There are ten rules in the law as defined by Sandemose, all expressive of variations on a single theme and usually referred to as a homogeneous unit: You are not to think you’re anyone special or that you’re better than us.
The ten rules state:
You’re not to think you are anything special.
You’re not to think you are as good as we are.
You’re not to think you are smarter than we are.
You’re not to convince yourself that you are better than we are.
You’re not to think you know more than we do.
You’re not to think you are more important than we are.
You’re not to think you are good at anything.
You’re not to laugh at us.
You’re not to think anyone cares about you.
You’re not to think you can teach us anything.
These ten principles or commandments are often claimed to form the “Jante’s Shield” of the Scandinavian people.
In the book, the Janters who transgress this unwritten ‘law’ are regarded with suspicion and some hostility, as it goes against the town’s communal desire to preserve harmony, social stability and uniformity.
An eleventh rule recognised in the novel as ‘the penal code of Jante’ is:
Perhaps you don’t think we know a few things about you?
from wiki link… is the description of a pattern of group behaviour towards individuals within Scandinavian communities that negatively portrays and criticises individual success and achievement as unworthy and inappropriate.
Its better than the current capitalist opposite, or at least not like patting people on the back for doing what they should be able to do anyway. I mean, is it really a big deal that some pop stars wrote some songs [like the Beatles], or fashionistas make yet another new look that’s either stupid or not making a revolution because its all been done.
My question though concerns whether or not one can be unspecial and yet not as good as they are, surely that means there is an assumption that ‘they’ are special?
Its probably better if people neither big themselves up, or tear others down. Both manifest a duality whereby some/one is lesser and other/s are greater, when the simple fact is that we mostly inherit or otherwise get given our causality.
It’s a herd mentality, similar to the Japanese saying: “a nail that sticks out will be hammered down.” Probably has old origins in superstitious country folk.
It’s an extreme; there’s a balance between celebrating and valorising all individual success out of context of society (and bare luck) - as you tend to see more in the English-speaking world - and the complete subsumption of individual effort and achievement in the group as you tend to see in eastern Asia and to a lesser extent, protestant northern Europe. Both have advantageous aspects, and both have drawbacks in forming a cohesive and purposeful society; and both have their myths and values firmly in place to make the other seem like an inhuman hell.
But we should - nevertheless - not overestimate the effects of the “Law of Jante”. I have visited Scandinavia several times. The Scandinavians are effected by something that could be called “Law of Jante”, yes, but its effects should not be overestimated, although they minister to a relatively strong uniformity or/and to something like being terrified of losing control, not knowing what to do, dealing with difference, having to be critical with words … and so on.
I have experienced something similar in Germany as well. I’ll give an example to illustrate this point. It was an early Sunday morning and I was walking around a small town. Everything was still closed and the streets were empty and quiet. I was about to cross a small street and I stopped at the light. A young man with a baby stroller came up behind me. The red light was taking forever and because there were no cars around, I crossed the street. The man stayed behind but apparently got upset and started yelling “Nein! Nein!” after me. So I take it as type of peer pressure or psychology of social conformism. This kind of thinking lacks discernment outside of prescribed rules (thinking in the box mentality).
Okay, and what result do you get with that psychology? What is the quality of that which you preserve? Is the goal to preserve a herd of beautiful fluffy white sheep? Okay, and then what?
No. That was because of the child, Pandora. The man did not want the child to see somebody doing something that is dangerous.
I would not call it “psycholgy”! It is only “logy” (thus without “psyche”), because the pure logic and the common sense tell us that it leads to a relatively strong uniformity. But whether it does or not is also a question of experience, observation, empirism. I did not experience much of the “Law of Jante” when I was in Scandinavia. I merely had much fun there.
I do not preserve anything in this case. Ask the Scandinavians. I have nothing to do with the “Law of Jante”. The “Law of Jante” is exclusively a Scandinavian phenomenon.
Maybe, Pandora, but I do not know that for sure, because the “Law of Jante” is exclusively a Scandinavian phenomenon, and I am not a Scandinavian. Maybe you should read something about the author of the “Law of Jante”: Axel Nielsen (1899–1965), since 1921: Aksel Sandemose.
