The Norwegian Dugnad in Times of COVID-19

ABSTRACT

On 12 March 2020, the Norwegian government instigated measures to limit the spread of COVID-19, the most drastic policies of any Norwegian government in peacetime. A particularly Norwegian metaphor used when introducing those measures concerned the “dugnad” tradition, a cultural practice of voluntary work carried out as a community. This article traces the trajectory of dugnad metaphors related to COVID-19 in Norwegian public discourse, to shed light on the aptness of their use. Aptness is measured in terms of “resonance,” the public reception to the metaphor. It follows a threefold categorization: imposition, endorsement, or resistance, all of which are divided into inductively developed subcategories. The data consists of all relevant concordances of the lexeme DUGNAD appearing from March 2020-June 2021 in one of the three largest Norwegian national online newspapers. Findings indicate that the imposition of the dugnad struck a chord with the Norwegian people; supportive statements far outweighed those of opposition and continued throughout the investigated period, even though national government officials mostly stopped using the dugnad metaphor after May 2020. Resistance was nevertheless also present from the outset, reaching a renewed peak around March 2021. Aptness thus varies over time, a finding with implications for future pandemic communication.

Introduction

On 12 March 2020, Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg stood on a podium, flanked by the director of the Institute of Public Health, her Minister of Health and her Minister of Justice. There she announced the most drastic restriction of personal freedom in the country during peacetime, all in response to the threat of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and its associated disease, COVID-19. In a speech that lasted six minutes and eight seconds, Solberg shut down Norway.

On that day all kindergartens, schools and universities were closed, as were hairdressers, fitness centers, swimming pools and non-essential healthcare providers. In the following days, passenger traffic at airports and harbors was halted. Foreigners were forbidden entry without a critical reason. Even more intrusive measures followed in the weeks to come, as Norwegians responded by hoarding toilet paper, pasta, yeast, and canned goods. Many were laid off, such that by March 23^rd, 10.4% of the workforce was unemployed, the highest unemployment figure since the 1930s (Government.no, n.d.; Norsk Telegrambyrå, 2021).

As similar scenes were playing out around the world, governments, health authorities, the media, public institutions – indeed, everyone – required ways to communicate about such an unprecedented global emergency. As a consequence, “from its very beginning, the global understanding of the pandemic was a metaphorical one” (Olza, Koller, Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Pérez-Sobrino, & Semino, 2021, p. 100). Metaphor provides us with a means of discussing complex ideas in terms of more concrete entities, whereby certain real or perceived qualities of a source domain are mapped onto those of a target domain (see e.g. Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). It facilitates communication, and is “used to persuade, reason, evaluate, explain, theorize, offer new conceptualizations of reality and so on” (Semino, 2008, p. 31). Especially in public discourse, metaphors can help convince the audience of a particular point of view, being persuasive due to their emotional impact (Charteris-Black, 2004, pp. 10–11). By highlighting some aspects of the relevant topic while backgrounding others, metaphors have the potential to shape our beliefs, judgments and evaluations, covertly influencing how we think (e.g. Thibodeau, Hendricks, & Boroditsky, 2017).

In her March 12^th speech, the prime minister appealed to a particularly Norwegian tradition, using it to try to persuade citizens to adhere to and support the government’s emergency measures:¹

The virus spreads when people gather together and are near each other. It is therefore absolutely vital that every citizen participate in a dugnad to slow the virus down. We will do this in solidarity with the elderly, the chronically ill and others who are particularly vulnerable to becoming seriously ill. We must all protect ourselves, to protect others. We will stand together during this period – not by hugs or handshakes – but by maintaining distance. This demands a lot from each and every one of us. We need to care for each other and help each other as best we can. [45 seconds]

[…]

In Norway we stand together when needed. We mobilize in dugnads and cooperation in small and large communities. This is more important now than ever before. The virus is so contagious that we cannot touch each other. But we will take care of each other. [18 seconds]

Solberg, 12.03.2020 Aftenposten

The term “dugnad” refers it its non-metaphorical sense to the widespread Norwegian cultural practice of voluntary work carried out as a community, a tradition firmly grounded in Norwegian heritage and history. These voluntary activities differ from charity in that they benefit some aspect of the collective good, typically being held to support kindergartens and schools, neighborhoods, sports organizations, etc (see e.g. Lorentzen & Dugstad, 2011; Simon & Mobekk, 2019). Whereas prototypical dugnads involve manual labor (i.e. spring cleaning, garden work, building maintenance, etc.), the meaning of the term shifts when used metaphorically, from its physical sense to a rhetorical sense. Even before the pandemic, government officials had promoted so-called “political” dugnads to garner support for their policies and mandates, using the concept as a tool to whip up a sense of collective responsibility for issues that cannot be resolved by just a few people on their own: e.g. flyktningdugnad [refugee dugnad] and klimadugnad [climate dugnad] (see Hungnes, 2023). That roughly one minute of this momentous speech – one-sixth of its duration – was related to the dugnad metaphor gives an indication of its perceived importance at such a historic occasion.

This study traces the trajectory of dugnad metaphors related to the coronavirus pandemic in Norwegian public discourse, both immediately prior to and following Solberg’s March 12^th speech – that is, during the period from March 2020 through June 2021. This research aims to shed light on the aptness of the dugnad metaphor when used about the pandemic, with aptness defined as “the extent to which a comparison captures important features of the topic” (Chiappe, Kennedy, & Chiappe, 2003; see also van Poppel and Pilgram, 2003, p. 314). In this study, aptness is measured in terms of “resonance,” the reception to the dugnad metaphor by members of the public, as indicated in online newspaper articles.

