Lapwings, landscapes, and difference : an ethnography of Ljipaaisykjen in Friesland

(1)

LAPWINGS, LANDSCAPES, AND DIFFERENCE

An Ethnography of Ljipaaisykjen In Friesland

Andres Forero Rueda

andres.forero@student.uva.nl

Student Number: 10426590

Supervised by: Dr. Irene Stengs

irene.stengs@meertens.kna.nl

READERS:

Dr. ROB VAN GINKEL

Dr. ALEX STRATING

Graduate School of Social Sciences – Department of Anthropology

Master's Thesis – MsC Cultural Anthropology

(2)

This work would never have been possible without the contribution of the Meertens Institute, which provided the funding for my fieldwork in Friesland. I am also indebted to Irene Stengs, my supervisor, who read and commented in a very detailed fashion the draft chapters, and provided me with valuable insights. I am grateful to the Haven family, who were not only kind enough to host me, but had an active interest in aiding me with my research process. Finally, I am also grateful for the collaboration of all my interlocutors in the field.

(6)

ABSTRACT

In this work I present the result of my ethnographic research of the cultural practice of searching and collecting the eggs of the Northern Lapwing in the meadow fields of Friesland, denominated

ljipaaisykjen in Frisian. Ljipaaisykjen has been historically acknowledged as a Frisian cultural

tradition, and constructed as a manifestation of provincial identity. The performance of this practice is related to the production of cultural categories that define Frisian particularity in terms of a connection with the landscape, love for nature, and a rural character. This practice is currently at the center of an ecological controversy in which Dutch natural organizations, wildlife conservation NGO's, politicians, and general public opinion questions its legitimacy. I ask the question: How does the practice of ljipaaisykjen, and the controversy over its legitimacy, articulate the social production of differences in the Netherlands? I argue that through different practices and discourses, supporters and opponents in the debate dispute categories to define identity and difference in a contextual relationship. Cultural hierarchies are experienced in the context of the ljipaaisykjen struggles, influenced by a dichotomy between a 'rural' Frisian province and a representation of the Netherlands as a 'modern nation'.

(7)

INTRODUCTION

The Frisian word ljipaaisykjen (kievitseieren zoeken, in Dutch) describes an outdoors activity in which the participant's goal is to search for and gather the eggs of the Northern Lapwing (kievit in Dutch, or ljip in Frisian) in the rural meadow fields of the Dutch northern province of Friesland.1_In this work, I will analyze how the practice and representations of ljipaaisykjen in the present manifest key aspects of the social construction of differences in the Netherlands.

There are two distinct, but related dynamics that characterize the ljipaaisykjen since its documented widespread emergence in the nineteenth century. The first process is characterized by the crystallization of the practice as an expression of Frisian cultural identity. It transitioned from a complementary agricultural activity to its current contended interpretation as a cultural tradition. The practice is used to construct Frisian particularity in terms of a connection with the landscape, a love for nature, and a rural character (see De Groot, 2011; Roodbergen, 2009; Van der Ven, 1972; Van Dijk, 1967).

A symbolic significance is attributed to the first lapwing egg that is found in the province, regularly happening during the month March, as a sign of seasonal transition from winter to spring. This leads to a ceremony where the egg is presented to the Commissioner of the Queen of Friesland, the highest ranking executive office at a provincial scale in the Netherlands. Hence, the

ljipaaisykjen has a ritual property, as the most significant performative aspects of the practice take

place during a defined season.

Another set of cultural attributes of the ljipaaisykjen stem from its competitive feature. The practice has been defined as sport, which is a favored variety of cultural expressions of Frisian identity, such as ice-skating and kaatsen (Frisian handball) (Jensma, 2009, p. 10). Consequently, there is an extensive set of skills required to perform it. Experienced participants acquire prestige among the network of enthusiasts, and have the possibility of achieving accolades granted to those who find the first egg in the province and the different municipalities.

The second dynamic is compromised by an ethical and political debate in which the legitimacy of the practice comes into question. Ljipaaisykjen has been met with public backlash, particularly by Dutch natural organizations, wildlife conservation NGO's, politicians, and general public opinion. This is because of the probable correlation between the practice and the dramatic

1 The Dutch equivalent term, kievitseieren zoeken, is more commonly used in the provincial and national media, and in the context of the larger national debate against the continuance of the practice in Friesland. I will regularly use the Frisian term throughout this work, as it is highlights the specificity of the practice in relation to Frisian identity.

(8)

fall in the lapwing's population numbers in Friesland. The controversy is specially influenced by discourses on animal welfare and concerns over ecological deterioration that began to shape negative interpretations of lapwing egg collecting during the twentieth century (Jensma, 2009: 30; Roodbergen, 2000: 101). It was originally practiced in different parts of the Netherlands, but after a national ban on lapwing egg collecting in the country, only an exception was granted to the province of Friesland. Environmentalists are currently advocating for a ban on the continuance of lapwing egg collecting in the province.

The ljipaaisykjen controversy largely focuses on an ethical conundrum on whether taking the eggs of the lapwing is a threat to the species, or is instead a valuable cultural manifestation central to the construction of Frisian identity. On a larger scope, it is also a debate on how the threat to the bird affects Dutch society at large. It is a discussion that takes place within a conjuncture where discourses aimed at diminishing the risk of environmental degradation have become characteristic of the political arena of the Netherlands (Van der Heijden, 2005: 427). In this context, Frisian aaisikers, the local term used to denote the enthusiasts of the practice, are being questioned on whether they are going against national interest to preserve the environment.

Currently, state and European institutions have guaranteed the legitimacy of the

ljipaaisykjen in Friesland by court ordinance, even though the lapwing is a protected species by the

European Union (Roodbergen, 2000: 126). Therefore, there is also a parallel process in which provincial cultural distinctiveness is produced and warranted.

One could say that a new branch of cyclical rituals of the ljipaaisykjen is the almost annual judicial debate. The principal stakeholders are Frisian ljipaaisykjen enthusiasts, mainly represented by the Bond Friese VogelWachten (BFVW),2_{a Frisian volunteers organization dedicated to} protection of meadow birds that has become central in the current way the ljipaaisykjen is regulated; and environmentalists, who have in the Faunabescherming, a Dutch nature conservation organization, their most adamant representative.3_{For the environmentalists, ljipaaisykjen practice in} Friesland violates national policies of wildlife protection. Thus, cultural differences are not seen by

2 The name of the organization translates in English to: Frisian Bird Watcher's Association. However, this organization goes beyond being an association of bird watcher's in the traditional sense. Founded in 1947, over concerns for the dwindling numbers of meadow birds in Friesland, it is today the largest volunteer organization dedicated to bird conservation in the Netherlands. It has also gathered prominence for being the institutional representative of

ljipaaisykjen preservation. For more information see: Roodbergen, 2000 and http://www.friesevogelwachten.nl.

