Challenging Modernity by Way of the Norwegian Friluftsliv Tradition

Nils Faarlund, The Norwegian School of Mountaineering (Norges Høgfjellsskole at Hemsedal), Skreia, Norway

Submission for: Henrik Ibsen: The Birth of “Friluftsliv”: A 150 Year International Dialogue, Conference, Jubilee, Celebration, TRØNDELAG UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, NORWAY, September 14-19, 2009. Submission date: April, 2009

ABSTRACT: It is not very likely, that the word friluftsliv was coined by the Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen (1826 - 1906). But he most certainly was the first to present it in print in a currant context 150 years ago. Today this word is among the most beloved in the Norwegian vocabulary. Which were the historical and cultural patterns, that Ibsen wanted to represent by introducing this innovation to our written language? Are these patterns obsolete? If not - how may we go about to share the values embedded in this unique tradition ? This paper is a condensed report of a 43 years long effort to bring by a change of the aggressive behaviour of modernity towards free nature. Embodying the values of the Norwegian friluftsliv to bring by a cultural change is in keeping with Gandhi´s philosophy: ”You must be the change you wish to see in the world”. The paper offers answers to some of the questions posed and leave others open for dialogues in free nature.

Keywords: Free Nature, friluftsliv, values, paradigm-shift

A short introduction to the Norwegian tradition of friluftsliv

At the beginning of the 18th century, a small bourgeoisie struggled for freedom for Norway after almost 500 years under the well established neighbouring nations   Denmark and Sweden. The creative middle class of the few cities in at that time a backward country, which had not yet implemented Bacon’s selling slogan for the paradigm of modernity: “Knowledge is power over Nature”, took great interest in   the contemporary idea of a nation (Faarlund, 1995). Serendipitously they saw the possibility of establishing an up to date national identity by defining the inhabitants of the 2000 km long Norwegian Oberland  as “noble savages”. The Swiss  philosopher Jean Jaques  Rousseau introduced this terminology for the inhabitants of the alpine  regions, whom he made cult figures in the Age of Romanticism (Faarlund, Dahle & Jensen, 2007).

Thanks to the foresight of a small, Norwegian élite, assisted by wise politicians and adventurous polar heroes at the onset of the 20th century, the country made its way to independence without militant nationalism (till now no other European nation has been able to achieve freedom without violence). The citizens of Christiania (now Oslo), Bergen and Trondheim led the struggle for convincing the European middle class as well as the aristocracy, of a unique, national culture at home in a “sublime” mountain and fjord landscape (Faarlund, 1993). The Norwegian, national hero these days was thus not a general, but the curly-headed poet Henrik Wergeland (1808 - 1845) – by the way an archetype hippie. The nation builders were left with only one enigma. How could members of a small, urban élite acquire the unsurpassed status of the “noble savages” of the mountain regions? Following the lead of a Norwegian fairytale figure, “The Ashlad” (Kvaloy Setreng, 2005), they adopted the customs  of the  continental tourists. They became wanderers (Faarlund, 2007a).

The Norwegian word chosen for this “moving around” (tour-ist as in Tour de France) was friluftsliv. Today it is still one of the most beloved words of our vocabulary. Recent polls document that 9 of 10 Norwegians enthusiastically state,  that they are actively taking part in friluftsliv (Vaagboe, 1993). Thus the protest movement of European artists and philosophers against the reductionist, natural science way of thinking of the early 19th century (Stoerig, 1995) inspired the development of a now unique Norwegian tradition  for identification with free nature – nature with undisturbed seasons, diurnal rhythms and growth rhythms. The features and values of this tradition can be established beyond doubt, thanks to the connectedness to the Norwegian national breakthrough. Linking the Norwegian tradition of friluftsliv to nationalism, which in the 1970ies appeared to be damaging  to the reputation of this distinctive element of Norwegian culture, in the end turned out to be positive. The European political history and the history of ideas of the Age of Romanticism offers references, which as compared to the other Scandinavian countries, enables us to arrive at tenable conclusions about the characteristics of a Norwegian friluftsliv tradition. The political history makes it clear, that Norwegian nationalism was founded on an identity based on free nature, giving berth to a culture of noble savages. In a culture of this kind free nature attains a status beyond Descartes reductionist category of res extensa. Free nature has intrinsic value. Luckily the political history of the 1920- and 1930ies also confirms how the Norwegian working class adopted the bourgeois ways of encountering free nature, so that we after the World War II can speak of common cultural features throughout the population. According to this tradition friluftsliv is about embodying the intrinsic values of humans as well as of free nature.