Following this introduction, section 2 presents background information contextualizing the present research. The study’s primary data and methods are subsequently detailed in section 3. Findings are then presented and discussed in section 4, focusing on examples of the different types of resonance in the data. Finally, section 5 closes the article with concluding thoughts.

Background

Section 2.1 first discusses international research about metaphor in COVID-19 communication. The two subsequent subsections then shift the focus to the Norwegian context: section 2.2 provides an explanation of the meaning of the Norwegian dugnad, crucial for understanding its meaning when used as a metaphor, while section 2.3 outlines previous research concerning the use of the dugnad metaphor during the pandemic. Finally, section 2.4 defines the concept of resonance in terms of three main categories: imposition, endorsement, and resistance.

Metaphor and COVID-19

One of the most frequently used metaphors about the pandemic in public discourse and social media was the war metaphor, and with good reason. War is serious (and deadly) business, prompting people to immediately grasp the urgency of the situation and the concurrent need to alter behavior and even sacrifice themselves for the greater good (Semino, 2021, p. 2). It promotes a consensus about the importance of leadership, solidarity and a need for a collective response in times of crisis (Maier & Kumekawa, 2020, p. 4). War also provides a complex and versatile frame allowing for multiple explanatory correspondences: e.g. enemy = virus, invasion = contagion, soldiers = nurses, weapons = medicine, commander-in-chief = head of state, war casualties = COVID-19 fatalities, etc (Chatti, 2021, p. 38). That said, the war framing also has potentially negative effects: it may encourage fatalism (especially if the “war” is protracted), disproportionately raise anxiety and fear levels, promote xenophobia in a search for scapegoats or enemies, lead to guilt on the part of patients (“fighters”) who may “lose the battle” against the virus, and increase the risk of authoritarianism as extraordinary measures are licensed (see e.g. Semino, 2021, p. 3; Štrkalj Despot & Ostroški Anić, 2021, pp. 200–202; Wicke, Bolognesi, & Athanasopoulos, 2020, p. 5).

As a reaction to criticism against the negative-laden war metaphor, together with the recognition of the need for a broad range of metaphors to capture a more universal view of the pandemic, the #ReframeCovid movement was launched in late March 2020: “an open, collaborative and non-prescriptive initiative to collect alternatives to war metaphors for COVID-19 in any language, and to (critically) reflect on the use of figurative language about the virus, its impact and the measures taken in response” (Olza, Koller, Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Pérez-Sobrino, & Semino, 2021, p. 98). The primary product of the initiative was an open-source document of non-war-related verbal and visual metaphors from around the world addressing the pandemic (including an example of the dugnad metaphor from a Norwegian source).²

The #ReframeCovid information has proven a fruitful source of primary data for articles investigating non-war-related COVID-19 metaphors. Pérez-Sobrino, Semino, Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Koller, and Olza (2022), for instance, researched novel (often one-shot) multilingual and multimodal figurative ways of conceptualizing the pandemic, adding to our understanding of metaphor creativity in communication. By contrast, Semino (2021) focused particularly on fire metaphors in the #ReframeCovid collection, discussing their aptness for the situation, as well as their suitability as an alternative to war metaphors. By way of example, she discusses how the life cycles of forest fires can be metaphorically extended to the different phases of a pandemic; even when the crisis seems to be nearing its end, one still needs to be wary of embers that could cause a fire to rekindle (pp. 54–55). The present research adds a further perspective to the research on metaphor in pandemic communication, investigating the use of common metaphor specific to a single country rather than more universal metaphors, shedding a Norwegian light on the current research that also has potential implications for pandemic communication.

The Norwegian dugnad

The term “dugnad” is sometimes translated to English as “collective effort,” but this translation falls short in conveying its true meaning. Simon and Mobekk explain that the dugnad is a Norwegian cultural practice, “a sort of voluntary work done as a community or collective. Traditionally, dugnad is a way of solving local common tasks by means of collective efforts from the community” (Simon & Mobekk, 2019, p. 818). Dugnads are rooted in Norwegian tradition dating to the 1200s, most likely originating from the growth of isolated agrarian communities in the rugged Norwegian landscape, where people depended on each other’s help to survive and thrive. After the second world war, the dugnad concept flourished during the development of Norway’s modern welfare state, surviving the transition from the past to the present (Simon & Mobekk, 2019, p. 820; Stenøien & Tønseth, 2022, p. 67). It is closely linked to concepts of Norwegian identity, a tradition that instills pride (Ługowska, 2020, p. 55): “Almost all Norwegians, including immigrants, have a relationship to dugnad and a spontaneous understanding of what it means, and many people take initiation and participation for granted” (Simon & Mobekk, 2019, p. 830). Typical dugnads are carried out on behalf of kindergartens and schools, sports teams, neighborhood associations, and other organizations, and include activities ranging from spring cleaning to building. Local sports associations depend upon dugnad work to save their members expenses that otherwise would have to be covered through membership fees.

Dugnads are not philanthropic events. Rather, they involve an element of self-interest: participants rake leaves because they have an interest in the cause or are members of the benefitting community. The concept of dugnad is thus coherent with the Norwegian welfare mentality, that “doing something good for the common good is also acting in one’s own personal interest” (Nilsen & Skarpenes, 2022, p. 265). Any short-term disadvantages (e.g. participants must sacrifice a Saturday to paint fences) are outweighed by the long-term benefits of the accomplished tasks as well as social coherence, as group identity is strengthened through interaction serving a common purpose (Myhre, 2020, p. 326). Dugnad as a concept is inextricably linked to other values prized in the Norwegian society such as those of solidarity and responsibility (Stenøien & Tønseth, 2022, p. 67).

