Tolerance and pluralism

• Yes, I want to call myself a cultural radical, says Thomas Hylland Eriksen.

And the cultural-radical struggle is not won, he believes.

However, according to the professor, the tradition of Georg Brandes and the interwar period clovers consisting of Sigurd Hoel, Helge Krog and Arnulf Øverland must be renewed. If we are to believe him, the view of history they assumed is outdated.

• The idea of ​​progress, that history has a direction, no longer has the right of life. As little as everything was better before, it can be said that social development is moving in a certain direction.

In addition, the fight for a freer sexual morality has been won. "Paperless marriages" are accepted by the vast majority, abortion opponents are few and weak, and religion has loosened its grip on people. But this does not mean that cultural radicalism has triumphed on all fronts and that it should ally with capitalism.

- A critical attitude

• The idea of ​​equality is the leftmost thought of the left. But there is a difference between equality and equality. The distinction between a political, a cultural and an economic sphere can be useful in this context. In politics and the economy, equal opportunities and rights are of the good. But within the cultural world, tolerance and pluralism apply, says the professor

And this is especially what he wants to build on in a new cultural-radical project.

• But a culturally radical left must also assume that the social democratic welfare state has some negative features. It in some respects seems centralizing and empowering. In opposition to this, a line goes back to the anti-conformism of original cultural radicalism.

- So let's get started, then. What is the core of your cultural radicalism? What should be added to the tradition if it is to be renewed?

• The key point is a critical attitude that does not shy away from self-examination. Postcolonial thinking represents the best source for this today.

- In line with Edward Said's drawing then, perhaps, with the classic Orientalism as a good example of method and thought?

• Yes absolutely. Edward Said was concerned with the symbolic side of the matter – what we call symbolic power or defining power. Of the power to define the world on behalf of others. The project is about questioning established definitions of how the world is screwed together: Who is visible and who is made invisible? How much are other people worth, and how is the description of the world colored by experience and point of view?

Hylland Eriksen believes that research on minorities provides a good example of the problem that exists today.

• It is about recognizing cultural complexity, he says.

In Western countries, we are very concerned about the integration problem, but often forget about the transnational reality immigrants find themselves in. The interest in the sending countries is minimal, explains the social anthropologist.

• Then the power of definition lies with the researchers, and ultimately the Norwegian state that funds this research. Not with the minorities.

thus:

• It must be a cultural radical's main task to shift the power of definition. We must decentralize it, and take on a pluralistic attitude towards truth. What we see depends a lot on where we come from.

Monopoly trouble

One concrete challenge is to raise critical questions about our national ideas, says Hylland Eriksen.

• To be monopolistic is to ask for trouble – it is suicide and out of step with our time. As Knut Kjeldstadli, among others, has shown in Norwegian immigration history norway can Norwegian be regarded as something unambiguous and unchangeable, he says, before continuing:

• But this is not just about Norwegianness and immigration. A cultural radicalism for the 21st century must be about tolerance and diversity when it comes to the question of what is the path to the good life. The new cultural radicalism must be open to a number of forms of difference, and it must even be open to attitudes to life. The cultural radicals of the 1930s and 1950s fought fiercely against it. There are women at home who are criticized by feminists because they "allow themselves to be oppressed". But they may not. One should not have to defend that one likes Wagner, for example, or is a Christian. What cultural radicalism is fighting against is the tendency to generalize and make its values ​​general norms. The is the fundamental difference between the cultural radical and a man like Dagfinn Høybråten. There are cultural radicals who share his way of life, and perhaps his values, but they do not invoke a universally valid project to be squeezed on others. Rather, it is civilizing to be confronted with otherness. It triggers self-reflection and allows for self-examination because one's own life project and one's own values ​​are embossed.

- But does this not imply a danger to moral relativism? Are there no absolutes that one must stand for?

• Well, I think the problem of relativism is exaggerated. I know no one who has lost their values ​​by getting to know other people's moral views. But we must have a jam-packed universalism at the bottom. We must keep a set of values ​​that are not subject to negotiation. It had the original cultural radicals, and it must also have a new cultural radicalism. But it must not be overwhelming.

- What do you mean by a "jam-thin universalism"? What must it contain, and what should it not say?

• In my version, which I am willing to defend as universal, it is based on a centuries-old tradition of Western rights thinking, but recognizes that rights such as freedom, security and democracy can be realized in different ways. Such universalism is also very sensitive to tendencies towards majority dictatorship, and that is why it is labeled "jam-thin". I consider Hinduism to be a better starting point than the religions of the Middle East in this context.

A delicate but important dividing line

By embracing pluralism, accepting immigration and distributing the power of definition more democratically, the intellectual does not become a useful idiot for international capitalism, one might ask. Do you not play on a team with Benetton's "united colors" or Nokia's "connecting people"?

- Firstly. Isn't there someone who loses out on increased immigration?

• Well, it's true that not everyone benefits from it. EU enlargement has meant that Norwegian workers can be outcompeted by Polish workers – and in the future perhaps by people from more distant areas. One must ask oneself where one's solidarity lies: Is global equalization more important than a continuation of the traditional business structure in Norway? I believe we have a duty to look up – in the name of humanism and justice. We must be willing to give up something. Eric Zsiga, the man behind the pop left debate in Sweden, has a point when he points out: If sugar-rich left-wing radical pop stars do not want to give up one of their cars in order for the civilian population in Darfur to get some protein – how can they demand business leaders to do so? No, the first commandment of a cultural radical is to lead by example.

