Of Oaks, Erratic Boulders, and Milkmaids

In the study and care for rural landscapes and their inhabitants a perpetual dilemma is knowing the different discourses those landscapes embody for a culture group, or “discourse community,” as Siri Aasbo (1999: 148) calls it (after Eco 1977). It is a well-known truism that a gap exists in the understanding and evaluation of landscapes between insiders and outsiders, natives and visitors, actors and observers, inhabitants and experts. Since this is known territory, I shall not revisit it, except to restate the obvious — expert opinion, even when well-intended, rarely agrees with the local inhabitants in what is good for them. As Sverker Sörlin expresses it, landscape is a “contested terrain” (1999: 103). the expert will tell the native that his sacred cow is useless, but the native will keep it anyhow. It is a question of what is good for the flesh (i.e. the economy) and what for the soul. This is a very real situation in Europe today, especially in countries such as England, France, Estonia, and Latvia, where the so-called agricultural sector represents economic and political problems, with fundamentally complex issues of the flesh and the soul for farmers. .