current sociology ... · in norway the first academic chair bearing the name of sociology was...

http://csi.sagepub.com/Current Sociology

http://csi.sagepub.com/content/25/1/57.citationThe online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/001139217702500104

1977 25: 57Current SociologyPer Otnes

Social Change and Social Science in Norway

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Sociological Association

can be found at:Current SociologyAdditional services and information for

http://csi.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://csi.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Jan 1, 1977Version of Record >>

at Universitet I Oslo on December 18, 2013csi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Universitet I Oslo on December 18, 2013csi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://csi.sagepub.com/


http://csi.sagepub.com/content/25/1/57.citation

http://csi.sagepub.com/content/25/1/57.citation



http://www.isa-sociology.org/

http://www.isa-sociology.org/

http://csi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://csi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://csi.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://csi.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://csi.sagepub.com/content/25/1/57.full.pdf

http://csi.sagepub.com/content/25/1/57.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml





57

SOCIAL CHANGE AND SOCIAL

SCIENCE IN NORWAY

Per Otnes

PRESENT SOCIAL SCIENCE TEACHING

AND RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS

wo trends are apparent in present Norwegian social science:

growth, and dispersion. Norway’s population, (slightly less thansay Scotland’s) has shown an increasingly sluggish growth. In the

same period our number of social scientists has raced towards

unprecedented levels at an increasing rate, up to, if not including, themost recent year or so. For example, at Oslo University, the sociologystaff has increased tenfold in 26 years, numbering 22 in 1977.

The number of students majoring in sociology and graduatingper year slightly exceeds this growth rate, increasing from 2 to about30. The greatest explosion of all, however, is found in the number

of students following one- and one-and-a-half-year sociology courses:from 3 in 1958 to a record of 678 in 1975 (347 in 1976). All thesefigures refer to Oslo alone.

As for dispersion, the last ten years have seen the establishmentof academic sociology institutes in the cities of Bergen, Trondheimand Tromso. While staff and student numbers in none of these

three can match Oslo’s, they certainly reinforce and accelerate the

Oslo growth trend at the national level. Exact figures are not availablebut national staff and student totals can be estimated at two to threetimes the Oslo figures of 1977.

From ’social science’ as used here are excluded the whole of economics, education,geography and most of psychology. Given that sociology is the main focus of

attention, developments in political science, social anthropology, history andphilosophy will be touched upon as well, though with no attempt at

comprehensiveness. Arbitrary as this choice may seem, it is based on the vagariesof interdisciplinary contact and lack of contact among Norway’s social sciences.Readers looking for information on our economics and geography may bereferred to (180, 206, 234) for a start.Thanks are due to Vilhelm Aubert and Else 0ysen for comments on the draftversion of this paper; and to Aase Rellsve who computed Table 1.

at Universitet I Oslo on December 18, 2013csi.sagepub.comDownloaded from



58

Naturally, most professionals welcome both trends. For the authorof an article reviewing them, however, this explosive expansion ofthe discipline presents difficulties. Today, it is no longer possibleto be equally well acquainted with every branch and project in our

field. In addition to this general limitation, there may also be personalones. Though generally fairly well informed, I may be slightly less

conversant with developments in Bergen and Trondheim, while

possessing some detailed personal knowledge concerning the last

decade in Oslo and Troms~.Present-day Norway has no more than four universities. All have

sociology institutes, viz. lnstituttet for Sosiologi at the Universityof Oslo, Sosiologisk lnstitutt at the University of Bergen, lnstitutt

for sosiologi og samfunnskwl1lskap at the University of Trondheim,and Iiistitutt for samfu1111svitenskap at the University of Tromsø.

All offer students 1-2 year introductory courses, as well as a full

professional education of 5-7 years duration (introductory year

included). Students majoring in sociology may end up with a numberof differently named degrees: Cand.polit., Cand.sociol. (Oslo only),or Mag.art. The former two are designed for a mean duration of somefive years. The latter, a scientific degree combining a minimum of

compulsory courses with a maximum freedom to choose one’s own

reading, is probably intermediate between the MA and the Doctorallevel. The duration is more flexible, with an estimated mean of seven

years’ study.Interdisciplinary ties are traditionally strong in Norwegian social

sciences. In the past, interdisciplinary projects brought togetherresearchers with backgrounds in law, philosophy, psychology,economics, history. Out of this combined effort, sociology, politicalscience and social anthropology gradually emerged as more or less

separate disciplines, while maintaining close ties and more than slightlyoverlapping research interests.

All four institutes of course have active research staff members,ranging from between five to twenty-five in number. Exact figuresare difficult to state on account of the interdisciplinary tradition:

for example, the TromW social science institute has no more than

five sociologists as judged by their educational background, but wellover twenty-five when sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists,economists, historians, education researchers etc., are included. The

stated range limits are minima rather than maxima. Majoring students,who represent from 5-10 times the number of staff at each institute,also make valuable research contributions. Publication lists, with




59

or (lamentably) most often without translations of titles, are

obtainable.

A number of Regional Colleges (Distriktsh~gskoler) provide an

even more marked trend towards dispersion. Started on a provisionalbasis in 1969, the number has grown almost annually to reach today’sten. They are situated in the towns of Halden, Kristiansand, Bo,Stavanger, Lillehammer, Sogndal, Volda, Molde, Bodo, Alta. Most,if not all, offer one-year introductory courses in sociology, or withsome sociology, combined with other disciplines such as education,business administration or psychology. The courses are designed tohave an applied angle - preparing graduates for tasks in the privateenterprises, organizations, or public administration of each region.Though not really designed for it, most Regional Colleges do someresearch as well. Topics may derive from staff and student interest

in regional social problems, or from local business, union or

administrative demands. The amount of research that should be

done at Regional Colleges is a matter of some dispute, however, asis the rating of their courses - on or slightly below universitycourse levels.

In addition, Bergens’s National College of Business Administration(Norges Handelshoyskole) should be mentioned. Offering courses

to students since 1936, it was a national pioneer in most of the fieldsit covers. Sociology as a separate institute is not however included,the College having been more concerned with those parts of economics,business and marketing which lend themselves to practical application.The college does comprise Institutes of Psychology of Work and

Personnel Administration, and Geography.At Oslo University’s Faculty of Law there is an Institute for Sociology

of Law (lnstitutt for rettssosiologi), probably quite unique in the world.Originally built up around the research interests of Torstein Eckoff andVilhelm Aubert, Thomas Mathiesen holds the senior post today.

Several non-sociological university institutes have neverthelesshired sociology staff members, permanently or on a temporary basis:notably Oslo’s Institute of Criminology and Penal Law (lnstituttfor kriminologi og Strafferett), a separate Institute for Press or MassCommunications Research (lnstitutt for presseforskning), and (withinOslo’s Faculty of Medicine) the Institute of Social Medicine (Instituttfor sosialmedisin). And, of course, the Institutes of Psychology, andPolitical Science, have both hired sociologists, and vice

versa.

When we turn to bodies with no teaching responsibilities, a number




60

of ’pure’ research institutes come to mind. Oslo’s Institute of SocialResearch (Institutt for sainJi1nfisforskfiiiig) perhaps deserves first

and foremost mention. A mere 26 years old, it nevertheless has

provided a fertile seedbed for much social science research in our

country. Even today it retains, to a degree, the standing of a nucleusin the field. While remaining a private foundation, at present a closercooperation with the State’s more recent Institute of Applied SocialResearch (Institu tt for annendt sosiahJitenskapelig forskning, Oslo)is planned.

Oslo’s Peace Research Institute (PRIO for short), originally a branchof the Institute for Social Research, started work as a separateorganization in the early sixties. A chair for peace research at Oslo

University was founded in 1969 for PRIO’s initiator, Johan Galtung.Other research institutes with sociologists on their staff include

the State Institute for Alcohol Research (Statens institutt foralkoholforskning), the State Institute for Consumer Research (Statensinstitutt for forbntkerforskning), The Fund for Market and DistributionResearch (Fondet for inarkeds- og distribusjonsforkningJ, the (State)Institutes for r Work Research (Arbeidsforsknings-institutterze,comprising separate Work Hygiene, Physiology, and Psychology ofWork Institutes), the City and Region Research Institute (Norsk instituttfor by- og regionforskning, or NIBR, which includes research on

planning), the Construction Research Institute (NorskbyggforslcningsinstituttJ, the Norwegian Computer Centre (Norskregnesentral), the Productivity Institute (Norsk produktivitetsinstitutt,closely tied to a more recent Society for Future Research, or Selskapetfor fremtidsstudierJ.

Two pioneering institutes also deserve mention: Bergen’s Chr.Michelsen Institute for Science and Intellectual Freedom, and Oslo’sInstitute for Comparative Research in Culture (Instituttet forsammenliknende kulturforskning). Both were private initiatives but

receive some state support. Starting work in the twenties and earlythirties, they have sponsored important work in, for example, politicalscience, linguistics, and history. Today the approach, particularlyof the latter, may be classified as more a traditional Humanities onethan a Social Research one.

The sociological profession in Norway has of course been rapidlyexpanding. There is a Norwegian Sociologists’ Association, (Norsksosiologforening) numbering some 150 members today. The

Association’s work up to now has consisted in providing a forum forcolleagues’ discussions, rather than being fashioned to a more




61

businesslike trade union or professional association pattern. Several

non-sociologists (by educational background) are members, and notall sociology graduates join the association.

Some prominent professional journals should be mentioned. Of

course, the inter-Nordic (English language) Acta Sociologica is a verysolid leader in the field, solid perhaps even to the point of appearingslightly dull. The principal Norwegian publication is the Journal ofSocial Research (Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning), printed since 1960and carrying brief English summaries to the papers after the 1967

volume. The Journal of Peace Research is edited in English (withRussian summaries); it is an international journal although Norwegiancontributions are frequent. The (English language) Inquiry is a

philosophers’ forum where an occasional sociological contribution

will be found.

Perhaps slightly less solid, but definitely more vigorous and

provocative, is Sociology Today (Sosiologi idag). Originally a studentinitiative ( started in 1971), it has recently improved and expandedgreatly, while retaining an editorial staff of postgraduate students.

There are no English summaries. The Norwegian Journal of Philosophy(Norsk filosofisk tidsskrift) is similar in this respect, as is Kontrast.

The latter is a general rather than a professional journal - a modestkind of New Society though appearing roughly on a monthly basis -nevertheless it contains much of professional interest. In the last six

to seven years, its tinge has been definitely Marxist, though reasonablyecumenical within this tradition.

Two (English language) yearbooks deserve mention: ScandinavianPolitical Studies, whose eleventh volume appeared recently, and

Scandinaoian Studies in Criminology, which has now reached its fifthvolume. Both contain much of interest to sociologists; there is,

however, no comparable sociological yearbook.

