Multiculturalism and the Nordic State
Anne Ellingsen, researcher, the Norwegian Hub for Traditional Music (Riksscenen)
[email protected]
Paper to Reassess conference, Oslo 18-20 May 2009
Draft version
Abstract
All of the Nordic countries relate to multiculturalism in one way or another. Multiculturalism
is a diverse body of ideas, yet it can still be identified as an ideology with some central
characteristics. Among the Nordic countries Sweden and Denmark seemed to have positioned
themselves oppositely in the implementation of multiculturalism, whereas Norway seems to
have taken some sort of in-between position.
A somewhat heated atmosphere characterizes not only the public sphere, but also scholarly
debates on this topic. However, the fact that the topic is controversial points to its importance.
During the last twenty years, multiculturalism has been both rejected and celebrated. The
notion of multicultural is, however, used in a number of ways. Multiculturalism is too
complex a body of ideas and practices to be judged “for” or “against”. Rather, one must study
it in concrete settings and analyze how it is applied.
I find it useful to distinguish between a de facto description of an ethnically mixed population
- “multi-ethnic” - and an ideology about how to relate to this situation: “multiculturalism”.
Both phenomena are closely related to what we often call globalization.
The paper briefly discusses multiculturalism, followed by a presentation of the welfare state,
as a general framework. Thereafter, it examines the particular features of each country, before
summing up.
Introduction
Norwegians traditionally think of the Nordic area as five countries - Norway, Sweden,
Denmark, Finland and Iceland. Non-Scandinavians often limit this term to denote
Scandinavia. I choose to limit my area of enquiry to Norway, Sweden and Denmark since
these countries cover an interesting span of realities.1
The body of literature of this subject is vast. I will select for discussion some core aspects of
this field. Multiculturalism is a diverse body of ideas, yet it can still be identified as an
ideology with some central characteristics. Among the Nordic countries Sweden and
Denmark seemed to have positioned themselves oppositely in the implementation of
multiculturalism, whereas Norway seems to have taken some sort of in-between position.
First I will briefly discuss multiculturalism, followed by a presentation of the welfare state, as
a general framework. Thereafter, I will examine the particular features of each country, before
summing up.
1
Multiculturalism
All of the Nordic countries relate to multiculturalism in one way or another. A somewhat
heated atmosphere characterizes not only the public sphere, but also scholarly debates on this
topic. However, the fact that the topic is controversial points to its importance. The debate is
about what the nation-state is supposed to be like in the future. This makes it of interest not
only to social analysists, but also to all of us.
I find it useful to distinguish between a de facto description of an ethnically mixed population
- “multi-ethnic” - and an ideology about how to relate to this situation: “multiculturalism”.
Both phenomena are closely related to what we often call globalization. During the last
twenty years, multiculturalism has been both rejected and celebrated. But what exactly is
multiculturalism?
In Oslo last year we had a discussion about the use of flags during the holiday of the 17th of
May, which, as most of you know, celebrates the Norwegian Constitution. The major decided
to allow the flags of other nations in addition to Norwegian flags in the celebration parade.
This desision may be regarded as expressing a multicultural idea.
The notion of multicultural is, however, used in a number of ways. It can mean the
appreciation of many ”ethnic” restaurants, or that music from all parts of the world is being
played in a country. It can also denote a state ideology emphasizing that the citizens have
differing ethnic backgrounds. Two examples are Canada and Australia, which have
proclaimed multiculturalism as a state ideology. In contrast to Norway and Denmark, Sweden
has also declared itself in principle as multicultural.
Government policies may include: recognition of multiple citizenship, government support for
newspapers, television and radio broadcasts in minority languages, support for minority
festivals, holidays and celebrations, and support for music and art from minority cultures. It
may also include enforcement of different codes of law for members of each ethnic group. For
example, Malaysia does not enforce Sharia law in regard to Malay Christians or Chinese. In
the Ottoman Empire ethnic groups lived separately – in so called millets, the official term for
the separate groups – and the Ottomans allowed the Greeks, Armenians and other Christians
to be extempt from much of applicable Sharia law provided a tax was paid.
