insisting on culture.pdf

7/27/2019 insisting on culture.pdf

1/16


2/16

A problem and a frame of reference

There is no doubt that anthropology in Norway today has stepped out of its scientific,somewhat exotic and protected existence and become part of the Norwegian publicdomain (norske offentlighet). Symptomatic are perhaps these words by a Norwegian

journalist of a major newspaper: In the nineties there seems to be a little anthro-pologist living in all of us; he keeps house where the little sociologist moved out(Harket 1995).2 This residential displacement cannot be accounted for by the sheernumber of anthropologists being educated today although I am not so modest as tonot acknowledge the import of the knowledge being imparted in our class rooms andlecture halls.3 The enormous interest in anthropology seems to be part of a Zeitgeist,not least because of its reputation for being concerned with culture and as being theseat of cultural relativism. Moreover, whereas earlier anthropologists were drawnupon as part of a solution (remaining external e.g. within development aid); it seemsthat now, and in particular with respect to culture, that we have become part of theproblem. However, the assimilation of anthropological discourse into public dis-course, raises an open ended question: what kind of anthropology is being pushed

and, more importantly, perhaps, what kind of anthropology is being bought? Theissues seem in part to converge around the now notorious notion of culture.

Norwegian anthropologists have to some extent and in various ways over theyears been involved in promoting an understanding or understandings of theconcept of culture in the public/political domain. This public domain covers a broadrange of settings: open debates in the media, be it on television, radio or in thenewspapers; television interviews and series; the drawing-up of government policies,within for example development aid and cultural affairs; promoting the inclusion ofanthropological perspectives and textbooks as part of the curriculum in secondaryschools and teacher training colleges; and the setting up of exhibitions at The

Ethnographic Museum.What follows is a preliminary and very selective exercise to elicit some of the waysin which certain perceptions of culture have filtered into the Norwegian publicconsciousness. I will address the intentional efforts of anthropologists to influencepublic policy-making which are explicitly grounded in notions of culture. I will alsoconsider, albeit briefly, the indigenous conceptions against which anthropologicalnotions rebound, and I will draw forth some of the implications for anthropology. Ihave limited my focus to three more recent fields where Norwegian anthropologistshave been explicitly involved in giving meanings to notions of culture.4 These are:

2 P 90 tallet bor det visst en liten antropolog i de fleste av oss, han holder vel hus der hvor den lille

sosiologen flyttet ut.3 In the early 1970s, there were 10 to 20 undergraduate students (in Oslo); graduate students were

few and far between, with one maybe completing every year. There were no doctoral students.Today, we have a total of about 1,000 students, some 670 undergraduate students; 350 (more or lessactive) graduate students and a doctoral program with 27 PhD students enrolled. With that manytaking anthropology each year, it is inevitable that anthropological modes of thought will crop upoutside academia and influence discourse on, for example, cultural issues.

4 There are, of course, other important fields which I have not addressed: e.g. the place of theEthnographic Museum in conveying notions of culture (see Mary Bouquet 1996, Bringing it allback home); the impact of Fredrik Barths television lecture series, broadcast by the NorwegianBroadcasting Company in 1979 (Andres liv og vrt eget); the degree of involvement of Norwegian(and foreign) anthropologists in Sami ethno-politics; and the influence of anthropologists on the

66 MAR I T MEL H UUS


3/16

1. Development issues and the insistence (on the part of anthropologists) on theinclusion of the cultural dimension in certain development projects (see Klausen1987). The thrust of the arguments (which have now become almost commonsen-sical) was that project activities pertaining to healthcare, rural development, incomegenerating activities, environment, women etc. must take into account detailedknowledge of the local context (including values, worldviews, knowledge systems

etc. in short culture). In other words, anthropologists promoted an awareness ofcultural differences as a prerequisite for successful project implementation.2. Cultural affairs and the elaboration of the so-called extended concept of culture

det utvidete kultur begrep (as expressed in the White Paper to Parliament fromthe Ministry of Culture, St. medl. 61, 19912). This notion of culture is seen bysome (e.g. Wiggen 1993) as being a specifically anthropological invention; however,it may just as well be seen as a social democratic invention and a response to thenotion of fin kultur (i.e. culture as fine arts in strict sense). Central to thisdiscussion is the delimitation of cultural activities, i.e. what kind of human activityis to be considered cultural?

3. Issues pertaining to the situation of non-Anglo-European immigrants in Norway

and the debate on the flerkulturelle samfunn, i.e. the multicultural society. At issuehere is what being Norwegian is all about, and the question and status ofcultural differences and their implications for policy. The problem is related to anotion of a certain contextual disparity within the same all encompassing context,i.e. the nation.5

The examples I have chosen reflect an interesting coincidence between developmentswithin the discipline of anthropology and developments within society at large withrespect to understandings of the concept of culture: from an acceptance of anthro-pologistss insistence on the relevance of cultural differences within for exampledevelopment aid and as expert witnesses in particular court cases (cf. Grnhaug 1983and 1997, and Borchgrevink 1997) to a situation where anthropologists are being

understandings and conceptualisation of work-life, management and leadership cultures (through,for example the presence of anthropologists at the Institute of Work Research, Oslo). Nor shouldone forget the influence of such anthropologists as Marianne Gullestad in conveying to Norwe-gians an understanding of their culture, Ottar Brox in his long-term involvement with northernNorway, focusing on the issues of centre and periphery (a central conceptualisation in theformation of Norway), Reidar Grnhaug in his role as expert witness, and Eduardo Archetti, sooften called upon to comment upon aspects of Norwegianness.

