An Expensive Krone Economy?

One experience common to all foreigners arriving in Norway is price shock. Its effect is such that it can still be felt afresh over half a lifetime later. We are ever guaranteed that here, where climate makes us need so many items to make life barely tolerable, it will remain exorbitantly expensive to live. How can foreign visitors affjord it? Most Norwegians are pessimistically resigned to it... in the shops they just fork out , having grown up in a culture where one pays uncomplainingly through the nose for anything. Due to trade monopolies and clever indirect taxes, some simple imported items like, say, hearing aid batteries or accessories for foreign products can cost anything from 10 to 20 times what they do in UK. The authorities are deaf to all pleas against product monopolies. Meanwhile, the populace are mostly kept in the dark about foreign statistics which show the real overall tax burden for Norwegians at around 60%, compared to an average of ca. 40% in Europe, according to a survey made by the EU in 1998. That full wage earners are generally better paid and mostly benefit from better conditions in Norway than elsewhere is important, but a relatively very large proportion of the population are not full wage earners (such as part-time workers, the huge percentage of those on sick pensions, old-age pensioners etc.). A recent official report concluded that 70,000 children in Norway live under the official poverty level!

Norway has long been one of the most expensive countries in the world to live it. Among capital cities, Oslo competes in price with Tokyo. All kinds of prices - from food to public transport - vary from 30% to 100% more than in other comparable European countries. Neighbouring Sweden earns many billions of kroner per year from Norwegians who cross over the border to buy food, cigarettes and alcohol more cheaply

To recover from post-war financial fatigue, the country was wise to have high import duties and a system of protective taxes and laws to stop money flowing out. This also made it virtually impossible for foreign firms to get in. This political reflex is still proving hard to stifle. In the 1970s, an American friend of mine tried to get permission to import second-hand US guitars - in huge demand but then unavailable without a minor fortune (as musicians were paid). He was intentionally driven from pillar to post by officials in an endless round of frustrating dead-ends... a natural connivance between independent bureaucrats acting in the perceived national interest. Indian acquaintances of mine tried to start a restaurant for years in the 70s, but were repeatedly stopped by the health authorities on the grounds that chilli powder could cause serious illness! Sale of peppermint tea was sold only by registered apothecaries, while the Director of Health wanted it banned entirely because of its possible ill-effects - it was also thought one might also get high on it!

Since the 1960s, when the social democrats were first ousted for a period, they have nonetheless been in government considerable more than the moderate conservative opposition coalitions that have shared power for periods. This movement of sound working origin consolidated itself by appointments of its sympathisers to all sectors of society that they could influence and its inner circle became so used to being in power, and were so little threatened by the splintered opposition, that its leaders grew complacent and more and more showed many signs of what Norwegians identify as 'the arrogance of power'. There were many similarities with the attitudes shown by British Labour Governments until Callaghan's demise in the 1970s. There is little doubt that this self-sufficient behaviour, loss of real social and political touch with common people and failure to perceive or forward sufficiently the interests even of their own steadfast electorate contributed much to have brought about their long, slow slide into crisis.

A highly successful government of parties in the centre under the sound prime ministership of Kjell Magne Bondevik showed that the social democrats were not indispensable . Yet not until after the millennium have they lost for the first time their traditional position as the largest party in opinion poles and they now appear seriously discredited as a genuine guarantor of economic and social security. As time went on, the Bondevik government was worn down by the usual attrition - a matter of course, do the social democrats will soon be back in power (presumably with a modified outlook) it seems.

The Uneconomical Economy

In the 1970s, oil taps were first cracked open in the North Sea, and the increasing affluence brought in its wake a local brand of nouveau riche with consequent lurid trappings. The oil wealth also further built up State regulation and bureaucratic mazes to alarming proportions as the classical 'tax and spend' leftish rulers concentrated their power. When high inflation hit in the late 70s to late 80s, the oil wealth seemed to dissipate somehow... partly through economic naivety and incompetence of planners and not least due to wasteful overspending. An excessively liberal (and greed-driven) lending policy by banks caused most of them to go bankrupt. The (social democratic) government had to solve the problem, so it bought them up for a relative song and then soon made enormous profits, thus dispossessing the previous shareholders.

The State gradually increased its subsidies to the inefficient and costly agriculturalists until they have reached a massive yearly burden on the budget. The increases in many forms of indirect, covert taxation has led to a situation where ordinary people are less well off in a number of ways than they were even before the oil boom reached its peak.

The main compensation to ordinary citizens was and is continued social welfare and health benefits... if often with remarkable inefficiency and grudging delay. Most Norwegians are certainly very well-off in relation to most of the world and genuine attempts to improve their lot are always at the focus of the political fray. Moreover, all I learn confirms that, in most professional branches, employees put in about half the amount of work/time as their colleagues do in Britain! While many good policies are in place in public life, official waste grew on a vast scale in almost every governmentally-approved or subsidised undertaking. The surfeit of money has led to public waste of major kinds by various incompetent or and/or corrupt State and private entrepreneurs.

