You are on page 1of 8

UNNI WIKAN

Debate. Culture in the nation and public opinion: a Norwegian case

Culture: A new concept of race

My purpose here is to alert you to how culture is loose on the streets of Norway as indeed in much of the rest of the world. The expression loose on the streets is not mine. I take it from the anthropologist Paul Bohannan1 who thus characterises a phenomenon of our times. Culture has run astray. And it is now being used helterskelter to promote all kinds of special interests.2 But can a concept that has gone awry function as a tting frame for the encounter between immigrants and Norwegians? My own answer is no. And I shall propose an alternative that can better facilitate mutual respect and understanding.

Loose on the streets


But rst two examples of how culture is loose on the streets of Norway. As a culture expert an anthropologist I am frequently contacted by people who are dealing with immigrants and refugees. One type of call has this character: He has beaten his wife (or children), but says its his culture. What are we to do? The callers are social workers or teachers. A different type of call comes from some lawyers who phone and say: I have this client. He has beaten his wife (or murdered a man or something), but I understand its his culture that . . . Would you please appear in court as an expert witness for the defence and say that? And when I say I will not, this is not a question of culture, the lawyer usually proceeds: But do you think we can nd somebody else who will say that this is his culture? To which my answer is Certainly! The lawyers have hit the nail on its head. Culture is no thing with an objective, material existence. It is just an idea, a word that can be lled with various kinds of contents depending on ones vantage point. But because many people believe it to be like a thing with a xed and revered existence like a holy cow culture becomes
1 Cited in Nader (1988: 153). 2 This is a rewritten version of a lecture originally given at the EASA conference in Barcelona, 1996. It draws on materials published in my books Mot en ny norsk underklasse (1995) and Generous betrayal: Norways venture with culture and identity politics (forthcoming).

Social Anthropology (1999), 7, 1, 5764. 1999 European Association of Social Anthropologists

57

amenable to use in defense of all kinds of special interests. Whoever can gain credence for the claim that this is my (or his/her) culture, has an upper hand. This is precisely what is happening in Norway. Culture has become politicised, unhinged, hollow; it has entered the public arena in ways that erode the well-being of a great many people; indeed, in my view, of society itself. Our common welfare suffers from a misappropriation of culture that masquerades as respect whereas it actually serves, much of the time, as a subterfuge for self-interest, power abuse and racism. This is not to throw the baby out with the bath water, but to draw attention to serious misuses that warrant close attention.

Culture, racism, reductionism


The gist of my argument is as follows: Culture has become a new concept of race in that it functions in a reductionist manner to make them lesser human beings than us. Whereas we regard ourselves as thinking, reasoning, acting human beings with the ability to reect and respond to changing circumstance, they are portrayed as caught in the web of culture and propelled to do as culture bids. The lawyers defence of his client as culture-bound is an example of just such a view of man, professed with the best of intentions. Immigrants are generally perceived as bereft of agency, responsibility and the ability to change or adapt to new circumstances. Hence there is little need to respect them as individuals, for they have no real individuality. What is the more worthy of respect is their culture, that compels them and determines their actions. It is a sad fact of life that many immigrants are also actively reappropriating this model. But in so doing they are actually lending support to a racist model of themselves. For what is racism other than the degradation of persons on the basis of inborn or ethnic characteristics? A model of the human being that portrays the person as a product rather than an agent and as caught in the grip of culture is reductionist and hence racist. Antiracism, by this logic, consists in applying the same model of the human being to natives and immigrants alike, taking them all on earnest as thinking, reasoning, acting human beings.