3 Faunabescherming translates to Fauna Protection. The organization was originally known as the Stichting kritisch

faunabeheer. Its main objective is to eliminate all forms of hunting for pleasure and sport. This organization is currently

the only one taking legal action. It has been one of the most organizations vocal against the continuance of the practice in Friesland throughout the second half of the twentieth century (see Roodbergen, 2000: 78). For more information on the organization see: http://www.faunabescherming.nl/.

(9)

them as a genuine criteria to not conform to national and state regulations.4

The latest instance of such judicial battles occurred in 2013, with the same result as in previous instances: the ratification of the Frisian right to preserve the so called historical tradition of

ljipaaisykjen.5_{This exception stands, however, under strong regulations that have shaped the}

ljipaaisykjen since the beginning of the nineties, and more clearly since the first years of the

following decade.

These regulations and restrictions include: (1) the limitation of the period in which eggs may be hunted to exclusively the month of March (which has historically been the month when the first egg is found); (2) the requirement of a certificate granted by the BFVW, referred to as an

eierzoekkaart and nazorgkaart,6_{on the condition of participating in wildlife conservation activities;} (3) the registration of each nest and the number of eggs taken by the aaisiker through an instant message sent via a smart-phone. And finally, (4) to limit the egg hunt to an established quota of eggs, set at 6,307 eggs for the 2013 ljipaaisykjen season, with only fifteen eggs being allowed to be taken by any person during the whole season.7

The current ljipaaisykjen can at first sight be characterized by an ambivalence between two discourses of protection, one that looks to preserve tradition, and another one in favor of environmental conservation. Both discourses share a similar vein, the notion of preserving something against menacing change. Yet, aaisikers and environmentalists hold complex views on how social categories and relationships towards nature are interrelated. The conflict for the lapwing egg, is mainly a struggle between models of authority on nature that are made to represent different values as pertaining to notions of 'modernity' or 'tradition'.

The province of Friesland is located in the north of the Netherlands. With a total population of 646,300 people, Frisians make up about 3,9% of the total population of the Netherlands. It is the second least densely populated province in the country (CBS, 2010). Despite the marginal position in relation to the total national population, the province has a history of recognized singularity

4 For an English summary of the Fauna and Flora Act of 2002 that stipulates the conditions for wildlife protection in the Netherlands, and the rights and obligations of civil society in this respect see: http://www.ecomare.nl/en/ecomare-encyclopedie/man-and-the-environment/nature-management/nature-policy/flora-and-fauna-act/.

5 The ratification was ordained on February 26 of 2013. See: http://jeugdjournaal.nl/item/478483-kievitseieren-zoeken-mag-doorgaan.html.

6 The name of the certificate shows how the conservation activities have now become entrenched as part of the practices that constitute ljipaaisykjen. Eierzoek certifies the cart holder as conforming to the legal framework to find and search eggs, while nazorg translates to aftercare, or preservation activities.

7 As I was told during an interview with members of the BFVW secretariat, the apparently arbitrary number of eggs that can be taken during the lapwing egg collecting season is set by state regulating agencies based on a mathematical formula used in regulating recreational hunting. The formula estimates a number that may allow the successful reproduction for the species that is being hunted. Translated to the context of lapwing egg collecting, it constitutes about 1% of the entire eggs that are projected to be laid in the province by the lapwings in that particular year.

(10)

within the Netherlands. The Frisian language and its legal recognition has historically been the principle diacritic of difference of the province, and has generated several political debates on Frisian rights to cultural diversity (Penrose, 1990; 436).

The definition of Frisian rights to particularity on the basis of folkloric traditions has historically been less politically relevant than the discourse of Frisian identity on the basis of language (Van der Kooi, 1996; 149). The controversy surrounding ljipaaisykjen has created specific conditions of possibility that allow this practice to come at the forefront of discussions over the legitimacy of provincial difference in the Netherlands, and Frisian identity politics.8

In this framework, I explore the following question: How does the practice of ljipaaisykjen, and the controversy over its legitimacy, articulate the social production of differences in the Netherlands? My objective is to understand how notions of cultural hierarchies are naturalized and experienced in the context of the ljipaaisykjen struggles.

Therefore, I will not account for ljipaaisykjen as an expression of an objectively bounded culture, but about the politics of culture around the practice. The politics of culture refers to the different struggles through which certain social practices and representations of cultural otherness of a social groups or territory become more legitimate than others. This is based on a historical process in which the concept of culture has been positioned as the way through which human differences are represented (Rose, 1996: 139).

The question I pose in this work is framed by critical reflections on nation, identity, and province as political, social, and historical constructs. Identity and difference are understood in this work to be interrelated constructions (Hall, 2003: 18). Thereupon, I understand the practices of identity construction within the ljipaaisykjen dynamics as a simultaneous process of difference making. I will study the representations of these differences not only in terms of how it defines Friesland to 'others', but also how it is related to the perception of internal differences within the province.

Contemporary theories of the nation have began to challenge the idea that nation-making processes have been exclusively aimed at producing homogeneity and cohesion (see Alonso, 1994; Bhabha, 1994; Mitchell, 2001; Wade, 2000). However, this theoretical tendency has been more closely related to the study of Latin-American and post-colonial contexts, as categories of ethnic difference are understood to be central to the dynamics of colonialism. How then can the processes of difference-making within nations that were former colonial centers, such as the Netherlands, be

8 Identity politics refers to multiple discourses, practices and political interventions that aim to produce difference and particularity of a determined social group (see Hall, 1992; Restrepo, 2009).

(11)

inquired?

There has been a growing interest in the study of discourses and practices of cultural difference in the Netherlands and other western European countries. These studies have been focused on the challenges that the major inflow of migration poses to restrictive paradigms of nationality, particularly that of an apparently shared ethnic and cultural background. The discussion on multiculturalism in the Netherlands has stirred dominantly in this direction (see Ceuppens and Geschiere, 2005; Vasta, 2007; Vertovec, 2011). This shows that, outside the categorizations of immigration, the Netherlands is often naturalized as a rather homogeneous country in ethnic and cultural terms. Yet, the ljipaaisykjen pertains to a very different kind of imagined difference within the nation: the regional.