Recent examples are many: the new malplaced airport which destroys Europe's largest pure groundwater reserve and the peace of the once-idyllic Nordmarka; the over-priced and uneconomical super-fast train service that was forever breaking down (but now apparently runs o.k. though highly subsidised), a super-hospital costing hundreds of percent more than intended which has no workable ventilation or dust control; a plethora of highly unsafe road tunnels (sometimes leading nowhere at all!); endemic misuse of police resources combined not least with a wealth-draining and remarkably blind policy on soft and hard drugs that fast-breeds new users, a new road levy or special tax that costs more to administer than it brings in. Meanwhile, even major hospitals lack all kinds of basic equipment, have far too few nursing staff or doctors who are willing to work under prevailing conditions. Visits to the doctor and medicines in Norway can involve very considerable charges. Dentistry is not a public health service but a wholly private business and is therefore very expensive. Schools are run down in all parts of the country and textbooks are old and scarce, if they happen to be provided at all.

The catalogue of other semi-futile projects runs from the pompous to the bizarre. Rather than keep elks away by normal fencing, they have been provided with tunnels to cross a highway near the new airport (thus far at a cost of N. Kr 10 million per head!), while other elks are shot in their thousands by hunters! The few remaining wolves cost a fortune to maintain (under day-to-day radio tracking and habitat surveillance etc.). A small fortune was spent to kill from helicopter 'gunships' a few wolves that take sheep. But far more sheep are simply left to suffer and die in the wilderness where they eat poisonous plants that cause blindness and even makes their ears drop off! The State has to pay huge sums to compensate the uncaring sheep farmers for the loss of these great scavenging destroyers of all natural habitat. Add to this the exorbitant junkets and foreign trips that are laid on for politicians, council workers, State employees and officials of all kinds. Practically every week brings some new eye-opening financial irregularity on the part of authorities or businesses involving millions, if not billions.

All of the above is commonly recognised as being the case. Meanwhile, Norway has a massive and rapidly mounting national 'bank account' surfeit of thousands of billion of dollars. The politicians have so far been unable to use the oil revenues effectively to right or markedly improve these major deficiencies, largely blaming the consequent overheating of the economy this would bring. This is surely a remarkable declaration of incompetence in handling the economy, when the money is there but it cannot be used now by investing it now (and presumably not later either) in improving society and laying the social and educational basis of future economic growth. However, a large programme to bring basic services for the aged up to the level expected in poorer countries like the UK, Germany and France is underway and should be completed in 2002, while efforts to reform the health service continue under difficulties.

The public simply cannot comprehend how it is that the whole system always gets more and more expensive while becoming less and less effective. These trends may be partly explained by the flood of oil money, the mentality of wall-to-wall economism, powerful closed shops, hidden subsidies to vested interests, unbolt bureaucratic corruption, law-protected profiteering and the constant draining of funds by businesses small and large to undisclosed accounts abroad. The fuller answer may lie yet deeper in the national psyche..

Merit vs. Conformity

One great attraction of Norway must surely be its classless attitudes and less class-dominated social system. With its strong yeoman-like traditions, its small population and the relative isolation, social achievement and status in Norway has always come from productivity and native wit rather than birth. Merit rather than inheritance marks the broader values of the social system. The traditional hero of many Norwegians is Per Askeladden (lit. 'the ashes lad', i.e. a menial) of the folk tale, is quite proudly recognised by many as embodying something essential of the national wit and culture. He was a lowly lad, seemingly an ordinary 'everyman', but one who by his native wit managed to overcome hindrances in his way, mostly put there by other people. This tale is underpinned, however, by the nature of the obstacles, which mostly are results of herd mentality, societal conformism. So the ideal is one of personal merit vs. powerful collective traditions. Despite Askeladden, however, individualism is accepted only in certain contexts and many instances of it are seen as social deviance. Freedom from individual constraints seems to be a strong motivating factor in present-day life here, especially since so many material limitations have been reduced. To be regarded as a good citizen, a sound 'ordinary' person, one must adhere to an unstated but pervasive principle of 'no one is superior to anyone else', as it comes out in subtle kinds of attitudes and behaviour as well as in occasional blatant confrontations. This has definitely had some very positive effects of the sort that limit the gap between rich and poor from growing as fast as in other countries and the provision of most social services to all citizens on a level footing. Merit is thus widely attached to the commoner and the 'average person' (with some unworthy exceptions due to frequent racial attitudes) creating a social structure known as a 'meritocracy'. But there is a shadow side to this... the peculiarly Norwegian cult of mediocrity (as distinct from the Soviet type). In Norway one sees how a 'meritocracy' has slid towards 'mediocracy'. The predominance of the average person - and the common denominator where it ought not to operate - characterises the cult of the mediocre. As in any country, the basic patterns of behaviour and attitude are formed by parents and schooling, are developed and re-enforced by the national media and culture. In Norway there are patently fewer deviations from those norms than in larger states. This has made life harder here than in many other countries for those who step out of line, which includes people of alternative lifestyle, independent thought, originality and also obviously genius.

