Deconstructing the Nations of Europe

The following op-ed concerns Thomas Hylland Eriksen, a Norwegian intellectual who has dedicated himself to the deconstruction of the European nation state — specifically the Norwegian nation.

Our Norwegian correspondent The Observer, who translated the piece, includes this brief note:

This op-ed was published on Monday on the online discussion forum of the national broadcaster NRK. It deals with the European elites and their multicultural social experiment, and in particular with Thomas Hylland Eriksen.

The author Asle Toje is a Norwegian foreign policy scholar.

The translated op-ed:

Does Thomas Hylland Eriksen exist?

Leading intellectuals such as Thomas Hylland Eriksen have contributed to one of the greatest social experiments in recent times: The attempt to denationalize Europe, writes researcher Asle Toje.

Few things annoy me more than nationalists; perhaps only Norwegian anti-nationalists. One of the great social experiments in recent times is the attempt to denationalize Europe. Nation-building, which along with the welfare state was the 20th century’s largest projects, suddenly took a back seat. The national collective “us” which makes us Norwegians, Dutch and Spanish, went from being something positive to something negative, synonymous with the majority’s mistreatment of the minority.

Astonishingly few protested. Perhaps because such attempts at defending the nation made the defenders open to being labeled nationalist, and a nationalist is by definition a warmonger, racist and chauvinist — and thus not entitled to an opinion.

Like nailing jelly to the wall

So what constitutes a nation? To define national identity is like nailing jelly to the wall. Individuals do not live isolated lives, they live in groups and communities and these social ties influence our identities. The sociologist Anne-Marie Thiessen describes national identity as a set of symbols, such as a shared language and mentality, culture, monuments, distinct geographical features, national costumes, national cuisine and national symbols.

Today, Europe’s leading intellectuals want to move away from this definition of a nation. Instead they want the community to be based on the support of certain common values and beliefs. We have moved from: “I’m Irish because my ancestors were Irish,” to “I’m Irish because I believe in democracy.” The main difference is between being a “people” and being “a population”.

Us and them

This was considered essential in order to deal with large-scale immigration and to attempt to establish a European identity. This was how they intended to escape the “us” and “them” mentality, which the likes of Jonas Gahr Støre deem to be inextricably linked to nationalism. The assumption was that national identity is exclusive while an identity of values is inclusive.

But as the values that were meant to tie the old and new population groups together remained vague, the nation became something that had to be “questioned.” National culture and tradition were deconstructed and downplayed. All across Europe scholarly books were written which attempted to underline that the authors’ homelands had always been “nations of immigrants.” In Norway we had books such as ‘immigration history and Norway — a small piece of world history’.

Strangely enough, this also occurred in countries where this was a factual error, such as in Norway, where DNA research shows that the population until a generation ago was remarkably ethnically homogeneous. A handful of Hanseatic, some German public servants and a Sami minority don’t add up to a “nation of immigrants.”

Became spokespersons

Despite the shift being motivated by the desire to accommodate new compatriots, it was not the newcomers that expressed the desire to deconstruct the nation. The demand was made by those who claimed to speak on behalf of the immigrants, the very same voices that made themselves advocates of multiculturalism as a new form of national contract

Here in Norway the ever-present Thomas Hylland Eriksen was very influential. He was adamant that the nation state was outdated and justified his fundamental skepticism towards the nation-state with half-truths such as “nationalism can easily be defined with the doctrine that only ethnically similar people can live the same country”, a definition that even 19th century nationalists probably wouldn’t have subscribed to.

The world’s most inclusive society?

The Norwegian experience is not unique, but it is probably more caricatured than in many other countries. An elite consensus dictated that Norway should take the lead in the supposedly inevitable process towards a new, post-national world. Through looking solely at the factors that underpinned the desired conclusion, Hylland Eriksen concluded that nations are doomed to “fail”. And he was eager to expedite this supposed inevitable process in Norway.

The professor made it clear that his goal was to “deconstruct the majority and do it so thoroughly that it could never be called a majority anymore.” It should be pointed out that Eriksen subsequently tried to distance himself from that specific quote. It would have been easier to believe him if he weren’t referring to Norwegians with the self-composed derogatory term “Norskinger” [equivalent to Yanks, Canucks, Spics, etc. — translator].

Are we all Creoles?

Hylland Eriksen argues in the book “motgift” (Antidote) that Norwegians are indoctrinated from childhood to believe that we are a community. To prove that this isn’t the case, he asserts that the Christmas menus vary from region to region, and concludes that it is impossible to talk about Norwegian cultural commonalities. Because culture is an “extensive complex mosaic”, we are all “cultural Creoles.”

The problem with Hylland Eriksen’s mediocre attempts at deconstruction was illustrated in a witty exchange between the sociology professor Gudmund Hernes and historian Kåre Lunden. Hernes asked whether ‘Norwegianness’ had ever existed? And therefore our national identity had to be picked apart: We had stolen the flag from Denmark, May 17 (Constitution Day) we borrowed from Gregory VIII. everything had simply been stolen. With deadly objectivity Lunden responded that Hernes, by applying his own logic, could not possibly exist. For Hernes consisted exclusively of the elements oxygen, hydrogen, carbon and so on, which are everywhere and thus not exclusive to Hernes.

Genuine Norwegian dreary idealism

Most countries in Europe have their Thomas Hylland Eriksens. And our own professor had a more difficult task than others. It’s not easy to squeeze an analytical model developed for extremely heterogeneous communities onto what was until recently one of the most homogeneous nations on earth.

Hylland Eriksen can with his French constructivism and urbane relativism come across as a Hamsun character who returns home to his native village and prances around with a walking stick and fine manners. There is a very genuine Norwegian snobbishness over the way the anthropology professor perceives himself to be a little bit French because he smokes French cigarettes. The dreary idealism is also genuine Norwegian.

The most obvious way for Norway to respond to the challenges of globalization and mass immigration is not to replace our cultural community with a fragmented, cosmopolitan abstraction, but to build on our national identity in a way that makes it possible for new Norwegians to join it.

The article is based on the book “Red, white & blue: on democracy in Europe”, Dreyer Publishing House 2012.