Page 337 - Panjek, Aleksander, Jesper Larsson and Luca Mocarelli, eds. 2017. Integrated Peasant Economy in a Comparative Perspective: Alps, Scandinavia and Beyond. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 337
peasant “economic industriousness” in slovenian ethnology (19th–20th centuries)
cording to the branches and activities he lists under this term. The only ex-
plication we find is that “in the frame of everyday economic industrious-
ness only some of the selected and most frequent forms, branches and types
are presented. The heritage of domestic crafts [domače obrti], handicraft
[rokodelstvo] and knowledge are discussed in other chapters” (Bogataj 1992,
84). Under the term “everyday economic industriousness” he listed the fol-
lowing peasant activities: agriculture, stockbreeding, fruit growing, hop
growing, winegrowing, apiculture, foraging, gardening, hunting and fish-
ing, stockbreeding, forestry and industry. Under the heritage of forestry he
lists economic activities such as sawmilling, charcoal-burning, lime-pro-
ducing, rafting trade, etc. (Bogataj 1992, 84‒141). The heritage of domestic
masters and craftsmen, heritage of transportation and traffic culture and
heritage of trade (Bogataj 1992, 222‒69, 270‒96) are listed separately. The
emphasis of the monograph lies on the material or (less) immaterial re-
mains of the economic industriousness, such as (agrarian) buildings, food
and other products or raw materials of all the above listed branches. It can
be noted that the economic activities are not classified in accordance with
the classical distinction of economic activities by economists or economic
historians, that is according to the primary, secondary and tertiary sector
(Panjek 2015, 199). We have to bear in mind, that the primary focus of Bo-
gataj was heritage as remains of the past in the present; therefore the main
criteria for classification is not the economic aspect, but heritage studies in
an interpretative, applicative and touristic sense, that is the valorisation of
heritage. The primary question is more linked to the present state of her-
itage in the sense of which kind of Slovenian heritage is worth conserving
and presenting as part of the national identity. It can be noted that Bogataj
uses the term “everyday economic industriousness,” also in other works, in
a way denoting the everyday efforts of a peasant to survive in an econom-
ic sense (Bogataj 1989, 3). As will be shown in the following chapter, none
of the previous ethnologists writing about peasant economic activities used
the term “economic industriousness.”
This brief analysis of the use of the term, “economic industriousness”
in Slovenian ethnological literature shows that it was used more coinci-
dently than reflectively. Nevertheless Bogataj managed to find a good Slo-
venian term for the more reflected economic-historical concept proposed
some time later, in particular by de Vries with his “industrious revolution”
and industriousness (de Vries 2008). Although the term “economic indus-
triousness” was not much conceptualised by Slovenian ethnologists, re-
335
cording to the branches and activities he lists under this term. The only ex-
plication we find is that “in the frame of everyday economic industrious-
ness only some of the selected and most frequent forms, branches and types
are presented. The heritage of domestic crafts [domače obrti], handicraft
[rokodelstvo] and knowledge are discussed in other chapters” (Bogataj 1992,
84). Under the term “everyday economic industriousness” he listed the fol-
lowing peasant activities: agriculture, stockbreeding, fruit growing, hop
growing, winegrowing, apiculture, foraging, gardening, hunting and fish-
ing, stockbreeding, forestry and industry. Under the heritage of forestry he
lists economic activities such as sawmilling, charcoal-burning, lime-pro-
ducing, rafting trade, etc. (Bogataj 1992, 84‒141). The heritage of domestic
masters and craftsmen, heritage of transportation and traffic culture and
heritage of trade (Bogataj 1992, 222‒69, 270‒96) are listed separately. The
emphasis of the monograph lies on the material or (less) immaterial re-
mains of the economic industriousness, such as (agrarian) buildings, food
and other products or raw materials of all the above listed branches. It can
be noted that the economic activities are not classified in accordance with
the classical distinction of economic activities by economists or economic
historians, that is according to the primary, secondary and tertiary sector
(Panjek 2015, 199). We have to bear in mind, that the primary focus of Bo-
gataj was heritage as remains of the past in the present; therefore the main
criteria for classification is not the economic aspect, but heritage studies in
an interpretative, applicative and touristic sense, that is the valorisation of
heritage. The primary question is more linked to the present state of her-
itage in the sense of which kind of Slovenian heritage is worth conserving
and presenting as part of the national identity. It can be noted that Bogataj
uses the term “everyday economic industriousness,” also in other works, in
a way denoting the everyday efforts of a peasant to survive in an econom-
ic sense (Bogataj 1989, 3). As will be shown in the following chapter, none
of the previous ethnologists writing about peasant economic activities used
the term “economic industriousness.”
This brief analysis of the use of the term, “economic industriousness”
in Slovenian ethnological literature shows that it was used more coinci-
dently than reflectively. Nevertheless Bogataj managed to find a good Slo-
venian term for the more reflected economic-historical concept proposed
some time later, in particular by de Vries with his “industrious revolution”
and industriousness (de Vries 2008). Although the term “economic indus-
triousness” was not much conceptualised by Slovenian ethnologists, re-
335