Some countries, like Great Britain and the Netherlands, which previously backed a
multicultural ideology, are now reconsidering this policy.
Multiculturalism is too complex a body of ideas and practices to be judged “for” or “against”.
Rather, one must study it in concrete settings and analyze how it is applied. Multiculturalism
can, however, be regarded as a consequence of the idea of pluralism – the idea that subgroups
should be recognized as having special identities. This notion is in contemporary usage linked
to what is often called the new identity politics. In identity politics, rights apply to ethnic
groups, but also to a broad variety of groups of a different order. Two examples from Norway
could briefly be mentioned: transgendered persons have organized themselves in an interest
group that has worked systematically to gain official recognition for the group. The fact that
transgendered persons now may have medical treatment in order to adjust their bodies to the
gender they experience themselves to be, is clearly a product of identity politics. Wheel chair
users have won increased attention during the last 20 years to their special situation - again an
effect of identity politics.
2
Inherent in multiculturalism is something I personally consider positive: a focus on something
anthropologists traditionally have been interested in - the cultural variation found in the
world. Multicultural concerts - often financed by state funds - have given many others and me
an opportunity to hear and see music and instruments I did not even know existed.2 It is also a
positive feature of identity politics – on which multiculturalism is based - that minority groups
can be met with understanding and support for their special needs.
As a link between multiculturalism and my own work (Ellingsen 2008), The Norwegian
Concert Institute - Rikskonsertenes multicultural program may be mentioned.3 Music is
described in some of its publications as having a potential as a medium of integration.
Rikskonsertene in its role as a program organizer has stated its wish to base its activities on
“cultural diversity”. Further, it is assumed that “musical encounters between cultures” may
lead to mutual enrichment, while “at the same time creating greater understanding and respect
for each other”, as it is stated in one of its publications.
Celebrative discourses of multiculturalism regard it as a democratic and humane approach to
recognize and maintain what is often regarded to be different cultures or cultural identities.
Multiculturalism advocates that society should support distinct cultural and religious groups,
with no one culture predominating.
Although multiculturalism often teaches that all cultures are of equal value, Alvin J. Schmidt
(1997) and Unni Wikan (2002) argue that the ideology tends to undercommunicate the
positive contributions to society made by members of the ethnic majority. In practice the
ideology has thus, according to these scholars, often come to represent an asymmetric relation
between ethnic groups.
Scandinavian critics of multiculturalism claim that this ideology counteracts social cohesion
and diminishes individual liberty, especially in the minority groups. They argue that the
authorities sometimes accept behaviour from persons with minority backgrounds which
would not be accepted from other members of society. Likewise they point to how it hinders
the freedom of the individual when totalitarian religious movements use this ideology as a
tool to maintain power and gain influence. This type of critique is found in most countries in
which multiculturalism has gained influence.
Thomas Hylland Eriksen (1993) critically discusses central aspects of multicultural theory and
ideology. His main argument is that the logic of this ideology is self-contradictory and tends
to imply what he labels “apartheid or nihilism”.
Eriksen argues that lately the cultural relativist perspective upon which multiculturalism is
founded has become increasingly problematic: He says that: ”The moral and political
dilemma of multicultural society can briefly be formulated like this: On the one hand all
members of a liberal democracy are entitled to the same rights and the same opportunities. On
the other hand they also have the right to be different, and in particular it is nowadays insisted,
by arguing in a cultural-relativist way, that minorities should have the right to culturally based
particular rights.” However, Eriksen argues, multicultural ideologies assume that "cultures"
are homogeneous and ignore conflicting interests and diverging values within any "culture".
Defining the terms “multicultural” or “multiculturalism” is not a straightforward task. One of
the reasons for confusion is that the former is used as an adjective “multicultural society” and
3
the latter as a noun – “Canadian multiculturalism”. The Norwegian words multikulturalisme,
multikulturell and flerkulturell all cover the English notion of “multicultural”. We have a
number of other Norwegian terms as well that stem from a multicultural idea. One example is
the notion of Colorful Community. Norwegian authorities have proclamed this year to be
Year of Diversity. Rikskonsertenes multi-ethnic department was called Norwegian
Multicultural Music Center.
