Equality

Norway has been considered to be a country where egalitarian values have had greater success than elsewhere. This means that Norwegians have been receptive to trends emphasising factors such as codetermination, integration and economic equality. Visitors to Norway are often surprised by the relatively small differences in income between rich and poor, the generous grants from the state to students and families with children, and the extent to which children with special needs have been integrated in our schools, and these are just a few examples.

Political scientist Bernt Hagtvet made this comment in Aftenposten in April 2004: ‘The quest for equality is distinctly Norwegian. If you go to Britain, you discover the immense amount of energy people use in order to create distance between one another.’ In Norway he finds an easy-going atmosphere between members of different classes in society, and between those who govern and those governed. Hagtvet elaborates, ‘I can send an email to our prime minister if I want to. Norway is the most transparent society in Europe. This is a triumph’.

How, then, do historians explain this Norwegian preference for egalitarian values? Here are two explanations. First of all, in a very long-term historical perspective, Norway stands out in European history as a country where feudalism never had any real success. With certain exceptions (the expansive farmlands in the east and parts of Trøndelag) Norwegian rural society has been characterised by considerable social equality, and so differs from rural Europe as a whole. The Norwegian author Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson (1832–1910) wrote that ‘Norway is a country of houses and cottages, but no castles’. This absence of an aristocratic upper class can be partially explained through its geography. In most parts of the country, the landscape does not support farming on a large scale. Flying over Norway, you will see mountains, lakes, fjords, glaciers, forests and small islands. The lack of arable land is striking. Today, less than 3% of Norway is cultivated.

Consequently, in this long-term historical perspective, Norway was sparsely populated, and it was difficult for rich farmers to mobilise poor farmers to work in their fields and pay land taxes in ways characteristic of feudal societies elsewhere in Europe. The typical rural pattern in Norway

14

consists of small farmsteads that are very much alike. These decisive geographical factors have contributed to the fact that Norwegian economic life has invariably been based on small units. As a result, by European standards, Norway lacks an influential, conservative upper class. A British female student in my class once commented, ‘I’m a socialist, and my aim is to tear down the class system in Britain. It seems that likeminded Norwegians have a much easier job. They don’t have a rigid class system to tear down’.

There have, of course, existed differences between people in Norway, as in most societies. From about 1300 to 1821 there was a small class of lesser nobility in the countryside, and along the coast during the last 400 years shipowners have managed to make immense fortunes in international trade. In church, the social hierarchy of everyday life was reflected in where you were seated, well into the 19th century: the upper class at the front, the ‘free’ farmers in the middle, and the smallholders at the back. It seems, however, to be a matter of scale. Comparatively, the differences were greater elsewhere in Europe.

A second possible explanation for the success of an egalitarian value system is the emergence of several popular movements in the 19th century. It started around the turn of the century with the preaching of a farmer called Hans Nielsen Hauge (1771–1824). Contrary to the law, which stated that laymen were not allowed to organise religious meetings without the consent of the local minister, Hauge travelled up and down the country, discussing religious matters with people and preaching the gospel to ordinary men and women. He was also an energetic financial entrepreneur, organising mills, printing shops and sawmills. He had no formal education, no formal religious garb and no authorisation from the king. Consequently, he was sent to prison on several occasions. More importantly, when people met to sing, pray and listen to Hauge’s religious messages, the rich and the poor, men and women, the farmer and the smallholder sat next to each other. 200,000 copies of his writings were printed and read all over the country. This is probably a world record considering that Norway had a population of 900,000 at the time. Historian Berge Furre claims that Hauge’s work has had a lasting impact on Norwegian history, stressing such values as equal status and the opportunity for people to be masters of their own lives. These were values that fitted perfectly with the ideals of

15

the American and French revolutions at the time: liberty, equality and fraternity. Hauge was not a socialist, but he disliked the capitalist tendency to show off wealth. The aim of economic enterprise was not maximum profit and material opulence. His ambition was to eradicate poverty and live a devout life as a Christian. Too much and too little were equally immoral. Thus during the 19th century, the tradition of segregating people in church according to social status was changed.2

Several popular movements influenced Norwegian values during the 19th century, and some may be considered to be protests against senior state officials (embetsmenn), who dominated political life at the time. Søren Jaabæk (1814–1894) organised farmers all over Norway in associations through which the rural population were trained to discuss, make speeches and to fight for their rights. Jaabæk himself worked hard in the Storting (Norwegian Parliament) in order to increase the political influence of the farmers. Outside the Storting, Marcus Thrane (1817–1890) organised the emerging working class in 414 associations with 30,000 members. This movement was sparked by urban dissatisfaction, and spread like wildfire to the surrounding rural areas. The fight for universal suffrage was given the highest priority. Like Hans Nielsen Hauge, Marcus Thrane was imprisoned for several years. The fight for equality, religious, political and economic, was still seen as a provocation in the mid 19th century. The awakening of the laymen, the farmers and the workers, however, had a lasting influence on the formation of Norwegian values.

The growth of the welfare state after 1945 has also been a factor contributing to equality in Norway. The Norwegian state has introduced numerous measures aimed at equalising access to material goods and benefits. An elaborate and generous social security system was introduced after World War II. Child benefits (1946), sickness benefits (1956) and old age pensions (1957) were among the most important reforms made available to everyone. Young families were given subsidised loans in order to acquire apartments and build houses, and students were offered scholarships and low interest rates on loans. The aim of the welfare state has been to fight what were considered the five main evils in society: poverty, illness, unemployment,

2 Furre, B. (2004). Ikkje alt som tel, kan teljast. Bedre skole, (4), 48–55.

16