A GLIMPSE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE

PRE-HISTORY 1850-1950

In Norway the first academic chair bearing the name of sociology wasestablished in 1948. Predecessors wearing slightly different names,but practising shades of the same trade, are, however, easily found,from the early 1850s onwards. A study by the present author (230)attempts to place a number of these forerunners in a sociology-of-science




62

perspective. A large amount of historical data were surveyed witha view to verifying the following three hypotheses:

(1) The rise and growth of an ’objective’ (or ’value-free’) and

independent social science is reinforced when the surrounding societyis characterized by political consensus and a steady economic growth.Economic insecurity, stagnation, or recession, and political dissensus,on the other hand, are unfavourable to social science thus conceived.

(2) Despite the lack of academic institutes of sociology, instancesof social surveys or investigations approaching or attaining a scientificcharacter may be found, dispersed over most of the period 1850-1950.However, in periods characterized by political dissensus, and wheneconomic prospects are uncertain or receding, the social science surveysetc. frequently give up claims to strict ’objectivity’ (‘value-freedom’)and independence.

(3) Norwegian social science between 1850-1950 displays a fairlygeneral tendency for the slightly critical report, survey etc. to prevailover less critical, less innovatory reports. Though no primordial force,our social science has often engendered or been an expression of socialchange in favour of the broad popular masses, rather than of smaller,special interest groups. We can boast, though not unequivocally, of aprogressive tradition, one of social criticism, but hardly a’revolutionary’one: Norwegian revolutionaries, with very few exceptions, have notengaged in social science, at least not in our ’pre-historic’ period1850-1950.

The reservations and nuances one would like to add to these

hypotheses can be found in (230) and with one exception they willnot be reproduced here: we do not expect the variables of (1)-(3)to be very strongly related but rather to find modest, but

fairly significant correlations between them.For ( 1 )~2) a simple quantitative test was attempted (to supplement

other evidence). Looking at Table 1, a number of comments suggestthemselves:

(a)The Ns may be found rather small. However, they are not samples,but totals (with insignificant omissions) of Norwegin social (statistical)surveys in each period.(b) The Ns display a rather steady and impressive growth in the volumeof social statistics. A few ’great leaps forward’ mav be found: the




63

Table 1. Independent vs. Dependent Social Survey Reports,by Five Year Periods, 1850-1949. Percentages.

Source: (168). The criterion distinguishing ’independents’ from ’dependents’is very simple: the first are published under the author(s)’ name, indicatingtheir personal responsibility for design and results; the latter, while individualauthor(s) may be identifiable, are published under an organization’s name (e.g.Bureau of Statistics, Ministry, Parliament, Printers’ Union), indicating collectiveresponsibility for design and results.




64

1890s, the 1910s, the later 1930s and the post-1945 years. One singlefactor accounting for much of this is the simultaneous growth in socialwelfare legislation and institutions. Indeed, a sizeable proportionof the surveys were undertaken in direct connection with report andcommittee work preparing social reforms. e.g. the Poor Relief Acts

(1866), the Factory Act (1892), the (un-enforced) Pensions Act

(1918).

(c)The pauses or slight recessions found in N development all coincidewith the periods of most intense dissensus in our political history: theearly 1880s with the heated struggle between the emerging left Liberals,proponents of Parliamentary rule, vs. the traditional Right, favouringthe old Balance of Powers system; the late 1920s and early ’30s, whenthe Labour and Communist parties proposed revolutionary programmes(later dropped by Labour); and, of course, the (latter) war years withthe struggles between partisans vs. occupants.

(d) The proportion of ’independent’ research work declines steadilyfrom the tranquil 1850s and 60s towards the more tempestous 1870sand 80s. Indeed, the 1860s level has never been regained in our pre-historic period.

(e)There is, however, another considerable upsurge of ’independent’social surveys, namely the first decades of this century. Internationally,this is the heyday (and ensuing fall) of German imperialism, of whichthe Weberian conception of social science may be considered one ofa myriad component parts. In Norway, it is also the years of

(Parliamentary) political début for the labouring masses, following theintroduction of universal (male) suffrage (1898). The Norwegianindependent social science of the period is, however, not usuallyfashioned after the Weberian ’objective’ model. The picture is multi-

faceted. Prolonged, even intense economic growth there was, from say1900-1921, but political consensus, on the other hand, could hardlybe said to prevail. Between the Conservatives (Old Liberals) and theNew Social-Liberals, consensus was increasing but importantdifferences remained, for example over social issues, like what to dowith the emerging Third Force in politics - Labour, its adherentsand organizations. Here, a major source of new, increased dissensus,or at least increasingly vocal dissensus, is apparent.

Though the mere numbers in the table do not show it, the detaileddata do confirm that ’the second independent upsurge’ usually follows




65

the trend suggested in hypothesis (2) (p.62), i.e. the surveys do not claima strict ’objectivity’, a typical form being the report(s) of conflictingexperts, questioning each others’ bases in facts and values.

(f) The Trade Union or Employer’s Association sponsored surveysare singled out mainly because of their very uneven distribution.

They are unfailingly ’dependent’ (of collective responsibility) in

character, and generally concerned with wages, work milieu, and

statistics, with a view to use in wage negotiations. The comparativelybrief duration of TU social survey work nevertheless warrants

comment: (i) The upsurge coincides very neatly with the heydayof revolutionary currents in the Norwegian Labour movement. Thestatistical work, however, is definitely, even exclusively, providedby the ’reformists’, not the revolutionaries. (ii) After the latter currentcalmed and (largely) found its way back to the mainstream, the unions(to this day) have relied almost exclusively on State and Employers’Association statistics, even for use in negotiations, with little checking,controlling or opposition on anything approaching a scientific basis.

Hypothesis (3) is less easily supported or confirmed quantitatively.Some selected instances are in order: Eilert Sundt (1818-75), a

theologian by education, is author of most of the independent surveysin the first five periods of Table 1. For example, his demographicwork is still held in high esteem (167). An ardent and active opponentof the (rough) Norwegian equivalents of the Chartist movement,Sundt nevertheless later took an active part in Committee work

preparing the Poor Relief Act of his time. The social criticism mostapparent in his work is, in a sense, directed against the popular masses.His writings abound with the theologian’s reproaches and castigationsof the lower classes for their many immoral ways. Though less

apparent, modest criticisms of middle and upper class views are also

present in Sundt’s work. As a philanthropic, paternalistic type oftraditional (Manchester) Liberal, Sundt favoured policies of class

compromise rather than class struggle. While the main causes of

extensive pauperism (in Sundt’s opinion) were to be found in the

moral shortcomings of the poor themselves, Sundt also providedconvincing proof that lower class ’irresponsibility’ could not alonebe held responsible. And while the main cure for pauperism was tobe found in the individual, moral reform of the poor themselves,Sundt also favoured sizeable increases in both Poor Taxes, or voluntarycontributions, to a degree that few of his contemporary middle andupper class confreres would follow.




66

Jacob Mohn (1838-82), lawyer by education, conducted social

surveys of a high quality on several important reform issues of his

day; viz. a draft Child Labour Act, and proposals to extend the

franchise. His work on rural class structure (crofters and landlords)and on the urban income distribution is most impressive even today,and accorded a quite unmerited degree of inattention. For a shortperiod in the early 1870s, Mohn also did important pioneering workin the early consumers’ co-operative movement. While much less

of a moralist than Sundt, Mohn was by no means of a socialist

inclination. He did, however, examine the full scale of the class

structure, where Sundt usually confined himself to the lower, evenlower-lower (vagrant) groups and classes. Mohn represented less of

a paternalistic, and perhaps more of an early, emerging social-liberalpoint of view. He was more ready to accept that solutions to social

problems must imply permanent restrictions on Sundt-style economicand social liberalism.

Axel Holst (1860-1931), a professor of medicine in Oslo, is best

known for his work on scurvy, clearing the way for the discoveryof vitamins. Working in bacteriology and hygiene, he also conductedan important social survey of the housing conditions of Oslo’s labouringclasses. Published in 1895, and probably inspired by contemporarywork by Charles Booth, Holst was able to show for example that over-crowding was considerably worse in Oslo than in most other Europeancapitals of the time. His report, in the longer run, was instrumentalin the establishing of Oslo City Council institutions ( 1911 ) to solveor alleviate the grave housing problems.

Wilhelm Thagaard (1890-1970) was a lawyer-cum-politicaleconomist by education. A leading left Liberal for several decades,he was widely used in public committee work. His work on priceregulations, starting with the First World War, won him a life-longposition in the State Prices Directorate (and its fore-runners). Thagaard,fairly typical of his generation (though perhaps more leftist), is a

full-fledged Social Liberal. His survey work, however, showsdeficiencies when judged against strict research standards. For example,he often relied on secondary sources and very seldom collected new,first-hand data. However he showed a pronounced reliance on hissocial science education and experience in undertaking a great amountof applied work and he is prominent among a generation of socialscientist-cum-top-administrators, of a type infrequently found in

recent decades (excluding, as we have noted, the post-war role playedby economists). None of these four have had works translated into




67

English.

Concluding remarks on the’pre-history’ of social science

A. The Norwegian social science tradition is clearly and unequivocallyempiricist. No outstanding theorists, concept-coiners, Webers or

Durkheims, (again outside of economics) are found. Within this

empiricist tradition, a number of contributions do stand out, for theirresearch quality, for their value as historical sources, as well as of

some relevance even today.

B. The choice of basic social research strategy exhibits a kind of long-term U-curve variation: e.g. both in the work of Sundt, and presentday social science, bi- and multivariate statistical analysis is very

prominent. Those coming in between, however, rely on pure frequencydistributions to a far higher degree. For example, both Mohn andHolst were able, and by and large content, to point out a sort of

univarate scandal: that the extent of child labour, or overcrowded

housing, was far greater, far worse in Norway than in other comparablecountries. They provoked social changes by challenging the proverbialnational complacency. The remedies they had in mind had a degreeof initial coarseness to them: State legislation, or other public action,to solve, alleviate or even prohibit different kinds of social problems.Traditional or modern liberalism, with its greater reluctance to takesuch direct measures, may, like Sundt, be more prone to searchfor indirect, round-about solutions. Thus it might be claimed thatthe multivariate upsurge in the 1950s could be linked directly to akind of second d~but for liberal ideologies in that period. A morelikely explanation would hold that, after the most basic social-liberalreforms were instituted, less coarse and more nuanced measures andrevisions were needed. And as more options and levers for public(state or local) action became acceptable, more foresight and

co-ordination, i.e. more multivariate models for action, were requiredin their appliance. Still, the well-documented univariate scandal-model for social research remains an interesting and potentially a

powerful one.