As one would expect from a traditionally seafaring nation, a fair number of Norwegians are outgoing, socially gregarious and enterprising. They tend to spend a lot of time abroad and are often successful there, but are mostly disregarded in their own country. There has always been an enterprising segment of the population which travels and welcomes all foreigners.The aggregate are not at all like that, their mental heritage being that of isolated farming, logging and fishing communities and they still live within fairly well-defined mental paramaters, as determined largely by the great inertia of an indiscriminate educational system and a widely-read national and provincial press.They have been through the mill of the indiscriminate educational system, fed further by the widely-read inward-looking press and long predominance of the conformist State media.

Mediocracy as the price of equality

Conformity in the main, however, both to many unspoken rules and to definite norms that attempt to enforce equality in things even where inequality is predominant or ineradicable. Early on in the post-war period, the Danish-born author Axel Sandemose formulated this underlying attitude as 'Janteloven', unspoken laws that applied in a typical provincial town called Jante. These included the down-putting rule "You shall not believe that you are anyone". It took a foreigner to see and state the obvious about the all-prevailing mentality then, as perhaps it still does.The school system is a great social evener, which also strangulates talent, initiative and tries to suppress qualitative differences from birth onwards.

The egalitarian tradition was engendered in a society virtually without any own nobility in the struggle against the domination by foreign aristocracies (Denmark and Sweden). Norway's semi-aristocrats are very few and far between and there are consequently no 'upper-class twits'. At best there are classless and unclassifiable twits, i.e. those ignorant of the outside world who see Norway's social system as the best in the world and have no doubt of the justice of its judiciary and police or the basic incorruptibility of all its public and state institutions.

Perhaps this strong moral and educational levelling is a national reaction against the reputation for unbridled individualism of those Vikings who intruded, plundered, raped and murdered in the Early Middle Ages? In a Christianised but pagan society, the beserkers' drug-taking and drinking habits would have had to be suppressed in the individual and repressed by the individual. This background may go some way to explaining the love-hate relationship to King Alcohol of Norway, and the frequent primitive outpourings of emotions and depression for which many Scandinavians are world-renowned when the bottle unbottles them, lifting the lids of national superegos.

Norwegians of a cosmopolite attitude - and some of those yeomen still close to their roots - are fully aware of the constricting sides of the national character, the 'Peer Gynt' syndrome, an individualist whose boast is that he needs none other than himself. As one coloured and colourful immigrant put it very succinctly, 'No one is more expert in being Norwegian in Norway than Norwegians' and added 'but what matters is being something more than an expert on oneself'. The influx of immigrants on a large scale since the 1970s has created diaspora, especially Pakistani, Middle Eastern refugees, Indians, Ethiopians and Somalians, but also groupings from most Far Easter countries. This has been a shock to the previously so homogenous society, not last because Norwegians were so unprepared culturally and mentally for the customs, mores and corruptions that were part of everyday life for the immigrants.

It is remarkable how few Norwegians really break with a certain national mould as to personal behaviour and attitudes, one that made the country one of the most homogenous cultures in Western Europe, at least until the 1980s. Smallness is a part of the answer, which makes for the beautiful in inter-human relations but also suggests a corresponding small-mindedness or provinciality on many a question. Norwegian chauvinism differs a good deal from the British varieties... it's provinciality is perhaps generally less offensive than the perverse insularity or an ingrained cult of sheer middle-class ordinariness that can be met with in Britain (not to mention Middle West USA, where the various Scandinavians also made their mark). The rooted complacency of Middle England, its visionlessness and imperviousness to change, despite the broad heritage of Empire, may have its chief counterpart in Norway's rather isolated farming and fishing communities which once were the backbone of its culture.

Smallness of population is related to small-mindedness and envy. One example is how Thor Heyerdahl - of Kon-Tiki world fame - was always regarded by most of his influential countrymen, including nearly all of his former academic colleagues, with deep suspicion because of his insuppressible originality and expansive approach to the great questions of ancient human migrations. It certainly seems that great questions are not supposed to be asked by Norwegian scientists, not to mention the envy that such resounding answers as Heyerdahl awakened! Only in his latter years has he gained wide public acceptance in Norway, though he even now has detractors and his work is cold-shouldered by too many ethnologists. Much the same was true of Liv Ullman, Norway's other international megastar, who for years after her world fame could not obtain acceptance to perform in Norwegian theatre! With its peculiarly ham-fisted over-acting, Ibsenesque melancholic strife and unfunny humour, the reader can guess which of the two was really not up to standard. Smallness in size is sometimes related to small-mindedness.

