulck ◽  
Heidi Vandebosch ◽  
Myrte Dierckx

The public broadcasting remit in the eyes of the audience: survey research into the future role of Flemish public service broadcasting The public broadcasting remit in the eyes of the audience: survey research into the future role of Flemish public service broadcasting In view of the discussion about the future position of public service broadcasting, this research investigates the expectations of Flemings regarding their public service broadcasting institution VRT. Based on the current task description of the VRT, a survey was effectuated among a representative sample of Flemings (N=1565). Questions were asked about the content (broad or complementary to commercial broadcasting), audience (broad or niche) and distinctive nature of public service broadcasting. The analysis shows that, overall, Flemings are in favour of a broad public service broadcasting institution with a strong focus on entertainment (besides information), oriented towards a broad audience. At the same time, they believe the institution should distinguish itself from its competitors, through quality, social responsibility, cultural identity and (particularly creative) innovation, among other things. Cluster analysis shows that the call to prioritize culture and education over entertainment, which dominates public debate, is representative of only a minority (20%) of highly educated Flemings.


1966 ◽  
Vol 86 (5) ◽  
pp. 259-263
Author(s):  
Alexander T. Elder

1989 ◽  
Vol 49 (5) ◽  
pp. 506
Author(s):  
Steven K. Wisensale ◽  
State of Illinois Office of the Governor

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (01) ◽  
pp. 35-42
Author(s):  
M. Hermans

SummaryThe author presents his personal opinion inviting to discussion on the possible future role of psychiatrists. His view is based upon the many contacts with psychiatrists all over Europe, academicians and everyday professionals, as well as the familiarity with the literature. The list of papers referred to is based upon (1) the general interest concerning the subject when representing ideas also worded elsewhere, (2) the accessibility to psychiatrists and mental health professionals in Germany, (3) being costless downloadable for non-subscribers and (4) for some geographic aspects (e.g. Belgium, Spain, Sweden) and the latest scientific issues, addressing some authors directly.


2017 ◽  
pp. 126-169
Author(s):  
S.E. Tariverdieva

The article deals with the development of the coregency system of Augustus and Agrippa from 29 to 18 BC: from formal and actual disparity of the coregents to their formal equality with the dominance of the princeps auctoritas. Particular attention is paid to the earlier stages of this development and to the crisis of 23 BC. The coregency system created by Augustus is often regarded by modern historians as means of ensuring uninterrupted succession of power. Agrippa as his coregent often is thought to have assumed the role of the regent who temporally replaces the princeps, just as it was in formal monarchies, or that of the tutor of the future rulers. However, the Roman system of state administration did not allow such type of regency. The princeps coregent, who was his equal in formal credentials but his inferior in terms of auctoritas, in case of the princeps death had to become the next princeps as his immediate successor. It is unlikely that later he was expected to voluntarily give up his power in favour of younger heir and to vanish from the political life altogether. The inheritance system under Augustus was like a ladder with the princeps at the top, the coregent who was also the immediate successor one step below, heirs of the next degree further down. In case of death of one of them, successors shifted one step up. The coregency had one more function: geographically it allowed Augustus and Agrippa to rule jointly the empire while staying in different parts of it.В статье исследуется развитие системы соправления Августа и Агриппы с 29 по 12 гг. до н. э.: от формального и фактического неравенства соправителей до их формального равенства при преобладании auctoritas принцепса, причём особое внимание уделяется раннему этапу этого развития и кризису 23 г. до н. э. Институт соправления, созданный Августом, часто рассматривается, как средство обеспечения бесперебойного перехода власти, причем Агриппе, как соправителю, НЕРЕДКО отводится роль регента, временно замещающего принцепса или воспитателя будущих правителей. Однако римская система государственного управления не предполагала регентства. Соправитель принцепса, равный ему по формальным полномочиям, но уступавший по auctoritas, в случае его смерти должен был СТАТЬ следующим принцепсом, ближайшим его наследником. Вряд ли предполагалось, что в будущем он должен добровольно уступить власть более молодому наследнику и исчезнуть из политической жизни. Система наследования при Августе представляла собой нечто вроде лестницы, на вершине которой стоял принцепс, на следующей ступени соправитель, он же избранный преемник, ниже наследники следующей очереди в случае смерти когото из них происходило продвижение наследников по ступеням вверх. Кроме того, соправление имело и иное значение позволяло Августу и Агриппе совместно управлять империей, находясь в разных ее частях.


1990 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew M. Schuster ◽  
Austin A. Stovall

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document