C. ’Positivism’ by some of its critics, is conceived as the insistenceon Naturwissenschaftliche, not (merely) Geistewissenshaftliche, or

Philosophical, ideals of data collection, methods and theory (196).




68

While in basic agreement with many other points of criticism against’positivism’, the historical instances here seem to disprove the

refutation en bloc of all ’positivism’ as co-extensive with use of

Naturwissenschaftliche methods in social science, as much too

simplistic. In particular, given that exact, statistical methods of

collecting and presenting data are typical of Naturwissenschaft, wehave seen that the most zealous application of such methods (e.g.by Mohn, Holst) nevertheless may provoke, or at least express and

reinforce, social change in ’progressive’ directions. ’Positivism’ in this

conception therefore does not seem to ’leave everything as it is’, (asWittgenstein’s dictum, on philosophy, has it). On the other hand,there are instances of Norwegian social investigations in the

Geisteswissenschaftliche, or even philosophical, tradition, havingnon-progressive, even proto-fascist traits. German sociologists discusstheir Carl Schmitt, a pupil of Max Weber. who later became a leadingNazi philosopher of law. Though little known today, Norwegiancounterparts, of a definitely un-positivist kind may be found (1965).

A FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING

SOCIAL SCIENCE POST 1950

MAIN TREND OF SOCIAL CHANGE:

GROWTH, MIGRATIONS, CONCENTRATION

Real economic growth, prolonged and without serious setbacks or

recessions, is of course an important and major tendency, as the

following graph witnesses: see Figure 1.The growth effects on income distribution may be debated - as

a whole it may have become more, or less, skewed. However, it is

very likely that the level of income (or standard of living by mostindicators) has increased somewhat at both extremes - if not to thesame extent as seems likely.

Many economists hold that increased mobility is the price wehave to pay - or even the prize we win - for upholding real growth.Whatever the reason, (geographical) mobility certainly has increased,to quite un-precedented levels: see Table 2.

The Norwegian changes stand out, in contrast to the relative stabilityof the UK. The last quarter century is quite unique in all of Norwegianhistory: we never moved so much before. Both the number, and the




69

Figure 1. Index Numbers of Production in Mining and Manufacturing1909-1975. 1938 = 100

Table 2. Work F’orce According to Population Census (except 1975),by Main Sector of Occupation. Norway and United Kingdom.

Percentages

Source: National, UN, and League of Nations statistics. at Universitet I Oslo on December 18, 2013csi.sagepub.comDownloaded from



70

proportion, of working people, changing their way of life from therural-farming-fishing setting to the urban-service-industry sectors,is of record height. In rough comparison, our rapidity of ’StructuralChange’ is well above that of France and Italy, whilst clearly belowthat of (Federal) Germany and Japan, the world leader.

More detailed statistics on the total Norwegian farming-fishingpopulation, i.e. family members being included, show that their actualnumber remained remarkably stable; on or slightly below the 1 million

level from say 1875 to 1949. But following 1950, a rapid decreaseset in, until today only something between a half and a third are

remaining on the farms. Obviously, this is no longer only a ’naturaldecrease’ of ’excess population’, but involves actual migrations on amass scale (221, table 76; 222).

Regarding concentration, Norway used to be a country of

dispersion, of small and scattered units. It still is, but to a decreasingextent. While our median farm about thirty years ago had an acreageof approximately three Hectares, the corresponding figure todaywould be about five Hectares. The small have thus become less

numerous, and slightly less small, but still, by almost any Europeancomparison, Norway is a leader in smallness.A rather similar trend could be produced for manufacturing, but

here, as in most western countries, important changes have takenplace on top: our ten leading Industrial Corporations used to accountfor some 12-15% of total mining and manufacturing turnover ten yearsago. Today (1975) the comparable figure would be about 20%. Theactual figures for a single year may be uncertain, but not the trendof development (220). Again, a roughly comparable figure for theUK’s ’top ten industrials’ might be somewhere between 35-40% oftotal mining and manufacturing turnover (1974) (193, 236).

Even for trade and services, a similar tendency is noticeable.

Generally, then, if ’Small is Beautiful’, Norway still can boast a positionnear the top, though it has declined slightly in recent years. The lattertrend is likely to continue. It should be mentioned, though, that anincreasingly vocal opposition is heard today: the defenders of keeping,or even increasing, smallness and dispersion, have gained some headwayrecently, even in, or near, decision-making circles.

On the international scene, the growth and position of the GiantCorporations, the Multinationals, raises problems of definition: theMarch issue (1971) of the magazine Vision featured a list consistingof the hundred greatest economic units in the world, including bothNations and Corporations. The former were measured by their gross




71

national products (GNP), the latter by their turnover. The giantconcerns occupied ftfty four of the hundred places. General Motors,ranked fifteenth. After that they came thick and fast - General Motors,Esso, Ford and Shell all well ahead of Norway.

The magazine did not list the socialist countries. On the other

hand, it was rather generous in measuring the ’western’ countries,who do not control their GNP in the same way that the giant concernscontrol their turnover. The state does not own the national product.State or public expenditure would be a better indicator, and wouldhave given rise to an entirely different list on which General Motors

would probably advance from number fifteen to number three or four.Norway would hardly enter the list at all.

Now, when equalling or surpassing many nations in economic

strength, what really are the features that distinguish corporationsfrom states? Traditionally, of course, states are territorially basedand demand effective monopoly on the use of (physical) power withintheir borders. But there have been reports indicating that some giantcorporations contain concealed armed security forces of their own

(241). As for the powers of State to raise taxes, how do these differfrom the part played by monopoly in pricing products in generaluse (say steel or oil) - in what respects does this really differ froma Value Added Tax? Differences between the Private and Public remain,of course, but perhaps less so than a decade ago, posing dangers andchallenges as traditional borderlines weaken.

THE CRITICS AND THE COMPLACENT

The choice of a meaningful periodization of Norwegian social scienceor general history is not too a difficult task after 1950. The choiceof meaningful criteria for the selection and evaluation of research

reports, on the other hand, poses problems. This is less marked wherepurely scientific standards of judgement are concerned, for althoughthese may be undergoing some debate, this still leaves a fair numberof rules which are generally accepted (thoroughness, criticism,creativity, etc.).

The real difficulties start the moment we want to evaluate researchcontributions in terms of the social criticism they may or may notcontain. When the social sciences leave behind, as we increasinglydo, the somewhat naive self-image of purely ’objective’, ’purveyor-of-facts’ disciplines, we accept some kind of a normative role, a positionof (modest or immodest) contributors to directed social change (or




72

non-change, or opposition to change). But by what standards can

such contributions be judged? What is good, progressive, radical,reasonable, well-founded, responsible, or scientifically based social

criticism?A number of answers have been proposed. Criticisms should be (a)

anti- (or pro-) Establishment. This is much too simplistic a notion.

’Establishments’, on closer inspection, usually contain opposing, even

contradictory wings and views or policies. Furthermore, in our periodof rapid and comprehensive social changes, most opposition partieswill favour some kinds and amounts of changes, and equally governingparties seldom endorse the total status quo (ante mutatio). Clearly,any meaningful use of such criteria will have to specify what part(s)of the Establishment are to be opposed or defended, or (alternatively)what trait(s) are considered basic to all Establishments.

(b) critical (or positipe), anti- (or pro-) Positipist committed (orindifferent, ’neutral), (cf. p.67-68). While several crucial points fromthe debate against positivism have become fairly generally acceptedin contemporary (Norwegian) social science, neither pro- nor anti-

positivism alone, in empirical or theoretical work, can guarantee theprogressiveness, or conservatism, of scientific reports or socialcriticisms.

(c) work undertaken in the interests of Liberation, or oppressiorT,even if this is barely conscious. An early proponent of this view is

the German philosopher-sociologist Jurgen Habermas (196). Thoughthe phraseology used may indicate general acceptance of this outlook(who are against liberation?), there are problems associated with hisposition: liberation, for which group(s), against the oppression ofwhom? Some kind of a choice, a siding with Parties on Issues, willhave to be added to the notion of ’pure liberationalism’, which is

just as untenable and formal as for example ’pure objectivism’.

In a more recent statement, Professor Habermas has added whatseems to be a neo-Kantian angle to his Critical Dialectic, namely thatsocial criticisms which are scientifically founded should search out,discuss, and establish generalizable (verallgemeinerungsfåhige) interests(197), (i.e. ones which potentially are common if not universal), butare nevertheless oppressed. The instances he sketches of such interestsmay seem appealing, but hardly incontrovertible. We may accepthis advice to side with broad rather than narrow groups, classes or

interests, but the choice of sides can hardly be made by reference




73

to such a grandiose criterion alone.

(d) in favour of certain class interests (in opposition to the interestsof other classes). While it is more explicit, this position is no better

at serving alone as a standard for judgement. In the first place, ’pure’instances of research reports clearly siding with working, smallholding,white collar, capitalist, or other classes - or even more broadly, withlower vs. upper classes - are seldom found. Secondly there are

problems about whether we can trust statements of intention on thepart of the researcher(s), or whether demonstrable results which furtherthe particular interests of a given class should be demanded. Lastly,of course, there are differences over how class interests should be

defined: the philanthropic, the paternalistic, the social-liberal, andthe revolutionary positions may each and all have some tenable

arguments on their side.

I will now venture to propose a standard for use in the context

of Norwegian social science: those portions of research work concernedexplicitly or implicitly with social criticism should recognize, andfavour or oppose, the amount or direction of one or more of themain trends of contemporary social change (cf pp. 68- 71), or particularcomponent or consequences thereof Research work that does not

do this should offer convincing reasons why; distinct trends of change,or non-change, are sufficiently important, basic and worthy to warrantresearch attention.

Though personally inclined to side with lower class interests, as

defined (by no means unequivocally) by the Socialists, I do not claim

any inherent supremacy for that position in research: to take a stand,and defend it (scientifically), is laudable; to refrain from siding is not,if it cannot be convincingly supported by good reasons.

There remains the problem of Carl Schmitt (p.68). Most of ustoday, would severely censure the likes of him for taking the wrongstand. Important and basic as this is, it is nevertheless inconclusive,in itself unless we can provide additional arguments (including researchfindings) to indicate exactly where, and in what respects, such thinkerserr - and in what other respects tenable points might even be detectedin their views.