A collusion of powers
Why would immigrants reappropriate a reductionist model of them? The answer is complex. Sufce it here to note a peculiar t between the self-interest of many, especially men, and ofcial policy in the new home country. Blinded by what they can gain, personally, materially and/or politically by presenting themselves as culturedriven, many immigrants are naturally willing to do so. The government encourages the strategy. Committed to a policy of respect for their culture, immigrants are perceived as uniform carriers of culture conceived as a static object. This paves the way for eloquent spokesmen to enter the arena and proclaim in truth what is the culture. Thus government agencies and immigrants collude in perpetrating a version of culture and a view of man that works to the detriment of the welfare of especially weaker members of ethnic minorities but also of immigrants in general.

58

UNNI WIKAN

Immigrants and ethnic diversity


Immigrants in Norway make up about 5 per cent of the total population, but the true proportion of ethnic minorities is far larger as ofcial denitions count only persons with two foreign-born parents. The majority, about 67 per cent, have arrived over the past ten years: Norway was second only after Italy in being the European country with the highest relative increase in immigrants between 1980 and 1990 (Harris 1995: 12) The majority of immigrants in Norway have settled in the larger cities, especially Oslo, where c. 60 per cent live. But their concentration in certain inner districts and suburbs entails a ghetto-like distribution: whereas every fourth child in primary school in Oslo is of immigrant descent, some schools have a concentration of c. 90 per cent such children. The majority of immigrants in Norway come from Pakistan, with Vietnamese and Bosnians as the second and third largest groups. But ethnic diversity is extreme for a country of only four plus million. In Oslo (population 500,000) alone, some 130 different nationalities are represented and more than 100 different mother tongues are spoken. It is not unusal to nd schools with pupils of 50 to 60 different mother tongues. What do we know of the welfare of immigrants? How do they and their children fare?

Silence as political cover-up


The answer, sadly, is not much. The governments strategy has been to shun knowledge because knowledge is seen as dangerous. Racism might be encouraged if the Norwegian populace came to know that immigrants did not fare so well. What is not acknowledged, however, is that not knowing is also to the governments own advantage. It puts the government in a position of no reproach. For how can the authorities be blamed for a situation that is beyond knowledge? (Here it bears mention that the welfare of immigrants in Norway is regarded as the governments responsibility; see Brox 1997). There is another serious effect of the Norwegian governments policy. It deters the formulation of effective policies that might remedy the situation. For how can one act constructively if one chooses to remain in the dark? Over the past three years I have gone public with just such a critique, voiced it through the media (newspapers, television, radio), public talks and lectures, and through my book Mot en ny norsk underklasse (Towards a new Norwegian underclass, 1995a). I believe I have played some part in making the government change its course. If we dont describe reality, we will awake one day to a reality that is undescribable, notes the Israeli author, David Grossman. It was to counteract such a situation that I have advocated the need for knowledge even if the outcome in the short run might be an upsurge of racism. I think the consequences in the longer run of covering up the matter might be much more serious. As two Pakistani fathers said to a Norwegian newspaper: Our generation will soon be gone. It is our children who are going to live here. Please dont punish them for our wanting ability to dare to address the problems. Daring to address the problems that is the heart of the matter. Norwegian authorities have begun to do so. Over the past three years then the following facts have been revealed.

