More quote-at-length-able material: Jens A. Riisnæs, a travel advisor on NRK radio, believes that Norwegians have a warped view of the outside world, caused by excessive left-wing dominance. Not surprisingly his solution is to travel more, and see the world for yourself:

Noone who has travelled across the Asiatic continent, from the Buddhist area in the east to the Muslim part of the continent in the west, can be in any doubt that religion is one of the most important factors which decide a society's development. Until recently it has been taboo to say this, not least among the ruling left intellectuals. ..

Set apart a sum from the petroleum fund for a travel fund for Norwegian academics. Not as part of delegations where one is received by ministers and bureaucrats, but for free travel around the grassroots of the world. Then the academics would have to move out of their ivory towers and out in the world. The entire Norwegian society would benefit, culturally and economically ..

The problem is that Norwegian academia and Norwegian media have been run by a left which since 1968 has been wrong about most things. And here the problem is not primarily AKP (m-l), but the Socialist Left and its predecessor the Socialist People's Party.

The left committed a collective spiritual harakiri by systematically failing to criticize, and in the worst cases supporting, totalitarian, anti-human and medieval regimes. And still it has been allowed to dominate the intellectual scence in Norway after the war, because it has claimed to be more moral than the centre and the right. In addition, the Norwegian left, as the only one in Europe, has made sure to keep Norway outside the greatest democratic project in Europe in our time, the EU. The combination of left radical domination and isolation from the democracies of Europe has lead to a most worrying situation for the Norwegian society.

About immigration:

One can of course not blame poor people for seeking the honeypots of the West. But not least intelletuals have a responsibility for making this process as painless as possible, but they have failed. Every time someone has attempted to start a debate about the problematic aspects of immigration, the politically correct have used words that brand these "devils", ie. racism. Those who have empirically based objections have, not surprisingly, shook their heads and withdrawn.

Norway is perhaps the country in the world with the most modern and liberated inter-personal relations. At the same time we have a mass immigration from cultures that are among the most patriarchal in the world. The problems this creates have not been allowed to discuss openly.

No hope for the 68'ers:

My recipe for the young - for there is no hope for the 68-generation - has been the same ever since I with my own eyes saw the results of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in August 1968: Travel in the world. Watch, learn and think - for yourself.

That's good advice any day, apart from the travel fund, which I hope was a joke. Much knowledge can't be written down, and new eyes see new things. How many misconceptions (of all kinds) about Islam would fall apart by just seeing the Muslimworld for yourself?

I would have put it differently though. Riisnæs overstates his case by making lack of travel the problem, and travel itself the solution. He has a point, but he also sets himself up for a rhetorically effective counterattack. Some of the people he criticizes certainly have travelled much abroad, and such a person will no doubt be allowed a follow-up op-ed. It will go something like this: "Jens A. Riisnæs claims that Norwegian left-wing academics don't understand the world because they haven't seen it. As a professor of comparative cultural studies who specializes in the artistic expression of oppressed indigenous peoples, I've been to more than 50 countries on all continents. I've climbed the Himalayah, walked across the Sahara, and canooed the Amazon river. I can personally testify that the United States is the source of all evil, everywhere, and that almost every culture in the world is superior in compassion and wisdom to our own." Or something close.

Claims that such-and-such subject is taboo are also rhetorically vulnerable, because they are so easy to deny and so difficult to prove. It's better to say simply that opposing views are not expressed. Has there been a taboo on the backside of immigration? Probably, but this claim invites a long-winded discussion about what a taboo really is. Any number of people will be willing to testify that they never felt any pressure to hold the same views as everyone else, but did so voluntarily. To simply point out that for whatever reason almost no contrarian viewpoints are expressed is a simple, factual statement. Easier to prove, nearly as effective. Establishing the cause of this silence can then be left for a later debate. It's premature to discuss the cause when most people aren't even aware of the problem.

But it's great to hear people say these things, and I mostly agree, of course. Can we now hope for Aftenposten to make a habit out of exposing its readers to strange, new views? I still believe that whenever anyone opens a newspaper they should expect to find one of their favourite beliefs attacked. This may seem a difficult goal for such an inoffensive newspaper as Aftenposten, but it's really just a question of will. It's not like these massive feedback loops maintain themselves, they rely on the combined failure of a lot of people to seriously look for contrary views.

I would agree with most of Riisnaes comments, up to traveling being a solution, also. I have a deep distrust of traveling - tourism - as an educational experience. I tend to think it reinforces liberal prejudices, rather than opens people's minds to new possibilities.

And I'd go even further: tourism is a form of imperialism. The tourist is always superior to the native folk, due to his/her unique position to contrast and compare socio-economic observations. But the native will never have access to the inner dialogue of the tourist, since the native usually doesn't have the same opportunities to travel. Thus the tourist's conclusions are arrived at without a true dialogue, imperiously. The native is shut out of the process, except as a subject in the tourist's private world.

Better to just stay at home, and blog. Or go on trip for fun, instead of trying to broaden your mind.

Emereson on trave he who travels (to Europe) brings ruins to see ruins.

Blake: can see the world in a grain of sand.
So what if you travel, see, learn--what then happens to make change happen?

"In addition, the Norwegian left, as the only one in Europe, has made sure to keep Norway outside the greatest democratic project in Europe in our time, the EU."

Norway is protecting it's democracy by not joining the EU.

The EU was founded with good intentions but as European history has taught the world, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Considering the power of unelected bureaucrats to impose rules on EU members it isn't exactly a shining beacon of democracy. The EU is becoming increasingly dysfunctional and the response of the EU leadership will be to further erode democratic rules. Democracy is so messy. Best to let the elites run the union. The EU is morphing into a kinder, gentler version of the Soviet Union. Norway's decision not to join will look smart in the years to come.

Travelling is fine, as far as it goes. But there are any number of other things people should do to broaden their horizons - read, listen to music, listen to different people with different points of view - learn to empathize not just with nice people but also nasty people. Perhaps most importantly, learn a little humility. Cater to your weaknesses, not just your strengths. And so on.

There is nothing wrong with viewing Al Qaeda in human terms if you recognize that most humans are capable of narrow-minded xenophobia and murder. What is wrong is thinking that all humans ultimately aspire to be turn out like a Norwegian intellectual (or, for that matter, an American conservative).

This is a long, complicated topic that deserves more introduction. The existence of this and other blogs is owed to the fact that a few people still are willing to work through their prejudices and consider issues honestly.

An anecdote to illustrate this: Several years ago I attended a cocktail party for the leaders of a very prestigous, international organization. I talked with one person, explaining that I supported legalizing drugs (even though I wouldn't touch any of it myself). One of the senior executives overheard this conversation and confronted me about it. When I confirmed my point of view, he said "you know, I absolutely agree. I have studied this issue for years and absolutely surprised myself to realize that there are compelling reasons to legalize drugs and no compelling reasons to keep them illegal." Whether or not you agree with his conclusion, it was obvious to me that this was a guy who was willing to let himself be persuaded by facts and logic. And that's what it takes to overcome the Norwegian intellectual tradition.

I don't think travel is enough to break through current intellectual orthodoxies. It's more difficult than that. We have such a longstanding liberal tradition in all the Western countries that it becomes difficult to think outside of certain first principles. Those who challenge one liberal orthodoxy usually do so from within the same basic liberal assumptions. It's a closed system, supported by a weighty tradition.

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/622