74

PERIODIZATION

As the periods singled out will by and large be meaningful in the

European context, they need but little comment.

a. The first post-war (1945-49) years were characterized by high,but gradually waning, hopes for massive social changes. In Norway,Labour was in power, drawing some support (though decreasingly)from Communist MPs (the latter party had a record representationbetween 1945-49). The war was over, Liberty was regained and wasto be used for the Popular Good. Other than those imposed by povertyand war damage, there were few visible restrictions on national liberty,leftish-Labour style.

b. Following the Czechoslovak Crisis in 1948, the institution of

NATO, the victory of the Chinese revolution in 1949, and the outbreakof the Korean war in 1950, a new climate in which new (and old)lines of conflict intensified, gradually imposed new limitations onnational policies. The liberty, particularly to adopt leftist policies,was, in practice, severely restricted for a period. In the UK the

Conservatives gained power and held it for well over a decade. In

Norway Labour, converted from a number of the Lettish tenets

it held in the preceding period, remained in power until 1965. The

conflicts, intense at the outset, were gradually subdued or ’frozen’

in a pattern, in which the Socialist Left had been largelyout-manoeuvred.

c. Opinions will differ as to when the ’cold war’ melted away toless significant, if not non-existent levels. My choice places this roughlybetween 1966-68. The Chinese cultural revolution, the oppositionto US escalation in Vietnam, the student-and-workers’ uprising in

France, the spring and fall of Prague - all these as well as other eventscreated new opportunities, modest, but perceptible threats to the

cold war pattern. A rejuvenation among differing shades of Leftistscertainly meant that they regained some degree of initiative, despitenew repressive measures. A new era of high hopes and slight instabilitywas initiated.

d. In history, paradoxically, nothing is more uncertain than the

present. As social scientists, however, we can not, (as Lord Verulamproposed in his Instauratio) ’be silent about ourselves’: though




75

uncertain as to its duration, we certainly have the feeling that followingevents like the prolonged Western economic recession, and the finalvictory in Vietnam, stability in a new form is slowly being sculptured.Hopes again may be waning slightly, as the Left is split, or loosessome initiative, in many countries, though certainly not in all. In

Norway at least, this is my impression, and it is not an individualistic

one. The main difference distinguishing the present from period b.above, is probably that the split between Labour left and centre hasnot come to present a chasm.

There are certainly problems in applying these periods in the generalpolitical climate to the particular hunting-grounds of the social sciences.Though connected in many ways, ’climate’ and ’science’ are

undoubtedly differing types of units and different levels of analysis.What holds on one level might not be tenable on another. Still, inkeeping with hypotheses (1)-(2) (p.62), we do maintain that some

broad and basic correlations can be found; that somehow changesin general climate influence, if not determine, the direction of social

research. Exactly how such influences work we will leave open. We

do however feel that the social science reports reviewed can be seenas results which have somehow been shaped by the general train ofevents.

SCIENTISTS AND REPORTS:

FOUNDERS, FOLLOWERS, OPPONENTS, MARXISTS

THE FIRST FEW YEARS:

FORERUNNERS AND FOUNDERS 1945-49

The first Norwegian university chair in sociology was founded in

1948, in Oslo. It soon became transformed into a full professorship,with an Office, and later an Institute of Sociology attached to it ( 1951 )(203).

There were immediate forerunners of course. The Law Facultyappointed a Research Fellow (universitetsstipendiat) in sociologyin the late 1930s. And Thagaard (p.66), though Prices Director, nota University member, was responsible for giving sociology lectures

to Law students from 1937 to 1942, when he had to spend a periodin jail for activities censured by the German Occupation Régime.

Publications from this early period of building up from scratchare not numerous. One of those worth mentioning, though seldom




76

read today, was written by our Senior Professor, Sverre Holm (204).Writing in a structuralist tradition Holm’s work later was cited

approvingly by Claude Ldvi-Strauss (208, p.325). Revealing an immenseamount of reading, the work takes sociological typologies as its dataand starting point. It thus could be considered a pioneer in what

came to be known as meta-sociology a decade later. Holm advocates

structural models e.g. from linguistics and plant morphology, Goethe-style. While uninterested in social criticism proper, his work does

contain pointed attacks on the Weberian conception of causallyadequate explanations:

There is hardly any prediction problem to speak of at all in the ideal typology,as compared with that which meets us in a social science dealing with con-

temporary social phenomena. Historical sociology like that of Max Weber

enables us to &dquo;understand&dquo; phenomena in the past. But there will hardlyever be any crucial confirmation whether Calvanism gave rise to Capitalism,or vice versa. (204, p.1 11)

Holm’s later work as Head of an Institute found an increasing numberof followers. His personal research interests, on the other hand, gainedbut a small number of followers. Today the structuralist linguistconception of sociology has had a kind of renaissance but hardlyone which substantially increases the numbers of its adherents. In

the Norwegian context, the tradition has remained a fairly isolatedone.

Another separate, isolated, but currently revived research field

is indicated by a report by a team of architects, psychologists etc. onworking class housing in Oslo (182). The actual interviewing andother field work was done during the war years. The work originatedin a Tenants’ Association seeking solutions to housing problems andstruggling for better housing conditions. The architects and other

team members mostly taught themselves questionnaire techniques,with fair results as is evident in their report. Judged as a work of

science, however, the report suffers from absence of a theoretical

framework - excepting some standard architectural notions about

the ’functional’, or rather activity areas, in home and family life.

Empirically, however, the work is well founded, eminently practical,and designed to provide detailed tenants’ preference patterns for thepractising architect. The social criticism content - following the

univariate scandal model - is very pronounced, both on housingsupply and standards, and on tenants’ adaptions to this. Links withthe main trends of social change (urbanization, skewedness of incomedistribution) are evident. The report and project work also contributed




77

significantly to social change: one much publicized findingsubstantiated that working class tenants were willing to pay for

retaining or acquiring a better, more ’modem’ housing standard. Thisfact probably played a role when State Housing Planning and Financeinstitutions started working, in those immediate post-war years.

Turning now to the central research fields of the period: Holm’scontemporary overview (203, p.6) singles out two really extensiveprojects - one on the psychological and sociological implicationsof economic planning, the other on occupational choices of farmyouth. The first was initiated with the collaboration of Paul F.

Lazarsfeld, who spent a term in Oslo in the fall of 1948. He was

attracted, it appears, by the very prospects for research offered by theunprecedented upsurge of public planning in Norway in the immediatepost-war years. Lazarsfeld himself never published anything relatingto this project. Another American sociologist-political scientist, AllenBarton, did publish a little-known report a few years later (179).Certainly of more importance in the Norwegian context is the first

major work of (the then research fellow, later professor) VilhelmAubert, doyen of Norwegian sociologists (169). In its Englishtranslation the work is entitled Price Controls and Rationing: APilot Project in the Sociology of Law.

Aubert’s research problem derived from the frequency with whichsmall and not so small businessmen violated public price regulationsat that time - some 15% of all known crimes even three years afterthe war. This big increase in white-collar crime was given interestingexplanations: the new provisional Prices Regulation Act of 1945,while passed in Parliament, hardly had much real support at the

grass-root level amongst the Right, to which most of the businessmenadhered. Embedded in this milieu, they found a number of mechanismsfor ’explaining away’ their guilt, their having to pay fines, or evenserve sentences in jail, without suffering loss of self-image or publicimage as pillars-of-society. The passing and enforcement of laws, then,is not sufficient to ensure compliance to rules and regulations.

From this, two paths for further research seem to stand out (a)What, (if anything), can ensure compliance to a rule?; or (b) for

what sets of social rules (laws, plans) is it most important to ensurea degree of compliance’? One would guess that (b) would be the mostlikely choice for a project on the social consequences of planningand Aubert’s next project seemed to confirm this. A law then recentlypassed on the conditions of work for housemaids was selected for

study. While less hotly contested than the Prices Act, this was still




78

a central part of the Labour reform programme, a part and an extensionof the Factory Acts tradition. The main findings of the survey showedthat next to nobody knew much of this particular law’s provisions,housemaids and employers alike. Consequently, direct results of lawenforcement were hard to find. Instead it was held more likely that

contemporary improvements in the position of housemaids were

due to their dwindling numbers giving them a better bargaining positionon the market (171). However, from Aubert’s third major work (170),a perceptible change of focus from (b) to (a) is noticeable. We will

return to give a few details of this in the next section. Suffice it to

say here that, of course, both paths lead to central problems for

sociological research and path (a) is certainly not of peripheric concern.Still, the very generality of this research topic is less than typicalof its time. The diverse Labour measures for the regulation of privateenterprise (e.g. Prices and Antitrust regulations, Marketing BoardActs for farming and fishing products, Banking and Credit acts, the

institution of State banks, and new conceptions of national budgeting)are unique and of quite central importance to the post-war era. Theyare part and parcel of the Expanding Public Sector, another main

tendency of contemporary Social Change. Deviance, penal law, whitecollar (and other) crime, the effects of different types of punishment,even if important, can hardly claim an equally typical position in

the same period.Thus the planning project ended, and little work was done on

related subjects for more than a decade. Research problems concerningthe consequences if legally based planning could not be enforced,the reasons for this (e.g. incompetence of the enforcing agent,grass-roots or top-level opposition), and the implications as to whetherthis meant planning efforts had to be restricted or postponedaccordingly, were certainly discussed, but not subject to empiricaltest for some time.

As for the farm youth project, one of the early works of the social(now cognitive) psychologist, Ragnar Rommetveit, seems to have

resulted from it (231). Comparatively well known for its catchphrase’fictitious social norm’, his study is more notable for its form of presen-tation : a zealous compliance with logical positivist conceptions ofscienceHere the teachings of philosopher Arne Naess are in evidence. In laterworks by Rommetveit (and others) logical positivism by and large is aban-doned. As for (231), though largely uninterested in social criticism, itdoes point to some unpleasant aspects of local society and its informal(ideological) power structure.

Though both were completed in the next period, I feel that the




79

two following projects really belong to the immediate post-war era,i.e. those studying possible causes and consequences of the war itself:Harald Ofstad’s (and associates’) Nationalism project, and Nils Christie’ssurvey of the Norwegian prison guards of the German concentrationcamps (mostly containing Serbo-Croat prisoners) in Norway.

Ofstad’s problem seems to derive from the notion that war,

aggressiveness, and Nazism must somehow be rooted in dispositionsof the individual. The published parts (226, 227) centre on the conceptof ’innocent aggression’, i.e. how certain individuals project their

aggressive traits onto other people and institutions, making them,perhaps, more prone to endorse proto-fascist ideas and movements.

Individual factors were consciously singled out for study, whereasgroup influences were controlled for. Thus, it was in no way a studyof fascism as a social or political movement. Today, we may finda certain lack of reflection at the analytical level in Ofstad’s design.Though related to the well-known work of Adorno and others, Ofstad’sresearch was designed independently of it, and in fact contains somepoints of criticism of Adorno.

Christie’s study (186) on the other hand has remained, even today,a stimulating contribution to the sociology of deviance, and was wellahead of its time. His main finding is related to the fact that the

Norwegian prison guards fell readily in two groups: those engagingin gross cruelties, including killings, and those largely abstaining fromcruelties to prisoners. The significant point is that very few basic

differences can be found between the two groups and their members.