Unclear descriptions of the notion of multiculturalism are quite common. This resembles the
symbol of the multiethnic of the United States, namely, “the melting pot”. Philip Gleason says
of this: “The difficulty of framing an adequate theory of immigrant adjustment was, in fact,
one of the principal reasons for the popularity of the symbol”.
Historically, the term “multiculturalism” has many connotations, including the discourse of
“cultural pluralism” developed by philosophers, historians and early sociologists.
The term has also colonial connotations. Ethnic pluralism prevailed in areas under Dutch and
British colonial rule. This meant in practice that the various groups lived separately. The
market was the only meeting place. The sociologist J.S. Furnvall, who worked for the colonial
regimes, was critical of this system, which he argued divided the population and hindered
equality and democracy. He felt that democratic values could only be realized if society
emphasized common goals and interests. In this respect he was, as Jonathan Friedman and
Kajsa Ekholm Friedman have noted, the first notable critic of multiculturalism (Friedman and
Ekholm Friedman (2006).
How does the welfare state relate to multiculturalism? Kristin Clemet, a former government
minister and currently the leader of the think tank Civita has pointed out that we often regard
the welfare state as first and foremost a Nordic phenomenon (Aftenposten June 4, 2008).
However, she argues, this is not accurate. There are, however, as Clemet maintained, some
common denominators among the Nordic states distinguishing them from the systems in other
countries: The Nordic states have a large public sector, many universal benefits, and taxfinanced welfare programs. Clemet notes that our welfare state model does not seem to be
very robust in dealing with a more plural and multi-ethnic society. Here she touches upon a
topic that is most pressing in today’s debate.
The system implemented by Norwegian, Swedish and Danish post-war governments is
generally known as the Scandinavian welfare system. Students of the welfare state have found
that the post-war period may be characterized as a period of “the politics of good intentions”.
To a greater extent than in many other countires, Nordic people expect state executives not to
advance the interests of particular groups or individuals, but to have the common good in
mind. This trust expresses a political optimism that has, to a large extent, been founded on
ordinary people’s positive experiences with the state. This contrasts with the realities most
immigrants know from their countries of origin.
The welfare state is based on the principle of limiting the impact of the market, as well as
securing universal welfare services. Because of its ambition of universal welfare for its
members, the welfare state is historically unique. The government is responsible for the wellbeing of its inhabitants, regardless of whether the individual holds citizenship or not. This
implies, to mention some examples, that people generally have a high standard of housing,
and can afford to be ill. An important factor in maintaining the system is a moral community
in which the individuals not only hold privileges, but to which they are also expected to
4
contribute. The moral community implies that the well being of the country’s inhabitants is
regarded as a shared responsibility.
The welfare state: Norway
The welfare state makes up the framework for all of the Nordic countries. Now I will look
into how each of these welfare-state countries has dealt with immigration and the question of
multiculturalism.
Norway used to be an ethnically homogenous society. This situation has changed drastically
in the last thirty years. By the beginning of the nineteen seventies the immigrant population
was about 60 000 persons, one and a half per cent of the population. By the beginning of 2006
the immigrant population approached 400 000, which constituted about eight per cent of the
total population. Around 6 per cent of these immigrants were from non-western countries, the
two largest groups being from Pakistan and Iraq.
When it comes to employment and welfare, western immigrants tend to follow the pattern of
ethnic Norwegians. The category of non-western immigrants, in contrast, is characterized by a
low employment rate and a high level of dependence upon welfare benefits.
Many children of non-western immigrants use several languages. Many know their parents’
language, and to some extent the official language of their parents’ country of origin. In some
cases they also learn reading Arabic in Koran schools. A public inquiry showed, however, that
half of the children in Oslo of non-western background could not speak Norwegian when
starting school. These children often have a hard time getting along in the wider society than
that of the language group of their relatives.