5 Whereas points one and two can be traced to the direct involvement of Arne Martin Klausen (nowprofessor emeritus at the University of Oslo), point three is illustrated by the active engagement ofGeir Thomas Hylland Eriksen and Unni Wikan (both professors at the University of Oslo). Bothhave published books, written articles for major newspapers, journals etc. They have appeared ontelevision and held lectures in various fora (separately and together) addressing the issues ofmigrant populations in Norway and the notion of culture and the role it plays be it in Norwegianpublic policy or more generally. Along with Inger Lise Lien (an anthropologist working at NIBR),they were for a time the centre of much attention, provoking as well as being provoked. Their roleswere in a sense double: as experts on culture (a local perception of anthropologists) and aspositioned subjects. Thus, they were simultaneously inscribed in the debates while maintaining acertain reflexive distance. See, for example, Eriksen 1993; 1994; 1995; 1996a and b; Wikan 1995a;1995b.

INS I ST IN G ON CULTU RE 67


4/16

acclaimed for disowning culture as a relevant concept to be applied in situations thathave to do with immigrants in Norway (e.g. Wikan 1995; and in a somewhat differentvein, Eriksen 1993, 1995).

It is perhaps a reckless task to try to pinpoint a specific anthropological influenceon the public consciousness of such a common concept as is that of culture (but cf.Finkielkraut 1994: 49ff.). It is not just that it is hard to document empirically. Rather,

the problem lies in the fact that the term culture is an indigenous one with particularhistorical significance and references; a term which is commonly used in everydaylanguage today with various connotations; and a term which is used as an analytic tool.It may, therefore, be difficult to foreground an anthropological concept against anindigenous concept or vice versa.6 In a way, an anthropological discourse on culturehas become part of the indigenous discourse, although, of course, the opposite mightalso hold true. Thus there is ample room for confusion, most evident when there is anexplicit link between anthropological notions of culture, on the one hand, and politicsor even business on the other (cf. Harvey 1996). Underpinning this confusion, I think,lies an implication of the concept of culture (as it is understood): it is not only aquestion of whether culture is or is not but rather that culture operates as amoral category. Thus culture is viewed as good or bad; culture is not only seen assomething that is but also something that ought or ought not to be.

What becomes evident in reviewing these issues is on the one hand, anthro-pologists own ambivalence to notions of culture and cultural difference and hence, theproblematic relationship between what constitutes sameness and what constitutesdifference and the ordering of these phenomena (briefly summed up as universalhuman rights, understood as individual rights and a concern for cultural diversity andthe right to be (collectively) different).7 This I would assume Norwegian anthro-pologists share with their colleagues worldwide.

On the other hand, it seems clear that several notions of culture also permeate

Norwegian public policies, and that culture kultur in some form is and has been a politicised issue. There is an interest in culture. This interest is articulatedsimultaneously by anthropologists, politicians, businessmen and the public at large each, of course, variously positioned within their own group and vis a vis each other.And each with a different view of what is being described and what is beingrecommended. Thus, culture is used as a concept to organise production (e.g. workculture, management culture); it is used to describe the practice of corruption inpolitics (in the sense of there having developed a particular culture in, for example, themunicipality of Oslo). Moreover, both business and politicians have discovered thatnot only does culture sell (e.g. the use of the Winter Olympics to sell Norway) but

also that cross-cultural communication is necessary to make the sale. Culture is goodbusiness, as it is good politics: it works well, or so it has seemed. In this conceptual

6 This is all the more precarious, keeping in mind the many ways that anthropologists have used theterm culture. The classic example used to illustrate this variation is, of course, the 164 de finitionsfound by Kroeber and Kluckhohn (also cited by Wright 1998).

7 A case in point is UNESCOs Report of the World Commission on Culture and Development,Our creative diversity, which explicitly addresses the issues of culture. This report sustainssimultaneously both the right to cultural freedom as a collective freedom and individual humanrights. It launches the idea of a global ethics which is the underlying unity in the diversity ofcultures based on universalism, while simultaneously insisting on the principle of pluralism (1995:1617).



5/16

whirlpool, needless to say, there appear some strange bedfellows, and anthropologistsmay at times find themselves in unwanted company.

In addition to debates on what culture consists in high v. popular culture andthe use of the so-called extended concept of culture in Norwegian policy making, wealso find culture used to reflect a way of life, specific values, an ethos, a world view etc. i.e. culture as an argument for situating difference. We find those insisting that there

are cultures, and hence there is something specifically Norwegian ( Hodne 1995: 13)and those refuting the same statement (Johansen 1995); those insisting that culture is animportant empirical dimension that cannot be overlooked (i.e. people believe that theyhave a culture, and hence it must be taken seriously) and those that claim that any notionof culture must be used with extreme caution and preferably discarded (Wikan 1995). Inbetween these positions, as people carry on with their daily lives, the government triesto work out its policies to cover the various interests and connotations of culture in thename of democracy, solidarity and universal human rights.8 And the question is: shouldanthropologists assist politicians in this confusion, and if so, how?

Not only is there no consensus about the meanings of culture, but culture as apolitical issue in Norway mobilises people, unleashing very strong emotional engage-

ment.9 This engagement can only be understood with reference to history. Todayspolicies and controversies are not new; they can be traced historically. Such a searchwould provide a more critical and comprehensive understanding of the ways theconcept of culture operates in Norway (including the anthropological ones). Culturewas an issue if not the issue of the whole period of the formation of the Norwegiannational consciousness, from 1814 (the year of Norways independence from Den-mark) and the drafting of the Norwegian constitution through the process leading toour final independence from the union with Sweden in 1905. Culture was also animportant element in the consolidation of the new nation state; and some notion ofculture has continued to play a significant part in government rhetoric and policy

down to this day. Thus, the concept of culture has been operative in Norway for a longtime. Culture has been and is a significant issue.