Christie went on to use factors relating to differential perceptionto explain the different levels of cruelty (or even friendliness, at theother extreme). His conclusion was that under unfavourable

circumstances, we are all potential deviants: a surprisingly modernview, and one demanding a considerable coolness of mind on the

part of its author, working on such a highly emotional subject onlya few years after the events took place.

In summing up, to label the 194549 period as slightly ’innocent’may seem grossly incongruent, but then our main trends of socialchange had yet to define themselves clearly. The re-restablishmentof political institutions was a remarkably rapid process, largelycompleted during 1945. The economy, however, was more sluggish.Even in 1948, and again in 1951, Oslo’s tenants, for example, stagedmass demonstrations to protest that the construction of new houseshad not yet surpassed pre-war levels.Now this ’innocence’ and the indefiniteness of main trends would




80

in a way make for the inapplicability of our evaluative criteria,

presented earlier. However, given a slight adaptation, they do still

make sense: research should recognise and consciously evaluate suchmain changes as are evident at the time. Our comments on Aubert(169, 171), and to a degree Brochmann (182), make use of this

modification.

There is a diversity in the period, an openness of mind, and a

pluralism on a broad scale. Wars of course tend to be great catalystsof social change: regardless of who wins or looses, neither will have theirway in quite the same manner as before or during the hostilities.Numerous suggestions for a rational economic and social reconstructionof the post-war world were volunteered, and some were called for

officially. Only the voices of those like Aall (165, p.14) were silentor ignored. The tendency to equate this right wing extremism with acounterpart on the left became widespread a few years later.Tle adoption of suggestions for change, however, soon proveddisappointing, as they were increasingly obstructed by the familiar

contradictions of the pre-war era.

There is little doubt that as hopes were waning, a change of climatedid take place. In what ways it made itself felt in social research is

more open to debate. Today the participants themselves are apt tostress that nothing approaching compulsion was experienced then.

Research grants from abroad or through the Norwegian ResearchCouncil for Science and the Humanities (established 1949) wereperhaps distributed more liberally and personal research interests it

seems could be pursued much as before. The ephemeral interest takenin planning research was also motivated by personal considerationsand when informal opposition had proved strong enough to renderplanning regulations ineffectual, no-one could entertain great hopesor invest much research work in preparing fresh projects for planning-by-legislation. The patient education of opponents was a more likelycourse, and was incidentally the one chosen for the Labour bankingpolicy: no credit law was passed until 1965 but instead a system ofvoluntary co-operation, accompanied by annual lectures to Norway’sprivate bankers on the blessings of the Keynesian Active State.

No doubt certain shades of leftism coloured social science circles,but Aubert may be considered rather unique as an active Labour leftwinger. However, support for more diffuse issues, notably pacifismand later nuclear disarmament, had a wider basis (224, 225), butcharacteristically not amongst social researchers working on security,defence or foreign policy topics (247).




81

MAINSTREAM PLURALISM:

THE INSTITUTIONALIZERS 1950-66

The Four Great Projects

Social research work during the fifties and early sixties increasinglybecame project team work. Four of these undertakings are singledout for their importance.

The Professions Project By the middle fifties, with the Nationalismproject visibly drawing to a close, a second major team was established,with Aubert (now a professor in the sociology of law) at its head.The topic covered was ’The professions in Norwegian social structure:1800-1950’. A team of some six members collected, sifted, and

processed large amounts of historical data. Anticipating today’s’cliometric sociology’ (Rokkan), this topic is a central one in the

modern history of Norway. Lacking a nobility, a landed oligarchy,and big business, a leading political role was assumed by the

professionals in the civil service, or emerging private business.The first volumes of Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning abound

with articles reporting the findings about legal, military, medical,ecclesiastical, and (secondary school) teaching professions. Most reportsappeared under the names of individual authors. A certain diversityof judgements about the findings is evident. The main report (172)points to the fact that Norway’s professionals remain a chosen few,with upper and upper-middle class affiliations, throughout the period,although this decreased slightly over time. The (primary school)teacher’s role was found to be among those mediating the slight increasesin inter-generational social class mobility. But differences of opinionarose over the class basis for, and the differing proposed measures thatmight decrease, this comparative lack of mobility. Aubert ’s own work(173), relying on the achievement-ascription dichotomy and ideas

of a just society of equal opportunities, recognizes both direct andindirect effects of class on career. In addition he criticizes the rigiduse of school marks, for example, as devices liable to reinforce classor stratification differentials, another remarkably modern view, for

contemporary Norway. Other team members put more stress on theindirect effects of class, i.e. emphasizing less the lack of resourcesto pay for an education than characteristics of family culture and thelike to explain the low proportion of farmers’ and workers’ sons anddaughters in the professions (209). Simultaneously these authors




82

give more prominence to signs of increasing mobility.One report even concludes that causes for the rising tide of leftism

and class consciousness around 1917 were to be found,

... not only in a rigid stratification structure and basic social inequalities, butalso in other, almost diametrically opposed, social traits: the dominance

of a marked egalitarian tradition, the absence of an elite of nobles, and strongexpectations that increasing social equality, a trend taken for granted, shouldcontinue even more rapidly (235, p.l 12).

While tenable as an observation this hardly falls within the ’progressive’tradition as a conclusion.

The Isolation Project Gradually replacing the Professions team at

the Institute for social research in the early sixties was another whichselected the isolated rural community as its object of study. There isa calculated break of continuity from the preceding project in the

shift of focus from traditional city power centres to the comparativepowerlessness of the periphery. Social work or social policy motivesalso played a role in project definition: Periphery spells problems.

This time, interviewing and prolonged field work were the basic

sources of data (though historical sources were used as well). NorthernNorway, (our Highlands and Islands), provided scores of promisingsites for field work. From late 1964 onwards reports began to appearin the Tidsskrift for samfutitisforskiiing. A final, comprehensive reportstill remains in draft mimeo version (177). Nevertheless, the first,limited reports are important for they signal change towards morepronouncedly critical social research. A prominent example of this,Aubert and Karlsen’s Migrations from marginal regions (175), neatlyfits our criteria. The two authors map current migrations and theirbasis in factors like family cycles. They also express the resentmentof local community inhabitants and their protest against leaving theirhomes. This trend in reporting, which becomes more pronouncedin later works, points firmly to a development which can be tracedthrough the following periods. The ’balance of pluralism’, characteristicof the fifties, was about to topple to the left once more.

In later years, the remaining research workers on the isolation

project came to concentrate increasingly - once more led by Aubert -on a peripheric national minority, the Lapps. Publications include(202, 229).




83

Election Research Projects In terms both of duration and number

of team participants, the research on electoral behaviour sets nationalrecords. Extensive studies began well before the national Storting(parliament) elections in 1957, combining national questionnairedata with intensive community studies. One of the initiators, SteinRokkan, writing many years later in homage to the second key figure,Henry Valen, speaks of the decisive importance of a couple of monthsin Autumn 1957: social science careers were being chosen, recognized,and starting to become routinized.

The project, or rather programme, its still with us - collectingand processing data, and publishing reports in connection with

subsequent elections in 1965, 1969, 1973 - and no doubt it will

continue in years to come. Both in Norway and abroad some reportshave become near classics in their field. Others, whose design anddata are somewhat threatened by obsolescence, still remain impressiveworks in many ways.

The election programme reports are widely admired for the

sophistication of the techniques and methods used. Pooling results

from many disciplines - sociology, political science, history, andothers - many reports are no less admirable for their theoreticalcontributions. Those of Stein Rokkan, an international as well as

a Norwegian political sociologist, stand out for the immensity oftheir learning and the creativity applied in the construction of models(191, 210, 240). At the core of Rokkan’s research interests are whatwe may term the dialectics of nation-building. His models for this

process have won him an international distinction quite unusual fora Norwegian social scientist. The models being fairly well known,and increasingly complex, a resume will not be attempted here.

In recent years Rokkan’s models have met with some criticismsof note, particularly from the historian Jens Arup Seip (232). Putvery briefly, Seip holds that Rokkan’s models are unduly schematic,and that one major theoretical tradition, the marxist, is lacking (232,p.122). Rokkan’s rejoinder to this is, equally briefly, that soundschematization is a necessity and less of a danger than that involvedin giving undue attention to historical details; and, while a non-marxist,he conceives of his models as in a sense generalizations of marxistideas (232, p.152), which leave it, in his own words, for data, notpedigrees, to decide the issue.

While agreeing with Seip’s second criticism, I believe that

application of the present criteria used here may add to hisfirst objection. Rokkan, in the dedication of a major work,




84

places himself in a defender-of-the-periphery tradition (210). His

models do point to the persistent influence of national peripheries.When compared for instance with Aubert and Karlsen’s work (175),there is a certain lack of firmness in Rokkan’s defences, writing inan age where (primary sector) peripheries seem to be heading towardsnear extinction, or at least very profound transformations. Despitededications, Rokkan and his co-workers may be closer to the Weberian

’objective’ ideal type of science than most Norwegian sociologiststoday. By present standards, this is ’not laudable’. Furthermore, Holm’spoint of criticism against Weber (p.76) may apply to Rokkan’s workas well. Vastly learned and encompassing as a synthesis of past data,there is a comparative lack of daring in the prediction of future trends.His models are concerned with what I would call the miracle of thepresent - by what intricate balance of struggling, diverse forces thepresent came to be exactly as it is. The electoral behaviour models

may serve very well for short-run predictions of election outcomes,and indeed part of their popularity with political parties must derivefrom this. But proposals for basic democratic reform, e.g. in electoralsystems - a commonplace for Mohn (p.66) and other 19th centurysocial-liberal researchers, and much needed even today given the

unprecedented structural changes - is completely lacking both in

Rokkan’s work, and in much, but not all (214), other election

programme reports.Today the electoral behaviour programme is led by Professor Valen.

A recent statement is found in (240). Amongst others, a changeof focus from the effects of variables characterizing the electorateto the effects of campaign issues on party preferences, is notable,following the waning of the stable electorate of the fifties (237, 238,239). Work circling around the European Common Market Referendumof 1972 is also in progress. I

Deviance Projects Unlike the other three, this later one is not unitary -not one project or team working under one leadership, but a numberof single- or multi-person undertakings on a common group of topics.The reason for grouping them together here under one heading is

their central importance as influences on Norwegian social research.First in time and importance is another study by Aubert (170),

one among a handful of theoretical contributions. Containing nonew first-hand collection of data, the work synthesizes theoreticaland empirical contributions, by the author himself, and many others.Following a lead from the Prices Control, and Housemaid studies,




85

the problem of compliance with rules has now taken another turn,viz. ’Are threats of legal penalties effective agents of compliance orobedience to the law?’ Aubert argues convincingly for an answer

in the negative. While bordering on penal law (General Prevention),his work is in essence an empirically based functional analysis,concerned with some latent or dysfunctional aspects of legal penalties,whose deterrent effects on the general public are shown to be ratherinsignificant in a number of cases. The research problem in this

reformulated version may be considered less general and less directlyconnected with main trends of change. Important contributions tosocial criticism within this new range of problems are nevertheless

included in, or based on, the work, with Aubert arguing forhumanitarian penal reform in this and a number of other works.

