{"id":74,"date":"2020-08-04T12:40:56","date_gmt":"2020-08-04T10:40:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/meatigation.no\/?page_id=74"},"modified":"2022-10-22T15:31:58","modified_gmt":"2022-10-22T13:31:58","slug":"work-packages","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/meatigation.no\/work-packages\/","title":{"rendered":"Work Packages"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

WP1: Founding meat<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Research Questions<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
  • How has meat become a central part of Norwegian food practices? <\/strong><\/li>
  • What can we learn from <\/strong>historical<\/strong> attempts to regulate meat-use in Norway? How do <\/strong>gender<\/strong> and <\/strong>identity<\/strong>  matter here? <\/strong><\/li>
  • What is the impact of <\/strong>technology<\/strong> on values around meat-use and climate ?<\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
    During WWII and some years after food such as meat was regulated by a quota system in Norway, with consumers getting a weekly or monthly quota of meat set by the national nutritional expertise. The measure ensured that everyone had enough -and not too much- to eat, and regulated imports (Hjeltnes 1986, Lyng\u00f8 2006) (R3). Cookbook authors became vital for advising consumers on how to survive in a time when food provisioning was lacking (Finstad 2014, Horowitz 2006). New competences, foodstuffs, and ideas were devised to transfer to leaner times without too much suffering. This suggests that climate mitigation through meat-reduction will also require new competences<\/em>, cookery tools and inspiration, besides dietary guidelines, and moderation (R3). The meaning<\/em> of meat is crucial too. Meat is often analysed as \u2018the quintessential masculine food\u2019 (Adams 2010). Women are currently twice as likely to endorse vegetarian beliefs as men (Kalof et al. 1999), outnumber men when it comes to the main reasons for reducing meat (health, environment and animal welfare) (Bugge & Alfnes 2018), and they are more likely to have negative attitudes towards (red) meat (Kubber\u00f8d et al. 2002) (R2, R1). If masculinity and femininity are viewed as \u2018gender projects\u2019 enacted through configurations of practices (Connell 1995), both meat consumption and reduction could be viewed as powerful ways of \u2018doing gender\u2019, challenging and\/or reproducing gendered norms, ideals and patterns of inclusion and exclusion. Last, technologies of producing, killing, distributing and purchasing meat often obscure the animals and humans working to deliver meat (Vialles 1994, Efstathiou 2019) (R1). The disconnect between animal and \u2018meat\u2019 facilitates eating while not wishing to harm animals, the so-called \u2018meat paradox\u2019 (Loughnan et al. 2010, Ursin 2016). But this disconnect also leaves room to imagine new substitutes for \u2018meat\u2019 by artificial alternatives (R2), ushering new meat concepts.<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    WP2: Eating Meat<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Research Questions<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
    • What are the food-related practices contributing to meat consumption in Norwegian households, and how are these justified\/explained by different actors?<\/strong> <\/li>
    • What conditions facilitate and complicate a reduction of meat consumption in Norwegian households? <\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
      There are few reasons to believe we as humans are programmed to eat as much meat as possible (Weis 2013). The \u2018practice turn\u2019, which represents the theoretical and methodological starting point of this project, approaches consumption as parts of shared social practices, which are, in turn, shaped by social, bodily and material elements (Warde, 2014). Food-related practices such as those of cultivation, shopping, cooking, eating, eating out and wasting are key here. Eating in and eating out come with different levels of comfort and convenience. Meat consumption is neatly nested into various practices differing across culture, place and time, conditioned within systems of provision (selling, delivering, take-out, etc.) Dependencies created in existing systems of provision, policies for intensification, and relations with developing nations exporting meat to Norway are important to consider here (Aurdal & Omholt 2013).<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

      <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      WP3: Provisioning Meat<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      Research Questions<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n