Mens historikermiljøet var sentralt i fortolkningen av det nasjonale gjennombruddet på 1800-tallet og av arbeiderklassens inntog i statsstyret på første halvdel av 1900-tallet, har det i stor grad stått utenfor fortolkningen av det «internasjonale gjennombruddet» og globaliseringens betydning for Norges utvikling de siste tiårene. Hvordan denne historiografiske situasjonen fortolkes har betydning for historikermiljøets selvforståelse og for de institusjonelle, teoretiske og metodologiske valg som blir tatt. Denne artikkelen drøfter fruktbarheten av det begrepet som Norges forskningsråd gjennom sin evaluering av historikermiljøet har lansert for å forstå denne situasjonen: «metodologisk nasjonalisme». Norges forskningsråd, Bortenfor nasjonen i tid og rom: Fortidens makt og framtidens muligheter i norsk historieforskning, Oslo 2008. Den viser at begrepet av teoretiske, empiriske og konseptuelle grunner er lite hensiktsmessig om målet er en balansert refleksjon over historiefagets utvikling og metodologiske konvensjoner og muligheter. Artikkelen fremmer en annen, mindre politisert historiografisk fortolkning og drøfter et annet begrep og en alternativ metode som vil kunne bidra til at historikere kan utforske samfunnsutviklingen, inkludert nasjonens utvikling, på nye og fruktbare måter i internasjonaliseringens tidsalder.
About methodological nationalism and the communicative situation. Critique and an alternative
While historians were central in interpreting the national breakthrough in Norway in the late 19th century, and in creating the national story about the working classs entry within the centre of the state system in the first half of the 20th century, the dominant practice of Norwegian history has largely been marginal and shown little interest in interpreting the third great wave in Norwegian modern history; namely the impact of what can be called the «international breakthrough» and the globalization process on Norway's development over recent decades. How this historiographic situation is understood and explained will affect the ability of the Norwegian historical community for self-reflection, and the theoretical, methodological and conceptual choices historians will make. The article discusses the fruitfulness of the term «methodological nationalism», which the Norwegian Research Council through its evaluation of Norwegian historical research has launched to raise awareness of this situation. It shows that the concept is not fruitful – for theoretical, empirical and conceptual reasons – if the goal is a balanced reflection of the development of historical studies and of methodological conventions and opportunities. The article promotes a different, less politicized, historiographic interpretation and discusses another term and an alternative method that might help historians explore the development of societies in new and more fruitful ways, including the nation's development.
Artikkelens tema er forholdet mellom historie og framtidsoppfatning, aktualisert av spørsmålet om kvifor ikkje historievitskapen kunne varsle ei megahending som Berlinmurens fall. Temaet får først ei vitskapsteoretiske plassering, og det blir argumentert for at grunndrag ved arbeidsfeltet og studieobjekta til humanvitskapane gjer det vanskeleg å føresjå framtida, at presis prediksjon om singulære hendingar sjeldan er mogleg på vitskapleg grunnlag. Historie er ikkje futurologi. Dernest tek forfattaren teorigrunnlaget over i den empirisk-historiografiske bolken og fokuserer Sovjet-unionens historie med vekt på Gorbatsjov-epoken. Føremålet er å underbygge tesen i den teoretiske førstebolken ved å konkretisere med døme frå realhistoria, vidt kontekstualisert og perspektivert på kontinuumet aktør–struktur.
History and prediction: 1989
Some historians have been disappointed that their profession was unable to predict the fall of the Berlin Wall. This paper focuses on the epistemological differences between the exact sciences and the humanities (Naturwissenschaften vs. Geisteswissenschaften). Prediction is possible in the exact sciences because the objects are closed systems that are ruled by laws generating recurring patterns. The ability to make predictions in the humanities depends on the phenomenon in question. From the perspective of a predominantly idiographic discipline such as history, preoccupied with singularities, the future is largely uncertain. Social systems are not closed systems determined by regularities that are subsumable under general empirical laws in accordance with Hempels positivist covering law theory. As the anti-Cartesian Vico noted, such open systems are exposed to outside interference, both structural and man-made. Understanding historic events requires contextualization in time and space. Open systems can seldom be adequately observed to foretell the outcome, due to complex configurations and the dialectics of internal and external influences. Another factor complicating prediction is agency involving human thinking, choices and actions. Human society is an open system that is exposed to agentiality. The agents habitus, embodying historical structures, may also be difficult to delineate. The prime example in the present case is Mikhail Gorbachev and his role in the events leading up to the fall of the Berlin Wall, the reunion of Germany and, ultimately, the collapse of the Soviet Union. This human factor was perhaps the most difficult to predict in that chain of events. It is challenging enough to interpret the epochal events of 1989 in hindsight – ex post. This paper predicts that historians will try to explain 1989 for as long as they have tried to explain 1789.