Further, all dugnads involve a measure of economic value: a dugnad arises to fill the gap between a group’s needs or wants, and its financial situation (Lorentzen & Dugstad, 2011, p. 197). Dugnads are also egalitarian: everyone contributes according to their own abilities, (manually) working to achieve a common goal. They take place over a defined, (typically short) time period, with a set start and end. And dugnads are social, often including a shared meal, thereby enforcing feelings of inclusion and group identity (Lorentzen & Dugstad, 2011, pp. 12–14).

Finally, there is no legal obligation to join a dugnad, such that lack of participation cannot be legally penalized (Lorentzen & Dugstad, 2011, p. 66). That said, there is a strong moral obligation to participate, and dugnads are in this sense never completely voluntary (De Lauri & Telle, 2020, p. 2). It is important that as many as possible join in (Hungnes, 2023). Although something like illness licenses nonparticipation, “[o]n a long-term basis, non-participation is socially unacceptable” (Simon & Mobekk, 2019, p. 828). That said, some degree of absenteeism is not unusual, but is usually conducted in a surreptitious manner, through e.g. claiming of important previous obligations making participation impossible. Alternatively, people might pay their way out of participation, but this too is often frowned upon because “dugnad participation is perceived as a vital part of belonging to neighborhoods, organizations and workplaces” (Simon & Mobekk, 2019, p. 828).

Corona dugnad research

Most research concerning the corona dugnad discusses how it relates to values of solidarity and responsibility in the Norwegian welfare state. For instance, Nilsen and Skarpenes (2022) analyze the notion of dugnad in the context of the first weeks after the pandemic’s outbreak, finding that activities typically associated with dugnads were transformed from togetherness to (social) distancing. Nevertheless, they find “despite this, [Solberg’s] reference to dugnad was not contested. On the contrary, people seemed to embrace it remarkably well, and the commitment to contribute […] was strong” (p. 264). Further, they find that while invocation of the dugnad spirit might not make sense outside of the Norwegian cultural context, a dugnad as an emergency response works well in Norway because the concept “is deeply embedded in the moral repertoire of the socially responsible citizen” (p. 269). Hungnes (2023) expands on the psychological mechanism at play, writing that when politicians invoke the dugnad concept in the wake of a crisis, “they push a button that mobilizes a sense of responsibility in people familiar with the importance of showing up for dugnads in the local community.” De Lauri and Telle (2020), writing about the then on-going effects of the corona dugnad in the city of Bergen, claim that the call to dugnad in response to the pandemic invited new forms of social control: both top-down policing with drones and helicopters, as well as moral policing from below. They warn about the threat to democracy: “social control from below has historically been a key component of autocratic regimes” (p. 5).

Stenøien and Tønseth (2022) explored how the concepts of citizenship and the corona dugnad were understood by young adults one year after the pandemic started. They find that the concept was very much alive for their informants, who also described the then ongoing dugnad as something “where everyone should participate, something that establishes a ‘we’” (p. 77), and also as a phenomenon exhibiting typical Norwegian characteristics of being rule-abiding, loyal, and trusting in the authorities (p. 72). Many of their informants’ points were coherent with the qualities of prototypical dugnads. As an example, people who broke or bent the corona dugnad rules were viewed as irritating (p. 73). Yet some informants reacted to areas where the two notions seemed to deviate – e.g. that the corona dugnad was mandatory rather than voluntary. They also pointed out that the corona dugnad – unlike a traditional dugnad – had no foreseeable end, no social meal at its conclusion, and that the cost of the corona dugnad is unusually high, taking the forms of death, unemployment, loneliness, etc. (p. 71).

Resonance

This article develops the term “resonance” to refer to the various reactions toward the corona dugnad evidenced in national newspapers, i.e. the ways in which the metaphor was received by the public. The term itself is a tuning metaphor. When it comes to the literal meaning of resonance, imagine introducing a stimulus to a tuning fork, causing sound waves to be sent to another tuning fork. If the incoming waves from the first fork share the same fundamental frequency as the second, the receiving fork will begin to oscillate at the same frequency with so-called “sympathetic vibrations.” If the frequencies of the two tuning forks do not match, then dissonance is the result.

With regards to the current research, the metaphorical stimulus is the imposition of the dugnad metaphor, that is, the official introduction, ensuring maintenance and/or bolstering of the metaphor. The endorsement category, defined as public support and/or acceptance of the dugnad metaphor, corresponds to the sympathetic vibrations in the tuning analogy. Finally, resistance to the metaphors corresponds to dissonance: “any form of opposition to the use of metaphor in a given context” (Wackers, Plug, & Steen, 2021, p. 69). Gibbs and Siman (2021, p. 671) explain that resisting metaphors may take various forms, including complete dismissal, disagreement with the phrasing, or promotion of an alternative metaphor.

Material and methods

The primary data for this article was retrieved from the Norwegian Newspaper Corpus, a monitor corpus that automatically downloads texts from 24 Norwegian online newspapers.³ All occurrences of the lexeme DUGNAD⁴ appearing from March 2020 through June 2021 in three Norwegian online newspapers – Aftenposten, Dagbladet and VG – were first downloaded. These papers were selected because they all rank among the most important commercial actors in the Norwegian media market (Sjøvaag, 2015). All are national news channels published in the “bokmål” variety of Norwegian, the overwhelming dominant of the language’s two official written standards (see Språkrådet, 2022). Aftenposten contains much hard news, covering topics of wide political, social and/or economic consequences, and is considered a quality newspaper. Both VG and Dagbladet are tabloid newspapers, containing more soft news than Aftenposten, with less reporting on politics and finance in favor of more on sports and lifestyle. In general, however, the Norwegian online newspaper landscape is rather homogenous, as the media market is not as polarized as in other parts of Europe or the US. They are all widely read: VG has the greatest readership, followed by Dagbladet and then Aftenposten (Sjøvaag, 2015).