Regional differences are defined by the fact that they are encompassed by a larger sense of identification, the national, and thus must be understood in a relational sense (Bourdieu, 1980: 64). As I intend to show in this work, the close 'otherness' that provincial differences pose is no less political and menacing in the case of the ljipaaisykjen controversy. Therefore, I approach the study of Frisian provincial identity as it expressed through ljipaaisykjen, in its political aspect, and as a social and historic construction. Moreover, I will highlight through this work how the narratives of Frisian peculiarity that aaisikers hold are intertwined with other forms of social classifications, particularly in terms of gender, also expressing notions of hierarchy and power.

As Linke (1990: 119) points out, regional identities and cultures in western Europe have long been the subject of folklore, rather than anthropology, which has traditionally been more focused on the study of the distant 'others' of the colonial context.9_{Instead, folklore became} institutionalized in the nineteenth century as the study of peasant and rural cultures within western European nations. Although, the systematic study of folklore only became a widespread practice in the Netherlands in the first years of the twentieth century, it followed a similar pattern as in the German context, triggered by a romantic nationalist search for a particular 'Dutch' character or spirit (Roodenburg, 2002: 176). In the understanding of Van Ginkel (1998: 252), when western European anthropologists did shift their view to their own 'complex' societies in the early stages of discipline formation, their work mirrored the intellectual pursuits of folklorists. The main scientific drive in this works was to account for 'endangered' forms of peasant cultural manifestations before such practices succumbed to the drive of modernity, as a way of 'rescue anthropology'.

9 This bias in considering regional identities a subject of folklore in the Netherlands is evidenced by the fact that the volume on regional identities in the Netherlands; Constructie van het eigene. Culturele vormen van regionale

(12)

The ljipaaisyjken is a paradigmatic phenomenon of such folklore research. Van der Ven (1972: 52), for example, portrays it as as an expression of a larger shared Western European culture. Other publications on the topic concentrate on how it expresses a particular sensibility towards the Frisian landscape and rural form of lifestyle (De Groot, 2011; Roodbergen, 2009). From this standpoint, there tends to be a certain romantic mystification of the ljipaaisykjen.

In a more critical posture, ljipaaisykjen in Friesland has been recently studied from a historical perspective. These works tend to highlight the material and economic origins of the practice as an explanation for its widespread popularity in Friesland, and thus showing the 'invented' dimension of the symbolism attributed to the practice (Breuker, 2012; Jensma 2009). But despite the controversy it has sparked on different public platforms of debate, the ljipaaisykjen recent dynamics have gathered little interest as topic for cultural anthropological research.

Thus, through this research I look to provide an approach to the current social practices and discourses that constitute ljipaaisykjen from a critical anthropological viewpoint. Not only did I dealt with how relevant contemporary anthropological concepts such as nation, identity, tradition, nature, and difference are socially defined, but also because a critical anthropological perspective promotes the exercise of reflexiveness in fieldwork practice (Van Ginkel, 1998: 251). This was relevant for me because of my condition as an anthropologist from Colombia conducting ethnographic research in a 'western' European country as the Netherlands.

It was constantly pointed out to me by my interlocutors in the field how 'eccentric' my curiosity on ljipaaisykjen seemed to be. During my stay in Friesland and while doing preparations in Amsterdam, it was common for people I met to treat my inquiry on the ljipaaisykjen as something exotic and curious. Laughter was often induced by the unexpectedness that a foreign social scientist researcher that comes from a country outside of the higher hierarchies of knowledge production in anthropology, would be interested on the topic of 'tradition' in the Netherlands. It also points to the particularity of making an industrialized nation as the Netherlands the site of ethnographic study, specially in a context where differences based on ethnicity, are not evident.

Thereupon, the different perspectives I provide of ljipaaisykjen are shaped by my own positioned experience as an anthropologist who's academic formation began in Colombia. It is true that since the latter half of the twentieth century there has been an ongoing process of 'repatriation of anthropology', or as Van Ginkel denominates it, 'endo-ethnography' (1998: 252). The 'complex' western industrialized societies where the anthropologist comes from have indeed become sites for ethnographic fieldwork. However, my own conjecture falls in a different category of relationships

(13)

between the researcher and his field site, as it is not a process of anthropology 'coming home', but rather of challenging preconceived notions of what constitutes the ideal site for 'southern' anthropologist. Positioning myself within the disciplinary boundaries of anthropology to approach the ljipaaisykjen, gave me an opportunity to possibly question certain given notions of what constitutes the 'norm' in terms of origins and sites of fieldwork research.

These conditions influenced my entrance into the social network of the ljipaaisykjen's practices and debates. In my own experience, the political seriousness of the topic I was inquiring about was undermined, because I was viewed as a distant outsider with an 'exotic' curiosity who did not have a preconceived notion of what the larger debate was about. This created both favorable conditions and challenges for my entry into the field. People were willing to discuss the topic with me as they were happy to teach what they valued as an important tradition to an outsider, and also give what is a very localized practice a more international reach. It also created obstacles for me, due to restrictions with the language which deterred some stakeholders from conversing with me, while at the same time they believed that an international would naturally favor the environmentalist argument. Thus, the result of this work has to be understood as a positioned understanding of the dynamics of the ljipaaisykjen controversy.

I have taken the stance of not making an auto-ethnographic exercise in which I exclusively ponder on the 'exotic' situation of being an anthropologist from Colombia in Friesland. This would further reinforce the caricaturization of my research as a curious ethnographic anecdote, which was my main reflexive struggle. This is very much a work about a context of particular relations and debates, one which deals with how the ljipaaisykjen is lived, represented, and contended.

Since I look to understand how difference is socially constructed by the network of stakeholders of the ljipaaisykjen controversy, my research ascribes to an ethnographic tradition focused on comprehending how people produce social meaning in a determined localized situation (Palmer, 2005: 11). An ethnographic methodological approach is therefore pertinent, as it is a practice of knowledge production that is founded upon the establishment of social relations between the researcher and an analytically defined social group.

Because the ljipaaisykjen is now a matter of public controversy between actors in different parts of the Netherlands, I did not limit my field by the political-administrative boundaries of Friesland, although the fact of it being a 'Frisian' phenomenon is socially and politically relevant. Yet, the orbit of my ethnographic field of inquiry was not loosely set, as there is a specific network of stakeholders that allocate time and resources to the practice and management of the

(14)

ljipaaisykjen, as well as too question its legitimacy.

