Norwegian farm culture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Norwegian farm culture or bondekultur was a rural civilization which assumed a form in Viking Age Norway retained with little change into the age of firearms, and in many respects even to the early 20th Century. It has been described as unique in Europe and was widely celebrated in the Norwegian literature of the age of national romanticism.
Contents |
[edit] 18th-century patriotism
In Norwegian history, it is sensible to keep patriotism and romantic nationalism apart. The 18th century patriotism concentrated on the farmers, but mostly on their national heritage, as bearers of the Viking traditions, and as the original settlers of the land. The poets from late 18th century Norway based their style on contemporary pastoral poetry, and Classic ideals, where the rural shepherd easily could be put in Norwegian clothes, but still blow his "Arcadian clarion". At the same time, the farmer and the Norwegian mountains became symbols of firmness and pride. Gudbrandsdalen was the most popular place to go, because the patriots considered this area as being the most "historic". Here, the Battle of Kringen had been fought, and there the proudest farmers dwelt, many of whom could claim ancestry from the Norse kings. The first poetry written in rural dialect by known authors, originated in these parts in the late 18th century.
The patriotic era in Norway lasted until about 1830. In the following years, romantic nationalism slowly emerged.
[edit] The national romantic view
The Norwegian romantic national movement set forth from about 1840, aware that the cultural basis for Norway was to be found in the farm culture. This culture had over the years blossomed in its own right, scarcely known outside the limits of the rural districts. It showed itself in the art of storytelling, legends, fairy-tales, in a rich decorative style, "rosemaling", woodcarving, silver smithing and folk-music, both on the Hardanger fiddle and the regular violin. Added to this came a great number of songs and tunes from medieval times, and the dances. Wile the patriots considered Gudbrandsdalen the heart of Norway, the romantic nationalists were drawn to Telemark as the centre of rural Culture. Here they found the greatest folk-musicians and the venerable tradition of medieval ballads best preserved.
It has been stated that the cultural consciousness among the Norwegian farmers was high, and that they did not always welcome the "collectors" as the years passed. The culture was rich, more so in the way that each valley had their distinct varieties and modifications. The collectors were often impressed, and said so.
On the other hand, the urbanists could show a kind of superior attitude towards this culture. It was, after all, raw and had to be refined before "national" usage. Thus, they did not always appreciate the value of the farm culture in its own right. The farmers understood this, and answered with a kind of forced contempt against the urbane. This created a "cultural breach" between city and rural community. Many poets, among them Henrik Wergeland and Henrik Ibsen understood this, and criticized the romantic nationalists for not taking the farmers’ culture seriously. Those who made the best efforts on collecting and writing down the rural culture were those that came from "within". They knew the codes, and had the farmers’ trust.
A strongly egalitarian approach characterizes this Norwegian cultural view, resisting any who would put themselves in a position of superiority. This results in a consensus oriented and issue oriented approach to problems and an unwritten law to stress social equality and emphasize fairness for all. It has also been characterized less favorably by Dano-Norwegian author Aksel Sandemose as the Jante Law (Norwegian Janteloven), which requires a rural environment to survive.