But – is not the Norwegian tradition of friluftsliv obsolete?

Today the established practice of outdoor activities as defined by the practice observed throughout the world, is part of the problems caused by our modern lifestyles, due to the heavy “ecological footprint” left in once free Nature, i. e. the clothing and equipment chosen and the extensive transport by plane and private cars (Faarlund, 2008). How could outdoor pursuits be made part of solutions needed – obviously not by doing “business as usual”. The primus inter pares among the mâitre penseur in modernity, the theoretical physicist Albert Einstein, left the message that the way of thinking, which brought on the many threats, which already were apparent in his lifetime, cannot help us to escape from them. The question of why, which the pioneer mountaineers were faced with (Ziak, 1965, Faarlund, 1975), makes us aware of the consequences of our practises and the importance of our ways of thinking for the future of free nature. To bring about a change in the modern, affluent societies our philosophy should be to help reinventing ways of life where:

Nature is the Home of Culture

A paradigm-shift of this kind may be stimulated in many ways. Efforts are already made to enforce laws, impose taxes and negotiate international agreements. Democratic processes are practiced, using political and scientific channels. We, who work by embodying the traditional values of friluftsliv, are engaged in letting free Nature “speak for itself” – an approach which is supported by the ethologist Konrad  Lorenz, like Einstein also awarded the Nobel Price, who put it this way: “Die Natur ist unmittelbar verstaendlich” (Lorenz, 1983).
At the beginning of the 21st century the consequences for Nature of the devastating practices of modernity are obvious. We have knowledge enough (Gore, 2006). Time has come to take over the leadership from the bottom line focused, commercial driving forces of modernity. Among nature friendly options friluftsliv in the Norwegian tradition is an alternative:

Friluftsliv is a Way Home

It is about touching and being touched by free Nature. It is not a set of activities or  sports, often named outdoor activities. It might rather be categorized as belonging to the arts. Expensive equipment, long approach journeys, man-made venues and indoor training are not needed. What is needed does not cost much money, nor has it any serious impact on free Nature. The threshold for taking part is low. Leave no   trace, make no noise and choose your way according to your experience.

An effort to counter the assault on Norway´s free nature by way of friluftsliv…

How come, that friluftsliv as a unique element of Norwegian culture has been passed on for generations since some one and a half centuries without being institutionalised? It is very likely, that the answer is the same for friluftsliv in Norway as for any non-modern cultural practice: By including the new generations from an early childhood. Thus a small bourgeoisie nourished friluftsliv since the 1860ies, according to the  
inherited continental patterns of thought, until the age of Rebuilding of Norway (“Gjenreisningen”) after World War II. The first organized training on a broad scale in Norway was introduced for mountain ski touring in the winter of 1968. But this was not an effort to prevent a traditional element of the Norwegian cultural heritage from disappearing. A nation wide action was started after the disastrous
Easter holidays the year before, when 16 skiers lost their lives in the mountains of Southern Norway.