Both (170) and Aubert’s next deviance study were hotly contestedby traditional-minded legal professionals. The second, entitled Punish-ment and Stratification (174), appearing nearly ten years later in 1963,is an empirical study applying methods of content analysis to courtcases. The main finding was that persons low on social status were morefrequently accorded more severe penalties than was the case with

higher ranking persons. Challenging ideals of equality before the law,the report drew a small storm of criticism. While the main findingmay remain tenable, one acute criticism is left unanswered by thereport: it did not control for severity of legal violation, coding casesonly in relation to the penal law paragraphs involved, and not in termsof the severity of transgressions within paragraphs.

Other sociology of deviance contributions of note include laterworks by Christie, on Norwegian Juvenile Delinquents and on penalworkhouses for tramps (187, 188). The first is concerned with the

remarkable rise, in Norway as in many other countries, of juveniledelinquency, a minor trend of social change in my post factojudgement. Christie, however, links this trend to industrializationand similar major changes. In design and findings (187) may beconsidered as an attempt to provide a more general test for his thesisthat ’we are all potential deviants’ (p.79). Selecting the entire malecohort of 1933 for study, Christie utilises military conscription datafor characteristics of the ’normal’ population. He goes on to comparethe 19,000 ’normals’ in the cohort with the (roughly) 1,000 ’deviants’found in criminal law registers. On most indicators insignificantdifferences were found, with only one major exception: the registeredoffenders tend to be urban school drop-outs or failures. The very solidempirical foundation of Christie’s findings tends to ward off attacks




86

or criticism. Further, while potentially representing as basic a socialcriticism as, for example, Aubert’s, Christie’s conclusions at the timewere perhaps a (calculated) degree less pointed and less outspoken.

The study of tramps (188) traces the genealogy of the penalworkhouse - conceived by its initiators as a cure, not a penal sanction- but shows how it came to be used as a measure against trampsand a similar though heterogeneous group of vagrants (bums,drunkards, gypsies, etc.). The workhouses, originally intended to ’cure’the gypsy-type vagrant beggar, came to be used against a much widerand less homogeneous group, consisting mainly of urban tramps orhabitual drunks. Together with later studies by Christie and others(e.g. 181), clear indications were given of the conspicuous lack ofsuccess of the work-house as a cure: while removing tramps fromthe city streets, the places of ’cure’ proved on a closer look to becentres of contagion. Thus in the longer run these studies contributedeffectively to penal reform, namely the closing of the work-housesin 1970.

Emerging Specialisms (Bindestrich-soziologien).

Four influential works are selected for study. All were begun in thefifties or early sixties and published by the middle sixties.

Sociology of work Most notable is Professor Sverre Lysgaard’s TheWorkers Informal Collective System (211 ). Based in part on field observa-tions in a Norwegian paper factory, Lysgaard’s work generalizes widelyfrom this. The main bulk of his report is a funcitonal analysis of theconflicting systems he found in industry, in particular an economic-technical system, claiming immoderate contributions from participants,and a humane system, defending limited contributions. The third,resulting system - the workers’ informal collective system - is conceivedof as a buffer, the workers’ defence mediating between the immoderateand limited demands confronting each other in the actual situationof factory work. Lysgaard’s study in a sense is concerned with thebases of class consciousness. Though later studies (194, 228) indicatethat the strength of his workers’ collective system may vary widely,e.g. from one branch of industry to another, (211) it remains aninfluential contribution to the sociology of work, or even sociologyof conflict. It does, of course, recognize some of our main trends ofsocial change: the stand taken is perhaps less unequivocal. Whiletending generally to favour the worker’s point of view, the report,




87

like Rokkan’s, does not propose harsh and pointed criticisms. Indeed,the hypothesis has been advanced, but not confirmed, that in

delineating factors making for a stronger workers’ collective systemLysgaard’s work may have led to counter-measures from employersto weaken collective systems. However, the alternative hypothesisthat the collective system notion has contributed to recent advancesin industrial democracy would appear just as tenable.

Prison (or inmate) Sociology Thomas Mathiesen’s report on a mediumsecurity prison was published in 1965 (215). His study, in contrastto Lysgaard’s, centres on the concept of inmate censoriousness, i.e.

criticisms of prison regimen for being ’unprisonly’ or not in conformitywith the regulations, rather than opposing the prison system as such.Censoriousness is thus seen as a functional alternative to the peer groupsolidarity found in many prison studies, as well as in other context.Mathiesen holds that this censorious attitude is more likely the lessfavourable the inmates’ bargaining position is perceived to be, theless honorable a peer group association might appear to be, and theless active are the inmate or criminal subcultural traditions outside

prisons. This study does not relate prison or inmate data to majortrends of general social change, which are hardly recognized. Thoughin later works he is a vocal and even violent spokesman for prisonreform, here Mathiesen does not offer conspicuous criticisms.

Early Medical Sociology The work of Yngvar L~chen, publishedsimultaneously with the previous study, is notable (213). He appliedparticipant observation methods to a psychiatric hospital, his studybeing related both in design and results to the work of Erving Goffman.Less easily summarized than the preceeding project, L~chen’s workin essence is another functional analysis, which contrasts the manifestand the latent, or ’ideals’ and ’realities’, in psychiatric treatment.Within the psychiatric hospital context, LOchen offers numerous

points of basic criticism, tending to side with the interests of patientswhen these are perceived to be in conflict with those of top hospitalstaff. Links with general trends of social change, however, are hardlytraced, or at least are not readily detectable.

Sociology of Administration or Organizations Another mid-sixties

publication (205), by sociologist/political scientist Knut Dahl Jacobsen,should be mentioned. Based on historical data from the late nineteenth

century, his study leans heavily on work by Phillip Selznick,




88

Herbert Simon and James G. March for its theoretical basis. Dahl

Jacobsen’s treatise traces in detail a case of rise and fall of elitismin the public administration of Norwegian agriculture 1875-99. His

main interest is in hypothesizing general conditions making for therise of elitism, or for effective grass-roots opposition to it. His most

easily summarized findings hold that the definition of the situation beingof a crisis-type, and the presence of a profession which identifies with itsclients, will favour grass-roots influence over administration. In his ownterms it will, in the long run, engender ’client orientation’ among civilservants, as opposed to the professional, elitist, technical, or expert-typeof orientation. Generally,then, Dahl Jacobsen is concerned with the pros-pects for democratic control over bureaucracy, whether public or private.

As for its critical content, (205) traces consequences of majorstructural changes some 70-90 years ago (cf. Table 2, p.69). DahlJacobsen, however, has adopted a Gibbon-like tactic: to treat of thepast in order to learn lessons for the present. Not in the sense that he

opposes ’the fall of elitism’, past or present; on the contrary, a firm butnot harshly phrased stand in favour of grass-roots clients and opposedto elitist technocrats, is taken. Moreover the intricate reasoning ofDahl Jacobsen was later adapted by others, giving his basic viewsa more pointed and popular form (e.g. 183).

Early Voices of Opposition

One of the unique traditions of Norwegian social science derives fromthe close ties to philosophy. Philosopher Arne Naess’s contributionas an initiator has been mentioned briefly. Today the contributionsof others, philosophical opponents of Naess, hold more influential

positions. Indeed, what may be termed a separate school in the border-lands of social science and philosophy has been erected.

The amiable Father Figure of this school is without doubt the

philosopher Hans Skjervheim. For a master’s thesis, his Objectivismand the Study of Man created a quite unusual stir in 1959 (233).Recent judgements have rated his work on a par with Peter Winch’s771e Idea of a Social Science, a contemporary but independentcontribution to similar problems. In the late fifties and early sixtieshowever, Skjervheim was more often judged idiosyncratic and

incomprehensible, if not outright irrational, a heretic from the waysof ’objective’ social science. For a philosopher, his work has met withconsiderable success over the decades - today some acquaintance




89

with Skjervheim’s work is required even of the youngest students

beginning social science.Within his field, there is still a single-mindedness approaching

Socratic dimensions, to Skjervheim’s work. He insists on just one mainthesis: that there are fundamental differences between the natural

and the social sicences. His basic reasons for this are: (a) social dataand social action, being intentional in character, are not ’objects inthe world’ and cannot be studied as such; (b) social science findingsare part of their own field of study, potential data for their own

science, quite unlike the findings of for example, the physicist or

botanist. From this, Skjervheim does not of course argue that socialscience must per se be futile or impossible, but only that varietiesof critical science necessarily have to replace the ’objective’ versions.

Today perhaps even more influential than Skjervheim’s own

contribution is the work of one of his early followers, Dag Østerberg.Whilst the former consistently argues on the general philosophicallevel, the latter chose a sociological education, and offers concrete

critiques of actual theories and reports in contemporary social science(242). Both oppose logical positivism effectively, reaching similar

conclusions in early works - in Dag 0sterberg’s own words, ’the

role of the social scientist is ... to provide incitements for action,for political and cultural change’ (242, p.164 original italics). In laterworks, Østerberg is much influenced by materialistic sociology, in

Sartrean and then Marxist versions (243, 245). Personally I would

select one of the pre-Marxist works as his most outstanding, namelyForms of Understanding (244), published in 1966. A uniquecontribution to social science, and general, theory of knowledge,0sterberg’s exposition of concepts like ’internal (or inherent) negation’and ’internal (or inherent) transcendence’ proved seminal. Thoughindependent of Habermas’s work it could be said to foreshadow someaspects of his present position (cf 197). In later years differencesof opinion arose between (/>sterberg and Skjervheim. The latterremained a non-socialist and a non-Sartrean, whilst the formerbecame a marxist, one recent work being A Preface to Marx’

Capital (246), another illustration of the fact that anti-positivistpositions may be consistent with both socialist and non-socialistviews.

In summing up this section on mainstream pluralism, one shouldfirst note the prevalence of differences of approach to and opinionsabout social science, and that pluralism of a sort did prevail. The’objective’ stance, perhaps at its most outspoken and persistent in




90

the work of Rokkan and his team, is approximated to in works or

sections of studies by Lysgaard, Aubert, Dahl Jacobsen and Mathiesenamong others. It is, however, not the only trend in evidence and

perhaps not even the dominant one. Perspectives stressing a more orless critical approach are probably as prominent if not more so. The

scope of pluralism between 1950-66 seems, however, to representa change from the preceding period, the scope of the fifties beingrather more narrow, and perhaps more skewed towards the Right.The basis for such a conclusion is not so much the lack of social science

spokesmen for the outer Left, e.g. Communist Party adherents, (forthey were also rare on the Labour right, the Centre, and the

Conservative Right), but more the trend, denied by some

participants for sociology to choose less encompassing, less basic,less hotly contested social questions for study. For a summaryof Norwegian sociological research up to say 1966, Aubert’s

introductory Elements of Sociology (176) is still unsurpassed.