Hylland-Ericksen[1] provides a modern perspective on Norwegian nationalism: “With no powerful city bourgeoisie and no strong landed gentry, burgeoning Norwegian nationalism took on a different character from that of the European countries in the 19th century. It was emphatically rural and egalitarian in its orientation, and it trended to glorify the simple ways of life of the countryside rather than revel in urban grandeur of the military pride of the state… The irony of this invention of nationhood is the fact that those individuals who most strongly promoted the idea of Norwegianness as a rural form of life, were themselves urban and highly educated people – their daily life was very far removed from that of the simple peasants who they defined as the carriers of national identity.”[2]
[edit] A historic basis
Norwegian property laws, so ancient that the time of their enactment is lost, govern Norwegian property transfer. This property system worked to preserve the Norwegian farm and contributed to the independence and relative equality the Norwegians maintained, even during the Danish and Swedish periods.[3]
Norway was never a feudal country, or at least was never fully feudalized; the spread, mountainous areas and lack of established communities did not support a centralized feudal order. While Denmark attempted to impose the “vertical” feudal order, with accompanying authoritarian roles and responsibilities, the efforts were with limited success. During the Union Period, Denmark gradually established over-lordship of Norway, which for military purposes and in the eyes of the world made Denmark-Norway one united realm. Not only was the central government located in Copenhagen, but virtually all local officials in Norway were Danes. Official business was conducted in Danish, although the common language remained Norwegian. But this over-lordship remained formal, and external to the people's everyday life. When the governors and sheriff’s attempted to practice in Norway the oppressive practices and virtual slavery that were common in Denmark, they encountered firm resistance and vigorous protests from the Norwegian self-owning farmers.[4]
The farmers had kept their independence through the local assemblies, the ting, and lived by their old Norse code of law up until 1685, when the Danish King Christian 5. replaced it with a new one. Then, the laws of Magnus Lagabøte had been practised for 400 years. After this juridical code, the farmers saw the king as a garantist for their rights, and was equal to the king in the old sense that the king or the king's men was obliged to hold their pledges towards them. However, this did not bother the Danish sheriffs, and the farmers answered the broken pledges by killing the sheriff - a recurring incident during the early days of the union. The honour of a given word was deeply rooted in the farmer’s conscience, way up in the 19th century.
We must also consider the fact that the Norwegian military was based on the farmers, and that Norwegian farmers through the period were known to be good soldiers, and more warlike than the Danish. Thus, Norway saw a long list of peasant revolts, often against the heavy tax-burden of the Dano-Norwegian state, and against foreign armies. An army of farmers thus beat and annihilated a troop of Scottish mercenaries in the battle of Kringen in 1612, during the Kalmar War. This episode magnified the general opinion of Norwegian peasantry.[4] The warlike behaviour also resulted in many brawls, fights and local feuds between farms, clans and valleys. An old schoolteacher stated that he in his lifetime (about 1727) had experienced as many as 30 manslaughters in his own community, Hol in Hallingdal, over perhaps 40 years. Various sources support this pugnaciousness nature; many of the stories of fights and fighters were handed down as heroic legends in folk-tradition, sung as songs, and connected to dance-tunes. The legends derived from this particular time, often tell of proud resistance towards the authorities, and a kind of viking persistence on the edge of death. Those legends value a good punchline in the nick of time, in some cases given in front of the executioner´s block.
Even today we can find a kind of mock-feud between central valleys, and still occasional brawling between youths from different landscapes and counties.
In the 1660s and 1670s a large amount of crown land in Norway was sold to liquidate war debts, mostly to rich burghers, officials and nobles. The bonder who had worked this land now found themselves renter from a far greedier and more oppressive class than their former landlord, the crown. These new landowners introduced oppressive rent practices designed to reduce the bonder to virtual serfdom as was then common in Denmark. Statholder Gyldenløve, interested in forestalling the serious troubles arising, urged the King to curb the greed of the landowners, and is quoted by Gjerset as stating “In Norway, the government differs so much from that of other lands that there it consists of the farmer, and is maintained by them… The prosperity of the farmers is the main thing, the root and basis for the preservation of the whole kingdom.” [3]
In 1684-1695 regulations were published that capped the rates of rent to be charged and limited the amount of “free service” to be rendered by the bonder. When a farm was leased, it had to be leased with all its conveniences to the leaseholder for his lifetime, the rent had to be established by unchangeable mutual contract, and fixed prices were established for the products by which the farmer paid his rent.[3]
As the news of the French revolution spread, the most educated farmers assembled their people and strove for democracy and common rights. Some of these joined sides with Hans Nielsen Hauge, and fought for farmers’ rights in the Constitutional Assembly.
The first generation of farmers born after 1814 counted many personalities willing to test their intellectual strength in the new-born democracy. Thus we find many self-taught farmers, who in time became a valuable source for information when the folklorists arrived in the 1850s. Many of these men wrote their information down, and worked as local teachers. In one case, a farmer from Telemark, Rikard Aslaksson Berge, even ventured to teach himself German and Theology. He welcomed Ivar Aasen, and was a valuable source for preserving old traditional music and lore in his area.