Another effort, which by chance coincided with the accident prevention campaign of 1968, was the introduction of courses for the more demanding branches of friluftsliv in the mountains. The intention was to offer an opportunity to learn the necessary skills for safe travel on glaciers as well as for alpine rock and ice climbing. But behind this initiative was also an effort to counter the assault on Norway´s free
nature, resulting from an aggressive implementation of the post-war social-democratic Norwegian government’s technocratic planning policies. Any attempt in the 1960ies at reaching more considerate solutions for raising “the standard of living” for large groups of the inhabitants by the use of the so-called “natural resources”, was promptly and efficiently discouraged, if not spurned. Under these conditions
friluftsliv courses were introduced to recruit friends for free nature. The idea behind this initiative came from experiences, which the author made during the pioneering years of the Alpine Club at the Technical University in Trondheim (NTH). The philosophical basis was created during the club’s combined mountaineering and “think-tank”-expedition to Stetind 1966. Under the auspice of the rock master and
professor of philosophy, Arne Naess, selected elements from the history of ideas were screened to find a plausible and appropriate answer to why challenge the obviously lethal dangers met in mountaineering (Faarlund, 1975). The Stetind seminar went on to bring together this Spinoza-inspired philosophy with ecology – in Norway at that time a hardly known addition to the natural sciences. This emerging “eco-philosophy” served as a solid basis for challenging the prevailing, technocratic policy of the day, as well as a necessary backing of the morale needed for such a venture.

Being proficient at the WHAT and WHY of friluftsliv but novices at HOW...

The Norwegian School of Mountaineering (Norges Høgfjellsskole), which at the time of the nationwide ski touring safety campaign of 1968 was the only professional friluftsliv institution in the country, was soon commissioned for courses for participants with a varied background. This was positive for the survival of the small institution. But working with students in demanding weather conditions, we were put to the test as teachers. We were proficient at teaching mountaineering skills – about WHAT to do. With our eco-philosophy we were also effluent agents of the necessity of a “greening of  Norway” – the WHY-perspective (Leirhaug, 2007). Unexpected we were soon faced with the importance of communicating – of HOW.

Thus to start with we sometimes got negative response, mainly from groups, who were not well motivated for life out of doors. We were also accused of “élitism”, due to our academic way of presenting a far-reaching philosophy – we should have listened to Ibsen (commenting on the pedagogy of the Devil...) and adjusted our presentations to our  diverse “public”. Thanks to the guidelines given for courses for which we had been commissioned by The Norwegian war academy, we had adopted “evaluation” by our students from the first summer of 1967 – strange enough this military academy was the first academic institution in Norway to introduce this radical initiative in teaching. This “forced”
dialogue with our students opened for a sometimes alarming “feed back” (both “evaluation” and “feed back” were later on used in the Anglo-Norwegian version...). Nevertheless I am still thankful for this early warning. The experience from working with students from all walks of life, a first encounter with the nature-friendly Sherpa culture of Nepal as well as reading relevant literature, gave new perspectives.

By 1970 we had recognized the importance of the dynamic unity of WHAT – WHY – HOW in learning as a process. We certainly also benefited from the May 1968 student protesters´ preoccupation with established teaching and leadership practices as well as
their criticism of social planning based on the “the hard sciences”. Thus we soon were ready to declare the behaviouristic instruction practice as non grata – as unwanted. We found support for learning processes as a dialog between all the members of a learning community as well as the participants relating to free nature in the philosophy of I-Thou (Buber, 2000, Bollnow, 1968). The dialog approach was of course also supported by the eco-philosophical basis of our work. On this basis we as well gave priority to thinking by patterns before thinking by rules – the natural science doctrines behind objective knowledge. The qualified experience attained by “fumbling and stumbling” was of course also in accord with the advice of one of the most brilliant thinking-by-rules scientists ever, Albert Einstein (Paulus, 2005).

Nature-friendliness is the Way: Friluftsliv is A way home

In 1970 we chose the Norwegian word “vegledning” for an encounter-with free-nature learning process. After consultations abroad since many years an adequate translation into English was still not in reach. In keeping with the Norwegian tradition of looking for self explaining words a new term was created: Conwaying. The Latin prefix con is well understood in English. Adding way, written with “w”, hints at an under-way learning community. Embodying the intrinsic values of humans and free nature are best practiced when smaller groups of 6 – 8 members are on their way in free nature.