It is possible to glean two dominant meanings of culture underpinning the publicdebates and policies of the nation building period. The processes which generatedthese meanings are, of course, not unique to Norway, though we like to believe thatthey are (see, for example, Johansen 1995). Similar trends can be discerned throughoutEurope. One meaning is grounded in class; the other is grounded in nation. The first istied to the enlightenment project (and has to do with arts, manners, education) and canbe summed up in the relation between Dannelsenv. allmuen that is Bildungv.

8 At the time this paper was first written (1996) Norway had a minority government run by theLabour Party. Much of the Labour Partys rhetoric is articulated through these terms. Electionswere held in 1997 and a centrecoalition government (also in a minority position) has come topower. The leading party is the Christian Peoples Party. Values is the key term in their rhetoric,so much so that they have appointed a Value Commission with a broad mandate.

9 For a Norwegian writing about culture in 1998 it is impossible not to mention the debate aboutthe opera: Operadebatten. The issue is whether or not Norway should have its own opera house and, symptomatically, if so, where it should be located. After many years of discussion in whichall possible arguments for and against have been mobilised, there is now presumably a majority inparliament for an opera. Yet due to the voting order, the motion to construct a new opera house inOslo was defeated. Operadebatten sums up in very many ways central issues in the debates onculture in Norway.



6/16

the ordinary (read ignorant) people. Culture, in this sense, was seen to be somethingthat could be acquired, something that could (and should) be transplanted (forplantetis the Norwegian term quoted in Berggreen 1989: 19). The major civilising figure wasthe teacher (Kulturpedagogen),10joining preaching with teaching and the main targetsfor enlightenment were seen to be the children. They were to be the bridgeheads,literally bringing culture home (cf. Berggreen 1989, Hodne 1995). Culture in this

sense was associated with dannelse (Bildung) and much of the politics of the pastcentury and beginning of this century has been concerned with raising the general levelof dannelse. Part of the national project was to cultivate people, and this wasparticularly related to hygiene, cleanliness and sexual mores.

The other meaning of culture is that pertaining to historical heritage, the nation the specificities of being Norwegian (as against the world), in sum culture not only as away of life but as ourway of life.11 Implicit in this view is that culture is somethinginnate, rooted and unique (see Berggreen 1989; Srensen 1994; Hodne 1995). This viewhas spurred the debates on Norwegian values, on nationalism, on authenticity, col-lective identity and most importantly, perhaps, generated feelings of suspect foreigninfluence and the concomitant suspicions of divided or even misplaced loyalties.12 Such

10 The historical significance of the teacher as the civilising agent is much stressed by Berggreen andremnants of this ideology are echoed to this day. An editorial in a major Norwegian newspaperopens: Det var en gang at lrere var de fremste brere av s vel kultur som kunnskap her i landet(Once upon a time the teacher was the central bearer of both culture and knowledge in thiscountry.) The article goes on to point out the shift in Norwegian educational policies from beingthe bastions of knowledge (and hence culture) to becoming care institutions. (Dagbladet 4 juli,1996).

11 This way of perceiving culture is reiterated in, for example, the White Paper to Parliament,Kultur iTiden, St. melding 62, 19912. To give an impression, I will quote from the introduction (pp. 24ff.).There is an emphasis on the significance ofcultural expressions (kulturytringer) as meaningful

activities tied to ethics and societal responsibility; thus the government wishes to strengthenculture as a stabilising force in society. Moreover, the government feels that these pressing timesrequire a strengthened involvement which will bind people closer together in an encompassingcultural community built on mutual values, references, and symbols . . . Through mutual values,mutual language and living conditions the foundations for a common identity are laid. Tostrengthen our cultural heritage is not only an obligation to ourselves, but also to the internationalcommunity. The world society will also become poorer if the particularly national (det sregentnasjonale) is weakened. Richness is constituted in diversity. . . . A fostering of (satsing p) nationalculture implies a respect for the culture of other countries. To strengthen Norwegian culture is notto say that Norwegian culture is better than all others, but that it is important because it is ours(stress in original; my translation). See also Hodne 1995.

12 Different visions of foreignness have been evoked, each, of course reflecting positioned subjects. In

the middle and late 1800s, the divide was within the embedmannsstand, i.e. within the enlightenedclass, the links to Denmark and Sweden being perhaps the most critical. This divide was alsoarticulated in the urbanrural configuration, where the urban was viewed as a threat to theauthentic Norwegian rural soul. In the early part of this century (when the bourgeoisie had more orless consolidated itself) the threat was seen to come from the workers movement. Their proclaimedinternational solidarity, their scepticism to church and religion, and their (initial) lack of enthusiamfor the flag and the national anthem all combined to make them suspect subjects. At a symboliclevel, this was most clearly articulated in the controversies surrounding the celebrations of 1 May(Labour Day) and 17 May (the national holiday), which were resolved by the 1930s (see Hodne1995: 148ff.; sterud 1986).

The war and the concomitant consolidation of the country after 1945 led to an even strongernational identification. In 1973, with the first national referendum on Norwegian membership to



7/16

suspicions are grounded in notions of unequivocal identities giving no room for thehybrid, for the creole for the multistranded cosmopolitan (see Eriksen 1993).