For the purposes of this work, I spent the ljipaaisykjen season of March in situ, as a guest of a local family Sneek, in the municipality of South-West Friesland. From this location, I toured around the 3,349 square kilometers that make up the province, looking to meet people interested in

ljipaaisykjen, occasionally participating in the practice, and carrying out observation of events, such

as the presentation of the first egg to the Commissioner of the Queen. A key aspect to gaining access to different contacts was to rely on the social network of my hosts. Although not

ljipaaisykjen enthusiast themselves, they were eager to put me in contact with neighbors and helped

me form relations with important interlocutors who had an interest in the topic.

First, this network is compromised by ljipaaisykjen enthusiasts in different parts of Friesland. The aaisikers are linked to the BFVW as volunteers because of the current regulations of

ljipaaisykjen. Although there were some exceptions, most of them are men of middle class social

backgrounds. It was also very common that they were of an advanced age, but some enthusiasts I encountered were in their mid-thirties and forties. These conditions of gender, age, and social background are relevant because of how they relate to commonly shared imaginaries of the typical

ljipaaisykjen practitioner, as a Frisian man with a rural upbringing. They both raise ambivalent

notions of who these enthusiasts are, as well as reinforce certain widespread held representations of them.

A key interlocutor for my research was Sake Roodbergen. Roodbergen has written extensively on the topic of ljipaaisykjen, has been an active participant in the legal debates to preserve the practice in Friesland, and has prominent position amongst the network of enthusiasts of lapwing egg collecting in the province. Hence, my conversations and communications with Roodbergen, as well as the literature he has produced on relevant ljipaaisykjen topics, will be an important part of the empirical information I present in this work.

The second major group of interlocutors were environmentalists who share the conviction that the ljipaaisykjen should be prohibited because of its apparent influence in the reduction in lapwing population numbers. It includes representatives in different nature institutions and other actors who share a worry about ljipaaisykjen's role in ecological deterioration in the Netherlands.

A third category of actors are those who have a more uncertain relation with the

ljipaaisykjen. Frisian intellectuals, academics, and journalists who were not active participants in

the ljipaaisykjen debate, but yet had clear formulated conceptions on the practice, were also included in my range of research.

(15)

Due to the fact that my research deals with the production of meaning about cultural difference, I conducted several semi-structured interviews with the different stakeholders between January and March of 2013. I favored this research technique because it allowed me to gather information on representation, notions, ideas, beliefs, values, norms, and systems of classification that influence how people experience and define ljipaaisykjen. In short, it can be considered the best technique to access the different ways in which actors make sense of their context, situation, and practices (Guber, 2005: 132).

However, only relying on interviews would overshadow the fact that ljipaaisykjen is a lived practice. Thus, I could not ignore the experiential and embodied dimension of the ljipaaisykjen. Participant observation was key to my research because multiple forms of meaning are performed and shared during the actual practice of lapwing egg collecting. Specifically, imaginaries that refer to the birds relation to the Frisian people and territory, about the meadow landscape, and the Frisian local knowledge are raised as this practice is performed. For example, one central practice associated to the ljipaaisykjen is the fierljeppen, a practice also considered a typical Frisian manifestations, that consists of the use of using a polsstok, or long pole, to leap across the drainage canals and access different parts of lands across the meadows of Friesland. It is a display of physical prowess that attests to the dominance of the Frisian rural farmer over the natural landscape. Although it is not commonly practiced in tandem with ljipaaisykjen as I observed during my ethnographic experience, the fact that it was often raised by my interlocutors as two related rural Frisian practices expresses certain conditions of how aaisikers relate to the bird. They demonstrate culturally constructed skills to outsmart the bird, and find the well-hidden eggs. Additionally, participating in the ljipaaisykjen allowed me to approach how the practice is socially transmitted. This is also relevant when exploring the configuration of cultural difference in this context because it reflects shared notions of 'typical' Frisian society and its own internal differences. Finally, because the emotional attachment to the practice was constantly underlined by the enthusiasts, it cannot be ignored that there is an an actual experiential aspect to the ljipaaisykjen that influences the political practices put in place to preserve it.

The instances of participation in which I incurred were, however, shaped by an extended winter, which resulted in only seventeen eggs being found of a total of 6,307 eggs established in the quota.10_{Thus, my interlocutors made it clear how the conditions for the specific year hampered the} cyclical expectations of a successful ljipaaisykjen season.

(16)

Furthermore, I complemented the ethnographic research with the analysis of press and secondary resources such as folklore books about ljipaaisykjen. Such material is relevant for my thesis because they are mechanisms to transmit certain values and representations of the aaisikers. On the other hand, the press is a platform where the debate of ljipaaisykjen legitimacy takes place. Multiple stakeholders, such as egg-seeking enthusiasts, biologists, representatives of nature organizations and nature and environment journalists are quoted, and publish their opinions on the controversy.

The analysis I conduct on the relation between the ljipaaisykjen struggles and the constitution of cultural differences in the Netherlands will be presented in three chapters. In the first chapter, I explore the historical transformations of the ljipaaisykjen, in order to highlight the changing meanings of the practice. I aim to introduce the reader to the 'field' of ljipaaisykjen, underlying the process in which it became a 'tradition' that expressed a specific rhetoric of Frisian identity that has become politically expressive in the present. I argue that this reflects an inflection in the nature of Frisian identity politics, as a new aspect besides the language becomes the basis for cultural distinction.

The following chapter takes a closer look to the social practices and shared discourses that characterize how ljipaaisykjen is experienced and defined by multiple enthusiast of the practice. I deal with the tacit definition of differences in intersecting ways, such as the production of social and gendered identities, and how these narratives are embedded in the experience and representations of lapwing egg collecting.

The final chapter will explore a major theme in the debate on ljipaaisykjen and its relations to larger political struggles in the Netherlands: the legitimacy of models of nature governance. I present the argument that environmentalists construct a sense of cultural hierarchy towards the province of Friesland, based on their understanding of the Netherlands as a modern country. I discuss how, through the struggles of ljipaaisykjen legitimacy, environmentalists and aaisikers reflect on ideas about nation, province, and cultural difference. Moreover, I highlight the pivotal role that the condition of the Netherlands as a modern nation has in influencing the distinctive practices of aaisikers to preserve 'tradition'.

In the context of the lapwing egg collecting debate, I am encountering an active process of negotiation of a selected form of public performance of regional difference. Consequently, how Frisian regional identity and culture are produced and represented is related to the struggles through which difference can become considered acceptable and non-threatening. Hence, this project deals

(17)

with ongoing practices of difference making, construction of hierarchies between varying definitions of 'otherness', and the emergence of boundaries for difference to be assimilated and accepted.

