Uppsatsens syfte är att undersöka hur bakgrund, ålder, familjesituation, arbetskraft, förändring av social ställning och flyttningar sett ut för torparna på Skälby gård i Kalmar kring år 1890. Därtill att, om möjligt, peka på faktorer som lett till minskning av antalet torpare på Skälby gård. Främst kyrkobokföring har legat till grund för undersökningarna. Resultatet visar att torparna på Skälby gård år 1890 hade hög ålder och var gifta. De hade många barn, varav flera vuxna, som stannade hemma som arbetskraft. Torparna hade liknande social ställning som sina föräldrar och flyttade inte så långt. Få blev arbetare och emigration var relativt vanligt i gruppen. De ser ut att ha strävat efter självägande.

This thesis investigates the semantic values of the two concepts “smallholding” (Swe. “småbruk”) and “smallholder farmer” (Swe. “småbrukare”), as well their role and function as central concepts in the public debate about the “agricultural rationalisation” (Swe. “jordbrukets rationalisering”) reform initiated by the Swedish government together with industry actors in the late 1940s. Studying articles in the newspapers published by two Swedish farmers’ associations, as well as government documents and political pamphlets, I employ the concept of “temporalisation” developed by Reinhart Koselleck as part of his theory on conceptual history in order to identify implicit and biased expectations on “modernity” ruling against smallholding as a viable form of farming in the future. I also study how rationalisation advocates’ descriptions and opinions are contested in the writings of smallholder activists and practicians. I argue that the meanings and associations attributed to smallholding and its modus operandi in the late 1940s, strongly influenced by the “agricultural rationalisation” debate of the time, disqualified it from any modernising project on grounds that were oftentimes ideological rather than rational or factual. I further argue that a misunderstanding of the modus operandi and purpose of smallholder farming, prompted by the application of industrial concepts and ideals as well as undue comparisons with other trades and professions, exaggerated the poor socio-economic status of smallholder families. This resulted in a temporalisation of the “agricultural rationalisation” debate, depicting large-scale industrial agriculture as a thing of the future and smallholding as a thing of the past.