Although these two meanings of culture are variously grounded, they both operateso as to divide, to order and classify people.13 In the first case it is the elite v. the people(folket). In the second case it is Norwegian v. the rest. However, the fact that the twoconcepts operate in the same way, does not make them of the same order. Moreover,

both meanings are continuously contested this is in part what politics is about and tocomplicate matters, the various discourses on culture tend to slip between these twomeanings, where the first may become the means to the second (e.g. We need to teachpeople to read in order that they become members ofour culture). Whats more, thetwo meanings are in some contexts collapsed. This slippage becomes particularly evidentin the implicit link that seems to underpin the notions of culture (as they have been used)with notions of loyalty: it is possible to see both the enlightenment notion of culture andthe national one working together (the one through indoctrination, the other throughassimilation) so as to create a specific Norwegianess; to create citizens who will partakein the same democratic processes, on the basis of the same values.14

With the recent immigration to Norway of peoples from Turkey, Pakistan, Chile,

Vietnam (to name a few), the issues of foreigness (and loyalty) take a different turn.They challenge in a very different way what it means or should mean to be aNorwegian.15 A passport, it appears, is obviously not enough to make a Norwegian.The rhetorics of cultural diversity16 (the meaning of which is in itself very ambiguous)in combination with equal opportunity and respect is the name but not the game.Questions of assimilation v. integration, class v. culture are again at the forefront.

Enter anthropol ogists , backs tage to front

It is of course, no coincidence, that two of the policy areas in which anthropologists

have been active peddlers have to do with understandings of cultural differences ofmaking the others known to ourselves. Anthropologists have taken it upon themselvesto be cultural brokers, official interpreters ofculture with the aim of increasing cross-

the then EEC, emotions tied to foreign as anti-national were mobilised and exploited. The mostloyal Norwegian was the one who voted no; similar arguments were also used (but not with thesame success) at the last referendum to join the European Union in 1994. It is interesting to notethat neither Hodne nor Berggreen mention the Sami as a foreign threat. Nor do they mention theefforts of the Norwegian Labour governments to assimilate them: through denying them theirlanguage, their religion in short their culture. See also Minde (1994) for a description of the Samipolitical mobilisation 19001940.

13 See, for example, the statement by Nielsen and Vinje in 1859: Culturen har gjordt forskjell p folk

der det ikke var det fr (quoted in Berggreen 1989: 156).14 In the struggle to create a certain idea of an overarching sameness, it is interesting to note what are

considered the significant differences. According to Hodne (1995), the central issues permeating theNorwegian public debate on culture in the decade preceding the Second World War were language,alcohol, the church, school policies and the issues of centre and periphery (the ruralurban divide).Not much has changed since! Historically and at present the issue of language is critical; thefinal compromise was to recognise two written standards of Norwegian: bokml and NewNorwegian.

15 Re Wikan (1996) Kommet for pendle and Borchgrevinks comments (1997).16 The slogan ja til et fargerikt felleskap (yes to a colourful community) with its double meaning of

race/colour and creativity has been launched in order to mark the inclusion ofothers in a mutuallygrounded notion of community.



8/16

cultural (pan-human) understanding.17 Maybe a lofty and somewhat idealised goal but, I believe, a well intended one. Both international development assistance and theprocesses and problems related to integrating non-Anglo-European migrants and theirNorwegian children into the Norwegian society confront Norwegians with specificforms of otherness. However, whereas the former has to do with peoples out there,the latter has to do with people right here. I do not know whether it is the specific

localisation of the peoples concerned that influence the view that anthropologistsespouse (cf. the discussion of doing anthropology at home: Strathern 1987; Vike andHovland 1996; Melhuus 1997; and Borchgrevink 1997), whether it is a question oftimes and trends, or whether it is the personal conviction of the individual anthro-pologist that ultimately informs the position one defends. Perhaps, it is all of these ornone. Nevertheless, there are some interesting differences with respect to the viewsheld of the concept of culture, and the suggestions for policy that follow from theseviews.

With respect to development assistance, anthropologists have argued (and suc-cessfully too) that any development project, in order to reach its goals and be in linewith the overall aims of Norwegian aid policy have to take into account cultural

differences. However, in the debates about immigrants that have dominated Norwe-gian media, anthropologists are arguing against notions of culture. Whereas culturalrelativism has informed the former position, cultural essentialism informs the latter.The arguments are differently grounded and I will return to these below.

Arne Martin Klausen has been directly involved in drafting policy documentswhich address the concept of culture. One is a commissioned report on Socio-culturalfactors in development assistance and the other is the White Paper to Parliament onCultural Affairs (Kultur i Tiden: St. medl. 61, 912). Klausens conceptualisation ofculture, which is reiterated in both these documents rests on a distinction betweenwhat he calls the normative (narrow) and the descriptive (broad) definitions of

culture.18

The normative concept of culture is grounded in the notion ofcultivationforedle and would correspond to that notion which underlies the enlightenmentproject. This notion involves some qualitative aspect which not only classifies

17 This notion of cultural broker, anthropologist as interpreter, is premised on the understanding thatnot only do there exist systematic variations in the way people perceive their life-worlds andorganise their societies, but that it is possible to establish points of recognition across thedifferences.

18 Klausens notion of culture is that which is formulated in his bookKultur, Mnster og Kaos (1992),which is a more than revised version of his earlier book,Kultur(1970). The latter was a result of aseries of lectures he gave for development workers in the 1960s; by the eighth edition, it had a print-

run of 40,000. This book became part of the fixed curriculum in Norwegian secondary schools andit was also used in a correspondence course (brevskole) and study plan developed by his wife, LivKlausen. This course was subscribed to by study circles organised by particular womens groups(husmorlag) all over the country as well as by conscripted soldiers doing their military service.According to Klausen (personal comment) the book became et ledd i folkeopplysningen (i.e anelement in popular education). The 1992 edition was a result of his involvement in the planning of anew curriculum for teacher training colleges.

For a comment on Klausens and anthropologists influence on defining culture in Norwegiansociety, see the debate between Klausen and Wiggen (Wiggen 1993; Klausen 1994). Wiggen accusesKlausen of introducing the anthropological notion of culture to the debate on culture, not onlyconfusing the debate (which according to Wiggen should be about the fine arts) but, moreimportantly, allowing greater room for political manipulation.



