Scandinavia divided into more than three nations

A little beside the thread-topic, but relevant to the shifting concept of "Scandinavia", there is the cultural character of the inhabitants.

I have the impression that there is a wider distance between individuals in Scandinavia, and a lack of cozyness outside the family sphere, compared with neighbouring countries such as Germany and Britain. It might have something to do with "Janteloven". This can be shown rather clearly when comparing the "air" of Swedish internet forums with international ones. The international ones also has the harshness and non-appreciation, but in addition to that they can also have a friendly side, missing in Sweden.

Another related thing is that people keep their emotions to themselves, so they usually do not make extravagant public protests. No farmers block the highways to attack the government.

This difference has been mentioned in Estonia, where the Russians were more prone to outspoken actions when they disagreed with the regime, while the Estonians were more Scandinavian and thus kept silent.

Scandinavian jokes are often very implicit and understated, unlike North American jokes, where the recipient is hit over the head with the massive overstatement. That is what I have been told, since USans and Canadians do not understand if I am serious or not.

I do not know of the geographic extent of Scandinavian character, but Estonia and at least part of Latvia might share these traits and others that I do not think of at the moment. Denmark is more continental, with higher population density, unlike the northern forests in the other lands.

I have often been regarded as only mentioning the gloomy side, but that is my take on it. Others can fill in what they know.
 
hwyl, I see you get what I mean.:)

The thing is, it is probably easier for someone from Finland to see reason in redefining "Scandinavia" and "Scandinavian" as a cultural or linguistic term rather than political, as Finns often see themselves in two reference groups: Nordic and Finno-Ugric. Being Nordic is to us an almost wholly political-cultural grouping of peoples-with-nations, with less emphasis on ethnic issues or language. And then being Finno-Ugric is an explicitly ethno-linguistic thing, of both peoples that make a majority in their countries (Finns, Estonians, Hungarians) and those in minority (Mordvins, Udmurts, the Komi, the Mari, etc. in Russia, the Kven in Norway, the Finnish/Finnic minorities in Sweden). So in other words, this kind of ethno-linguistic identity that transcends political boundaries and states is well understood, even embraced here.

In Sweden, Norway and Denmark, however, the traditional political understanding of "Scandinavia" is, for many, a part of their identity. And one might get in trouble if one tries to meddle with the building blocks of identities. This is my reading as to why the idea of a possible redefining of the terms "Scandinavia" and "Scandinavian", maybe something like along the lines of "Finno-Ugric" seems to hit a brick wall in this thread, and why it is hard to get people to acknowledge that the traditional concept and its contents are political, ideological and historically contingent - as all concepts that are such are naturally prone to periodic redefinitions, and people who consider being Scandinavian in the 19th century sense might see that as a threat to their identity.

I'd say thinking how we can theoretically break down the area of modern Denmark, Sweden and Norway is only a part of the discussion we should be having in a thread with a title like this one - it is as important to consider what the different alternate meanings of Scandinavia could be in different timelines, and a modern cultural-linguistic understanding of the term is IMHO eminently practical for this.

Jurgen Wullenwever also has a good point about the "Scandinavian" cultural character, though it is to be expected that it will be said that he is rather talking about a "Nordic" cultural character.
 
Last edited:
hwyl, I see you get what I mean.:)

Yep, I suppose that the fact that these states are among the most advanced and progressive societies in the world can blind them to the rather nasty undertones of Scandinavianism. Or, well, maybe not even that nasty, but in some sense quite innocently, unknowingly exlucivist ideas. It is really hard to see that the Sami for example could ever be seen meaningfully as "Scandinavian" whereas "Nordic" would be a perfectly ethnically non-discriminative term.
 
Top