- Secondly. Can not the tolerance you preach be "eaten up" by the forces of capital and thus be deprived of its critical power? And does not much of the tolerance we undoubtedly see in Norwegian society bear the mark of slipping into indifference?

• Yes, there is something in the new tolerance that is similar to indifference. We can also put this in connection with the postmodern irony's tendency not to take other people seriously. But there is a delicate and incredibly important dividing line between liberal attitudes with the chorus "let people do as they please" and the indifference of "let people do what hell they will ”. The value greed is found in the market's freedom to realize itself as a consumer. Not with those who are concerned with pluralism and respect for what is different. It is true that the market is trying to expropriate the cultural radical project and create something similar. This must be avoided. At the same time, one must avoid conformism. Both parts lead to unification and less variation. There are distinctions within popular culture, and there are more and more of them, but many of the cultural industry's products are aimed at very many and must therefore find a minimum common multiple. Then you get products that are simple and swallow but have a short learning curve. We should become better at seeking out the slightly quirky and local that gives a little resistance. The gives pluralism in the cultural life.

- The Bulgarian Tzvetan Todorov's thoughts, as they are expressed in the book Hope and memory might be useful in this dual opposition to conformism on the one hand and the tendency of capitalism to align on the other?

• Yes, far from it. He points to the danger of instrumentalizing society. That everything should be made more efficient and productive, even in sectors where it is not desirable – such as in the health sector, for example. The diagnosis is reminiscent of what I have called the "supermarket community": It does not matter what you sell as long as it can be stacked high on pallets and driven quickly out of the warehouse. At the same time, he points to the tendency towards authoritarian moralism or "moral correctness". He describes it as a tendency that "tries to bring morality and politics back together, and that accelerates the exclusion of deviants, strengthens moralization and spreads a mood of self-righteousness". Cultural radicalism must fight on these two fronts at the same time.

Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Todorov has also argued that the United States is increasingly similar to an authoritarian regime.

• Different from the totalitarianism of earlier times because it is dressed in democratic sheep's clothing, but with many of the same consequences, says Hylland Eriksen.

Among other things, he thinks that patriotism has led to self-censorship in the American media. This in turn has led to the spread of disinformation in the American public, including regarding Bush's basis for going to war with Iraq. One of the most extreme examples, according to Hylland Eriksen, is a poll recently cited by the BBC, which shows that more than half of the American population still believes that Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks on the World Trade Center.

• The associations go to George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984. In fact, such a unification and radical Islamism, which also provide rigid, dogmatic and centralist answers to the questions of modernity, represent two sides of the same coin. It is a rhetoric that gravitates towards "the right doctrine". In contrast, Europe has a far more pluralistic tradition, which is closer to cultural radicalism, he says.

What can trigger moral outrage?

Todorov also points to what he calls "divisive identity politics" as a dangerous development that could become more significant in the 21st century. Is this also something cultural radicalism should take with it?

• I believe there is an important distinction between identity politics from above and identity politics from below. The casteless in India, is an example of the latter. Enhanced group spirit has enabled them to fight more effectively for their interests. If the goal is to achieve political or economic equality, identity politics from below is a good thing. It becomes pointless to accuse the casteless of essentialism. Identity politics from above, on the other hand, is problematic. Then it's about excluding groups from society. You quickly get a "strategic essentialism" that entails the exact opposite of equal opportunities and rights, says Hylland Eriksen.

But.

• That said, the early cultural radicals took on phenomena such as trust, commitment and a sense of community a little too lightly. You have to have something like that in a society. One might say that cultural radicalism is about making a serious attempt to deal with the tension between what divides and what gathers – without definitive answers, but with concrete solutions.

- Cultural radicalism has been about building down the normative control over our lives. In this way, it has been an overriding project. But today this overrun is a hallmark of consumer culture. It takes a lot to trigger moral resentment in today's Norway. Has cultural radicalism lost this transcendental potential?

• When I worked for Gateavisa in the 80's, we found out at an editorial meeting that the most shocking thing we could come up with was probably to become Christians all together. Now I think the most important thing is to avoid stiffening with a simple set of attitudes and solutions. Cultural radicalism has also been about avoiding the sheep herd mentality. The Åsne Seierstad debate can basically serve as an example of the need for a renewed cultural radicalism on this point. Everyone celebrated Åsne to begin with. Then came the reactions from the bookstore in Kabul. Suddenly she was – albeit temporarily – denied all honor. The cultural radical must rather think like this: If most people think that all arranged marriages are forced marriages, someone must point out that it can also be a nice thing. And vice versa: When people said that it was so "great with the immigrants' strong family ties", one had to object that these ties limited the individual freedom. The point is to break up a form of conformism that settles quickly. Again, we are back to Edward Said: The cultural radical must question accepted truths.

- Where can you find cultural radicalism in today's Norway? Is it reserved for the left or is it spread across the political spectrum? Why do you think there is a lack of a cultural radical movement in Norway when there are still cultural radical struggles of importance to fight again?

• That is a difficult question. But to start somewhere: at least I do not think that cultural radicalism is reserved for the political left alone. Those who enter their time, but choose to swim against the current in an offensive, intelligent and optimistic way, will function culturally radically, regardless of the party book. The concern, on the other hand, is never cultural radical, only conservative.