9/16

something as culture (or as cultural activity) but does so on the basis of certainaesthetic criteria.

The descriptive concept of culture is that which seeks to convey the ideas, values,and shared understandings of right and wrong, ugly and beautiful in a society.19 It issupposedly value neutral. Klausen distinguishes these two notions of culture bydesignating one as cultural sector (on a par with other sectors such as politics,

economy, health etc.) and the other as culture as an aspect of all sectors in society.Whereas the former encompasses the arts and the institutions housing these culturalexpressions, the latter concept of culture, he says, is one that is used in the socialsciences, particularly social anthropology. In discussing this concept of culture (in thecontext of development) Klausen chooses to relate it to what has been termed in theNorwegian context the extended concept of culture, and been applied to culturalaffairs within the country.20 This extended notion of culture was an attempt to see acultural dimension, or a cultural aspect, in the activities of every sector of society. Asound cultural policy should, therefore, cut across societys sectoral boundaries (1995:8).

The notion ofthe extended concept of culture as applied to cultural affairs hadalready been introduced in the 1970s and was a direct reflection of the debatesconcerning high v. popular culture, resulting in a popularisation and democratisationof culture (understood as fine arts) and cultural politics. These policies stressedegenaktivitet literally, self-activity, i.e. each persons own participation as a valuein its own right; youth activities and sports were defined as culture on a par with thearts, theatre etc. This reorienting of cultural affairs is a first step towards an all-inclusive concept of culture culture as an aspect of all activities where culturebecomes whatever people choose to define as culture. The problem, of course, is that ifeverything is culture and culture becomes those activities that are defined as creativeis some way, then there is no way of discerning quality or distinguishing between

qualitatively different activities: hence a painting by Munch or Nedrum is a culturalexpression on a par with winning the Para-olympics. There is no difference culturally speaking, they are the same. Klausens point, however, is that this sense ofculture approaches the social scientific understanding of culture (and according toothers, serves to undermine the real meaning of culture, cf. Wiggen 1993). By relatingthese two political domains (cultural affairs and development), Klausen bringstogether not only two very different spheres of Norwegian politics, but also seeks togain acceptance for a particular perception of culture as generally useful for policymaking.

Although Klausen is insistent about the difference between understanding,

explanation and acceptance, stressing the distinction between a moral relativism andthe cultural relativism implied in systematic comparison, his descriptive notion of

19 The White Paper on Immigration and the multicultural Norway (St.meld. nr 17, 19967) gives itsown definition of culture. It states: Culture is the sum of knowledge that is transferred from onegeneration to the next through a dynamic process. That knowledge consists in values, customs,norms, codes, symbols and expressions. The dynamic aspect of culture is expressed through theability to adapt to new conditions, to new creations and in the ability to find new ways ofarticulating insights and experience. Hence, culture is not static or locked, but continuallychanging (St.meld 17: 8; my more or less literal translation).

20 See also Hodnes brief discussion of Kulturbrevet (literally culture letter) of 1945, whichoutlined central cultural policies to be pursued in the wake of the war (Hodne 1995: 156ff.).



10/16

culture, I suggest, has been assimilated into the public discourses as an essentialist one.What was intended as a contribution to the complex work of cultural translation, tobattle rampant ethnocentrism and hence enhance cross-cultural communication hassomehow been transformed in its meeting with dominating indigenous ideas of culture at home. This becomes most apparent in the debates about the culture ofimmigrant groups. The paradoxical situation, then, is that the extended notion of

culture (which is applied to cultural affairs, and would refer to Klausens normativeconcept of culture) is the one which is at work erasing some differences bymaking each and any cultural manifestation of equal value.

Culture in this sense is something that everyone has access to, through his or herown activities; thus, seemingly, culture no longer operates so as to divide people. Thedescriptive notion of culture, however, which seeks to relativise contexts of meaning,and render them mutually intelligible, has come to anchor essentialist views ofdifferences. It has obviously fallen on fertile ground, being nourished by indigenousconceptions of culture as something unique, corresponding to that notion whichdistinguishes, orders, classifies and hence excludes. The interesting question is wherehuman rights (which is an essential part of Norwegian public rhetoric) fits in.

The end of cul tur e?

The debates in Norway on migrants and their culture (and the anthropologistscontribution to the same) can, perhaps, be better understood in light of the aboveprocesses. The local debates on the integration of immigrants confronts these twomeanings and applications of culture. Not only is the essentialist concept of cultureworking hard; so also is the extended concept of culture. Respect for the othersculture has, according to some, reached untenable proportions, and it is about timewe (and it is implicit who this we is) demand respect for our culture too! At the

same time, policies are being drawn up to facilitate and encourage cultural manifesta-tions and cultural activities of Norwegians of foreign origin. The argument is that thiswill enrich our culture! (And who defines us? What, again, is this implicit collectivewe?) These stimulants (tiltak) are coupled by an educational policy that has deniedthe Muslims a right to build their own school; the substitution of different religiousinstructions in schools (including the right to be taught ethics instead of religion), forbroadly Christian learning; and a heated discussion about the teaching of a motherlanguage in state schools (cf. Wikan 1995: 58ff.). However, what remains unclear (tome) is what it is that informs the, at any time dominating, concept of culture. Is it thecontext (e.g. out therev. back here) which informs the workings of the notion ofculture or is it the other way around: the operative notion of culture is that whichinforms the perception of context? Can we perceive a shift in attitudes or is it just ashifting offigure and ground which is occurring?