RISING VOICES OF PROTEST, OLD AND NEW: 1967-73

The tumultuous late sixties signalled changes in many aspects of life.We are concerned here with Norwegian social science but once morewe will have to concentrate on a few selected examples.

The ’Invisible Norway’ Publication

Almost exactly ten years ago, an issue of the then little known journalKontrast left the press, wearing the catchy title ’Invisible Norway’.In it were featured articles by the old-timers Dahl Jacobsen and Aubert,neither of which strictly speaking represented works of empiricalscience. But both were based in part on scientific work, and bothcalled for more research, and for surveys to be undertaken in newdirections. The point of both was to make the invisible, the

unrecognized - the miserable, poor, and powerless - visible. But thiswas not just another latent functional analysis; rather the paperscalled for a total re-evaluation of Norwegian stratification and classstructure. The tranquil, ’end of ideology’, or even ’class-free society’conceptions of the fifties were herewith things of the past. New

challenges or revised versions of old ones were presented instead.




91

Dahl Jacobsen in a short, sober, and elegant statement introducesNorwegian readers to the concept of ’political poverty’, and a

potentially explosive critique of complacent notions of democracy.Pointed questions include: ’Why do the poor remain poor?’; ’Whyis their existence not perceived as a problem?’; ’Is our belief thata Welfare State is already well established really the greatest obstacleto developing a Welfare State?’; ’Suffrage may be universal but in

practice is free speech not severely hampered by the widespread lackof knowledge and skills required to voice a claim or a protest? ’.

Aubert’s article, ’Poverty in Norway’, establishes rough estimatesof the extent of actual poverty - somewhere between 6-12% of thetotal population - when taxable income is taken as the criterion.He goes on to sketch what is known about the location of the poor,

pointing to the primary sector periphery, the old, certain female

heads of households (e.g. housemaids) and the Lapps. He stresses

the limits of our knowledge and calls for more research on the locationand ways of life of the poor - the Welfare State drop-outs - witha view of course to finding short-and long-term measures to alleviatetheir condition.

Both articles remain classic examples of social criticism. In a countrywhere egalitarian values (if not practice) are traditionally so strongas to render ’poor’ and ’poverty’ literally taboo expressions, the stir

that ensued was considerable. Both have contributed to the initiation

of new research projects, or the re-definition of old ones, and bothare expressions of and contributions to a further widening of scopefor pluralistic social science in our country.

Ottar Brox

Ottar Brox’s book on Northern Norway which appeared in 1966

under the title What’s going on in Northern Norway? ( 183) hit theheadlines almost at once. Its opponents first tried to condemn the

work by attacking insignificant details. Later Brox’s work irresistiblyfound its way into our national cultural heritage. The book is

remarkable in many ways, though not perhaps, as its author would

agree, as a work of science, nor perhaps for readability, for fair portionswill be found heavy-going, especially today when many of the factstend to be dated. But the vigour and enthusiasm of its polemics wonit a wide public.




92

Though Brox has given ample evidence of his distinction in othermore rigorous scientific works (184, 185), none has gained anythingapproaching the readership and attention of this first major publication.It is outstanding for the clarity of its class identification, both in

expressed intentions and in actual results. While allowing for personalliberty in the actual definition of their class interest, Brox sides eagerlyand unequivocally with the rural periphery, with the fishing/farminghouseholds of Northern Norway. Of course his work answers readilyto our criterion of social criticism, since it attacks both migration andconcentration head-on. The force of his argument lies in providingconvincing examples, from the analysis of household economy data,of the basic rationality of the rural and marginal households in refusingto move. Formerly industry spelled the future and farming/fishingthe past. Opponents to ’development’ were stereotyped as narrow-

minded, even stupid, traditionalists. Brox’s evidence that the increasedincome obtained from industrial work might be more than counter-balanced by the smaller expenses and greater non-monetary incomesderived from certain forms of subsistence farming and fishingcompletely overthrew the stereotype. In general outline, and even insome of its details, his work may resemble that of Henri Mendras

in France or of Alex Chayanov in Soviet Russia in the 1920s. Brox’sfirst work was however conceived independently of both.

The Action Researchers

The conception of Action Research in Norwegian social science exhibitsunique traits. Though related for example to ethnomethodology, or to’advocacy planning’, the basic idea is different. The social scientist

should not despair if authorities ignore or refuse to implement hisfindings, but instead should try to realize some of these applicationshimself (in collaboration with team members, and of course researchsubjects themselves), and design his future research so as to facilitatesuch applications. In passing we should note the dual assumptionsof action research: (a) the need for the ability and self-confidence toarrive at research findings that differ from official, established views;and (b) that authorities do nothing, or next to nothing, to recognizeand apply such views which are contrary to their own.1). The Criminal Reform Association (KROM for short in Norwegian).Connected very closely to the recent work of Thomas Mathiesen,KROM conforms very closely to the ’ideal type’ of Norwegian style




93

action research. Established in May 1968, KROM at the outset

organized a small number of prison inmates together with a largergroup of penal reformists, around a programme proposing the abolitionof prisons in the long-run, combined with shorter-run support for

humanitarian prisons and general penal reforms. KROM and its

Scandinavian counterparts soon met with remarkable support, from

prison inmates if not from penal authorities. Following the Autumnof 1970, a prison strike wave, inspired and to some extent even leadby KROM and similar organizations, paralleled the simultaneous

strikes in mining and industry (216, p.45-94). Unions of prison inmateswere formed and tried to establish negotiations with prison authorities.KROM, despite obstructive efforts from the authorities, provided someexpert legal support. Numerous books and pamphlets have been editedby KROM personnel, with quite a few of them attaining scientificstandards (e.g. 217, 218). The synthesis of research and action

nevertheless proved rather difficult to sustain in the longer-run:reformist zeal seemed to make for the writing of Association annalsrather than analyses of fact and strategy. Secondly, the ’indeterminate’(or ’unfinished’) position of the Association, proposed as its ideal byMathiesen in 1971 (216), (i.e. avoiding both isolation and expulsion,and co-option or incorporation by the authorities), may prove evenmore difficult to attain than realized at the time. With reference

to (b) above, activities such as KROM’s must be vulnerable to feignedor dawning recognition by the authorities which may apply some lesscrucial parts of the association’s programme. Today top penalauthorities have signalled moves in such directions. The inmates’unions now seem to be inactive. We should also note that KROM’s

activities, while soundly and loudly critical, are not easily linked tothe main trends of social change, as proposed here, though (218,pp.122-35) tries.2) The commuting workers project (or Nord-Odal-prosjektet, namedafter the municipality selected for study). Beginning in 1969 underthe leadership of Yngvar L~chen, this project provides a slightly moremoderate, more academic version of action research. The Ministry ofSocial Affairs was amongst its initiators. A team of some ten scientistsand majoring students went to work for what by now can be calledthe classic four year project period. The stated goal of the Ministrywas to survey ’real’ needs for social relief, and effects of current WelfareState programmes. The researchers on the other hand were concernedto make basic, comprehensive, and critical contributions, not

makeshift, insignificant ones. They succeeded in this to a remarkabledegree.




94

A peripheric or marginal municipality in a forest district of the

Norwegian midlands was selected for studv. Following the

introduction of less labour-intensive machinery in forestry, the

inhabitants were faced increasingly with the choice between

moving permanently, or staying put, but securing work outside

the municipality. Commuting may be on a daily or more often a weeklybasis. The distances involved vary between 30-50 miles, the latter

being the distance to Oslo. By 1968, 51% of Nord-Odal’s male workforce (N = 1,553) were commuters of this sort. Another marked

tendency found was the increased percentage of those on differentforms of social relief, including disability pensions. Other parts ofthe project surveyed housing, municipal welfare, social work, and

old-age pensions. Action attempts included the establishment of a

Handicrafts’ Workshop, providing several part-time jobs, and supportfor the organization of a local commuters union.

The work of Lichen and his collaborators conforms very closelyto both parts of our criterion for social criticism. It studies and opposestendencies towards migration and centralization, siding with the

grass-root migrants or potential migrants. There are however undertonesof the univariate scandal model visible in the published parts of theresearch (219). Multivariate methods are seldom applied, the researchbeing more noteable for its accessibility and useful results, as well asfor the researchers’ identification with the local population.

Capitalism Studies

Last among the pathmakers we will mention a work by Torstein

Hjellum. Appearing in the journal Kontrast in 1971, it

was entitled ’Bergen’s capitalism’. The point of departure of courseis marxist. Hjellum traces the structure of private ownership and

control of industry and finance in and around Bergen in greatdetail. Empirically his work is very solid, and none of its major resultshave been seriously challenged. Its pioneering character derives fromthe simple fact that no Norwegian had published studies devoted

specifically to this topic for several decades, if at all. Given this

background, he sets out to ’prove’ that capitalists as a class are stillwith us, despite State controls and planning - a task in which hesucceeds eminently. A group of thirty leaders in industry, shippingand finance held positions that would enable them to control a majorpart of Bergen’s economy. Further, and perhaps more important,Hjellum points out that only five among the thirty can be




95

termed newcomers, and that only one of these five is a ’self-made’,or Grunder, capitalist. The remaining twenty-five (or 83%), holdpositions which were directly or indirectly inherited. Thoughcomparisons over time are not readily available, it would seem that the’managerial revolution’ has not yet had much impact in Bergen, if

it has anywhere else.While empiricially solid, this work of Hjellum’s could hardly be

called theoretically subtle. He applies Marx’s theory - and given its

disrepute gained during the 1950s, even that may be considered

pioneering at the time - but without much creativity. The subtletiesof the debate between Wright Mills-Dahl-Domhoff etc. are not takenup. Hjellum is concerned only with the actual concentration of persons,positions and shares, not with the content of decisions made, the conse-quences, or the qui bonum? of actions and policies. National and inter-national comparisons are also lacking - though later, a few have been pro-vided by other researchers (166). These criticisms in no way diminish theimportance of Hjellum’s study. Not only does it answer very wellto our criterion for critical sociology - it also contributed to the

opening up of new fields for research - a new broadening of thescope for Norwegian social science, reaffirming and reinforcing thetoppling of the tranquil balance of the fifties.

ESTABLISHING A CRITICAL SOCIOLOGY: 1974 TO DATE

Given our approach, and the explosive growth of the last decade,the recent period is of course the most difficult to summarize. Manyan interesting, even important, project must go without mention.