Other farmers who thought in the same manner, were among those elected for the famous "Farmer’s Parliament" of 1835.
It is fair to say that the Norwegian farmers in general were self-aware and independent, very unlike their feudal counterparts in central Europe.[4]
[edit] The farmers and politics
The farmers made a strong opposition in the Norwegian storting from 1835 and forwards. After some years, they got a reputation for making investments difficult. It was wall known that the farmers owned most of the country's real estate, and thus, also the resources. As time went on, the farmers and the growing bourgeois communities clashed in the parliament several times.
After the breakthrough for parliamentarism in 1884, the farmers joined the liberal left-wing party under Johan Sverdrup. Here they remained for many years, sometimes breaking out and joining again in the tumultuous history of the party. From 1920 the farmers made their own political party in Norway, called Bondepartiet or the farmer's party, later Senterpartiet. The party and their name lost goodwill during the 1930s, because of the illreputed government of 1931 with Vidkun Quisling acting as a secretary of defence, representing the party.
After the crash of 1929, many farmers lost their properties, and a crisis-plan was established. In this, the newmade NS-party played a role, and many farmers in gratitude voted, or joined the NS the following years. As the tides turned during the 1930s, the farmers got out of the NS, mostly because they didn't need them anymore. Some of the most wealthy farmers stayed on. This turned out to be a problem for them as the second world war came to Norway. In recent years, some historians accuse the entire farmer community in Norway for being sympathetic to the NS. That is not, strictly speaking, true. Although some of the greatest landowners in Eastern Norway and Gudbrandsdalen was on the inside, this was not the case in other areas. Vinje and upper Telemark was reputedly free from NS influence, and the party never found support there.
After the war, it has been the goal of both the Norwegian right-wing party Høyre and the labour-party, who took power in 1935 and kept it almost ever since, to reduce the number of farms in Norway. The labour-party wanted so because they needed space and manpower for their industries, and rather wanted people to join the unions than staying in another party. Høyre wanted to get rid of the farmers because of an ancient grudge, dating back to the 19th century. The Norwegian property laws became a hinder for free trade, and so was the farmers, they claimed.
When the tensions rose in Norway because of the EEC, later the EU, Norwegian farmers positioned themselves on the strong No-block, and with support from other left-wing groups, they stopped Norway from joining the union twice. This is also a right-wing grudge.
Today, the Norwegian farmers are hard put to it, and many suffer greatly under a pressure from the global market. Most Norwegian farmers produce their goods, mostly food, for the sake of their own, and continue and old tradition of "self-saving". This philosophy has been strong in Norway at all times. They are, of course, sceptical to the WTO agreements, and wish rather to join sides with the farmers of developing countries than be sided with farmers in the USA. As Norway is considered a modern industrialized country, this is somewhat difficult to explain. The explanation might lie in the fact that Norway still is a small country with a small market, and no threat to anyone. The farmers claim that free trade would kill off the entire agriculture in Norway, as they would not be able to compete for very long.
[edit] Culture and counter-culture
The farm culture as such had to be preserved through idealism as years turned, and new music and other impulses reached Norway during the 20th century. Folk music in Norway and the nynorsk were symbols of Norwegian counter-culture for many years.
When radio broadcasting was started in Norway, the broadcasting company soon got their own folk music programme, and as this was welcomed in the rural areas (people gathered in silence each Sunday evening at the home of the one farmer with a radio), the folk music was resented in the urban ones. The tensions were great, and many angry readers protested the efforts of bringing hardanger fiddle into their homes. People in Oslo as a rule neither liked nor understood the music. The protests also resulted in casting stones through the windows of Eivind Groven, who was responsible for the folk music programs.
On the other area, Nynorsk, debates went on for many years, and had to be silenced through political agreement as late as 1959. Prejudice, mostly against Nynorsk prevailed for many years, and are still a prominent feature amongst teenagers in Oslo. The right-wing parties still are trying to get votes from young people using this argument.