On the occasion of The 2. Encounter at Haeverstoelen/Norway 2002 to study Modernity and the Norwegian Tradition of Friluftsliv, which was organized by Boerge Dahle, Conwaying was tentatively explained in English and in a 3. version from 2004 presented in this way as friluftsliv – HOW (Faarlund, 2005):

Conwayorship: Sharing the Experiences of free Nature
in Accord with the Patterns of Thought/Paradigm and
the Values of the Norwegian Tradition of friluftsliv in
smaller Groups for the Joy of Identification, as well as
for Inspiring Route finding in Modernity
towards Life Styles where

Nature is the Home of Culture

For people visiting Norway the seemingly attractive, sometimes also mystic friluftsliv, which Henrik Ibsen presented in print 150 years ago, may cause some confusion. Whereas there in the lifetime of the great playwright was consensus about the peculiarity of an important identity defining cultural element, one may nowadays get the impression that there are as many definitions of the phenomenon, as there are Norwegians… If this is so, why bother about being normative? This point of view is often heard in Norway today. If you dare to judge an activity out of doors as not in accord with the Norwegian friluftsliv tradition, it is not uncommon to be met with the aggressive question: “Who are you – pretending that you have the one and only answer?!”

Being invited to come up with the first friluftsliv curriculum at university college level, I of course also had to present the first definition of the new “subject”. The proposed definition was  accepted  at The Norwegian School of Sport Sciences (NIH) 1970. But over the years it released an avalanche of objections around the country. The strong fighting sprit (!) of individuals, institutions and organisations engaging in a debate, which still is going on, demonstrates the strong feelings, which are mobilized. My diagnosis is that these strong feelings must be ascribed to the identity building importance of belonging to a distinguished community. Thus persons and organisations, when recognized as belonging to such a community, may enjoy the accompanying privileges of prestige and power. In a social context these forces give rise to political influence. But although four (!) Norwegian governments have worked on white books on friluftsliv policy, the really important influence does not come from the political sphere. As often is the case in modernity it comes from commercial interests. Knowing that 9 of 10 Norwegians according to recent polls (Vaagboe, 1993) report that they engage in friluftsliv, it is obvious that a variety of business branches work hard to define their products and services as belonging to such a popular tradition.

A conwayor of friluftsliv is trying her/his best to embody the traditional values of a unique element of Norwegian national culture. This effort is facilitated – but also hampered – by the many countrymen, who are eager to be recognized as belonging to a highly esteemed tradition. A simple way of escaping from the conflicts released by defining friluftsliv is to abstain from being normative. The consequence of doing so is, that the commercial interests take over the control. By means of their powerful advertising methods the tourist industry, the equipment business and the media are left to transform a traditional cultural pattern into a mixture of recreational sports and a vanity fair. It is due time for Norwegian academic institutions, to join forces with colleagues around the world in an effort of forwarding the values, which most distinctly are demonstrated in the Norwegian friluftsliv tradition. Following the Humbold University tradition curricula should be supported by research according to these values.

Although the author through the years has provoked his countrymen by setting up definitions, and thus in Norway has chosen to refer to the embodiment of the traditional values of an age, which two hundred years ago challenged modernity, the recent interest from around the world calls for a change of mind. As the future of free nature is at stake and the Norwegian affection for the word friluftsliv and the accompanying identity indicators is limited to Norway, time has come to be crisp and clean (Faarlund, 2007 b):

WHAT
Friluftsiv is a Norwegian Tradition for seeking the Joy
of Identification with free Nature

WHY
Identification with free Nature in Accord with the Norwegian Tradition
of Friluftsliv has intrinsic Value, as well as it is an Approach to
challenging  the Patterns of thought/Paradigm, Values and
Life Styles imposed by Modernity

Whereas tradition in the paradigm of modernity represents the obsolete solutions and useless rituals of cultures of the past, experiences made in the mountains, the woods or at sea, where the natural rhythms are still free, ensure that free nature never turns obsolete. On the contrary – only by paying attention to the experience of generations passed may we eventually develop our abilities to familiarize ourselves with nature. Modernity’s assault on free nature must be changed into nature-friendly thinking and acting. Friluftsliv is a Way Home:

There is no way towards nature-friendly living, nature-friendly living is the way

References

Bollnow, O. F. (1968). Existensphilosophie und Paedagogik (Existentialism and Pedagogics) (p. 87). Berlin: Kohlhammer. 4th ed.