Two anthropologists (Wikan and Eriksen) have been particularly active in thesedebates, drawing much public attention.21 Their activities and the responses they have

21 The publication of Wikans book, Mot en ny norsk underklasse, in 1995 caused a stir in the mediaand also in academia. For a critical comment, see Brochmann and Rogstad 1996. Eriksen s bookDet nyefiendebildet (1995) also drew attention, although to a much lesser extent than Wikans. Ihave about 50 newspaper clippings (19956) which are somehow related to these books or theissues they address (and there are surely some I have missed). These, together with the books anddebates I have seen or attended, are the materials from which I base my arguments.



11/16

provoked are socially significant phenomena on how the concept of culture operates inNorway. Whereas Wikan has been engaged in influencing policy, Eriksen has beenmore concerned with influencing opinion.

Both Wikan and Eriksen have culture as their theme; both aim to demonstratehow culture operates; both deplore the political function of culture to discriminateand order relations among people and both disavow the this is my culture excuse/

explanation, as a moral grounding of significant acts, in particular those that runcontrary to human rights. Wikan is concerned with what she calls kulturfundamenta-lisme cultural fundamentalism, intent on demonstrating that culture has come tosubstitute race as a basis for discrimination.

Eriksen is concerned with those ideologies which bring forth particular ideas ofwhat he calls cultural terrorism. His is a crusade against any unequivocal categorisa-tion of people and his demand that politics be freed from notions of culturalcommunities.22 However, whereas Wikan (more or less) discards the concept ofculture (and to some extent identity) as having any relevant analytical validity,preferring instead the concept of (individual) respect, Eriksen still finds relevance forthis concept as an analytic term. Moreover, whereas Wikan isolates the individual as

the only meaningful category, Eriksen insists on the relation. Finally, whereas Wikandismisses cultural relativism as a method, Eriksen insists that this is a necessaryanalytical tool. Thus, we have a situation where anthropologists seem to agree as to theempirical reality i.e. what an indigenous discourse of culture is and does butdisagree as to what the empirical reality implies for anthropological theory (and byimplication anthropological practice).

Wikans position, if I read her correctly, is that the critique of the concept of culturewithin anthropology should be brought to bear on the concept of culture as it is used byNorwegian men and women (of whatever ethnic background) in their daily dealingswith each other. In her view, culture in Norway is a concept we (i.e. ethnic Norwe-

gians) use to describe them, but which we never use in order to describe ourselves. Thusthe rhetorics of culture, in addition to being the language and the mooring of thepowerful, are also the ultimate grounding of otherness (while simultaneously function-ing to distribute pain). Culture, in her view, is more than difference it is racist.

Wikan is particularly concerned with Muslims (in Norway) and specifically Mus-lim women and children, a marginalised group, whose voices are never heard (if they areeven raised). She is explicitly normative. Her main agenda is to make their life situationbetter in Norway. Thus she speaks (and writes) on behalf of them. Wikan finds acollusion, created in the name of culture, between the Norwegian state and powerfulMuslim men that is detrimental to women and children. She not only raises the

important distinctions of gender and class (which have been all but absent from many ofthese debates) but she uses these distinctions to demonstrate the inadequacy of cultureas having any explanatory value. In order, then, to work out policies that will trulyintegrate Muslims into Norwegian society, notions of cultural difference (understoodas attributes of a collective having a culture) should be substituted for a notion ofsameness or equality23 based on mutual respect between individuals (and not each

22 He asks rhetorically: when will it be possible to be colour blind without being called a rat, traitoror bourgeois idealist? When will it be possible not only to have an identity, but to be allowed not tohave one? (Eriksen 1993: 59)

23 In Norwegian these two concepts are covered by one term: likhet.



12/16

others cultures). In her understanding, integration implies an obligation on the part ofimmigrants to function according to Norwegian values and to learn Norwegian (Wikan1995: 146).24

Several problems arise when she subsantiates her argument. However, as myconcern is to pursue the concept of culture and not the debates on policies ofintegration my attention is drawn toward those aspects which shift the focus from

them to us. This has to do with what being Norwegian means; it has to do with thethe claim that there are basic values (such as freedom and equality) which are specificallyNorwegian, which at the same time are universal (Wikan 1995: 184ff.); and it has to dowith doing anthropology and doing politics, and the slippage that occurs between whatis and what ought to be. I do not believe that we can (in the name of anthropology)dissolve an empirical reality of perceived cultural differences by proclaiming equalitybetween individuals based on mutual respect. This can only be done in the name ofpolitics. Nor do I think that a critique of anthropology can necessarily be applied as acritique of an empirical reality. The problem, as I see it, is that not only does Wikanconflate an is with an ought to be, but also that in so doing, she raises the content of theought to something beyond question. In arguing against culture as something that is she is at the same time arguing for individual respect as something that ought to be without examining the (cultural) premises for the latter. In this move she reifies thenotion ofNorwegian, an act she is not alone in committing.

In her eagerness to convey an indigenous use of culture as essentialist, obscuringand discriminating (a view I share) Wikan overlooks or forgets to examine critically her own conceptualisations. My point in stressing this is not only that herunderstanding corroborates many Norwegians understanding (and hence is in linewith indigenous discourse) but rather, that this same understanding also informsWikan. In other words, contrary to Wikan, who claims that culture is a concept we(ethnic Norwegians) only use to denote them, I believe that the way the concept of

culture is used to designate otherness springs out of a rooted understanding of culturethat applies to us; moreover, such a concept of culture (the implicit in the we) is aprerequisite for any notion of them. This is not to say that ethnic Norwegians allagree as to what this culture is, but being Norwegian does seem to imply more thanhaving a Norwegian passport. The question remains, of course, what this more is allabout (and how we go about finding it). It is not just about accepting the fundamentalvalues of freedom and equality these are not specifically Norwegian values,although some might like to think so (nevertheless, I would argue that they gainspecific connotations in the Norwegian context). Unless we are willing to criticallyapprehend that or those indigenous meanings, which underpin an exclusive and

not an inclusive we, it is not possible to grasp the insidious ways culture works(and will continue to work) to distinguish those who are somehow seen as foreigners,nuturing insinuations that they are not good Norwegians.25 Hence, the problem ofself-reference is critical. It implies taking the self seriously, not as a navel-gazing

24 Wikans focus is on Muslim children and the thrust of her argument is directed at how they canbecome (good) Norwegian citizens. Her views echo those of the Enlightenment (dannelses)project which were precisely grounded in class and education. Muslim children must first andforemost learn Norwegian, and the school system must be organised so as to strengthen theirintegration into Norwegian society.