CULTURE: A NEW CONCEPT OF RACE

59

Some facts of the case


A study from 1995 of the situation of refugees3 in Oslo, disclosed the following picture: unemployment in general was 60 per cent among immigrants, as against 5 per cent for ethnic Norwegians. Only 20 per cent were fully employed, whereas 20 per cent had part-time jobs. More than 50 per cent depended on social welfare for their sustenance, as against 7 per cent of ethnic Norwegians: and the pattern seems to be once on welfare, always on welfare. But the nding that saddened me most regarded the childrens situation: whereas only 4 per cent of Norwegian Norwegian children lived in families where neither the mother nor the father was employed or undergoing education, this applied to 50 per cent of children of immigrants (Hagen and Djuve 1995). Could there be a stronger indicator of a sheer inequality of life circumstance that is likely to marginalise the children of immigrants as it has their parents? One might add to these disconcerting ndings by giving some gures on education, health etc. But let me rather mention a matter on which we do not have reliable studies, but that warrants grave attention. It concerns competence in Norwegian, the general medium of instruction, work and communication. There are strong indicators that many immigrants (especially women) and their children fare badly with regard to knowledge of Norwegian. The headmaster of one school with 90 per cent minority-lingual pupils reported that roughly 50 per cent of them begin school without knowing any Norwegian, though they have been born in the country. Another headmaster estimated that 60 per cent of students graduate after nine years without knowing Norwegian well enough to land a job in the country. Several parents have come forward and complained that their children, born and bred here, know Norwegian more poorly than they do as immigrants. This is the result of several factors, among them increased marginalisation and segregation. But Norwegian language policies also play a major role. Mother tongue education has been the standard policy. But it is questionable whom the policy has served. The effect has irrefutably been to parade national languages under the banner mother tongue for whose benet? Thus Berber children have been required to learn Arabic as their mother tongue, Punjabi, Pashto and Baluchi children Urdu etc. Most Pakistani pupils in effect have had to cope with four foreign languages from the start: Norwegian, Urdu, English, and Arabic (in Koran school). No wonder the comprehension of many of them suffers. What is surprising is not that they struggle, but that some manage well against the odds.

Welfare colonialisation
I have drawn a picture of immigrants in Norway as generally marginalised. But there are signicant differences between the different minorities. Take employment as an example: about 80 per cent of Tamils are employed as against only about 10 per cent of Somalis and Vietnamese. With regard to education, Indian, Vietnamese and Polish children do very well, as against Pakistanis, Maroccans and Turks in general. I do not have space to address the possible reasons for these differences here, nor do they
3 The study focused on refugees who had been in the country seven to eight years. When I generalise about the immigrant population, it is, rst, because the majority of immigrants in Oslo have arrived over the past ten years; and, second, because other studies point to a similar picture.

60

UNNI WIKAN

matter much in this context. The point of my argument here is to highlight the general features. I have used the terms marginalisation and relative deprivation to sum up the Norwegian case. Welfare colonialization4 should be added for it points to the fact that the situation is not the result of negligence and ill-will. It is the outcome of an active policy of benevolence practised with the immigrants best interests in mind. It is a matter of doing harm in the name of charity. Why did things go so wrong ?

Unfounded and unrealistic premises


Norwegian immigrant policies were based, in my view, on three unrealistic, or even utopian, premises about society and human nature. Let me spell them out. The rst concerned respect. Immigrants have a claim to respect (krav p respekt). This the politicians and media never tired of telling the natives. It was reiterated time and time again, the notion being that the way to a colourful community (farverikt fellesskap) goes through the hearts and minds of people: If we, the host population, were anti-racist and respectful of immigrants, then they would respond in kind and be grateful and loyal citizens. But this attests to an idealist view of human nature. In no society that I know can you come uninvited and demand respect. Respect must be earned, not claimed, and the way to earn it is to be given a chance to prove ones worth. It demands something of immigrants and natives both. But practical policies are also called for that provide opportunities for immigrants to show their qualities and competence. A second failed premise concerned the expectation that immigrants would become loyal citizens, if only their material needs were covered: hence handing out social welfare was the way forward. Immigrants in Norway are well treated materially: among Pakistanis, for example, Norway is said to be the most generous country in the world (Lien 1997). But it is not a given that gratefulness and loyalty will ensue. People do not necessarily respond with gratitude to being placed at the receiving end of a gift relationship. Rather, feelings of inferiority and bitterness are likely to ensue. Life on social welfare does not engender self-respect. And self-respect is a basic human need. Unless this need is reckoned with, we are in deep trouble. A third failed premise of the governments immigration policies concerned the concept of culture. It was assumed that culture referred to a static, objective body of traditions that immigrants en masse adhered to. Thus all members of one ethnic group were presumed to share a common culture, but since distinguishing ethnicities was difcult, it meant in reality that the members of one nation were presumed to be carriers of the same culture. But since the government could not know what the culture was, one needed experts to show the way. It was essential to know because Norwegian policy is aimed at integration, not assimilation. It means that they should abide by the laws and basic values of society such as democracy, gender equality, and the rights of the child whereas we should respect their culture. But this is a contradiction in terms, for it assumes that culture is something other than laws and basic values; hence the two parties to integration should be able to have their cake and eat it too.5 Moreover, the idea of culture that was invoked, rested on a hollow foundation. By taking culture to be the Truth, the
4 I take the term from the well-known American human activist, Ernesto Cortes Jr (cited in Lavelle et al. 1995). For a discussion of the term in the Norwegian context, see Wikan (1995: 158 76). 5 For empirical examples, see Wikan forthcoming and 1995a.