Buber, M. (2000). I and Thou. N Y, London: Simon & Schuster

Faarlund, N. (1975). Bergsteigen—warum? Ueber Bergsteigen als Naturlebensform. (Mountaineering—Why? Mountaineering in the Friluftsliv Tradition) In Landes, E. M. (Ed). Alpenvereinsjahrbuch.D & OeAV. (p. 141–147) Muenchen, Innsbruck: Verlag Deutscher und Oesterreicher Alpenverein

Faarlund, N. (1993). A Way home. In Reed, P. & Rothenberg, D. (Eds.). Wisdom in the open Air – The Norwegian Roots of Deep Ecolgy. (pp. 157-169). London, Minneapolis: Univ of Minnesota Press

Faarlund, N. (1995) Askeladden. In Ydegaard T. (Ed.) Om å gripe og bli grepet av fjellet. (About touching and being touched by the mountain). (p. 16–21). Aabenraa, Krylbo, Hemsedal: Nordisk Forum for Vejledning i Natur- og Friluftsliv. 2nd ed

Faarlund, N. 2005. Friluftsliv! The Norwegian Journal of Friluftsliv. [Online]. Available: http://www.hint.no/~aaj/faarlund.pdf.[May 9, 2006].

Faarlund, N., Dahle, B. & Jensen, Aa. (2007). Nature is the Home of Culture – Friluftsliv is a Way Home (pp. 1-4). In Watson, A., Sproull, J. & Dean, L. (Eds.) Science and Stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness Values. Proceedings 8. WWC Symposium RMRS-P- 49. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture

Faarlund, N. 2007 a. Friluftsliv — naturbezogene Lebensform aus Skandinavien. (Friluftsliv — a tradition alive in Scandinavia). In: Lagerstroem, D. & Liedke, G. (Eds.) Friluftsliv – Entwicklung, Bedeutung und Perspektive. (p. 13-27).

Faarlund, N. 2007 b. Defining friluftsliv. In Henderson, B. & Vikander, N. (Eds.) Natur first: Outdoor life the Friluftsliv way (pp. 56-61). Toronto, ON: Natural Heritage Books

Faarlund, N. 2009. Outdoor Activities. In Proceedings from IMOSC 2008. University of Prague, Praha, Czech Republic (in press)

Gore, A. 2006. An unconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and what we can do about it. N Y: Rodale Books           

Jensen, Aa. 2000. Naturverdfilosofien og Vegledning i Friluftsliv. (The Philosphy of Nature Worth and Conwaying Friluftsliv). Dissertation. NTNU Trondheim, Norway

Leirhaug, P. E. 2007.  Friluftsliv i Nils Faaarlunds tekster 1967 – 2006. (Friluftsliv in the texts of Nils Faarlund 1967 – 2006). Dissertation. NIH, Oslo, Norway

Lorenz, K. 1983. Der Abbau des Menschlichen. Muenchen: Piper Verlag

Paulus, J. 2005. Tanzende Gedanken (Dancing thoughts). Bild der Wissenschaft 1:22

Stoerig, H. J. 1987. Kleine Weltgeschichte der Philosophie. Frankfurt: Fischer Verlag, 13. ed.

Vaagboe, O. (1993). De forskjelige naturbrukeres verdipreferanser (The values and     preferences of Norwegians who spend their time off in Nature) In: FRIFO (Ed.) Frisk i Friluft. (p. 29-38). Oslo: FRIFO

Ziak, K. (1965). Der Mensch und die Berge – Eine Weltgeschichte des Alpinismus. Berlin, Wien: Deutsche Buch-Gemeinschaft.