25 These arguments are also Eriksens; see Borchgrevink 1997.



13/16

exercise but in the way it implicates notions of others. And there is still much to bedone along these lines.

Through her arguments, Wikan also conflates an indigenous discourse with ananthropological one (or is it the other way round?) making it very unclear whetheranthropology is part of the problem, or part of the solution. That many Norwegianshave an essentialist concept of culture cannot be sufficient reason to refute cultural

relativism as a method for anthropological practice. To my mind, that is throwing thebaby out with the bathwater. Wikans argument, that cultural relativism is an ideologythat anchors rituals as meaningful, rather than gruesome, is grounded in an under-standing that meaning and power are intrinsically linked; as long as an understandingof culture is tied to meaning, it is ipso facto tied to power and the distribution ofsuffering.

Yet, we may ask: Does the rendering of the concept of culture as obsolete alleviatesuffering? And will people stop investing ritual acts with meaning, just becauseanthropologists choose to overlook them? And do we not have an obligation tounderstand people in so far as they understand themselves? Is not contextualisation animperative for anthropology? And does such a perspective deny any focus on class and

power or the distribution of pain? That anthropology has been ridden by a totalisingnotion of culture does not alter the means that anthropology has to operate at theinterface between different systems of meaning bridging a gap and by so doingrecognising that such systematic differences exist and that these differences can bemade mutually intelligible. Wikan has no concept of difference to offer Norwegians:instead, she offers respect and an empty notion of the individual. To my mind, respectis not a substitute for difference; it is, rather, a professional prerequisite.

The outsider is inside

There is no doubt that the present situation in Norway demands some rethinking onthe part of anthropologists, and Wikan has delivered food for thought. This rethinkingmust include both historical and comparative work. This multicultural society notonly confuses the anthropological agenda, it also broadens it. Moreover, it does notreduce the problem of cultural interpretation and translation it only makes the taskdifferent (Borchgrevink 1997). This has to do with the establishing of the relevantcontext and the fact that the cultural differences usually ascribed to being out therenow are inscribed as being right here. It has to do with the establishing of a we andthe right to define whom and on what grounds the we is constituted. Thus it has to do

with us. In so far as the basis for incorporation of cultural others is equality andsameness, the specific content and meanings of these notions must be criticallyexamined in order to disclose what the premises for being equal are perceived to be,for us and them. It has to do with locating the interface that operative space fromwhere anthropological knowledge can be produced, a space which does not necessarilyimply the end of culture. And it has to do with recognising and exploring whetheranthropology at home is qualitatively different from anthropology elsewhere in itspractice and in its implications for anthropological theorising.

In a newspaper article, Naushad Ali Qureshi and Atta Ansari (1996) launch anattack on Norwegian research on immigrants (to Norway) in general, and onanthropological research in particular. They attack the notion of expert knowledge,



14/16

claiming that so-called innvandringsforskning (i.e. immigrant research), has almostsolely been carried out by ethnic Norwegians and that immigrants generally figure asinformants, their lives and their views forming the basis for PhD and masters theses,and future academic careers. Despite a rhetoric to the contrary, they claim, immigrantsare never themselves included as partners in a dialogue, never asked to formulate theirproblems or define the necessary research projects in their own terms, and never

asked to propose solutions. They accuse researchers of focusing solely on theproblems that migrants may have as they are viewed from, and formulated by, theofficial Norway: i.e. through government statements and policies. They see researcherscolluding with the state, working against immigrants rather than for them.26 This iscriticism that must be taken seriously.

These kinds of arguments and accusations are not new to anthropologists. Wehave heard them before and much of the painstaking anthropological reflexivity overthe past decades springs out of recognition that the anthropological endeavour istainted by colonialism, positions of power, a hegemony of western knowledge systemsand the twin roots of Enlightenment and Romanticism (those ur-harbours of conceptsof culture). The responses from the anthropological community to these claims have

been various, but two effects are notable. Anthropologists are now more forcefullyobliged to take a stand on the type of anthropology they wish to practice. We are madeaccountable for the knowledge we produce in other ways than before and sometimeseven for the ends to which this knowledge is put to use. Moreover, it seems that thevery concept of culture however notorious and contested has become a summaris-ing one in the sense that it has come to represent a kind of watershed within theanthropological community.27 There is an interest in culture.

Yet, the final point I wish to make is this (dropping all quotation marks): theoutsider is now an insider she not only speaks our language, she is also cognisant. Sheknows something that we dont. She has access to life-worlds that are different to ours.

She sees Norway from a different perspective than many ethnic Norwegians. She is asocial phenomenon that speaks for herself. She is a native speaking in her own tongue to us and to them. She may also make her demands known in terms of culture. Foranthropologists, this situation demands care. In order not to become part of theproblem, we must continue to relativise, to contextualise. Otherwise, we risk givingnatural connotations to that which is cultural; and on the way, losing our analyticaldistance, a prerequisite for any anthropological practice. The greatest challenge to theanthropologist working at home is to be born native and not go bush.

