@phdthesis{1232949f-342b-4bcd-9e19-7516979f2ce9,
  abstract     = {{The Closed Countryside: The Prescriptive Duty to Fence and the Organisation of Agriculture in Sweden during the 18th and 19th Centuries<br/><br/>This thesis explores the relationship between fences as enforcing tools and ideas of private property in Sweden during the 18th and 19th centuries. It does this by looking mainly at parliamentary debates about the law on how to manage fences and the peace of the field, as well as ordinances that were passed during this period. In doing so, the thesis examines changing norms and conflicts surrouding land ownership, land managament and village community.<br/><br/>The law in question: the prescriptive duty to fence, had a long-standing history in Sweden dating back to the Middle Ages, and regulated common grazing practices within villages. At the start of the study the legal principle underpinning the duty only applied to infields, while the commons were left open. Villages also had a right to impose a shared fence with the neighbouring villages where they had adjoining infields. Previous research has suggested that the Swedish enclosure movement (c. 1757–1928) made the collective village obsolete, as a more individualised organisation of farming arose. This assumption of individualisation is tested through an analysis of the parliamentary debate about fencing laws. The dynamic tension in the Swedish parliament between the peasantry and the elite – surrounding the latter groups’ attempts at rationalising social relations, customary law, the landscape and Swedish agriculture, is in focus.<br/><br/>The thesis shows that the legal tradition of collective fence organisation was exploited by the state to navigate obstacles to Swedish landowners’ abilities to invest in enclosure and improvements to their land. By pushing for a more equal duty – which, the thesis argues, served as a “reform strategy” – for more parties and by putting the common land under a similar prescriptive duty, the law was intended to reduce individual costs of fencing and so to promote enclosure, land clearing and afforestation. At the same time, the fence became integrated in the overall discourse and ideology of improvement and private property. The individualisation of Swedish agriculture therefore relied on collective fencing practices, a paradox that is addressed in the thesis. The thesis also shows that the resulting legal changes throughout the century were the result of negotiations and compromise, as the Peasant estate fought against all radical reinterpretations and generalisations of the duty. Even the individualisation itself could be contested.<br/>}},
  author       = {{Vorminder, Sarah}},
  isbn         = {{978-91-90055-83-0}},
  issn         = {{1650-7339}},
  keywords     = {{jordägande; agrarreform; hägnad; stängselskyldighet; jordbruk; skogsbruk; idé- och lärdomshistoria; private property; agrarian reform; Sweden; enclosure; individualisation; fences; fence organisation; prescriptive duty to fence; reform strategy; improvement; scientific forestry; agriculture; parliamentary debate; intellectual history}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  month        = {{04}},
  number       = {{24}},
  publisher    = {{Institutionen för kulturvetenskaper, Lunds universitet}},
  school       = {{Lund University}},
  series       = {{Ugglan. Minervaserien}},
  title        = {{Det stängda landskapet : Stängselskyldighet och organiseringen av jordbruket i Sverige under 1700- och 1800-talen}},
  url          = {{https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/files/247510718/Vorminder_-_Det_st_ngda_landskapet.pdf}},
  year         = {{2026}},
}