The demographic change has implied a number of social and political challenges. In this
situation several state efforts have been implemented. One of the measures was
Rikskonsertenes explicit efforts to use music as a tool for integration. As my dissertation
shows this enterprise seems to have turned out to be more complicated than originally
assumed.
One of Rikskonsertene’s aims was to create what one anticipated would be multi-ethnic
meeting places.
The organizer explains in a letter to Oslo Municipality, a sponsor: “We made use of three
immigrant bands with a satisfactory level of Norwegian musicians. Thus, these concerts
demonstrated our emphasis on the creation of cross-cultural meeting places in music”. This
quotation must be seen on the background of a rising level of concerns about developments in
multiethnic Norway. Here, support for stage performances means support for a state policy of
integration. A large-scale school project backed by Rikskonsertene also formed part of the
Norwegian authorities’ attempts to counteract what was regarded to be unfortunate processes
of ethnic segregation.
One fundamental idea in post-war Norway is the vision of a community based on inclusion
and equality. This idea is expressed in a children’s theater play, “People and Robbers in
Cardamom Town” - Folk og Røvere i Kardemomme By - by Thorbjørn Egner. Written in
1955, “Cardamom” has been established nationally as a core metaphor for the welfare state
5
and has been exported around the world. Many Norwegians are accustomed to regarding state
politics as looking after their interests. This also goes for cultural issues, and, in recent times,
multiethnic society. In this respect, I claim in my dissertation, the Cardamom Idea has been
crucial.
In an Aftenposten newspaper article written by Per Haddal what is called “Cardamom
country” Kardemommeland is linked to a dream of a peaceful society where immigrants are
“integrated with no major problems” (March 28, 2003). The image of Cardamom Town has
here come to represent multiethnic society.
Scholars such as Trond Berg-Eriksen hold that until the mid 1990s most public commentators
refrained from expressing concern over the development of ethnic segregation, although many
probably had seen it coming. When the Labor politician Rune Gerhardsen in the early nineties
brought up the topic of problems related to immigration he therefore attracted considerable
attention. He asked rhetorically if it is possible to fight racism by avoiding discussions about
problems related to immigration. He argued that the welfare state, of which his father - former
Prime Minister Einar Gerhardsen - was the first symbol, had developed the attitude of
kindism- snillisme. This attitude hinders the realization of a well-functioning welfare state,
Gerhardsen claimed.
This is also the argument in Unni Wikan’s books Toward a New Norwegian Underclass and
Generous Betrayal. Politics of Culture in the New Europe. Arguing that immigrants living in
Norway were being made helpless by allowing themselves to be colonized by the welfare
state, Wikan warned of the creation of a new immigrant underclass, of which Muslims make
up a disproportionately high number.
She described a situation where, within certain immigrant communities, the rights of children
and women are suppressed, and claimed this has been ignored by official Norwegian policy.
Wikan regarded the failure to address problems in multiethnic society to be rooted in the
prevailing model of harmony that I have here identified as the Cardamom idea. She argued
that Norwegian authorities have regarded “culture” as the property of groups, rather than as
something that is contested by individuals with various degree of power.
According to Wikan, state policies have permitted ethnic segregation to take place due to
multiculturalist “respect for culture”.
After Gerhardsen and Wikan’s critique followed an extensive scholarly and popular
discussion. The debate brought up many interesting questions such as the extent to which the
original host population is culturally homogenous, to what degree common values and goals
are necessary to make a society work, and which means that could and should be applied to
maintain the well-being of citizens.
These are interesting discussions that must fall outside the scope of my presentation. The
basic questions raised by Gerhardsen and Wikan, however seem to be as relevant now as
when they were raised.
Norwegian governments have based their immigration policies on the ideal of equality.