Den norske historieskrivingen om samene og kvenene har fra 1970-tallet av vært preget av skiftende måter å fortelle om disse store nordlige etniske minoritetenes historie. I denne artikkelen diskuterer vi hvilke fortellingsmønstre som har preget den norske historieskrivingen om samene og kvenene, og hva slags betydning de ulike fortellingsmønstrene kan sies å ha hatt. Vi identifiserer tre fortellingsmønstre som grovt sagt har dominert hvert sitt tiår: Synliggjøringshistorier, fortellinger om assimilering og fortellinger om agens. Disse fortellingene har imidlertid ikke avløst hverandre suksessivt, men er blitt etablert lag på lag. Slik sett har den nordnorske minoritetshistorien blitt stadig mer mangfoldig.
Narratives in the history of northern Norwegian minorities
This historiographical article analyzes the narratives produced in studies on the history of the two northern Norwegian minorities, the Sami and the Kvens, written in Norway since the early 1970s. Three main narrative forms, established side by side rather than as successive stages, may be identified in the histories of these minorities. In the field of Kven history, narratives produced in the 1970s chiefly aimed at making the Kven minority visible in history. In the following decade this was supplied, and to a certain degree substituted, by a narrative of assimilation. The narrative of assimilation also dominates the histories of the Sami, but because of a longer historiographical tradition and the work of Sami historians, counter-narratives focusing on the role of the state of Norway have had a more prevalent place in Sami than in Kven history. The need to make the Sami visible in history was not as pressing; instead, from the very start it was typical to discuss Sami history in relation to the state of Norway, which in turn was demonized for annihilating Sami cultural identity. In both Sami and Kven histories the agency of the minorities was represented as severely diminished and/or limited to ethnic reaction. In recent decades, scholars have begun to question this and to seek out differing minority agencies and rationalities that were earlier labelled as Norwegianized. The article charts recent efforts to do this and discusses possible ways to develop this view of the history of minorities further.
Distriktenes Utbyggingsfond starta opp i 1961 og vart lagt inn i eit nytt selskap, Statens Nærings- og Distriktsutbyggingsfond i 1994. Artikkelen presenterer kort noko av bakgrunnen for at Norge fekk ein nasjonal distriktspolitikk. Med dette som utgangspunkt, presenterer vi striden om kva utbyggingsfondet skulle bli og den prosessen som førde til at Erik Brofoss tok oppgåva som aktiv styreleiar. At han vart spurt, viser at distriktspolitikken vart sett på som viktig. At han sa ja og sat så lengje, er ei forklaring på at dette politikkområdet kom til å spele så viktige roller.
The Regional Development Fund and Erik Brofoss
All over the world, the industrialization of society changed patterns at local level and introduced regional imbalances. Consequently, there was the need for regional policy. In this article we examine the background and process that led to establishment of the Regional Development Fund (RDF) in 1961. The RDF was primarily an instrument for creating new jobs in northern Norway and in rural areas in the south, the objectives being to strengthen the economic base of business and industry and to increase employment in regions with a low level of economic activity. One of the major conflicts was whether the new body (RDF) should only be supplementary to established bodies that had industrialization as their main purpose. Erik Brofoss, one of the most influential figures in Norway, was asked to be the first chairman of the board of RDF, and negotiations that took place between him and the government are particularly illuminating. Brofoss would not accept that the RDF should only have a supplementary role to the already established Industrial Bank. He also claimed autonomy for RDF in relation to the government and would not accept representation of the Norwegian Industrial Department on the board of the RDF. Although Brofosss demands were exacting, he got his way in the end and accepted the position as chairman of the board, remaining there for a period of 16 years. In 1994 the principal institutions for the implementation of Norwegian industrial policy merged within the National Industrial and Regional Development Fund (SND). With this amalgamation the RDF and the Industrial bank became the main actors, with the RDF the leading one. In the end, Brofoss built up a stronger institution than those that the RDF was originally only meant to supplement.