Hvordan kan vi forstå onde handlinger? Anders Behring Breivik var motivert ut fra klassisk høyreekstrem ideologi, vil mange hevde. De rettspsykiatrisk sakkyndige ser på sin side bort fra ethvert motiv; ifølge dem er de ideologiske overbevisningene sykdomsbetingede vrangforestillinger. Med utgangspunkt i en relasjonell forståelse av det menneskelige, ser denne artikkelen på samspillet mellom ideologi og mulige psykologiske forklaringsmodeller, som splittelse og personlig myte.
The aim of the article is to throw light on the terror and massacre of July 22. A social psychological perspective provides an important contribution by emphasizing group processes of e.g. obedience and conformity, but is insufficient in explaining evil. Thus, it has to be supplemented by an individual psychological perspective, focusing on inner motives. An analysis of American Beauty demonstrates how murderous rage may derive from intrapsychic conflict and repressed drives. Without reducing ideology to psychology, the article discusses possible psychic factors underlying extreme ideologies, with a focus on self-identity, splitting and personal myths. Finally, the article comments upon the forensic report about the mass murderer of July 22, arguing that medical diagnostics, reducing ideology to illness, has to be supplemented by an analysis of psychological motives.
Da Nordahl Grieg arbeidet på Norge i våre hjerter (1929), skriver han i et brev hjem at samlingen er fylt av «pene, bent frem gudelige» vers moren nok vil like, og fortsetter så: «Kanskje jeg blir salmedikter før du vet ordet av det» (i Vold, 1983: 62). Han skulle bare visst at i 2011 mente et flertall både i Kirkerådet og i bispekollegiet at «Til ungdommen», et bestillingsdikt fra hans mest stalinistiske periode, egnet seg for innlemmelse i nettopp Den norske kirkes salmebok.
Nordahl Grieg wrote «Til ungdommen» (1936) in his Stalinist period, in order to raise political support for what he believed in. After the terror attacks on 22 July 2011, the poem was sung at memorial events, and the Church of Norway decided to include it in the new Hymn Book. The discussion this decision created did not relate to the poems original political context, but questioned whether the text – containing no perception of God – was appropriate for the church and whether it did not actually belong to The Norwegian Humanist Association (Human-Etisk Forbund). What happens if we study «Til ungdommen» from the perspective of book history and trace its sociology, the poets project and the uses it has been put to? Actually, the reception history of the text demonstrates the whole history of texts, as it was written for oral performance, then printed in a magazine to be read and later repeatedly anthologized. It was set to music, has been recorded numerous times and may now be read and heard on the Internet. Because of its emotional appeal, «Til ungdommen» has fulfilled many and contradictory functions.
En liten gruppe klimadebattanter har i det siste skapt kontrovers ved å påstå at bioenergi basert på granskog i lang tid vil produsere større CO2-utslipp enn kullbasert energi. Kontroversen illustrerer hvordan dagens klimadiskurs domineres av det vi kan kalle et næringsvennlig løsningsregime. Denne artikkelen diskuterer hva slags effekt dette har på muligheten for å drive systemkritisk forskning innen klimafeltet.
In Norway, dominant arguments in the discourse on how to deal with climate change are currently premised on the following principles: We can and should find quick solutions to reduce climate gas emissions that also are profitable to Norwegian business. Finding such business friendly solutions can be done in ways that pose no threat to our current ways of life. Our road to sustainability is paved with innovations rather than sacrifices. The emphasis on developing business friendly solutions also guides the research policy within the climate field. This paper questions the usefulness of such a research approach.
Its empirical starting point is a recent scientific controversy on whether energy production based on burning boreal forest is climate neutral or not. The dominant tenet of the Norwegian climate establishment has been that the energy production from burning boreal forest is precisely a business friendly climate solution. The paper holds that this tenet is premature, and that it exemplifies how the quest for business friendly solutions is so strong that it tends to produce contra-productive solutions rather than no solutions. The author argues for a more critical and less immediately useful climate science.
My paper is a comment on a recent book on conservatism, initiated by the liberal-conservative think tank Civita, published by two Norwegians affiliated to the conservative party Høyre. The book consists of a collection of texts from 21 persons in addition to a general introduction written by the editors who have also written introductions to each of the chosen persons and texts. These are the names: Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, David Hume, Edmund Burke, Joseph de Maistre, Alexis de Tocqueville, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Benjamin Disraeli, Booker T. Washington, José Ortega y Gasset, Friedrich A. Hayek, T. S. Eliot, C. J. Hambro, Konrad Adenauer, Michael Oakeshott, Eric Voegelin, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Alasdair MacIntyre, Margaret Thatcher, Roger Scruton, Francis Fukuyama. As I see it, the book raises two main problems: (i) Published at a University press and initiated by political actors at a political think tank, should it be read as a political initiative or as an academic contribution? (ii) If we read it as an academic text there are various weaknesses due to a lack of conceptual clarification of the term conservatism itself: it remains unclear whether the editors operate with a normative or descriptive concept. This confusion has infelicitous implications for their selection of persons (e.g. Aristotle, Thatcher, and MacIntyre in the same bed), but also for their bold claim on presenting conservatism in all its manifold.
Just after World War II, a Christian Democratic party (Kristelig folkeparti – KrF) found its place in the Norwegian politics. Its program was to protect the Christian tradition and hinder a further secularization. In the 1990-ies the party obtained a central political position, and increased its support in the population. During the last decade the party lost many of its adherents. The secularization prevailed, and secularism dominated culture and politics. The activists within KrF are religious practising laypeople belonging both to the Norwegian state church and the free churches, spiritually inspired by radical protestant revivals, contending the political relevance of the Bible and Christian faith. The decline has provoked an ideological reorientation, introduced by the former prime minister, Kjell Magne Bondevik, and professor Janne Haaland Matlary, a Catholic with a central position in the Vatican. Matlary has underlined that the explicit Christian elements in the party program and its political communication has to be eliminated. The natural law should motivate its policy. But secularism refuses the classical concept of natural law. Being confronted with modern secularism, a Christian party has to mobilize the metaphysical and religious ideas fundamental to its anthropology and social philosophy.