The social-democratic ideal of equality, upheld by inward-turned cliques of blue-eyed politicians and professionals must also bear the main blame for the defense of mediocrity against those of higher standards. The inward-turning attitudes of many academicians also helps subtly to underpin the widespread covert suspicion of foreigners and of too much undeclared racial naivety in Norway. Their attitudes also help to underpin the widespread covert suspicion of foreigners. Mediocracy is the hallmark of the country's many corporative institutions. Average abilities and median intelligence are preferred in professions, which depend primarily on paper qualifications, seniority and the broth of compromises that result from many cooks whose say is guaranteed in decisions by 'closed shop' practices. This is all supposed to work in favour of equal opportunity, but it is only for those who fit well in to this system. People of above-average initiative, unusual intelligence or unique capability are not even recognised as such, and if they are it will seldom count much against the weight of mediocracy. For example, chances are low for those of non-Caucasian - and often even non-national - background, despite their formal qualifications, which probably would not be accredited in Norway anyhow.

Strong leadership is not popular in Norway, except perhaps in military or such matters. The social norms that ensured the flattening out tendency are embedded in family life, schooling, the media, employment qualifications, unionism and in most public life. Excellence is seldom discussed or put very high, except to highlight dismal failings in matters of public concern, such as in medicine, public safety and the like. Democratic politicians and even big business speaks of leadership only sparingly. What is mediocre is enhanced in status while 'first class' is less regarded highly, for it is taken to suggest that some people are somehow better than others, that good qualities are not really evenly distributed.

Second class always somehow comes through in Norway, and third class can well end up on top. Too many politicians are like diluted water, over-cautious, unimaginative conformists who simply trudged longer in the grey ranks through endless meetings so as to attain party seniority.

Historical and social circumstances that provide the basis for the overall rule of the average include the smallness of the nation state and the provinciality of attitude engendered by this, whereby only the well-known is trusted and those who differ from the norm in habits, views or intelligence are suspect. The egalitarian tradition was engendered in a society virtually without any own nobility in the struggle against the domination by foreign aristocracies (Denmark and Sweden). Norway's semi-aristocrats are very few and far between and there are consequently no 'upper-class twits'. At best there are classless and unclassifiable twits.

Some tell-tale characteristics or attitudes of a 'mediocrat', to which the Norwegian in general must conform are as follows:-

1) Pride in Norway's social system as being 'the best in the world' - even the best the world has ever witnessed, plus the assumption that all foreigners living in Norway cannot be other than the fortunate one-way recipients of national grace and bounty.
2) Unshakably naive belief in the overall justice and goodness of Norwegian public institutions, including State services, the judiciary and the police towards all citizens, despite all proof to the contrary.
3) Belief that the widespread social decline (dishonesty, lawlessness, violence) is due mainly to the use of narcotics, invariably excluding alcohol, and to outside influences (foreign culture, immigrants etc.)
4) The desire for all foreigners to 'integrated' into Norwegian society by becoming as Norwegian as possible in attitudes, speech and behaviour.
5) The tendency to think that Norwegian are capable of anything that anyone else is, and are also the best at it except where unfair competition or other unfavourable circumstances pertain.
6) Regular use of alcohol and periodical excess quite acceptable.
7) The total demonisation of soft drugs other than tobacco, and complete and wilful ignorance of all the causes and effects related to them. The self-righteous blindness and sheer 'scientific ignorance' about 'soft drugs' common enough in many other countries is simply colossal in official and public Norway.
8) Carnivorous food habits, usually combined with keen desire to see whaling, sealing and hunting continued as part of the national heritage.
9) General agenda of ideas largely remains within the perspectives set by the national media and culture, which devote most of their funds to sustaining interest in anything of Norwegian origin regardless of quality. Intellectual isolation combined with mostly unconscious chauvinism and narrowness of outlook or irrational prejudice based on a serious dearth of knowledge even among most 'intellectuals' about other cultures and religions not based in Europe.

An increasing body of Norwegians - usually the best educated and well-travelled - are well aware of the narrow confines of their national character, which they identify as a 'Peer Gynt' syndrome, the individualist whose boast is that he needs none other than himself. One may well say that most of the above indicators are found in many other countries, especially smaller ones. Many apply to, say, France and Britain. Yet the degree to which these apply, the strength of the norms and the extent of their influence in the populace is a specifically Norwegian phenomenon. As to this, neighbouring Denmark and even Sweden cannot be compared with Norway as to the blanket-like uniformity of these attitudes or the near ferocity of the sentiments that underly them.

Nationalism and the National Day (17th May)

As with most kinds of nationalism, the Norwegian has both attractive and ugly faces. Genuinely heroic deeds are part of the national heritage, especially during the 2nd World War. The 17th of May is the day that symbolises more to Norwegians than any other, probably including Christmas day, for it is the day of national independence, and is chiefly celebrated by and for all children in parades all over the far-flung country, where all adults partake. It is virtually de rigeur to dress up and go to the local festivities.
It is doubtless good to love one's country, but this is often at at the cost of disliking that others come to stay in it and share in its benefits. Racism and nationalism are frequent sleeping partners in Norway. Norwegian nationalism also has highly amusing aspects, not appreciated by the majority of Norwegians nearly as much as by the minority of foreigners. Always to bedeck all Christmas trees with hundreds of small Norwegian flags is but a small instance. The Prime Minister Thorbjørn Jagland, in an election speech in 1997, spoke against the idea of cutting Norway's contribution to the U.N. on the grounds that the Norwegian flag would then cease to wave in many countries where Norway contributes to peace keeping and other U.N. activities, which would then cause the flag that waves in Norwegian hearts to droop! While the ideal is praiseworthy, the imagery says a lot about the ever-present ingrowing sentimental nationalism.