(18)

CHAPTER I

FROM NEED TO ENTHUSIASM: TRACING THE HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF LJIPAAISYKJEN

Introduction

My main purpose in this chapter is to introduce how ljipaaisykjen has been historically constructed and adopted as part of the rhetoric of Frisian identity. In order to do so, I rely on secondary literature, empirical data gathered from following how the debate on ljipaaisykjen legitimacy unfolds in the media, and on the narratives of enthusiasts of the practice.

I will divide the contents of this chapter in two parts. In the first part, I illustrate the complexity to define what the ljipaaisykjen practice consists of, specifically when conflicting stakeholders wish to highlight different dimensions of the practice. Particularly, it reflects on the changing, and disputed meanings that are attributed to the gathering of eggs, and the relations that

aaisikers are constructing with nature. I then follow by summarizing the historic dynamic of Frisian

identity politics, and how it pertains to the raising of the ljipaaisykjen as a manifestation of political importance. I argue that the context of controversy surrounding the ljipaaisykjen has a significant effect in making a particular part of the Frisian identity expressive style a more political theme: an emotional attachment to the elements of the meadow landscapes of Friesland.

Searching or Reaping: The Difficulties of Translating Ljipaaisykjen

A key way in which an outsider can begin to grasp how the struggles to define the legitimacy of

ljipaaisykjen shape in the present is by taking into account how the actors involved in the

controversy use the language to make explicit certain dimensions of the practice. While

ljipaaisykjen supporters look to undermine that the practice may be harmful for the lapwing, the

environmentalists instead represent it as an irrational use of wildlife for leisure purposes. To try to provide a literal translation or an 'etic' encompassing definition for ljipaaisykjen would be fool's errand. Instead, in this section I try to bring forth the political and historical practices that give shape to conditions of possibility for determined interpretations of the phenomenon to be contextually and politically more precise than others.

First of all, referring to the practice as ljipaaisykjen has the inherent political intention to convey the idea that it is linked to 'Frisianess'. On many occasions, my interlocutors would bring up the the Frisian word to highlight it's connection with Frisian particularity, also making reference to a

(19)

wide arrange of Frisian words as part of a defined culture of lapwing egg collecting enthusiasm. I first became familiar with the term as I began correspondence with Sake Roodbergen, who introduced me to the network of ljipaaisykjen in Friesland. He explained the meaning of the Frisian word in the following way: 'Maybe you already heard that egg collecting in the Frisian language is

ljipaaisykjen. (Ljip=Kievit=Lapwing (or Peewit)=Vanellus vanellus).'11_{Roodbergen references the} equivalences for the Frisian 'emic' term of the bird that is central to the practice in Dutch, English, and even the scientific name Latin name, Vanellus vanellus, as he looked to translate to me, an outsider to the network of lapwing egg collecting enthusiasm, what is behind the phenomenon. Yet, the second part of the word that details the action pertaining the practice of egg collecting is not fully dealt with. Indeed, as my immersion in the ljipaaisykjen world progressed, I began to grasp the ambivalence behind finding the precise way to define the tradition at hand.

In parallel to the localized expression of ljipaaisykjen, which communicates the Frisian particularity of the phenomenon, kievitseieren zoeken is the term commonly used in Dutch to define it as a cultural practice. It is almost an equivalent literal translation for the Frisian word. Whereas

ljipaaisykjen details the folkloric and particularized nexus between the practice and representations

of the Frisian rural population, kievietseieren zoeken brings forth the context of controversy, as it is in the Dutch language through which the debate over its legitimacy unravels on the national level.

By decomposing the Dutch and Frisian word, we can see that zoeken is the Dutch equivalent of the Frisian word sykjen, which may vaguely be translated in English to seeking or searching. To exclusively use the word zoeken, downplays the fact that the eggs are taken from the nests, that triggers the backlash from public opinion and environmentalist organizations against the continuance of this practice in the province of Friesland.

Furthermore, to define the practice as zoeken highlights that there is an active intention to search for the egg with the use of a certain cunning or skill. As Jan, a young aaisiker and intern in the BFVW headquarters explained:

'A lot of people think that finding the eggs is just walking in the fields and then you just find the eggs. But finding and collecting the eggs is not really that easy. To do it, you have to really understand the behavior of the bird. By how the bird behaves you can tell if the bird has eggs or if it will lay them soon.'12

This relation with an intangible set of knowledge and skills contradicts the more negative portrayal of the practice that environmentalists, particularly the FaunaBescherming and the Partij voor de

11 Taken from an email conversation (December 5, 2012). 12 Taken from an interview on January 22, 2013.

(20)

Dieren,13_{intend to make predominant. This organizations refer to the practice exclusively as}

kievitseieren rapen.14_{The Dutch word rapen refers to the act of picking up or collecting something,} similar to the process of reaping in English. By defining the practice in this way, these organizations highlight how the action intervenes with the lapwing's behavior and cycles of reproduction. At the same time, it obscures any production of knowledge or skill to find the egg, because another dimension of the word rapen refers to the action of taking what is already laid out. But how it came about that zoeken and rapen had an ambivalent relation to one another is the result of historical transformations. These transformations are characterized by the emergence of lapwing egg collecting as a material and economic practice, to the institutionalization of the ljipaaisykjen as a manifestation Frisian folklore, and the current situation of controversy (see Breuker, 2012; Jensma, 2009: 35).

It is common knowledge among the network of aaisikers that I interviewed that the practice of egg collecting became popularized because of a profitable market for lapwing eggs. These were documented as a gastronomic delicacy by the upper classes in France and England, which generated a demand for the lapwing egg as a desired commodity since the nineteenth century (Breuker, 2012: Jensma, 2009: 26). Elder aaisikers often pointed out that in the years after the second World War, they would go out in the field searching for lapwing eggs. With these they could make good profit by selling them in the local market to the poelier, or poulterer.

This extended period of economic motivation was characterized by a relation towards the egg in which taking them was not a matter of problematic political relations and government control. I was told on several occasions that there is a common practice that helps stimulate the production of many eggs, which extends the range of practice from searching and collecting, to harvesting. This technique is commonly known as melken van de kievit (milking of the lapwing). The practice goes as follows: once the aaisiker has spotted a nest with eggs, he proceeds to take one and replace it with a small potato. This is done in order to stimulate the hormonal process of the lapwing, allowing it to keep laying eggs in the same spot, and leaving the aaisiker to reap the benefits.

