Yesterday I was incredibly unmotivated for anything at all, but today I had a good day at work (got to read a fabulous chapter on monsters by my PhD student) and managed to get my US tax return finished. Printing it out turns out to be a bit of a pain, though. Since it's US letter size and the only paper I have here is A4, the right margin (where all the numbers are) gets cut off. I'll fiddle with it tomorrow.
Dear Reader, read no further unless you're game for a pointless ramble on Norwegian political ideologies:
In terms of work I finally tracked down the sources I need on defining "kulturradikalisme": one of 3 articles by Eivind Tjønneland on the topic as well as Torunn Borge's 2000 book Gudsskrekk, which is basically a critique of Tjønneland (along with all the sources they cite, giving me more articles to track down. Sigh). Kulturradikalisme is one of those terms that gets bandied about all the time here in Norway, but that sometimes seems to means different things depending on the speaker. Or at least the term is used very imprecisely. It has an identifiable genealogy with three phases: roughly 1. 1870s & 1880s (Brandes/Ibsen/Jæger), 2. 1930s (Øverland/Hoel/Krog), 3. 1960s (the Profil-group). The one that concerns me is the third wave, since that's what Frobenius writes about. I still haven't clarified for myself to what degree kulturradikalisme overlaps with (or is synonymous with) "68-erne" (the so-called 1968 generation).
I'm hoping that the readings I located will help me understand what's going on ideologically in Frobenius' Teori og praksis. It appears that there are simultaneously three different ideologies being critiqued in the book: 1. Conservativism (Høyre-politikk), 2. Social Democracy (Arbeiderpartiet), and 3. Kulturradikalisme itself, though this last one is hard to pinpoint and perhaps ironic, since that's the protagonist/author/narrator's (initial?) position.
What finally hit home for me today is the enormous cultural gap and open antagonism between man-on-the-street Labor and the intellectuals who make up kulturradikalisme. I guess I always assumed that the kulturradikale elites were somehow encompassed under the happy Labor umbrella, but it turns out they're most definitely not, as Frobenius' novel point out. Actually, I should have known that anyway, but it gets complicated, what with the elite's bizarre flirtation with Maoism and contrived identification with the working class (which never really accepted them).
Kulturradikalisme is/was at any rate anti-bourgeois, anti-religion, and anti-capitalism and at the same time highly critical of the ruling labor party precisely because that party had great political and economic power. This is counter-intuitive for me, since I would typically assume that the left and the radical left would share values. Perhaps it's just my American biases at work here, where labor (primarily in the form of unions) and management (a.k.a. "capitalist pigs") are traditionally construed as being adversaries. In the Scandinavian welfare states, on the other hand, the official labor parties cooperate extensively (some would say "are in bed") with management, and there is no perceived contradiction.
Argh. I'm not getting anywhere here. The short version:
Kulturradikalisme is (or at least has been in one or more of its waves) ANTI:
- religion
- capitalism
- the bourgeoisie
- anything that smacks of hypocrisy and/or moral double standards
Kulturradikalisme is (or at least has been in one or more of its waves) PRO:
- sexual liberation (the whole gamut from Jæger's idealized free love to today's moderate social democratic policies on things like birth control, divorce, or the number of sexual partners it is generally viewed as acceptable to have had in one's life)
- Freudian psychoanalysis
- Marxism