There are several acceptable forms of non-conformism for the future ruling citizens of the land, beginning with weeks of drunken school-leaving Bacchanalia called 'Russ' that doubtless sets the style for many persons' lifetime of periodic heavy drinking. A sad example to youth, a sadder comment on the level to which one must sink at the height of one's youth if one is to be not just in the swim, but to be included or reckoned at all. This form of rites de passage, staying up as many nights as one can to drink as much as one can, sets the pattern for the average well-adjusted citizen... persons who will have social alcohol dependencies for the rest of their normal lives and many of whom will be periodic heavy drinkers. This supposedly intelligent form of behaviour proves manhood and womanhood in Norway, and it sets a kind of standard for a larger percentage of the future adults than one would believe.

The number of high school students who partake in this must be around 90%, a non-drinker is virtually ostracised from this 'good company' as they rave around making a continuous din with car horns and beating sticks against any resonant metal or other surface on eve of the national day - 17th May - and thereafter. The whole of May has in later years become a run-up to this bawling climax, so evening peace is disturbed frequently by raving mobs of bottle-smashing teenagers with their maniacally-thumping disco-wagons with huge speakers and massive amplification. On the National Day, when perhaps three million Norwegians get tipsy and most of the rest get blind drunk, they parade behind brass bands in every city and local centre throughout the land.

The biggest do is in Oslo, where dozens of brass bands and thousands of flag-bearing marchers behind banners have since 1945 trooped past the palace and been greeted from the balcony by the Norwegian royal family. Everyone is clothed in their Sunday best, with roseattes in national colours and with replicas of the Norwegian flag worn or carried in all shapes and forms. The watching crowds, wafting of alcohol, are festive and very pressing. After this, the 'russ' hold their own parade nearby, partly in fancy dress and driving floats with various displays that supposedly represent the wisdom of these future savants of the land. Not all can still walk or stand upright. The utter inanity of most of it - the drunken outpourings of loutish revolt - provides a telling sign of future times when these citizens will rule the land. The main body of the 'russ' are the equivalent of grammar or high school leavers. They cloth all themselves in red - mostly from head to toe in unisex boiler suits - with caps and tassels which represent their status. They have their own organising committees which sometimes try to curb the worst excesses of the mass, and who act as public apologists for the increasingly bad and violent behaviour of the many. The school-leavers who have been to technical or business colleges all wear blue instead of red. Otherwise there seems little to choose between them, and very few school-leavers fail to partake in the bacchanalia... it is a kind of 'old school tie' mentality, nearly as automatic for those who intend to pursue any kind of public career as membership of the State Church recently was.

Deaths even occur during these celebrations, due to widespread drunken driving, lack of crowd control and other safety precautions. The 'russ' are known sometimes to defecate freely in people's gardens or wherever nature calls. It is perhaps ironic that the word 'russ' is very like 'rus', meaning 'drunkenness', though it has another origin. The 'tradition' is long and was reportedly ever related closely to alcohol consumption, but in times of yore it was more an ordinary matter of exhuberant ragging, being less public and involving dinners where bow-ties were worn and speeches made. The time when one was a 'russ' is often the subject of nostalgia among tipsy adults... there seems to be no comparable youth festivity which is common to the whole nation. This fact unfortunately says volumes about norwegian culture.

Alcohol becomes closely related to sexuality at this stage of life. The debut is very often during the 'russ' phase, when it has not occurred before. In the last years of schooling, the misfit supreme is any boy or girl who does not take at least a few beers on occasion and who will not get drunk on weekend trips to country cabins or the like! There are no exceptions to the rule, non-drinkers are treated socially as non-persons, unless among the deviants of more recent times who regard grass and hash-smoking as acceptable alternatives. An above-average percentage of youth become alcoholics, obviously mostly among the under-achievers.

Chauvinism, National Identity and Inferiority

There is a constant underlying battle in the Norwegian psyche with feelings of inferiority. In view of the strong patriotic sense of pride, this may be based on the smallness and relative insignificance of the country in world affairs. That Norway takes a role in international peacemaking is a matter of much pride - not entirely unjustified either, one must admit. These engagements also reflect a kind of desparation to put Norway on the map. It is surprising how little is known about Norway generally, even in Europe. It is even unlikely that a majority of Britons could name the capital of Norway correctly... and they certainly could not list its three major cities.

The longing for international recognition and fame surfaces constantly in relation to sporting achievements, besides constant much heralded attempts at advertising the country's art, music, technology and cuisine. Domination by the Danes, the Swedes and later also the Nazis has led to both lack of national self-confidence and stubbornness expressing as the desire to prove oneself best, or - at worst - at least as good as the next man.