Immigrants and other members of society should have equal rights as well as equal
responsibilities. Thus, the White Paper On immigration and multicultural Norway states:
“Integration, equality of rights and participation in a multicultural Norway are prerequisites
6
for society to benefit from the resources and experiences of the immigrants”. However, the
White Paper also expresses concern about a new type of social stratification developing: “It is
our aim to counteract new social differences related to the division between people of
immigrant background and the population at large”. I interpret this statement to express that in
several important areas state aims of integration and equality have failed.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to try and answer the question of how much of this failure
should be blamed on multiculturalism.
The welfare state: Sweden
In a book chapter called Sweden – from nation-state to plural society Jonathan Friedman and
Kajsa Ekholm Friedman analyse multiculturalism in Sweden and place it in a larger field of
variation that can be observed in Europe and the USA. In the book ”The Swedish tale of
progress?” - question mark - they say:
”In Sweden the pluralist model has been adapted by the political and cultural elite wheras the
popular support has been considerably weaker. What one wants to apply is pluralism, that is a
divide of the population in different segments, and this is done in the name of
multiculturalism, which sounds more positive.” The authors continue by arguing that
originally, it was claimed that multiculturalism would create a new type of integration, but
this has not happened. On the contrary, today Sweden is one of the most segregated countries
in Europe.
The authors point to how the recent demographic change has resulted in ethnic enclaves with
a high level of violence and other forms of crime. The existence of such ghettos can also be
linked to a strengthening of Islamism. Friedman and Ekholm Friedman maintain that the
question of whether mass-immigration is potentially harmful to a well-functioning welfare
state is answered not by whatever people’s cultural background might be, but by how people
practice their identitites. Thus they reject the idea that criticism of immigration policies
implies the stigmatization of immigrants, an argument that is often used in the debate.
The article further describes how Sweden has undergone a process of ethnification during the
last 20 years. One example is offered of a young man “X” whose mother is Swedish and
father is black.
I am aware of the term “black” being controversial, but this is the term used in the article.
The young man previously identified himself and was identified by others as Swedish,
because he was unambigously socialized in Swedish society. He was thus regarded as
Swedish although his phenotype was different from the majority (he looked different). The
situation changed in the 1980s as the new emphasis on culture and culture politics entered the
arena. According to the authors, this was a global phenomenon but got a particularly strong
effect in Sweden:
“Suddenly one started to insinuate that X should redefine himself as a black Swede, that is: as
consisting of two different parts. His ethnic, or rather phenotypical, features became more
important and were fused with cultural content. Here a racialization and etnification of the
7
national arena was taking place. Roots got to play a greater role, primarily for minority
categories.”
Sweden appears to be the Nordic country with the most restricted debate about challenges of
immigration and integration. Jonathan Friedman made a theoretical point of this in an article
in Current Anthropology. In this article from 1999 he discusses the issue of multiculturalism.
He also treats the concept of ”political correctness”. Friedman discusses this concept crossculturally and applies it to his own and Kajsa Ekholm Friedman’s experiences as participants
in the debate about immigration. Other anthropologists based in Sweden, such as Gudrun
Dahl and Ulf Hannerz, have reacted strongly against this description. They maintain, in
Hannertz’s words, that “The point is not that immigration or the reception of refugees involve
no problems whatsoever but rather that these problems need to be discussed constructively”.
In a comprehensive work on music and multiculturalism in Sweden Christer Malm and his
colleagues mention this debate as an illustrative example of how debaters often “speak
different languages” when multicultural issues are discussed.
Denmark
Denmark has a very different profile from Sweden. Denmark is probably the European
country that has had the broadest debate about immigration. This is related to the debate over
the freedom of speech in connection with the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed, but it
started before that. In 1999 professor Poul Chr. Matthiessen, a specialist on population issues,
noted that the Danish nation would undergo deep changes because of immigration. He said
that the most important factor would be how the Muslim population would relate to Islam,
particularly Islamism. He pointed to estimates for the population development that suggested
that in 2020 13,7 percent of the Danish population would be first or second-generation
immigrants, most of them from non-western countries.
Matthiessen has also warned against a development of parallel societies in Denmark,
presenting dramatic numbers demonstrating social-political imbalance between western and
non-western citizens in a fashion resembling Sweden and Norway, and which corresponds to
the European experience at large.