In an interview with one of my interlocutors, Mient Douma, a diary farmer in the northern

13 The Partij voor de Dieren, Party for the Animals, is a Dutch political party who's main political platform is animal welfare and rightful treatment of animals. The party was formed in 2002. For a complete historical overview of the party see: http://www.partyfortheanimals.nl/

14 For examples of how the phrasing is used publicly by environmentalists and animal welfare organizations see:

http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/21309589/__PvdD__stop_rapen_kievitseieren__.html and

http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/21273226/___Verbod_rapen_kievitsei___.html. Both articles comment on public declarations of organizations that look to prohibit the ljipaaisykjen during the month of February, 2013, in anticipation of the beginning of the season in which lapwing eggs can be collected during the month of March.

(21)

Frisian village of Gerkesklooster and a member of the BFVW directive, pointed out that the development of this technique was influenced strictly by economic necessity. In his words, farmers who rented a tract of land could often meet the price of the rent by finding a large number of eggs in their fields. Thus, in this early context of economic driven ljipaaisykjen, the practice was mostly carried out by what Frisian academic historian, Pieter Breuker (2012: 83), refers to as the profession of eierzoeker.15_{This refers to rural working class Frisians who looked for eggs as part of a larger set} of farming activities.

In the present context, the practice of milking lapwings has little relation to the principals and values which are associated by enthusiastic aaisikers as part of the reasons why the

ljipaaisykjen is a legitimate cultural practice against pressure from public opinion and

environmental organizations. This refers to the representation of the ljipaaisykjen as a gentlemanly competitive relation to the bird and other aaisikers. But how did it come about that a practice of economic and material importance began to be defined in the network of its practitioners as a cultural phenomenon such as a competition?

To understand the present-day ljipaaisykjen, we must take into account that parallel to the increasing importance that ljipaaisykjen was gaining as an agricultural and economic activity, there was an emerging enthusiasm towards the practice from people who were not driven by economic necessity. These were mainly members of the provincial upper middle class, who began to develop a romantic and sensitive attachment to the practice as part of a representation of the Frisian identity characterized by a love for the outdoors and the meadow landscape of the province. This contributed to the transition of the practice from an economic to a leisure and a symbolically significant activity. In the latter decades of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century, aaisikiersklups, clubs formed around the enthusiasm for ljipaaisykjen, began to emerge in Friesland (Roodbergen, 2000: 56). These were characterized by masculine and middle to upper class contingent of members. I was also told by my interlocutors that they had a defined set of rituals and practices their members would incur in, reinforcing the sense of identification and exclusiveness of being an aaisiker.

This went in hand with the development of a variety of ritualized cultural elements influenced by ljipaaisykjen, such as a literature that celebrated the topic, and most importantly, an accompanying set of symbolic manifestations (Jensma, 2009: 34). In contrast to the professional, who found economic value in collecting, and even milking and stimulating the production of large

(22)

quantities of egg, the nature and outdoors enjoying enthusiastic eierzoeker, as Breuker defines this emerging category, sought worth in the search and collection because it expressed the Frisian man's knowledge and love for nature. According to Breuker (2012: 95), it is this enthusiastic aaisiker that exclusively constitute those who carry on with the practice in the present.

Ljipaaisykjen and Frisian Identity

In this section I argue that the insistence on ljipaaisykjen as characteristic Frisian manifestation denotes the transition of folkloric manifestations from having a secondary role in contrast to the Frisian language, to becoming a central theme of Frisian identity in the ljipaaisykjen debate. I understand this to be a consequence of the emergence of nature governance as a social field in which the BFVW, the champion organization of ljipaaisykjen supports, looks to position itself and question the hegemony of other Dutch organizations.

It is important to consider that the practice of searching and collecting lapwing eggs was not historically exclusive to Friesland. This was constantly brought up by representatives of the wildlife protection organizations I interviewed in order to discredit any justification of preserving the

ljipaaisykjen as a right to cultural difference in Friesland. Lapwing egg collecting was popular in

the Netherlands and other parts of Europe, before animal welfare discourses and state prohibitions began to be set in place to protect the species. According to Van der Kooi (1996: 146), Frisian cultural manifestations, aside from the language, have been historically critiqued as not ancient or unique enough to be fully established as distinctive elements of particular Frisian identity. Thus, claiming the lack of authenticity of lapwing egg collecting as exclusively Frisian conforms to such historic pattern.

It is not my intention to prove or discredit the Frisian originality of ljipaaisykjen, as this would grant the notion of authenticity an ontological value.16_{What is instead more relevant is to} underline the historical process that led to a political desire to construct such link between

ljipaaisykjen and Friesland.

The growing cultural shroud that has been casted upon the ljipaaisykjen in Friesland is explained by Jensma (2009: 33) as the 'invention' of a tradition to protect the legitimacy of what originally was a profitable economic activity. The important aspect of Jensma's historical analysis is not that this is a process of constructing a 'false consciousness' to obscure economic interests.

16 Richard Handler (1986) explores the relation between the historic construction of the concept of authenticity and the production of a common paradigm in anthropology which allowed to view cultured as bounded units. Thus, the concept of authenticity has to be understood as the a construction embedded in western cultural history and colonial past instead of a universal concept through which cultural differences can be valued.

(23)

Instead, what makes the ljipaaisykjen an important social phenomenon in Netherlands are the particular conditions in which determined ways of representing cultural and identity become politically relevant under specific contextual conditions. Although Jensma is interested in finding the underlying material cause behind the popularity of ljipaaisykjen in Friesland, I am more concerned with the particular expressive style that characterizes the reconfiguration of the practice as a manifestation of Frisian singularity.

As is the case with many constructions of nationality, Frisian nationalism is a product of romantic thought during the nineteenth century. Frisian nationalism was never strongly marked by a highly separatist or political tone, something which still marks the characteristics of Frisian identity politics today. It was rather a movement sparked by a desire to retain certain distinctive markers of Frisian uniqueness, specifically the language, against what was seen to be a rapid change in society due to progressive modern rationalization of quotidian life, and the hegemony of a centralized Dutch state (Penrose, 1990: 436).

In its initial stage, the search for an 'authentic' Frisian tradition was part of an active process of intellectuals and elites to contribute to the construction of the Dutch nation by finding original values and virtues. Hence, this first process was characterized by a sense of regional identity in terms of a desire to conform to the emergence of a unified and stable Dutch state (Jensma, 1996: 226-228; Penrose, 1990: 435).

