Home » Travel » Norway » Tradition: The Most Dangerous Game (Part II of II)

Tradition: The Most Dangerous Game (Part II of II)

© Valerie Borey

Continued from Part I…

Tradition also becomes a vehicle for marking social class, for among expatriated Norwegians it is most often the learned, the scholarly, and the moneyed who own the rights to tradition. At ethnic gatherings, it is not unusual to view a certain jockeying for social position as participants engage in a mutual evaluation of ethnic authenticity. Assessment, through indirect scrutiny, is made on the basis of how many generations one is removed from Norway, how thorough is one’s education in and knowledge of the Nordic tradition, and how extensive are one’s political connections in the various organizations. Consequently, by revealing an intimate familiarity with the trappings of tradition (and social proximity to those who represent that tradition), one is also disclosing information about how they are to be ranked in the social hierarchy.

Being socially successful among ethnic Norwegians abroad doesn’t just mean being knowledgeable about Norway and the Norwegian culture. It means knowing the right kind of information. That is, it means knowing about accepted “tradition”. What emerges is an overabundance of funded Ibsen analyses and woodcarving stipends, with little monetary or scholarly attention paid to other aspects of Nordic culture.

The struggle for social prominence is not limited to the high rollers of the Norwegian identity exchange, but trickles down to even the youngest members of the group. The finest investment a parent or grandparent can make is the purchase of an authentic bunad for their child or grandchild, as this will at least temporarily secure their place in the social hierarchy of the next generation. This is followed by formal instruction in the Norwegian arts of folk music and dance, (for the girls) an eventual teenage debut as Santa Lucia in local pageantry, and at least one sponsored pilgrimage to the home country.

Herein lies the trick, for in an effort to preserve Norwegian tradition it is a different sort of tradition that has emerged. It is the tradition of keeping tradition and as such breaks with its initial goal of being authentically Norwegian. The difference is crucial, for whereas the one is bound (by rules of authenticity) to the ever-changing nature of Norwegian culture, the other is bound (by the aims of preservation) to the evolution of practices resisting change.

Now, according to Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1989), “tradition” is “the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, etc. from generation to generation, esp. by word of mouth or by practice.” It is the unbalanced interpretation of this definition that leads us continually to confusion, for while we tend to emphasize the concreteness of “statements, beliefs, legends, customs, etc.” as if these things were proper objects in themselves, we also tend to ignore the importance of transmission “by word of mouth or by practice.” It is the mode of transmission, I would argue, that ultimately defines the object of tradition.