The initial download resulted in a list of 2034 concordance lines containing occurrences of the singular, plural, definite and indefinite forms of “dugnad,” along with compounds such as noun+dugnad (e.g. koronadugnad [corona dugnad]), dugnad+noun (e.g. dugnadsånd [dugnad spirit]), and dugnad+adjective (e.g. dugnadsvillig [dugnad willing]). All instances where DUGNAD referred to 1) traditional dugnads unrelated to COVID-19, including dugnads that could not be held due to the pandemic,⁵ 2) other political dugnads (e.g. klimadugnad [climate dugnad]) and 3) dugnads resulting from the pandemic (e.g. vaksinedugnad [vaccine dugnad]) were then manually removed. Finally, the remaining concordance lines were grouped by the newspaper article in which they had appeared, to allow for a fuller understanding of their context.

As Figure 1 shows, this filtering process resulted in a total of 838 newspaper articles with one or more occurrence of the lexeme DUGNAD relating to the COVID-19 pandemic: 674 articles in 2020 and 164 articles in 2021. These occurrences peaked during the first quartile in 2020 (that is, March 2020),⁶ while the fewest occurrences appeared in the second quartile in 2021 at the tail end of the collection period. This indicates that a saturation point with sufficient data was reached, and any further data collection would have been unlikely to have yielded additional insight.

Figure 1. Articles per quartile.

Analysis adhered to a mainly inductive approach to the data, with coding conducted using the NVivo qualitative data analysis software. DUGNAD occurrences were first coded for objective qualities including date of publication and – where possible to identify – the producer of the DUGNAD utterance. These sources included national and local politicians, named experts in fields such as health, law or education, police authorities, newspaper editors or journalists, business leaders or entrepreneurs, representatives of sports and other associations, and celebrities, as well as members of the general public who often identified themselves in terms of a particular role or profession, e.g. student, nurse, patient, etc. All instances were also coded for resonance, the primary interest of this article. While the main divisions of this category – imposition, endorsement, and resistance – were conceived top-down, the subcategories for each type were developed bottom-up from the data.

Instances of imposition were identified based on the official role of the producer. More specifically, any statement issued by a sitting member of the national government (Prime Minister Solberg or a member of her cabinet) were categorized as instances of imposition; these statements were issued by those politicians with the authority to impose the national corona regulations. Imposition subcategories were then developed bottom-up by virtue of the content in the statements. By contrast, instances of both endorsement and resistance were categorized as such by virtue of their content only (some form of support or criticism, respectively), rather than who produced the statement. Only statements from national government official were excluded (and instead categorized as examples of imposition), because they invariably supported the dugnad and would thus have artificially inflated the numbers of endorsement instances.

Findings: imposition, endorsement, resistance

The following sections present the findings for all three categories of resonance, starting with imposition in section 4.1, and continuing with endorsement in section 4.2 and resistance in section 4.3. Each of these sections opens with an overview of the identified subcategories for each type of resonance, including brief definitions and explanations along with illustrative examples from the data. For the ease of readability, these overviews are presented in tabular form.

Imposition

The imposition category includes four subcategories: assertion, policing, praise, and (urgent) requests; see Table 1.

Table 1. Imposition subcategories: definitions, explanations, examples.

Assertion	Declaration or acknowledgment of the existence of a dugnad; Implementation of rules, regulations and laws
	Solberg’s March 12th speech, where she introduces the concept of dugnad while simultaneously imposing drastic restrictions on personal liberty, is an example (see section 1). At other times, we find cases where the existence of a dugnad against corona is mentioned as if it were a given, as in (1).
	It could be that our dugnad will last longer than we hope and wish for. Høie, 23.03.2020 Dagbladet
Policing	Enforcement of regulations; Criticism of individuals/groups for lack of participation
	This subcategory includes policing in its literal sense related to law enforcement, and is exemplified by many of the DUGNAD occurrences from the Minister of Justice. An example is (2), where Mæland launched the new term dugnadsprofitør [dugnad profiteer] in reference to employers “misusing” the dugnad by first laying off their employees, only to then force them to do the same work without pay. The policing subcategory also includes examples of moral policing, involving criticism of nonparticipation, as in Høie’s pointed response in (3) to a published opinion piece criticizing some of the government’s new restrictions.
	(2) Dugnad profiteers will be investigated, exposed and punished. Mæland, 27.04.2020 Aftenposten (3) This is a dugnad. Now it is no longer I anymore, but we. Høie, 16.03.2020 Aftenposten
Praise	Expression of approval for individuals/groups for their dugnad participation
	Government members frequently thanked and praised the Norwegian people for their general willingness to participate in dugnads, as well as for their actions supporting the corona dugnad specifically, as in (4).
	(4) We’ve managed to get through tough times before. With cooperation, dugnad spirit and stubbornness, we’ll also manage it this time. Solberg, 01.08.2020 Dagbladet
Request	Advice, encouragement or urging to participate in the dugnad
	Instances of this subcategory are recognized through the use of verbs such as be [request” and oppfordre [encourage]; see (5).
	(5) In March, we requested that the population join in a dugnad to stop the virus when we closed down society. Høie, 02.05.2020 VG

Figure 2 presents the numbers of occurrences of the dugnad metaphor observed in the data falling into the imposition category. Here we see that Solberg was the most prolific producer of the metaphor, followed closely by Minister of Health Høie, with Minister of Justice Mæland as a distant third. The remaining ministers occasionally referred to the corona dugnad when relevant for their portfolio.

Figure 2. Observed occurrences of the corona dugnad metaphor per member of government.

Figure 3 presents the numbers of observed occurrences of imposition dugnad metaphors for the period under investigation (the solid line), divided by subcategory (the columns).⁷

Figure 3. Observed occurrences of imposition instances: March 2020 – June 2021.