At the personal level, the inferiority that seems to lie deep in the psyche makes itself known in all kinds of little ways. 'What made you come to Norway?', ask many people... certainly hoping for a positive comment on their country and culture. Perhaps only under the strong influence of alcohol is this carefully-hidden inferiority feeling laid bare... which I witnessed many times through the years. The compensatory feeling of superiority is seen in the constant national self-praise in the press, and national boasting to the point of sheer absurdity... especially when explaining sporting or other failures. When a Norwegian short film was nominated for an Oscar but did not win, the name of the winner was never mentioned... only that 'to be nominated is itself to win'. Referees and umpires whose judgements go against the national teams are often criticised, or the winners are denigrated for foul play, cheating at the slightest opportunity.

An amusing expression of questionable self-confidence comes to light in the tendency for people to be seen as 'world-famous' - but only in Norway, while most Norwegians who are well-known outside the country, once discovered, can be lauded and rewarded like returning prodigal sons. There are, however, notable exceptions to this due to envy and similar traits.

There is a national heritage of Ibsenesque tragic-depressive personalities which is difficult to shake off entirely. The associated asocial reflex shared by many Norwegians doubtless has its roots in isolated valley living and distrust of foreigners... that is, persons from the next valley across the forbidding neighbouring mountain range. A great release comes to the standard Norwegian psyche once its thick ice is broken (usually by dissolution in high %age alcohol). Most holidays and dates that would be social occasions in other countries, are used for withdrawal into private cabins (often nowadays more like ranches) in wood, field, tundra, and fjord.

Integration?

Great social and racial homogenity persisted until the 1970s, and there are continuing attempts to maintain it by 'integrating' foreigners by resocialising them, rather than accepting their difference and uniqueness. In practice, adoption of the mediocratic pattern by all immigrants is widely seen as preferable, mostly a necessary (but sometimes insufficient) claim to full acceptance. This convention is openly admitted, having become a political-legal cornerstone of most Norwegian policies regarding long-term residents or settling immigrants in Norway.

Racial discrimination is strong in Norway. Not only is there a very outspoken but considerable and rabid 'Norway for the Norwegians' minority, but there is also a populist party that has distinct racial and cultural biasses against immigrants and swings between 10% and over 20% of the national vote ('Fremskrittspartiet': i.e. The Progress Party). This party has had a strong influence on the policies of other political parties which. Though they are all outwardly opposed to Progress Party chauvinism, the major parties support laws and policies that allow for strong undercurrents of discriminatory treatment, while having the obligatory egalitarian appearance on paper.

Considerable pride is taken by many a Norwegian in the Viking culture. The famous Oseberg longship has long been regarded by international researchers and archeological experts as one of the finest designs and most effective marine technological developments in nautical history. This and other similar vessels, it appears, are not Viking in origin at all, but Phonecian. One of Norway's apprently half-unwanted sons has become famous on the Continent for his research into early Mediterranean culture and shown that most of what was regarded as indiginous design and technology must have been imported to Norway very early on and taken over by the Vikings...from the Phonecians and others from the East.

The Pattern of Imitation

The idea of what is acceptable parenthood is very much standardised in the mind of the populace and is only peripherally challenged. With such a high degree of homogenity of Norwegianism, the challenge must come from an insider to be taken at all seriously. To be taken as an insider one must be known at least to be of sound Norwegian opinion or prestige in respects other than those one may dare to question radically. Outsiders, which means foreigners or cosmopolitic persons of Norwegian origin, are only taken at all seriously when it is unavoidable because they themselves form part of what is regarded as a debatable Norwegian problem.

The system of schooling is so supposedly but mistakenly 'egalitarian' as to surpass the imaginable limits of reason. Since the war, the authorities have ruled the educational system with the strictest of uniformity. That any kind of private schools even existed is almost an amazing fact, but their scope to differ from the universal standard model was extremely limited by rules and regulations. Two or three 'private' schools - including a Rudolf Steiner school - survived with great difficulty through the 40 years of unbroken social democratic rule, while the affluence of the 1980s brought an increase in Steiner schools to meet increasing public demand. No other private systems of normal schooling exist. In other respects, the State schooling system is in many respects more standardised now than ever. If ever one could compare an education system to a sausage machine, Norway has it. The raw material that goes in may be varied, but everything is done to ensure that everyone comes out the same! Of course, this does not work according to intention because the system produces a mass of very bored persons, some unusual, clever persons who leave the country as soon as an education or work opportunity abroad opens up and many highly undisciplined under-achievers and low-brows. The remainder, the 'main product' is the mediocre mental and social conformist.

Religion in Norway

Among this phlegmatic and down-to-earth people, where the few struggling spiritual activities have long been regarded by most official bodies as irrational at best and lunatic at worst, common sense pragmatism determines the ideas of most people. There is a Christian State Church and various fundamentalist and evangelistic sects, but these are not predominant factors in Norwegian life unless one lives in the mostly out-of-the-way areas of the far flung fjordlands where it is parochially unavoidable. The resulting lifestyle is much centered around modern media where the highest bliss known to the vast majority are the pleasures of sex, alcohol, food, winter sports, TV, listening to (mainly Norwegian) artists and following group debates on TV of every conceivable social, political and other problem. Skiing and ski-jumping are also seen throughout the summer (skis on wheels and jumping without snow!)

