Ella Marie Sandbakken

Many societies experienced pushback against governmental COVID‐19 measures. When the Norwegian government made it a punishable offence to spend the night at privately owned cabins in the first phase of the pandemic, this resulted in discussions and pushback. Basing our research on in‐depth interviews at three different time points during the pandemic, we ask how Norwegian participants discursively explain why the cabin ban was the first measure that evoked pushback in Norway. We conducted a Foucauldian discourse analysis (FDA), exploring three overarching explanations provided by the interview participants. In the first explanation, the pushback was presented as a result of the cultural importance of the cabin. Here, participants partly legitimised the pushback when constructing it as a predictable reaction in this cultural context. In the second explanation, participants constructed the pushback as an expression of ‘cabin people’ in particular and Norwegians in general being ‘too privileged’ to acknowledge the measure's necessity. Here, the pushback was constructed as an illegitimate reaction. In the third explanation, participants explained the pushback as a result of people seeing the measure as meaningless. This interpretation constructs pushback as a legitimate response to an illogical measure. These different constructions illustrate the complexity of compliance with COVID measures, where people negotiated individual freedom against solidarity, and compliance against critical thinking. The article contributes to the understanding of people's negotiations of resistance and pushback against restrictive measures. We argue that social psychological theory and research need to acknowledge the temporal, contextual and ideological specificities in understanding compliance and non‐compliance.