Nordic modernity is often understood in terms of enlightened and progressive welfare politics and social equality. There is a more or less implicit connotation to images of a social democratic model. The aim of this article is twofold: to discuss the historical preconditions and construction of that model of progressive politics, and to discuss its relevance today and its future prospects. Concerning the first aim, the argument is that there is nothing historically predetermined of a progressive development path. Nordic modernity should not be understood as teleology or as given by a natural state of egalitarian peasant communities. Historically, all the Nordic societies except Iceland were under authoritarian or absolute rule. However, there were factors underpinning a more progressive and egalitarian development in the North, in particular the strength of the peasant freeholders and of the urban middle classes. The argument in this article is that these forces finally broke through in the 1930s as a response to the Great Depression. Everywhere in Norden redgreen Social Democratic-Farmers' Party reform coalitions emerged in attempts to cope with the economic crisis, and extreme political alternatives were marginalized. The Social Democrats were, with the exception of Iceland, the larger party in the coalitions. In that sense there is a Scandinavian Sonderweg.
KEYWORDS education • folk • popular movements • religion • the peasant figure
THE MILITARY AND ABSOLUTIST POINT OF DEPARTURENordic modernity is often understood in terms of enlightened and progressive welfare politics and social equality. There is a more or less explicit association with images of a social democratic model. The aim of this article is twofold: to discuss the historical preconditions and construction of that
Over the last decades, a shift has occurred in the methodology of academic historiography, from an earlier focus on the quality of the sources towards the narrative framework of the history. The point in the new approach is that the sources are interpreted and put together into a narration. In the earlier approach, there was a kind of myopic source criticism, which stopped at the sources and never really questioned the way in which they were put together into a narration. The way in which this composition is made is as biased as the sources on which the narration is based. For this reason, critical scrutiny must move one step forward, instead of halting at the sources. The path-breaking Metahistory by Hayden White in 1973 demonstrated, in a provocative way, the bias in narrative structures. He moved the focus from the sources as such, towards the manner in which they were employed. When the book was published, it was generally rejected and marginalized by the historians’ craft. Today, it is no exaggeration to say that, even if it is not generally recognized, at least it is widely accepted. Metahistory alluded, of course, to metaphysics. White's conclusion was that history is basically ideology. History is not the past per se, nor, as Ranke argued, is it wie es eigentlich gewesen, but a reflection on the past from the present. This methodological shift does not deny the continued importance of a critical approach to the sources and does not reject the existence of events and facts. Methodological rules of how to evaluate sources critically are still valid. The events and the facts based on the events can be documented. No serious historian founding his or her work on sources would deny the fact that, for instance, the Holocaust really did occur.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.