I was talking about my impressions of the Scandinavians, and according to this impressions there was nothing to see what made me saying “oh, look how they are effected by the Law of Jante”. That is the reason why I am saying that one should not overestimate the effects of the “Law of Jante”.
Actually, it was an infant in a covered stroller, like this one. Nice guess though.
Good logic should also tell you that enforced uniformity will lower the average and make the whole easier to control and manipulate.
So if it is a question of experience and empiricism, we can look back into history to see societies which implemented the mentality of uniformity (constancy) and see how long they’ve lasted in comparison to societies which were more flexible in their views.
It was a rhetorical question, Arminius.
I see it as a portrayal of peasant mentality. And in my experience, Scandinavian “soul” does have a tendency of romanticizing it, perhaps a kind of nostalgia. I suspect this mentality is an offshoot from quite strong influence of Lutheran church which upheld the values of peasant parsimony and modesty.
Which part? A society is basically a collection of people working together to increase their welfare and security, and can do this in better or worse ways, with different criteria for judging it. In a Scandinavian society the success is judged by more equal outcomes, stability and uniformity of outlook; ambitious and eccentric people threaten the order. In the US success is measured by the success of the top, and people who argue for greater equality may be vilified for holding back the ambitious achievers and stealing their success to pay for lazy layabouts. This is less of an issue in Scandinavia, where there’s a protestant work ethic, etc.
It seems that you are talking about a false stereotype. I have never made such an experience what you are talking about.
Where are you from, Pandora?
Here is a story a friend of mine once told me:
“It was on a Monday morning. I was in an English town, and I had a hangover, ran to a garden, because I had to barf. Suddenly I heard a voice shouting: »My lawn! Get ou of my garden!«. The owner of the lawn resp. garden was very annoyed and threatened me with his right fist, later with his right forefinger.”
Like this one:
I said to my friend: “Do not take him so seriously now”. But he answered: “I shall not take him seriously, although he was very annoyed and threatening me?”. I ressured him and said: “Now, I said »now«, do not take him so seriously now”.
We should not take the “Law of Jante” as seriously as certain people do. But nevertheless: As a freethinker I am against the “Law of Jante”. Maybe I underestimate it, because I am not a Protestant, but maybe I do not. Who knows? About 50% of all Christians in Germany are Catholics, and about 50% of all Christians in Germany are Protestants (most of them are Lutherans), and they have no problems with each other. The proportion in the U.S. is almost the same.
Currently, we have much more and huger problems than the “Law of Jante”.
That educational case is the only one that fits your story. Again: I have never made such an experience what you are talking about.
There are many ways when it comes to control and manipulation. The most evil one is the one that we are currenly experiencing, and by that one I do not mean the “Law of Jante”.
Yes. Of course.
Do you know how old, for example, the Chinese society is and, for example, how old the Japanese society is?
I know. My answer was a bit rhetorical too, Pandora.
Again: Where are you from, Pandora?
And what kind of Scandinavian experience do you have?
The „Law of Jante" is based on a novel („En flyktning krysser sitt spor") that was published in 1933, and it is perhaps only a guess that it could have much to do with tradition.
Let us have another interpretation of the „Law of Jante":
The „Law of Jante" was published in 1933, as I already said, and this was the time of totalitarianism, started 1917 by the Soviet communism and - in reaction to it - 1919 by the Italian fascism („Fasci di combattimento" [„Squadri"]), ended 1945/1990 when the synthesis of both - the globalism as the omnivorous monster - started. The totalitarianists wanted to break with the tradition and to create a new tradition with a new „human" (this is typical for modern ideologies), either a communistic one or a fascistic one. During the main time of totalitarianism, when the „Law of Jante" was published, there was totalitarianism everywhere in Europe. So the „Law of Jante" is perhaps the „law" of the Scandinavian type of totalitarianism.
Note: It is merely one of more possible interpretations.
Max Weher’s “Leistungsethik” must be translated by “performance ethic” or “achievement ethic”, because he did not mean “Arbeitsethik” which is correctly translated by “work ethic”.