CULTURE: A NEW CONCEPT OF RACE

61

way was paved for power abuse and cultural fundamentalism (Wikan 1995b). The critical question who denes what for whom and whose interest does it serve? was not asked. And thus the goverment and ofcials came to serve as liaisons of particular political interests rather than serving the common good, as they intended. Losers in particular were women and children.

Culture, power and pain


Culture works to distribute pain unequally in populations, notes the Indian anthropologist, Veena Das (1989). It is not hard to nd examples from Norway. Take the position of many Muslim women. They have been disempowered, deprived of competences and responsibilities they enjoyed back home, in part because men with the blessing of the Norwegian authorities have usurped their position. It happened in the name of culture, and for the best of reasons. Norwegian authorities, as we have seen, have upheld the power of men who were quick to take advantage of this generous state of affairs. Many were able to ascend to a position of authority and power far beyond that they held back home. Hence their self-respect and social status grew at the expense of other family members. Only after much harm had been done some of which is probably irreparable in that the ranks have been solidied and vested interests served that are not easily challenged are ofcial policies beginning to change.

Anthropology and advocacy


Given a situation like the one outlined above, what can anthropologists do? First, it is necessary to realise that it is our concept that is loose on the streets. The notion of culture as static, xed, objective, consensual and uniformly shared by all members of a group is a gment of the mind that anthropologists have done their share to spread. So is the idea that culture compels people to act in certain ways, as if they did not have motivation or will. Also, the interplay of power and culture is one that anthropologists have been slow to discover and slower still to dissipate. In short, though we have come to revise received notions of culture among ourselvs, how active have we been in going public with our new knowledge? The answer from Norway is, far from enough. Take the situation of children as an example. Though it has long been known in anthropology that culture refers not just to traditions and knowledge that have been passed on from generation to generation, but also to culture in the making, it is the old model that is loose on the streets, at least in Norway. This is clearly to the detriment of youngsters, for it places all power where it does not belong, with the forefathers. An implication of this misperception in the case of immigrants is the conation of childrens culture with that of their parents. There is great concern that they should remain in their culture, but the question What is in fact their culture? is rarely asked. It is assumed that it is the same as their parents. Anthropology tells us otherwise. If culture is also in the making, then there is bound to be some difference. Norwegians know it in the case of their own children. But when it comes to children of immigrants, they tend to apply another model. They should become a kind of carbon copy of their parents, unlike our children, who

62

UNNI WIKAN

should learn and grow. Again, it is a matter of racism performed in the name of charity. Anthropologists have been criticised, rightly in my view, for being dealers in exotica (Keesing 1989). My own work, not just in Norway, convinces me that an exoticised view of persons may easily become a dehumanising one (Wikan 1990; 1993). To counteract racism and further integration it is necessary in my view not just to speak against a notion of culture as difference, but to include sameness in the model. Completely different, exactly the same, is how a Balinese priest envisions the human populace (Barth 1993). Would that anthropologists would broadcast the message, so as to help furnish that bridge without which cross-cultural understanding can scarcely take place.