The emigration of this elite sector allowed middle and lower segments of the province to have more active participation in the construction of Frisian nationalism. In turn, these new actors changed the dynamic of the early politics of identity in Friesland as they looked to strengthen the notion of Friesland as a different territory, and searched for ways of recovering what they seemed to be a lost sense of authenticity due to Dutch cultural hegemony. Yet, the Dutch state was effective in undermining any desire of strong political separatism by granting certain concessions in the shape of cultural rights (Jensma, 1996: 229; Penrose, 1990: 457; Van der Kooi, 1996: 152).

What is specifically relevant about this history, is that the Frisian language has been at the forefront of the history of this process of Frisian identity politics (Penrose, 1990: 436; Van der Kooi, 1996; 149). Therefore, the political nature that the ljipaaisykjen has taken for Frisian enthusiasts of the practice represents a particular inflection in the production of provincial difference. In this context, ljipaaisykjen is part of a larger set of representations of Friesland as a rural province, celebrated in a romantic and nostalgic way (Jensma, 2009: 34; Keppley Mahmood, 1990: 74; Penrose, 1990: 430). For example, Roodbergen defined ljipaaisykjen in the following way: 'The egg

(24)

collecting is in my view a way of living and coming to terms and peace with the surrounding nature'.17_{What these representations tend to highlight is the idea that in the simple life of the rural} farmer of Friesland there are valuable organic ways of regulating social relations that contrasts with the rationalization process of the modern and industrial condition. This is a theme I will regularly return to in following chapters, as it is key to understand how different interlocutors make sense in contrasting ways of the political stakes behind ljipaaisykjen. For now it is important to note how such imaginaries influence the representation of ljipaaisykjen as an aesthetic and emotional experience in which the practitioner comes to learn about nature's dynamics, as Roodbergen's words echo.

Such narratives of Frisian uniqueness are relevant for the aaisikers and the BFVW in the present because they provide an important counter-argument against the environmentalist discourse. In my interpretative analysis, the ljipaaisykjen political tone reflects a worry underlying expressions of Frisian identity politics, which is the external rule of social life in the province from the urban centers of the Netherlands. This is presented in the interpretation Roodbergen gave of the

ljipaaisykjen struggles :

'There has been a kind of fierce struggle on the level of organizations, even ending in court, between those who wanted to preserve the very old tradition (ljipaaisykjen) and those who wanted to get rid of it as fast as possible. I think it was a small kind of war between the rural and the urban way of dealing with nature.'18

This is a persistent view through which the conflict with environmental organizations is often generalized in the word of aaisikers. It is a discourse of particular importance to the BFVW as an organization that looks to have a voice in the definition of policies and practices of nature governance in Friesland, as well as being an example for the rest of the country. Marco Hoekstra, Secretary of the BFVW, made the point of establishing Frisians to have a stronger predisposition towards nature conservation by saying:

There are in Friesland 5,000 volunteers and in the whole of the Netherlands there are 10,000. I think it is because of the egg seekers, that we are allowed, instead of the other parts of the Netherlands where it is not allowed. So this is a very unique combination.'19

Hoekstra's words were directed at creating a link between lapwing egg collecting, the BFVW as the central organization in its dynamic, and Friesland, to distinguish the province from its national 'others'. The fact that there are more conservationist volunteers in Friesland is raised as evidence

17 Taken from an email correspondence (December 5, 2013). 18 Taken from an email correspondence (December 5, 2013). 19 Taken from an interview on January 22, 2013.

(25)

that Frisians must be recognized as important actors of what political scientist Van der Heijden (2005:442) understands to be a new political field generated by nationwide discussions on nature conservation and management. Different organizations and actors strive to become authoritative voices in this new area of territorial and social management, gaining political representativity, and institutional resources. Indeed, as I was told on different occasions by members of the organization, Willem Bosgra and Mient Douma, the BFVW currently manages the allocation of government and European Union economic incentives for wildlife protection for private farmers.

This is not to undermine that there is in fact a strong conviction that aaisikers share that their practices are aimed at preserving meadow birds, such as the lapwing. The access to political representativity does allow the BFVW to maintain a stable institutional structure that the directive of the organization strives for. But it is the more complex feature of social distinction that being prominent members of a network of essentialist provincial inclination to nature conservation which in my opinion incite aaisikers to stress the link between lapwing egg collecting, and desire to preserve the lapwing. This was evident in the fact that I was often invited by aaisikers after our conversations to see examples of the work they conducted in nature preservation areas. Through this, aaisikers aimed at establishing their strong commitment with the lapwing conservation, while also highlighting the social participation and network of relations they constructed in this field of social practice.

My aaisiker interlocutors would constantly refer to criticism and current state restrictions to the practice of ljipaaisykjen as elements that came from 'outside'. They would even reflect on the hierarchical relation between Frisians, and the rest of the country, by also insisting that lapwing egg collecting prohibition discourses and policies were produced from 'above'. In this regard,

ljipaaisykjen is embedded in a process in which perceived forms of political hegemony look to be

contradicted, by actors who see themselves as politically marginalized because of their provincial condition. Thus, it must be understood that this inflection and insistence of the ljipaaisykjen as a marker of Frisian identity is triggered by a specific political context in which determined actors are interested in participating in the present social field of nature governance.

By the decade of the 1960's, the market for lapwing eggs began to fade, as upper classes in the main international markets for Frisian eggs began to be turned away from its consumption. The importance that the purely enthusiastic ljipaaisykjen acquired in Friesland made it possible for the practice to continue to be part of the social life of the province, while it succumbed to the pressure of an ever-growing sensitivity towards animal care in the rest of the country and in other parts of

(26)

Europe. When the commercialization of lapwing eggs was prohibited in the Netherlands in 1993, the motivation for Frisian aaisikers to preserve the practice had long stopped being any kind of economic incentive (Breuker, 2012: 96). Instead, a new circumstance for Frisian construction of particularity through ljipaaisykjen has emerged as new nature governance practice influence fresh ways of political practice.

(27)

CHAPTER II

INTO THE FRISIAN MEADOWS: DIFFERENCE MAKING IN THE LJIPAAISYKJEN PERFORMANCE

Introduction

In the previous chapter, I argued that the aaisikers strive for legitimate participation in the context of politics of nature governance. This, however, leaves us with the question of why ljipaaisykjen cultural legitimacy is being stressed when environmentalists insist that the practice contradicts national interests of nature conservation. This chapter describes the narratives that aaisikers produce of themselves, and of others through the representations and performance of ljipaaisykjen and related practices. It centers around my ethnographic experience during the ljipaaisykjen season of March 2013. I aim to show how these identity messages rely on an idealized notion of what Frisian society is and should be, locating the aaisiker as the privileged holder of determined social virtues. I argue that ljipaaisykjen representations are related to the reproduction of determined social and gendered relationships.