The debate that followed after Matthiessen’s warning contributed to a change in government
in Denmark. In May 2002 its Liberal-Conservative party introduced what has been described
as Europe’s strictest immigration laws. The new laws had an almost immediate impact on
family reunification permits and the numbers of asylums granted. Sweden’s government has
accused the Danish government of undermining Scandinavian solidarity. The Danish laws
have also been attacked by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the
Council of Europe’s Human Rights commissioner.
Some of the most prominent critics of multiculturalism in a Danish context are veterans of the
student protests of the 1960s. Notably Karen Jespersen and Ralf Pittlekow, authors of
Denmark’s best-selling book Islamists and Naivists, are Social Democrats and well-known
moderate left-wingers. The book describes multiculturalism as a prerequisite for the
radicalization of Islamism in Europe. Jespersen told a newspaper: "We compare Islamism to
Nazism and Communism because they are all three of them a totalitarian ideology".4
It is worth noting that the strongest critique of multiculturalism comes from individuals from
within ethnic minorities.
8
Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the Netherlands, Naser Khader in Denmark, Walid al-Kubaisi and Shabana
Rehman and Shakil Rehman in Norway have received considerable public attention. When
such individuals are rejected – as it sometimes happens – as ”not representative of their
groups”, minority critics are trapped by the logic of multicultural ideology.
Parties and movements with racist motives have long profited on the anxious climate that
characterizes the Scandinavian countries in connection with their recent demographic
transformation. In Denmark in particular right wing political forces target foreigners as one
group. It should be possible to counteract such racist tendencies while simultanously maintain
an open, ongoing discussion about challenges in multi-ethnic society.
Multiculturalism is not a homogeneous set of ideas and attitudes. Ideologies associated with
the term, however, all celebrate “diversity”. This ideology holds both dangers and
possibilities. Multiculturalism can make people conscious of the strengths of their cultural
heritage and make people able to appreciate a broad variety of cultural expressions. However,
by identifying individuals with ethnic groups, and ethnic groups with homogenous cultures,
multiculturalism may make culture appear as a “thing” that cannot or should not be changed.
Culture is, on the contrary, the result of a dynamic process. If the hyphenated identity is
regarded as just as important as, or more important than, national identity, multiculturalism
may lead to ethnic segregation and hinder individuals from gaining opportunities in society. I
have shown that the multicultural idea has been applied differently in the Nordic states. The
topics that have been discussed in these countries have been largely similar, whereas the ways
in which they have been debated have been influenced by differing political climates.
References
(currently incomplete)
Ellingsen, Anne (2008) Music and Ethnic Intergration in Norwegian State Policies.
Dissertation for the Degree of dr. polit. Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Oslo
Eriksen, Thomas Hylland (1999) Fleretniske paradokser. En kritisk analyse af
”multikulturalismen”, in GRUS, 14. årgang, nr. 41, pp. 66-83
Friedman, Jonathan and Kajsa Ekholm Friedman (2006) Sverige: från nationalstat til pluralt
samhälle in Ulf Hedentoft, Bo petterson & Lina Sturfelt (eds.) The Swedish tale of progress?
Bortom Stereotyperna Madakam Förlag
Schmidt, Alvin J. (1997) The Menace of Multiculturalism. Trojan Horse in America.
Westport, Connecticut, London, Praeger
Wikan, Unni (2002) Generous Betrayal. Politics of Culture in the New Europe. Chicago,
Chicago University Press
9
1
I would like to thank Lars Gule, Finn Reinert, Sven Gunnar Simonsen, Gregory Starr, Kristin Skinnstad van der
Kooij and Elie Wardini for their comments on this paper.
2
For a presentation of Riksscenen´s examination of multiethnic artistic communities in Norway, see:
http://www.ballade.no/nmi.nsf/doc/art2009042714580939487754
3
About Rikskonsertene´s multi-ethnic program:
http://www.ballade.no/nmi.nsf/doc/art2008070110060194626230
4
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6505809
10