The figure shows that the government members used the dugnad metaphor mostly during the first three months of the pandemic, and then only intermittently afterward. In a Dagbladet article entitled Ikke lenger dugnad [No longer dugnad] dated 19 January 2021, Solberg said that she had “largely stopped using the word ‘dugnad,’” although just a month later on 19 February, she told Dagbladet that society “is opening up for children and youth, but it is still a dugnad.”

The most common subcategories of imposition were the assertion category, followed by that of praise. Policing, where government members criticized certain members of the public, was rare except for in statements from the minister of justice: she not only threatened dugnad profiteers, but also warned young people who gathered at parties despite the restrictions (a group that police also frequently complained about). Mæland’s policing statements, however, often combined criticism with praise: first praising Norwegians in general, before warning the minority who were trying to exploit the situation.

There are no instances of policing by Prime Minister Solberg: her role was assertive through the declaration and implementation of the dugnad, encouraging through her praise, and – in one instance – urging when VG reported that she “requests you and young people to join the dugnad during Christmas, so that we get out of the grip of corona in the new year” (24.12.2020 VG). That said, when the Government who lay down the law of the land “request” their citizens to obey, that request is just proforma. Certain aspects of the corona dugnad were not voluntary, something the Department of Justice emphasized in (6) regarding the quarantine restrictions for people entering the country in December 2020:

(6) Everyone who is quarantined is required to fulfill that quarantine in the right way, independent of border control. We all have to contribute to the dugnad. Breaking the quarantine rule can be penalized.

Department of Justice, 01.12.2020 VG

Endorsement

The endorsement category includes five subcategories: exhortation, participation, assertion, policing, and praise. While exhortation and participation are unique to the endorsement category, the remaining three subcategories overlap with the imposition type of resonance, see Table 2.

Table 2. Endorsement subcategories: definitions, explanations, examples.

Exhortation	Pleading or urging for participation in the corona dugnad
	Some of these instances, as in (7), used the same mild language as the national politicians when “requesting” Norwegians to participate in the dugnad. Many further examples were more emphatic, as in (8) where Oslo police beg young people not to party. Similar pleas came directly from people at particular risk (or from their loved ones), as well as from overwhelmed health personnel. Still others implored people to abide by the dugnad so that society need not completely shut down. In (9), for instance, a mother of six children advises people to do their part to ensure that the schools stay open.
	(7) The city council leader encourages Oslo citizens to stay home at Easter, with good books and family time. […] We will look back on this for a long time and say that we were collected in the dugnad. Oslo local politician, 01.04.2020 Dagbladet (8) Dear young people, please, drop the party. You might not fall ill, but consider your fellow citizens. Be compassionate and stay away from parties and gatherings with others. You can say that you have contributed to the dugnad. Oslo police, 13.03.2020 Dagbladet (9) Keep your children home from school. That fully corresponds with the dugnad spirit. Because if enough people do that, the schools won’t have to close, and doctors and nurses who have to work can keep their children there. Mother of six, 12.03.2020 Dagbladet
Participation	Volunteering; Description of own participation
	In contrast to the exhortation subcategory where people implore others to join in the dugnad, the participation category consists of utterances where people themselves volunteer for the corona dugnad or alternatively, explain measures that they are taking to contribute to the dugnad. In (10), for instance, a medical student begs to be allowed to use his newly developed skills to help in hospitals. By contrast, a professional influencer explains her own way of contributing to the dugnad during Christmastime in (11).
	(10) Use me! There are many of us who want to participate in this dugnad now. Medical student, 14.03.2020 VG (11) Speaking to Dagbladet, the 30-year-old woman says that she and her family will do their part in the dugnad by staying at home as much as possible this Christmas. Influencer, 24.12.2020 Dagbladet
Assertion	Declaration or acknowledgment of the existence of a dugnad
	The assertion subcategory consists of cases where the corona dugnad is simply asserted, mentioned as if its existence were in no doubt. It largely corresponds to the imposition assertion subcategory, except with respect to implementation of the pandemic restrictions, which only the prime minister and cabinet decided. A hairdresser provides an example of this type of endorsement in (12) in an opinion piece where she asks the public to not cut their hair themselves while the salons are closed, in solidarity with haircare professionals.
	(12) In Norway, we now have a dugnad to eradicate the COVID-19 pandemic. Hairdresser, 08.04.2020 Dagbladet
Praise	Expression of approval for individuals/groups for their dugnad participation
	The praise subcategory of endorsement corresponds to that of the imposition category, as Norwegians generally also expressed pride in their actions during the pandemic, along the same lines as national government officials; see (13).
	(13) We continuously hear about people who are willing to go to great lengths to help others. It has almost become a cliché to say so, but this is the Norwegian dugnad spirit at its very best. Member of Norwegian Young Conservatives, 25.03.2020 Aftenposten
Policing	Enforcement of regulations; Criticism of individuals/groups for lack of dugnad participation
	This endorsement subcategory is similar to the imposition policing subcategory in that both include literal policing on the part of law enforcers, as well as moral policing, albeit in inverse proportion with far more instances of moral policing by the general public that by members of the national government. As an example, a lawyer recounts in late March 2020 how an older woman had admonished her as she unintentionally almost came to stand closer than a meter away: “the heart-warming corona dugnad is developing a dark side” (27.03.2020 Aftenposten) as Norwegians turn into dugnadspoliti [dugnad police]. Xenophobic elements were also evident, as in (14) in a far-right politician’s scapegoating after the virus spread during a wedding celebration held in an immigrant community.
	(14) The Progress Party member points toward immigrant communities as being the worst offenders in the dugnad against the spread of the virus. Progress Party MP Erlend Wiborg, 08.12.2020 Dagbladet

Figure 4 presents the observed instances of cases of endorsement of the corona dugnad from March 2020 through June 2021. As we see in here, the start of the pandemic witnessed a surge of support for the corona dugnad, but with a steep decline toward the summer when it, for a time, seemed like society might be able to open again. Endorsement then rose as 2021 opened with new restrictions.