In the first section of this chapter, I will present the representations of the Frisian landscape, that are central to perceptions of an emotional experience as part of a shared sense of uniqueness of

aaisikers. The next section follows my experience of participant observation as I learned about the

framework of abilities and knowledges about the lapwing that constitute a set of shared a valuable meanings and symbols.

I then deal with how aaisikers interpret the ljipaaisykjen as an experience of freedom. I analyze the paradox that this interpretation entails amidst the current format of lapwing egg collecting as a heavily regulated institutional practice, and the tacit political statement that this implies.

Next, I will look into the importance of material culture that is constructed around the

ljipaaisykjen, on the basis the private collections that enthusiastic aaisikers gather. I suggest this

process, is particularly relevant in defining motives and messages of how aaisikers represent themselves.

In the fourth section I detail the significance of the ceremony to present the first egg found in the province to the Commissioner of the Queen, through my observations of this ritual during the

(28)

political expression of provincial proselytism, but characterized by the exclusive presence of a specific elite sector of the network of ljipaaisykjen support. Thus, I will show how the ceremony is characterized by an ambivalence of social differences, despite the fact that it is presented as a celebration that represents Frisian society.

I then go on to explore the relation between ljipaaisykjen and the naturalizations of determined social relations. I expose the contradiction in which the ljipaaisykjen is referred to as an activity that originated within the rural sector of the the province, yet in the present there is an ambivalent relation towards the figure of the 'farmer'. Finally, I present the relation between

ljipaaisykjen and the naturalizations of determined gendered relations, as the ljipaaisykjen is tacitly

portrayed as a male centric practice. Ultimately, this chapter looks to contribute to the understanding of the relationship between identity representation and the production of narratives of differences in the context of ljipaaisykjen and Frisian construction of particularity.

The Wet Meadow Fields of Friesland

The landscape of the meadow fields of Friesland is an important element of the ljipaaisykjen discourses. Criss-crossed by a network of ditches, these fields compromise much of the view of the Frisian rural countryside, even mustering a sense of monotony. The flatness of the landscape is one of the defining characteristics, which allows an extended view into the horizon. On different occasions I was told a similar narrative by aasiker enthusiast, recounting how enjoyable the experience of being in the outdoors in Friesland is, as it pleasantly stimulates the senses. 'You just get this feeling that you can't describe, you are out there all by yourself, no care in the world, just green all around you', explained an enthusiast aaisiker as we walked through meadow fields. Such emotions are conveyed to characterize a sense of identity amongst the aaisikers.

(29)

The Frisian landscape is characterized by a strong presence of agriculture, and large portions of it have been reclaimed from the sea (Penrose, 1990: 430). Yet, despite the heavily man-made conditions of this landscape, the relation between the aaisiker emotions and the contact with 'nature' is central to describing the ljipaaisykjen. The agricultural landscape constitutes 'nature', when opposed to highly urbanized land, that conveys a sense of more morally acceptable conditions of the less intervened territory. The lapwings, and other types of meadow bird, are constantly evoked by

aaisikers to determine how the Frisian landscape can be given significance as a 'natural'

environment. Thus, this gives ground to a central discourse of ljipaaisykjen support politics, that establishes that no harm is produced to the lapwing because its practitioners have a long history of emotional connection with 'nature'.

The landscape is understood to be a common ground that signifies a shared sense of rootedness. 'There is no place I would ever imagine living different than this, I would never choose a different land to be in because there is non with so much nature like the meadows of Friesland' explained aaisiker and BFVW representative Gerrit Jansen.20_{Hence, it is the special distinctiveness} of the meadow landscape of Friesland which makes it an identifying symbol.

It was common to hear expressions such as 'the meadows are a part of me', or 'you just grow with nature by your side here in Friesland' in my conversations with aaisikers. The meadow fields, with a special emphasis to its wildlife, is connected to the romantic imagination of a fulfilling life that can only be found in Friesland, and which the practice of ljipaaisykjen helps to discover. This

20 Taken from an interview on March 21, 2013.

(30)

in turn led to statements by aaisikers of how they would experience a prohibition of lapwing egg collecting in Friesland in an embodied sense such as, 'it's as if they would take a part of me', as an enthusiast aaisiker, Martin, explained.21

A constant theme in my conversations with aaisikers, who were usually older adults, were the transformations the landscape of Friesland has underwent because of growing urbanism, and the introduction of more industrialized, and intensive farming methods. They expressed a nostalgic sense of loss of what was once a landscape filled with life, where the lapwing could be seen in large numbers and eggs were collected by the old and young alike. Additionally, ljipaaisykjen was more deeply rooted in the cultural life of Friesland.

There is a relation between an idealized landscape of the past and a Frisian society in which

ljipaaisykjen had a central role. This in turn contrasts with a present society in which the

nature-loving aaisiker is understood to have a progressively more marginalized position in Friesland. As a member of the BFVW board, Willem Bosgra, expressed:

'The young people today are more worried about what is on television or what kind of Ipod or Iphone you have, than about learning about nature and the lapwing. We sometimes worry that our love for nature will not pass on to the next generation My sons are not interested in going in the fields'.22

In Bosgra's account, differences are shaped by imagined generational boundaries, with the influence of global media and technology becoming a threat to naturalized local values that the aaisikers personify. This narratives builds upon a common trope in which globalization and the social change it produces responsible for the menacing loss of what are seen as positive local original values (See Appadurai, 1990: 295).

These narratives serve a dual purpose. For one, it distances the aaisiker from the process of deterioration of that the Frisian landscape and the dwindling numbers of the lapwing in Friesland. Instead, it highlights how this has come about because of larger social transformations out of the control of the aaisiker, leaving him with a nostalgic yearning for an idealized past. In a second sense, it justifies the fact that there is a need to preserve ljipaaisykjen, because aaisikers are becoming a less prominent part of their own society, and thus the value of nature admiration is being lost. In other words, it helps vindicate their political position as they portray themselves as the exclusive retainers of such values.

The concept of landscape is therefore central to aaisikers ideas of Frisian society in the

21Taken from an interview on March 5, 2013. 22Taken from an interview on January 22, 2013.

Lapwings, landscapes, and difference : an ethnography of Ljipaaisykjen in Friesland