Marit MelhuusInstitute of Social Anthropology

University of OsloPO Box 1091Blindern N-0317Oslo, Norway

26 This article is one of a series of articles that have been published in response to Unni Wikans bookMot en ny norsk underklasse. Innvandrere, kultur og integrasjon (1995). The article specificallyaddresses her book and challenges the anthropological community in Norway to come forth andmake their views known.

27 In a sense. Tell me what views you have on culture and I will tell you what kind of anthropologistyou are!



15/16

References

Berggreen, Brit. 1989. Da kulturen kom til norge. Oslo: Aschehoug.Borgen, Johan, Brinchamann, Ale, Christophersen, H. O., Gjerlw, Olaf, Groth, Henrik, Hole,

Sigurd, Iversen, Sverre, Midttun, Olav, Sloem, Eirk, Stten, Sverre. 1953 [1945]. Vr kultursfremtid. Et brev til den norske regjering 1945. Oslo: Centraltrykkeriet.

Borchgrevink, Torids. 1997. Et ubehag i antropologien,Norsk Antropologisk Tidsskrift 8(1): 2637.Bouquet, Mary. 1996. Sans og samling. Bringing it all back home. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Brochmann, Grethe, and Rogstad, Jon. 1996. Integrasjon, underklassse og marginalisering noen

refleksjoner omkring dagens innvandringsdebatt, in Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning 37(4):55476.

Eriksen, Geir Thomas Hylland. 1993.Kulturterrorismen. Et oppgjr med tanken om kulturell renhet.Oslo: Spartacus.

1994.Kulturelle veikryss. Essays om kreolisering. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.1995. Det nyefiendebildet. Oslo: Cappelen1996a. Opplysning og romantikk. Nittitallets hndtering av kulturbegrepet inNorsk antropologisk

tidskrift 2: 738.1996b.Kampen om fortiden. Et essay om myter, identitet og politikk. Oslo: Aschehoug.

Finkielkraut, Alain. 1994 [1987]. Tankens forrderi. Oslo: Cappelen.

Grnhaug, Reidar. 1983. Sakkyndig uttalelse i straffesak 83883 ved Eidsivating Lagmannsrett.Bergen: Sosialantropologisk Institutt, Universitetet i Bergen.1997. Rettstaten, det flerkulturelle og antropologien, Norsk antropologisk tidsskrift 8(34):

25666.Gule, Lars. 1996. Hvor gr toleransens grenser? in Samtiden 2: 7181.Johansen, Anders. 1995. Den store misforstelsen. Oslo: Tiden Norsk forlag.Harket, Hkon. 1995. Fiendebilder skyter ikke!,Aftenposten, 22 December.Klausen, Arne Martin. 1970.Kultur. Variasjon og sammenheng. Oslo: Gyldendal

1994. Carlos Wiggen og kulturen antropologiske refleksjoner.Morgenbaldet, week 26.1987. Sosio-kulturelle forhold i bistanden. Evaluation Report 2.87. The Royal Norwegian Ministry

of Development Cooperation.1992.Kultur. Mnster og kaos. Oslo: Ad Notam, Gyldendal.

Melhuus, Marit. 1997. Antropologiens tvisyn. Etiske dilemmaer i betydninger av den andre, NorskAntropologisk Tidsskrift 8(1): 1225.Minde, Henry. 1994. Den samepolitiske mobilieringens vekst og fall ca 19001940, in ystein

Srensen (ed.)Najonal identitet et kunstprodukt?. Oslo: NFR; KULTs skriftserie, nr. 30.sterud, yvind. 1986. Nasjonalstaten Norge en karaktiserende skisse, in Lars Allden, Natalie

Rogoff Ramsy and Mariken Vaa (eds), Det norske samfunn. Oslo: Gyldendal.Qureshi, Naushad Ali, and Atta Ansari. 1996a. Eksperter som sannhetsvitner?, Klassekampen, 26

June.1996b. Myter om innvandrere,Klassekampen , 27 June.

Qureshi, Ali Naushad. 1996. Det str menneskesyn p spill men hvilket? inAftenposten, 18 May.Stortingsmelding nr. 61. (19912).Kultur i tiden. Kulturdepartementet.Stortingsmelding nr. 17 (19967). Om innvandring og det flerkultrelle Norge. Kommunal og

arbeidsdepartementet.Strathern, Marilyn. 1987. The limits of auto-anthropology, in Anthony Jackson (ed.)Anthropology at

home. London: Tavistock.Srensen, ystein. 1994. (Ed.),Nasjonal identitet et kunstprodukt?. Oslo: NFR; KULTs skriftserie,

nr. 30.UNESCO. 1995. Our creative diversity. Report of the World Commission on Culture and Develop-

ment. France: EGOPRIM.Vike, Halvard, and Hovland Arild. 1996. Kampen om kulturen, Norsk antropologisk tidskrift 7(1):

310.Wiggen, Carlos. 1993a. tale med tre tunger. Kulturbegrepet i den statlige kulturmeldingen,

Morgenbladet, 811 October.1993b. Antropologiseringen av kulturbegrepet, Morgenbladet 1518 October.

INS I ST IN G ON CULT URE 79


16/16

Wikan, Unni. 1995a. Mot en ny norsk underklasse. Innvandrere, kultur og integrasjon . Oslo:Gyldendal.

1995. Kulturfundamentalismen. En trussel mot frihet og menneskeverd, Samtiden 5: 2133.1996. Kommet for pendle, Dagbladet, 11 April.

Wright, Susan. 1998. The politicisation ofculture ,Anthropology Today 14(1): 715.


Documents

insisting on culture.pdf