Speaking truth to power


Speaking truth to power is what Eric Wolf has admonished us to do. Some have tried. In Norway the reductionist model of man is now being supplanted by one that considers all people as individuals, agents in their own right. It does not entail an advocacy of individualism (Cohen 1994), but a view of the person that honours the integrity of each human being. With this emphasis on the individual, goes a delimited view of culture. It is still seen as a power that shapes human behaviour and affords community and communication, but not as a superpower that holds people in its grip. Power is seen as vested with persons and institutions, who may use it for various ends. But then it is they, not their culture, that are accountable. The connection between culture, power and pain is by now being well publicised, with documented good effects. One measure of the change is seen in the practical policies, another in formal statements. Thus there is a signicant change in the view of culture professed in the governments parliamentary proposition on immigrant policy of 1987 vs. the recent one of 1997. No longer is there any talk of respect for the culture and of culture as static, frozen in time. Instead the focus is on human rights, and on the individuals right to have her cultural identity and her integrity respected.

Conclusion: Cultural and human rights


The most difcult question in any plural society regards the relation between cultural and individual rights. I do not have space here to address the matter in any depth, but it should be clear from the foregoing where I stand.6 I believe that it is not possible to advocate cultural rights and human rights equally at the same time. One is forced to take a position. My own position is that the integrity of each human being needs to be respected, at the expense of respect for culture if necessary. This is not a position I have reached without struggle. But it seems to me the only feasible one, given what I have learned from research and practical work about the pitfalls of trying to apply both equally, or of sacricing individual welfare for the sake of culture. Speaking against culture does not mean that the concept will have to go. But it means using it with great care. It also means paying greater attention to political economy and that practical world where culture, pain, and power come together in intricate ways. Then it will not be so easy to commit the Norwegian governments
6 See also Wikan forthcoming.

CULTURE: A NEW CONCEPT OF RACE

63

naive mistake placing the problem in the hearts and minds of people. I dont deal with feelings, I deal with problems, said the Israeli Premier, Yitzhak Rabin on the eve of receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. Let him have the last word. Preaching good feelings is important, but practising policies that address problems in the political economy is more conducive to the attitudes that make for a good society.
Unni Wikan Ethnographic Museum University of Oslo Frederiksgate 2 0167 Oslo Norway

References
Barth, Fredrik. 1993. Balinese worlds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Brox, Ottar. 1998. Policy implications of the settlement patterns of immigrants. Some Norwegian experiences and viewpoints. In OECD Proceedings: Immigrants, integration, cities. Exploring the links. Cohen, Anthony. 1994. Self-consciousness. An alternative anthropology of identity. London: Routledge. Das, Veena. 1989. What do we mean by health? Unpublished manuscript. Hagen, Kre og Anne Britt Djuve. 1995. Skaff meg en jobb. Levekr blant yktninger i Oslo. Oslo: FAFO Harris, Nigel. 1995. The new untouchables. Immigration and the New World worker. London: Tauris. Keesing, Roger. 1989. Exotic readings of cultural texts. Current Anthropology 30(4), 459 69. Lavelle, Robert (ed.). 1995. Americas new war on poverty. A reader for action. San Francisco: KOED Books. Lien, Inger-Lise. 1997. Ordet som stempler djevlene. Holdninger blant pakistanere og nordmenn. Oslo: Aventura. Nader, Laura. 1988. Post-Interpretive anthropology. Anthropological Quarterly 61: 149 59. Wikan, Unni. 1990. Managing turbulent hearts. A Balinese formula for living. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1993. Beyond the words. The power of resonance. American Ethnologist 19(3): 460 82. 1995a. Mot en ny norsk underklasse. Innvandrere, kultur og integrasjon. Oslo: Gyldendal. 1995b. Kulturfundamentalismen. En trussel mof frihet og menneskeverd. Samtiden. Forthcoming. Generous betrayal. Norways venture with culture and identity politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

64

UNNI WIKAN

You might also like