Figure 4. Observed occurrences of endorsement instances: March 2020 – June 2021.

That Solberg’s call to dugnad struck a chord with the Norwegian people is clear, and these examples of endorsement align closely with the many of the features of prototypical dugnads discussed in section 2.1. To be successful, dugnads require full participation: recognition of the importance of this is reflected by exhortation being the most frequent form of endorsement, followed by participation where people explain their own contributions to the dugnad. Further, absenteeism from dugnads is socially unacceptable, something reflected in the present data by the relatively high degree of policing, especially moral policing criticizing the perceived lack of participation by some. Endorsement statements also focused on appeals for solidarity and (temporary) sacrifice for the common good (e.g. keep your kitchen scissors away from your hair!), and in this way also align neatly with the basic characteristics of the Norwegian dugnad.

Moreover, the underlying rationale for dugnads, where ambitious goals can only be achieved through collective effort in an interconnected society, was also recognized and applied toward the on-going crisis. In February 2023, for example, a corona patient named Elene told her story to Dagbladet in an example of exhortation, reminding people of the importance of contributing to the corona dugnad: “At some point, you realize that your life depends upon the man sitting next to you on the train not coughing, or your neighbor not travelling by plane” (20.02.21 Dagbladet). In brief, it is in everyone’s interest to participate as – in Elene’s words – “anyone, regardless of their starting points, can be severely affected.” Further, pride linked to the virtues of dugnads and their perceived Norwegianness is manifested in instances of praise for contributions to the corona dugnad, either of individuals or groups (e.g. employees, sports clubs, young people, etc.) or of Norwegian society generally, as seen in (13).

Resistance

The resistance category includes five subcategories: insufficient, not dugnad, “yes, but”, no longer, and non-participation; see Table 3.

Table 3. Resistance subcategories: definitions, explanations, examples.

Insufficient	Expression that the response to the pandemic through a national dugnad is not enough
	This subcategory includes cases where the corona dugnad is said to be too weak as a response to the pandemic. In (15), the writer compares Norway’s implementation of a dugnad unfavorably with China’s more draconian (and presumably more effective) response. Here the writer advocates for a much stricter reaction than a dugnad presumably licenses, and is thus critical to the entire notion of dugnad in the pandemic context. By contrast, an economist in (16) complains that the government measures imposed as part of the corona dugnad are simply not enough, and instead calls for forcing dugnad participation, including a curfew in Oslo.
	(15) In China, hospitals are built in ten days, while here it takes us ten years to find a plot of land. In Norway, advice is given on travel restrictions, and we politely ask for a dugnad to fight COVID-19. Doctor, 11.03.2020 Aftenposten (16) Without the political will to force everyone to participate in the dugnad, the conscientious majority of the population must give up more freedom for a much longer period of time. Economist, 01.03.2021 Aftenposten
Not dugnad	Disagreement that the governmental measures against the pandemic are a dugnad
	Many instances classified in this subcategory criticize the measures as not aligning with traditional conceptions of dugnads. In (17), a pensioner reacts to the government’s imposition of a (temporary) cabin law that banned stays at cabins outside one’s home municipalities, maintaining that the corona dugnad is undemocratic. That the dugnad was obligatory rather than voluntary was also a focus of criticism, combined with the perception of inegalitarianism in the sense that some are contributing (that is, suffering) more than others; see (18). As an actor explains in an opinion piece entitled Dette er ingen dugnad [This is not a dugnad], “[s]ome can sit in their homes and isolate, […] while others HAVE TO go out in the world to survive” (08.01.2021 Dagbladet; uppercase script in the original). Other instances of the not dugnad subcategory are exemplified by (19), where a nurse writes that she is carrying out her job, not participating in a dugnad. This sentiment was expressed not only by and on behalf of healthcare practitioners, but also teachers.
	(17) It is not a dugnad spirit that is emerging in Norway; it is panic that triggers isolationism, an attack on our democracy. Pensioner, 15.03.2020 Aftenposten (18) There are some people – yes, many – who are offering far more than others in this national, obligatory “dugnad.” Most of the people who are losing the most in work life are precisely those who have the least from before. Author/philosopher/politician, 05.01.2021 Aftenposten (19) “Dugnad,” the minister of health called it. We didn’t call it dugnad. We called it a job. Nurse, 11.07.2020 Dagbladet
Yes, but	Willingness to participate, combined with reservations
	This subcategory includes instances where the producers stress that they are actively participating in the corona dugnad (yes), while at the same time they criticize various aspects (but). In (20), a researcher explains that dugnad participation is not necessarily easy, as it takes time to develop new habits. Other such mild forms of criticism come from citizens who overtly state that they are corona dugnad participants, but find the experience frightening or hope it will end soon. We see another form of yes, but criticism in (21), where a student who supports the dugnad nevertheless questions the wisdom of the implemented regulations and desires better justification and/or an adjustment of the rules. More serious criticism is expressed in (22), where the director of the Oslo Trade Association first asserts that his members are contributing toward the corona dugnad, while simultaneously warning that financial compensation will be needed – a sentiment also often expressed by e.g. Norwegian sports associations. Such demands break with the defining characteristics of the dugnad, i.e. that they are voluntary and uncompensated.
	(20) We – the people – are now asked to keep our distance and wash our hands. It sounds easy, and we are more than willing to participate in the dugnad, but it is not entirely simple. Researcher, 26.03.2020 VG (21) I do not want to neglect my responsibilities in the dugnad, but as far as I know, there hasn’t been any issue with the spread of the virus in study halls and school libraries. University student, 28.01.2021 Aftenposten (22) We are of course participating in the COVID-19 dugnad, recognize its seriousness, and hope that the lockdown measures will be brief. At the same time, the industry relies on compensation schemes. Director of Oslo Trade Association, 24.01.2021 Aftenposten
No longer	Expression that once was a dugnad is now over
	Instances in this subcategory express implicit or explicit agreement that the initial governmental response to the pandemic could be characterized as a dugnad, but that such a state cannot last indefinitely. For instance, in (23) a union leader warns that the pandemic response cannot be characterized as a dugnad indefinitely, while in (24), the mayor of a small town asserts in April 2021 that the accepted duration of dugnads had been exceeded.
	(23) There are limits to how long we can call it a dugnad. Union leader, 23.10.2020 Aftenposten (24) We see a clear change in mood among our citizens, from actively participating in the dugnad to a phase where people are tired and weary. Mayor, 17.04.2021 VG
Non-participation	Refusal to participate in the corona dugnad
	Here producers (at least implicitly) accept the underlying premise that the pandemic response is indeed a dugnad, but nevertheless refuse – or threaten to refuse – participation. We see this in (25), where a photographer demands certain conditions in return for supporting the dugnad. Note that this example of the non-participation type differs from examples of the yes, but type such as (21), in that while both criticize some aspects of what they agree is a dugnad, the student in the latter makes no threat of nonparticipation; to the contrary, he explicitly states his intention of continued support.
	(25) In order for the population to continue supporting the dugnad, it is important that the measures are targeted and logical. Photographer, 20.03.2020 Aftenposten