The farm culture developed then into a strong political counter-culture, with a lot of different branches, like the layman-movement, the fight against alcohol, the fight for rural dialect and nynorsk, the fight for folk music and rural culture, and of course, the lasting fight against centralism. Norway's political landscape is based on the balance between the capital or city and districts.
[edit] Characteristics
Mary Wollstonecraft, the mother of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, described its characteristics in a book published in 1796[5] as, “The distribution of landed property into small farms produces a degree of equality which I have seldom seen elsewhere; and the rich being all merchants, who are obliged to divide their personal fortune amongst their children, the boys always receiving twice as much as the girls, property has met no chance of accumulating till overgrowing wealth destroys the balance of liberty.
“You will be surprised to hear me talk of liberty; yet the Norwegians appear to me to be the most free community I have ever observed.
“The mayor of each town or district, and the judges in the country, exercise an authority almost patriarchal. They can do much good, but little harm,--as every individual can appeal from their judgment; and as they may always be forced to give a reason for their conduct, it is generally regulated by prudence. "They have not time to learn to be tyrants," said a gentleman to me, with whom I discussed the subject.
“The farmers not fearing to be turned out of their farms, should they displease a man in power, and having no vote to be commanded at an election for a mock representative, are a manly race; for not being obliged to submit to any debasing tenure in order to live, or advance themselves in the world, they act with an independent spirit. I never yet have heard of anything like domineering or oppression, excepting such as has arisen from natural causes. The freedom the people enjoy may, perhaps, render them a little litigious, and subject them to the impositions of cunning practitioners of the law; but the authority of office is bounded, and the emoluments of it do not destroy its utility.
“Last year a man who had abused his power was cashiered, on the representation of the people to the bailiff of the district.”
[edit] Relationship to Norway's "aristocracy"
While under Danish rule up until 1814 there was distinct difference in classes, it was not based on wealth. Norway’s “aristocracy” consisted of its bourgeoisie, and was comprised of professional men, officials, clergy, wealthy merchants, a few industrialists, and a smattering of nobles. At its high point in the 18th Century, it was comprised of less than 50 thousand people. Many were descendants of Danish immigrants in the 17th Century and the others had been educated in Denmark. They read foreign books, were culturally were tied to Denmark, and spoke Dano-Norwegian or book language. None-the-less, most were Norwegian in loyalty, sentiment and interests.
[edit] The farmers and politics
The farmers made a strong opposition in the Norwegian Storting from 1835 and forwards. After some years, they got a reputation for making investments difficult. It was wall known that the farmers owned most of the country's real estate, and thus, also the resources. As time went on, the farmers and the growing bourgeois communities clashed in the parliament several times. The farmer's opposition, as it was called, was in many cases unwilling to pay the expenses in the gradual building of the nation.
After the breakthrough for parliamentarism in 1884, the farmers joined the liberal left-wing party under Johan Sverdrup. Here they remained for many years, sometimes breaking out and joining again in the tumultuous history of the party. From 1920 the farmers made their own political party in Norway, called Bondepartiet or the farmer's party, later Senterpartiet. The party and their name lost goodwill during the 1930s, because of the illreputed government of 1931 with Vidkun Quisling acting as a secretary of defence, representing Bondepartiet in the government.
After the crash of 1929, many farmers lost their properties, and a crisis-plan was established. In this, the newmade Nasjonal Samling (NS) party played a role, and many farmers in gratitude voted, or joined the NS the following years. As the tides turned during the 1930s, the farmers got out of the NS, mostly because they didn't need them anymore. Some of the most wealthy farmers stayed on. This turned out to be a problem for them as the second world war came to Norway. In recent years, some historians accuse the entire farmer community in Norway for being sympathetic to the NS. That is not, strictly speaking, true. Although some of the greatest landowners in Eastern Norway and Gudbrandsdalen was on the inside, this was not the case in other areas. Vinje and upper Telemark was reputedly free from NS influence, and the party never found support there.