Though the few projects selected for comment may be typical of atrend and scientifically among the highest ranking, others no doubtequal or even surpass them.

Mediating Opposition and Stabilization

Lysgaard’s Ardal-project was initiated in 1970, and a (possibly) finalreport appeared six years later. In keeping with his sociology of workspecialization, Lysgaard and his team selected for close study oneof Norway’s semi-rurally situated large industries, a major aluminiummelting plant on our west coast. The project is notable for the wayin which it was conducted. A participation in and contribution tothe project was negotiated with the municipality, with union and




96

plant management. A team thus based was kept intact for the

entire duration of the project. This was no small feat, given the numberof very critical reports produced after 1973 - on plant establishment,workers’ health, housing, unions; on the conditions of youth andfemale workers. A summary, untranslated, is found in (212). Mostprominent among the catchphrases from the Ardal project was thatof the one-generation society: coined by sociologist Per Morten

Schiefloe, it highlights the fact that very few of Ardal’s young, thesecond generation born after the plant operations started in 1946,will be satisfied to remain in industrial work. In fact, they moveincreasingly, but away from secondary, not primary, sector

occupations. Part of this may derive from plant rationalization,reducing the number of employees from the late sixties’ record of

some 2000. Another part may be attributed to the lack of economic repefcussions, i.e. the lack of new jobs created and of new industries, in thefifties’ version of the socio-liberal one-plant ’company town’. Still, asignificant degree of the propensity to move remains unexplained, posingproblems for inhabitants, management and research team alike.

Distant democracy projects Two independent but related piecesof research will be mentioned; taking Stale Eskeland and Just Finne’sLegal Aid ( 192) first. The authors, both with a legal education, selectedan experimental group of 91 and a control group of 90 in a poor

housing block in Oslo. The first group was approached directly andoffered free legal assistance to define and solve any problem withlegal implications that they might have. The controls were offeredsimilar assistance but asked to define such problems themselves, andto approach the research team on their own initiative. Strikingdifferences resulted; 161 problems were adduced in the experimentalversus only 4 in the control group. Further, claims for more than

140,000 kroner (some £15,000) were secured for the experimentalgroup (i.e. they actually received that sum in the form of pensions,welfare or housing aid, tax reductions, etc.), representing a fifth ofannual contributions received. Even with a small and probablyunrepresentative sample, such results point acutely to deficiencies ofdemocratic and social welfare systems.

Willy Martinussen’s study entitled Distant Democracy (214) grewout of the Rokkan-Valen electoral behaviour programme (p.83-84).His data derive from the flawless nationally representativequestionnaires of that programme. While less vivid and detailed (less&dquo;casuistical&dquo;) in its description of household problems of the




97

’politically poor’ than (192), Martinussen more than balances this byhis demonstration of the general validity of some important findings.For example, the inability to define and voice a problem, or engagein organized or other activities to find a solution, were found to be

remarkably widespread, in a democratic society of Norwegiancomplacency. Martinussen advances a ’stairs model’, ranking the basicprohibitive steps to democratic participation.

Government Sponsored Social Science Committee Work

Lysgaard’s Ardal project was noted for variety of groups commissioningit - workers’ union, plant management and municipal authorities.

Other combinations of this type have been tried, e.g. joint TUC (orLO in Norwegian) and Employers’ Association-sponsored research

(195), or TUC (or TU Industry Branch)-sponsored research (223).But really, if it is laudable to span traditional class contradictions,why not then approach the State authorities directly, as the traditionalmediator of such contradictions? There is a question, of course, about

selecting personnel, and establishing contacts, before the state will

engage in commissioning social science work. However, in the last

years both problems appear solved in particular, but very important,cases:

The Social Power Committee (Maktutredningen) was appointed bythe Government in the autumn of 1972, to ’survey actual relationsof (social) power in Norwegian society’ (199, p.9). Prominent amongits young sociologist members is Gudmund Hernes of Bergen. In onesense, even this may be regarded as having been initiated by Aubert’sideas and projects: the isolation project (p.82) in the mid-60s was eagerlyseeking complementary studies of the non-marginal, the power centres.It was felt that ’nowhere is the influence of the centre more readilyfelt than in the periphery’. Professor Hernes’ first round of interviewswith Norway’s MPs, though independently designed, was one resultof this (198).

Today, one major theoretical-conceptual work, and a great numberof working papers, have appeared, and even more is in progress.Professor Hernes’ chef d’oeuvre (199) is mainly concerned withmodels for power, and powerlessness. He leans heavily on

contributions by US sociologist James S. Coleman, establishing an




98

exchange-interest-control type of model of his own. Penetrating andappealing as Hernes’s ideas are in many ways, I feel personally that theintricacies of his models may be subordinate to the even greaterimportance of certain preliminary empirical findings, through whichare introduced concepts like ’market disintegration’ and changes in

power-executing institutions, at the level of the counties for instance

(200). One is reminded, of course, of the pioneering work of Hjellum(p.94-S). The Social Power Committee has sponsored much work onsimilar data - to an extent that may even have contributed to the

representatives of the Employers’ Association leaving the committee.It is clearly distinguishing itself from Hjellum in at least three ways:

(a) a better integration of theory with data; (b) a broader scope ofstudy; and (c) a negation of Hjellum-brand marxism, while retaininga non-committed interest in the works of marxists generally.

In a way, it may be found paradoxical that a Government sponsorsstudies of power: who else is to know what it is, and where it is found?On closer inspection, this is hardly a paradox after all, but a sign ofa degree of open-mindedness in at least some power-centres. Theexecution of power will of course not await the reports of committees.The appointment of the committee simply recognizes that most ofthe old, formal conceptions of power are superficial and unsatisfactory(division of powers, Parliamentarianism, corporatism, state monopolycapitalism, etc.), and that new conceptions are in demand - a viewshared by the present author.

The Level of Living Survey (Levekårsundersøkelsen) Appointed bythe Government in the spring of 1972, this Committee had publishedfour reports by 1977, with another six in press or in process of beingwritten. The list of working papers, several in English, has close toa hundred different entries. Prominent team members are Hernesand Tor R6dseth (an economist), and sociologists Jon Eivind Kolbergand Stein Ringen. The task outlined called for a mapping of ’theactual conditions of living for different groups in Norway, and, asfar as possible, to analyze causes for the differences found’ (201,p.137). A national survey interviewing some 3,000 respondents wascarried out late in 1973. Many other sources of data are also employed.The survey’s final (or summary) report (201), itself an extensive

summary of research work on many aspects of social life, cannot easilybe summarized further. My personal guess would be that some generallines of argument will have a more lasting value than most of thespecific empirical findings. In a way resembling the Maktutredning




99

publications, market mechanisms are challenged for yielding welfaredifferentials which are too large. Further, more comprehensive conceptsof ’Level of Living’ are advanced, which add social indicators of

perceived well-being to the traditional cost-of-living and preferencepatterns borrowed from economics. Empirically, of course, differencesbetween groups are found, as well as causes for such differences. Thoselooking for crucial or prominent differences or causes will perhapsfind the results less significant. Further, such causes as are found donot seem readily amenable to short-term, social reform work. This,of course, is related to the fact that the researchers to a degree havesucceeded in formulating basic social criticisms, relating to the

economic structure itself.

One notable case in point is the most recent project publicationby Jon Eivind Kolberg, Disability Pensions and Social Structure (207).Here, an elaborate and empirically well-confirmed multivariate modelfor the extension and differences in disability pensions over Norway’smunicipalities is introduced. We note, with satisfaction, that theunivariate scandal model is dispensed with, without any sacrifice tobasic critical content in the research report. This no doubt reflectsmore sophistication on the part of the researchers, but also the

increasing number of levers for action needing co-ordination on thepart of the Government (or other) power centres.

The Level of Living Survey is of course one prominent continuationof the tradition deriving, in Norway, from the calls to arms by DahlJacobsen and Aubert (pp.90-91). The coiner of the ’Distant

Democracy’ concept, Martinussen, is a co-author of a Levekar reportnow under way, and several themes of Eskeland and Finne (192)are being generalized and studied in further detail through this

Government-sponsored survey. Links with another path-breaker,Sweden’s Ldginkomstutredning (Low Income-groups Commission),are also evident.

Now, before our final summing up, brief mention must be madeof some recent work by two founders of sociology in Norway. Christiehas published extremely well-written works on school systems, andsocial density (189, 190). Unlikely as these topics may seem for acriminologist, they do of course square very well with his earlier

findings that ’deviants’ are found to be not very deviant, and thatprocesses of becoming an outcast are operative in everyday social

systems, with schools being a very prominent example (cf. p.85).Aubert’s most recent book summarizes its author’s work in the

sociology of law, in a lucid overview (178).




100

CONCLUSIONS

Our survey of nearly three decades of Norwegian social science canbe summarized very briefly: ours is a tradition of consistent empiricism,of varying scope for pluralism, and likewise of a varying balancebetween critical and ’objective’ conceptions of social science.

Empiricism is prominent in all but a handful of works. In Norway,even the marxists are part of our empiricist tradition. And our handfulof theorists are usually builders of empirically based models, ratherthan coiners of concepts and system-builders of Marxian, Weberianor Durkheimian dimensions.

Pluralism has prevailed over the period, in the sense that some

scope for a social criticism in research reports was permissiblethroughout. This scope, however, narrowed or shifted somewhat

during the fifties, when an ’objective’ conception of social researchwas prominent, if not dominant, for a period. The less ’objectively’inclined researchers of the period would choose less global, less general,or less vital, less hotly contested social questions for criticism.

Criticism, then, is our last persistent tradition. Its prominenceor dominance, and the forms chosen, have varied considerably overour four periods, the restrictive or mainstream forms of the fifties

giving way to more vigorous, acute, and literally radical, (but not

always very well founded) forms of the late sixties and early seventies.For the present period we have spoken of establishing a critical sociology.What is involved is neither the mere criticizing of Establishments

(from without), nor the establishment of equally complacent CriticalAcademic Schools. The tendency is for new, critical social ideas (theoriesand findings) to be introduced permanently in certain public and (lessoften) private agencies of the Establishment. This, in my opinion,is the single, most distinctive and important feature of present-dayNorwegian sociology, posing dangers and challenges which are bothconsiderable.

But the differences between, say, Rokkan-style and Hernes-stylesocial research-and-criticism are such as to guarantee a scope for

pluralistic social science in years to come, a scope that must remainmuch broader than that characterizing the fifties.

One final prediction: we have noted that the Thagaard (p.66)type of social-scientist cum top administrator or politician has beenabsent (excluding economists) for decades. The return of this type - ofcourse with some distinctive new features - seems to be impending,and not unwelcome.




current sociology ... · in norway the first academic chair bearing the name of sociology was...

Documents