Figure 5 presents the observed occurrences of resistance to the dugnad metaphor from March 2020 through June 2021. The figure shows us that the dugnad metaphor was opposed in different ways throughout the period under investigation, with the most instances appearing in March 2020 at the outset of the pandemic – a finding contradicting Nilsen and Skarpenes (2022) who claim there was no opposition to the corona dugnad at this time (see section 2.2). While the number of observed occurrences of resistance to the corona dugnad was relatively low in both the summers of 2020 and 2021 as measures against corona lifted, we see that their numbers rise again in the fall of 2020 with a second peak in February/March 2021. This second period of resistance corresponded not only to the one-year mark of the pandemic’s start, but also to a new wave of infections causing the government in January 2021 to reimpose many of the strict measures from March 2020 (for instance, strict entry and quarantining rules). In addition, new restrictions were introduced: as an example, on 3 January 2021, the government implemented a national ban on serving alcohol, a measure so unpopular that it was overridden and rejected by the opposition only two weeks later (Government.no, n.d.; NTB, 2021).

Figure 5. Observed occurrences of resistance instances: March 2020 – June 2021.

Like examples of endorsement, instances of resistance also touched upon many of the elements of prototypical dugnads. But whereas occurrences of endorsement focused primarily as aspects related to solidarity, resistance centered on elements perceived to diverge from traditional dugnads. These included the indefinite, seemingly never-ending duration of the corona dugnad, the view that some people were sacrificing more than others, and the demand for compensation: all characteristics that are contrary to prototypical dugnads. That the corona dugnad was legally enforced rather than voluntary – something openly acknowledged in the imposition examples – was also a focus of criticism, especially among those who argued that the corona dugnad was not, in fact, a dugnad.

That said, the largest subcategory of opposition was yes, but, where the producer first emphasized their support of the dugnad before voicing criticism. Similar to traditional dugnads, the corona dugnad thus triggered a sense of (moral) obligation to participate, despite elements of opposition. Similarly, examples of non-participation were quite rare. The sway that the dugnad concept has among the Norwegian people therefore seemed to be true of the corona dugnad as well. While the avoidance of dugnad work is a recognized phenomenon, it is usually accomplished surreptitiously (e.g. pretending not to be home; see section 2.2). By contrast, publicly announcing the intention of refusing to participate in an on-going dugnad is almost unheard of – a characteristic that transferred to reactions to the corona dugnad.

Concluding thoughts

The overarching research question of this article examines the aptness of the corona dugnad metaphor, measured in term of resonance, i.e. the response it generated in public discourse over time. Figure 6 consolidates the quantitative findings outlined in sections 4.1 - 4.3, showing the observed occurrences during the period from March 2020 to June 2021 for all three types of resonance: imposition, endorsement and resistance.

Figure 6. Summary: observed occurrences of resonance types: March 2020 – June 2021.

The imposition of the corona dugnad by the national government in March triggered a wave of public support, with instances of endorsement far outnumbering those of both imposition and resistance. While government members more or less ceased employing the dugnad metaphor after May 2020, it nevertheless continued to receive attention in online newspapers until mid-2021, when it faded away. Before then, endorsement of the corona dugnad held fairly constant, after its initial dive during the first three months of the pandemic. Pushing the “dugnad button” (see section 2.3) thus met with an immediate and powerful positive response in public discourse.

That said, occurrences of resistance also persisted from the start of the pandemic, though at a lower rate than endorsement – with the single exception of February 2021 when there were more instances of resistance than endorsement. As noted in section 4.3, this period coincided with a reinstatement and fortification of COVID-19 restrictions, together with the one-year anniversary of the pandemic effects in Norway. While correlation does not necessarily entail causation, it nonetheless makes sense that shutting down society for a second time led to a rise in opposition.