After the war, it has been the goal of both the Norwegian right-wing party Høyre and the labour-party, who took power in 1935 and kept it almost ever since, to reduce the number of farms in Norway. The labour-party wanted so because they needed space and manpower for their industries, and rather wanted people to join the unions than staying in another party. Høyre wanted to get rid of the farmers because of an ancient grudge, dating back to the 19th century. The Norwegian property laws became a hinder for free trade, and so was the farmers, they claimed.
When the tensions rose in Norway because of the EEC, later the EU, Norwegian farmers positioned themselves on the strong No-block, and with support from other left-wing groups, they stopped Norway from joining the union twice. This is also a right-wing grudge.
Today, the Norwegian farmers are hard put to it, and many suffer greatly under a pressure from the global market. Most Norwegian farmers produce their goods, mostly food, for the sake of their own, and continue and old tradition of "self-preserving". This philosophy has been strong in Norway at all times. They are, of course, sceptical to the WTO agreements, and wish rather to join sides with the farmers of developing countries than be sided with farmers in the USA. As Norway is considered a modern industrialized country, this is somewhat difficult to explain. The explanation might lie in the fact that Norway still is a small country with a small market, and no threat to anyone. The farmers claim that free trade would kill off the entire agriculture in Norway, as they would not be able to compete for very long.
[edit] Culture and counter-culture
The farm culture as such had to be preserved through idealism as years turned, and new music and other impulses reached Norway during the 20th century. Folk music in Norway and the nynorsk were symbols of Norwegian counter-culture for many years.
When radio broadcasting was started in Norway, the broadcasting company soon got their own folk music programs, and as this was welcomed in the rural areas (people gathered in silence each Sunday evening at the home of the one farmer with a radio), the folk music was resented in the urban ones. The tensions were great, and many angry readers protested the efforts of bringing hardanger fiddle into their homes. People in Oslo as a rule neither liked nor understood the music. The protests also resulted in casting stones through the windows of Eivind Groven´s home. He was responsible for the folk music programs, and had to swallow most of the criticism. As a matter of fact, the attitude towards rural culture surfacing in those years revealed a century-long cultural difference dating back to the union with Denmark. Prejudice against farmers and farmer culture sounded in some cases almost racistic. The reactions from the urban middle class in Norway can be compared to reactions from the american middle class when American local radio stations started to broadcast rock music in the 1950s. The basis for this reactions is arguably the old Danish judgement of Norwegians: something between the Noble Wild and a "sub-dane" (In Norway, the word for "mental cultivation", "dannelse", can literally be translated with "Danization"). Here, we also find the roots of the Norwegian "national trauma", thoroughly debated by Henrik Ibsen and others: You have to respect the Norwegian inheritance, but be careful not to become too Norwegian.
On the other area, Nynorsk, debates went on for many years, and had to be silenced through political agreement as late as 1959. Prejudice, mostly against Nynorsk, prevailed for many years, and are still a prominent feature amongst teenagers in Oslo. The right-wing parties still are trying to get votes from young people using this argument.
The farm culture developed then into a strong political counter-culture, with a lot of different branches, like the layman-movement, based on the teachings of Hans Nielsen Hauge and others after him, the struggle against alcohol, closely connected to the religious movement, the struggle for rural dialect and nynorsk, the struggle for folk music and rural culture, and of course, the lasting struggle against centralism. Norway's political history is based on the balance (or strife) between the capital or city and the districts.
[edit] References
- ^ Hylland-Ericksen himself is of urban stock.
- ^ Being Norwegian in a Shrinking World, by Thomas Hylland Eriksen in Continuity and Change; Aspects of Contemporary Norway, Scandinavian University Press, Oslo, ISBN 82-00-21116-9
- ^ a b c The History of the Norwegian People by Knut Gjerset, MacMillan, 1915
- ^ a b c A History of Norway by Karen Larson, Princeton University Press, 1948
- ^ Letters On Sweden, Norway, And Denmark by Mary Wollstonecraft; Cassell & Company; 1889 (reprint of 1795 publication). See Project Gutenberg for an e-text of this book
