(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
It is 07.45, and P2's Political Quarter is buzzing in the kitchen. Suddenly my daughter looks up from the morning porridge and says, "Why do they humiliate each other like that?" I couldn't help but nod as this happened one morning a while back. I was happy with the linguistic level that was expelled, but most of all I felt that she hit the nail on the head. If you are not very politically interested, political debates sometimes feel like rhetorical breaks.
This may be the fault of the media, as much as the politicians. But no matter: It is only to be welcomed that Vidarforlaget strikes with a discussion book called A Third Way. Not to the right, not to the left, but towards a more just and sustainable future. Here, author Arne Øgaard's concern is precisely to inspire a higher level of political conversation.
We are in the midst of an election campaign where politicians try to outdo each other by emphasizing their own ideas, while at the same time, more or less inextricably reaching down on others. In other words, this is well timed, both by author and, not least, publishers.
Starting point: contradictions. Øgaard's point of departure is that we face a number of dilemmas in the fight against hunger, poverty and unjust distribution of the earth's material resources. The author's method is to look at the contradictory views on how to solve these problems. By looking for the best in conflicting perspectives, he then tries to reconcile these to completely new ideas.
This is not original, but equally important, not least in our time with large amounts of easily accessible information. Øgaard works thoroughly, and through 20 chapters he addresses issues such as economic growth or lower consumption, red or blue, more or less tax, more or less work, public or private, global or local, owning or managing nature, free access or intellectual property rights, organic or conventional food production.
These are issues of the time, and issues that seem to be catching on more and more, not least younger people. And this is where I think the book has its audience. Not because we are faced with simple reasoning, but because the handy little book touches on most of what are today's big questions, and which are often put into an ideological context. In a non-dogmatic and easy-to-understand way, we get brief introductions to the main features of current thinking, and then the author tries to come up with a reflection where new possibilities and directions are discussed. Most of it is familiar material, but this is perfectly fine: the book is an interesting review of existing knowledge.
Anthroposophical common thread. The book still has a tendency, which is anthroposophical in its basic tone, as I read it. Rudolf Steiner's (1861–1925) impulses are clear, and ethics, banking, organic farming and art and architecture are therefore important points of discussion. Steiner's social theory, called tree branching, with thoughts on concepts such as freedom, equality and brotherhood, is important to the author.
Personally, I have no relation to anthroposophy, and it probably has its dogmatists, like all worldviews and superstructures. Steiner himself described the line of thought as "an experimental method for the universal and for general world phenomena". In other words, it is not meant to be a finished and closed "system", but more to be regarded as a way of working that can only exist in that it is in continuous development in and between people.
That is the starting point I think the author manages to achieve. Not least because he has credibility by having worked practically with several of the thematic areas the book deals with. He has been associated with the alternative, ethical bank Cultura; he has worked in food production and distribution at Helios and he is a teacher at Steinerskolen.
Own or manage nature, free access or intellectual property rights, organic or conventional food production?
The midwife. This is how Øgaard becomes a kind of modern Socrates. He engages in maievtikk, an "earthwork", and will help us to a form of "spiritual redemption", as I read him. Ødegaard is humble enough to say that he does not necessarily have the right answers – but by treating the topics so thoroughly and multifaceted, the reader can next ask more precise questions and thus release thoughts she herself carries, but is not yet aware of. . Then new knowledge is attracted.
"We must all seek inspiration, so that we can to a greater extent act not out of short-term motives, but out of love for the world." This is how Øgaard ends his book. Naive? I do not think so. On the contrary, this ethical statement is worth taking into account in the 2017 election campaign.
We do not want politicians who humiliate each other. Because in reality, they humiliate both you and me at the same time.