Humanism defines the belief of a large segment of the populace... that is, a kind of common self-interest of human beings. Self-interest is legitimate, of course, when it is not mere selfishness aiming to raise oneself at the expense of others. This is deep-rooted value in the democratic labour movement, where it was formerly believed that unions must advance their members' self-interest to the maximum (against the private sector and the State). This influence has moderated as the mistaken belief that maximum demands from unions benefits the majority of people is now less widespread. One admirable trait is the practice of 'helping-out' (Norwegian dugnad), which means communal pitching in to help one's neighbours - a tradition which the commoners have always relied on and kept alive. Also, the level of public charity whereby one donates a reasonable sum of money to good causes in the common interest is remarkably high. The motivating idea is largely faith in the importance of a good economy and lack of poverty and suffering for mankind's sake - a kind of international trade unionism.

Norway is one of the few modern nations having not separate State and Church. This means that the Church's finances is based overwhelmingly on financial support from the over 90% of taxpayers who are registered as belonging to the Church. All citizens born in Norway are registered as members, unless their parents refuse, which is very seldom. Campaigns by sects and agnostic humanists to get people to take formal steps to leave the Church have had some success. The necessary steps include form-filling and a meeting with one's local vicar to explain and confirm one's choice. This means that, in principle, all religious organisations that can get Norwegian subjects to take these steps and register instead with them, receive the appropriate percentage of the taxation jackpot. However, time and again, those who have gone through the somewhat taxing procedure of leaving the National Church all too often find out subsequently that - due to some arrangement between the Church and the People's Register - they have again been numbered among the national congregation anew without their knowledge or consent.

The State Church is hardly one of the most progressive as regards its dogmas, even though women bishops are now recognised. Belief in Jesus Christ as the one and only Saviour is too prominent in the excluding and narrow beliefs of this branch of Protestantism. The degree of universality at which it appears to aim is little more than 'a sense of community across parish boundaries', as one ecumenical idealist has put it.

(Note added in 2015) From the mid 1980s, so-called 'spiritual' movements, particularly of the New Age variety, have sprung up, along with the concomitant commercial aspects like healing, sale of spiritual artefacts like precious stones, incense etc. and 'alternative medicine'. The authorities have long tried to clamp down on quackery of all kinds, but have accepted the usefulness of such health practices as chiropractice, aquapuncture, osteopathy, naturopathy and a few other disciplines).

Some Incongruities

Some of the most startling instances of incongruity are to be found in architecture in the capital Oslo is undoubtedly the large 'monument' that was given the same name as the country's definitively greatest playwright, Henrik Ibsen, the only truly world-famous son of Norway. It is the three-story underground parking house, 'Ibsenhuset'. It was probably actually named after some entrepreneur or financier with the Ibsen surname, I don't know. There is a statue of Ibsen in front of the National Theatre, but the parking house is far better known to all than that, probably owned by someone of one or another Ibsen family who competes in this way for local fame. Another great deceased writer was given the peculiar honour of having his name bestowed on an oil-drilling platform, the Alexander Kielland rig, which eventually capsised and sank in the North Sea, drowning many workers aboard... a tragedy on top of an absurdity.

Like many a modern European capital, Oslo has been the playground of a number of eccentrically mediocre architects. Among the barren municipal wastes they have achieved are the Town Hall Place (Rådhusplassen), which boasts a space largely devoid of trees, many thousands of large slabs of granite - mostly imported from India, as though Norway were not itself mostly one enormous hunk of granite. But production costs were cheaper in India, where even children labour at stone-cutting. The same theme, with equally unappealing variations, has been at the heart of the architect who designed the desolate Government Place (Regjeringsplassen), where everyone avoids going, probably to avoid the depressing ferro-concrete laid-out mini-world and the gloom of bureacracy hanging over it all.

Now, a National Opera House is to be built at enormous cost right in the middle of Oslo's only real spaghetti junction! The road complex will still be there for years after completion of the new opera house, which still sprawls across the dock front like some flat acerage of supermarket. The budget burst its bounds hugely long since. It is now in place and is being surrounded by ugly building projects which obscure it. Just like a dozen major State guided architectural projects, such as the National Hospital and the high speed railway link to the national airport, which all went on bursting all conceivable financial limits.

On the lighter side, one has a costly folly to brighten up another comparable space in front of the one-time East Station (Østbanen) , called 'Trafikanten' ('The Commuter'). It is like a small glass lighthouse, mounted by an internal steel spiral staircase at the top of which is a kind of room without a view, like a plastic version of the top of the Eiffel Tower, perhaps, only below the level of all surrounding buildings. No one has every explained or guessed its purpose, it being useless for anything remotely practical and is closed to the public. Perhaps it has some kind of obscure Norwegian philosophical significance, such as hoping to remind the quotedian commuter of unanswerable mysteries of existence?