Gibbs and Siman (2021) tell us that resistance to metaphor takes different forms. The present research provides further support of that finding, as opposition to the corona dugnad metaphor was varied. It ranged from people who felt that a dugnad was not a strong enough response (insufficient) to those who argued that term “dugnad” had been misappropriated. Not dugnad occurrences highlighted ways in which governmental measures diverged from the defining characteristics of traditional dugnads, e.g. through being inegalitarian and legally enforced rather than voluntary. Arguments mirrored concerns voiced by the informants in Stenøien and Tønseth (2022), who were also cognizant of the mandatory nature of the corona dugnad together with its (unduly) high cost. Perceived unreasonable governmental demands, such as the cabin ban, also prompted denouncement of the measures as being undemocratic. Further, the seemingly endless duration of the corona dugnad created resistance manifested primarily in the no longer subcategory, (often implicitly) contrasting its indefinite duration with the short and clearly defined length of typical dugnads. Such discrepancies thus triggered protests pointing out what some perceived at the inaptness of the corona dugnad metaphor, where a comparison between traditional dugnads and the corona dugnad was felt to be inappropriate.

At the same time, however, other instances of resistance accepted the dugnad metaphor. The primary example of this is the yes, but subcategory, the most frequent type of opposition in the data. While the producers of these statements took issue with certain aspects of the corona dugnad that contrasted with those of typical dugnads (regarding, for instance, the need for compensation), they nevertheless explicitly stated their willingness to participate in the dugnad. An underlying premise reflected in such statements is thus that the corona dugnad metaphor is an apt one for the situation, even though not all dugnad features are equally mapped.

Resistance to metaphor is not the only form of resonance that takes many forms: so too do both endorsement and imposition. Forms of endorsement ranged by strength of expressed support, from simple mentioning that a dugnad existed (assertion) to emphatic pleading for others to participate (exhortation). Such statements therefore reflected the perceived aptness of the dugnad metaphor, aligning with Norwegian values of solidarity and cohesion: we are all in the same boat. Working together, with everyone contributing as much as they are able and in their own ways, would prevent the continued spread of the virus and protect the weakest in society – just as in a traditional dugnad where everyone contributes with their own particular skills, all for the common good. In this way, the dugnad metaphor provides a positive-laden frame for understanding the pandemic response, unlike e.g. the war metaphor that may further promote fear. That said, the dugnad metaphor also triggered xenophobic reactions against those perceived as “other,” similar to possible responses to the war metaphor with its “us vs. them” frame: recall, for instance, the moral policing of a far-right politician in example 12.

With respect to imposition, we find that not all government members produced all forms. More specifically, Prime Minister Solberg never produced an instance of policing where she criticized individuals or groups, but rather restricted her statements mainly to assertion and praising. Policing fell – appropriately enough – mainly to the minister of justice. That the prime minister’s March 12^th call to dugnad met with such overwhelming positive long-term response indicates its perceived aptness by the public, despite the minority who criticized the metaphor from the start. Even so, government members failed to maintain any persistent use of the metaphor after May 2020; even Solberg’s use was inconsistent, with her issuing contradictory statements in 2021 concerning its endpoint. This shift from emphatic assertion to a more ambivalent usage may have resulted from the recognition (implicit or explicit) of some of the potential weaknesses of the metaphor. In this respect, the dugnad metaphor shares some of the properties of the war metaphor, i.e. although both may sometimes be necessary and may also generate enthusiasm at first, they become unpopular if they drag on and/or become too costly.

Indeed, had the pandemic restrictions already been lifted before the summer of 2020 as many had initially hoped for, the lion’s share of resistance to the corona dugnad might never have materialized. Any government measures – let alone such drastic ones such as those imposed by Solberg in March 2020 – are likely to be met by some voices of protest, especially from those most watchful for potential government overreach. But the present research shows that more frequent and more varied forms of resistance only appeared after a substantial period of time had gone by, and when there was still no foreseeable end to the pandemic in sight. We saw this when nurses complained that that they were carrying out their jobs rather than participating in a dugnad (19), when students asked for justifications for the implementation of seemingly senseless measures (21), when associations and organizations demanded compensation (22), and when various individuals independently declared the dugnad to be over (24).

A metaphor that is successful at the start of an emergency may therefore become less successful as time passes. Resonance is a fluid concept, and recognition that no one metaphor is “one-time-fits-all” has important implications for future pandemic communication. In Norway, invocation of the dugnad metaphor in any future crisis carries an element of calculated risk. The metaphor provokes resistance when applied to emergencies that drag out in time, unlike the forest fire metaphor where smoldering embers pose a substantial risk even after the main inferno has quieted and long-term wariness is thus warranted. The potential for supportive reactions to the imposition of a dugnad may nevertheless be substantial enough to weigh up for any protest, as does its positive framing. After all, dugnads are a valued tradition in Norwegian society, and the metaphor invokes salient entailments that are recognized by all. The dugnad metaphor can promote a collective response to the emergency while avoiding the potential fearmongering inherent in other metaphors such as war and fire. Even though dugnads may sometimes be inconvenient, they are never frightening.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

Replication and supplemental data that support the findings of this study are openly available in the online data depository DataverseNO at https://doi.org/10.18710/3JRV40.

Notes

¹ All translations are mine. The Norwegian source texts for all cited examples are available as supplemental data (see data availability statement).

² #ReframeCovid is available here: https://sites.google.com/view/reframecovid/home

³ Norwegian Newspaper Corpus Bokmål. 2020. Created by the project Norsk aviskorpus. Distributed by the CLARINO Bergen Centre: hdl:11495/D9B5-0349-4330-0

⁴ Throughout the article, the use of capital letters when referring to dugnads (i.e. DUGNAD) indicates reference to the lexeme.

⁵ For example, sports associations lost income because they were unable to hold traditional dugnads during the pandemic.

⁶ Note that no cases of DUGNAD relating to COVID-19 occurred in January or February 2020.

⁷ Figures 4–6 follow the same pattern.