Pyromania is still a fairly common crime in Norway. It surprised me, when first I came here, that there were so very many cases of it reported, when it was relatively unheard-of in England. That most Norwegian farms and private houses are built of wood is not sufficient to explain why pyromaniacs are so prevalent. Many cases, usually young men, have occurred through the years in which each have burnt down dozens of buildings over long periods of time in one area of the land or another, until they were identified. The theory is partly that it is for the excitement and to get a sense of importance on the part of deprived children, whether mentally retarded or psychically disturbed by bad parenting and other social problems. There is a comparable problem in Sweden too. In more recent times, the burning of churches including (some famous ancient wooden ones) has been frequent in Norway.

The Norwegian Media

After England and the BBC, however, TV in Norway in 1960 was just not worth watching. Admitted, it was still only at an experimental stage when I arrived. There was always a gap in quality of at least a decade between national Norwegian TV and BBC, except for the latest major BBC flagship series. The national licencse-funded service (NRK) held a toatl monopoly from its founding in 1960 until the mid-1980s. Other TV channels appeared, especially a counterpart to NRK (like British ITV) and then channels with soaps, quizzes and much American output which seem designed for the mentality of 13 year old under-achievers. Nowadays (in 2015) the media scene is probably much the same everywhere in Europe nowadays, while the Internet is steadily eating away at viewing figures.

When first I came to Norway, the traditional amateurishness of Norwegian theatre, music and broadcasting was laughable even when it was tolerable, which was seldom, and this infected television from the start. Even though improved today, most performers overact and one still has to put up with hair-wrenchingly emotional outbursts, half-Ibsenesque desperation, or else strenuously funny men. Things are overdone so as to underline the point and rub the meaning deep as if into stiff mental tendons and joints. In broadcast media, children are still very often addressed or read to in affected sweety-tweety tones otherwise used only for calling cats or birds. Understatement is an unknown art and is not encouraged while verbal subtlety is at a premium. Puns are unknown.The public are treated by a majority of serious broadcasters as if they were totally uninformed about the most elementary matters, everything being spelled out and usually repeated ad nauseam, as if for pupils at some secondary level of education. As part of the permanent campaign to leave no stone unturned to educate a public that might be half-witted, old-fashioned programme announcers known as 'Hallo-ladies' or 'Hallo-men' still in AD 2000 hold lengthy introductions to any coming feature or film, explaining what its all about (and often half-spoiling the fun in the process), all delivered with the laid-on charm of vital smiles and affectations of expression. The same persons even sometimes keep up those super-happy faces and enthusiastic tones when announcing violent materials, slaughter of whales, destruction of environments... whatever.

There is one broadcasting problem that is never so much as mentioned... doubtless because it is completely universal and would strike at everyone, including all politicians and media people as well as the entire general public. This is the famous Norwegian sloppiness in elocution, the 'øøøø' sound, by which I summarily refer to the repeatedly interjected 'eerrr', 'æææ', and 'um' speech interruptions! (That it is somewhat famous is suggested by the fact that UK radio comedy shows have even built Norwegian characters around this oral trait). It is universal, and makes listening to the radio or TV a trial... totally unprofessional and easily avoidable with just a minimum of effort! Among sports commentators and in fact all media presenters, the elocution of Norwegians is totally abysmal. Almost every sentence spoken on radio or TV contains either from one to many 'errrrs' (from short to very long) or stumbling repetitions of words and phrases, nervous prolongations of the ends of words and all kinds of pronunciational stoppages. For anyone used to even a moderately well-spoken media, it is sheer torture to listen to. The bleating 'errrrr' is heard without exception on all programmes from all participants on the air, whether they are national figures, politicians, academicians, or even newsreaders. Language professors are no exception, and teachers at the universities must rate as masters in the art of executing such blurred speech in their lectures. In short, elocution is a complete national deficiency. How this has become so is something of a mystery, perhaps a rewardingly illumining subject for social psychological research.

The Norwegian press could long boast of very high relative circulation figures compared to nearly all other countries. Unfortunately, this was hardly a reflection of its quality, rather of its being all that was readily available in the Norwegian language. It did not sink to the full depths of the gutter like the Sun or News of the World and other inane popular tabloids in countries like Britian, but nor does it's best work rise above the average of the world press. Nowadays the Internet had begun to make huge inroads into the press and had also, of course, provided an outlet to viewpoints which were not considered 'politically correct' or which give a different angle on matters than the average national perception.

Each country's press has its peculiar myopia, narrowness and distortions, and each country's national delusions are seen for what they are as soon as one travels (other than as a mere tourist). The world is seen by Norway's newspapers through provincial glasses with a vision that - inadvertently or calculatingly - mostly holds up the life and times of Norway as exemplary! It must be admitted that, even more than in most modern countries, the Norwegian media do reflect the mentality of its readers fairly, though it may look less outwards, still being slow to discover modern development of a kind that could correct or improve the national Zeitgeist. The flattening effect of international news agencies with their common denominator policy and generally depressing agenda is evident in Norway too, though.

Back to top of page