The Kingdom of Denmark and “The Law of Jante:” From Sandemose’s Formalism to No Solidarity Responses in International Relations

Dr. Anja Matwijkiw & Dr. Bronik MatwijkiwIndiana University Northwest, USA & Southeast Missouri State University, USA

Abstract: For the Danes, the so-called Law of Jante is an everyday tough reality and necessity, which permeates all aspects of life. As a cultural norm, it functions as a tool that preventively deprives The Other of his alleged worth. The Law of Jante co-exists with democracy and, more importantly, it contradicts democracy. Furthermore, on comparison, the Law of Jante is the more fundamental way. This fact is reflected in the socialization process, which is a rigid “grey masses” regiment and which, ipso facto, instills anti-diversity sentiments along the strict ruler logic: one inch of difference is one inch too many (and, therefore, such an undesirable inch gives rise to The Other). The sign of equation between being Danish and being against The Other makes it difficult, if not impossible to “Love thy neighbor.” Jante people, by virtue of being who they are, resolve the apparent conflict with Christianity the same way they respond to the requirements from democracy: by responding in accordance with the Higher Law as a matter of supreme moral law. The essence of Janteism is expressed in its “Ten Commandments,” according to Axel Sandemose (1899-1965) whose interpretation links formalism, the idea and indeed ideal that “the right form” counts (cf. conformity) with a just state of affairs. Hence, morally as well as culturally and socially, the right form is the concept (of law) that, by extension, is and --- to invoke the tenets of the relevant secular command theory --- must be applied. Instead of tolerance (for minority forms), the exact opposite is the practice. Sandemose became famous after the publication of his Jante revelations in the novel, “A Refugee Crosses His Tracks.” Even the name, “the Law of Jante,” is from Sandemose’s description of Danishness. Consequently, “A Refugee Crosses His Tracks” is really an instance of literary whistleblowing at the national level. Those with a different impression of the Danes may be reluctant to, as it were, convert to the novel’s bold and unpolished method of Speaking Truth to Power, and that is perhaps understandable given the traditional perception of Denmark as a liberal and, in some areas, progressive state. It is equally undeniable that the Law of Jante cannot be ignored. The Danes themselves talk incessantly about the Law of Jante, about how it is followed and enforced, how the Law of Jante can be confirmed by experiences from both the private sphere and the public domain, and how even policies and legal law-making reveal its omnipresence. Extreme measures against the inclusion of refugees and immigrants belong among the most recent examples. Since 2015, no less than sixty-seven measures have been adopted for the sole and specific purpose of drastically reducing the cost and number of foreigners in Denmark. However popular the Minister of Immigration and Integration Ms. Inger støjberg may among the Danes, the underlying reasons for the “closed coffers and doors” policies cannot but result in Red Flags, especially since the adopted measures belong under international relations events and changes. In terms of regional and global politics, the question is whether there is a match between post-2013 Qatar and the Danish Government of the Kingdom of Denmark? More precisely, the question is whether Denmark anno 2018 also has to be listed under past as opposed to present “small and influential states”? By utilizing Mehran Kamrava’s work on Qatar as a platform for a role reversal claim in the case of Denmark, the two authors attempt to provide a combined Janteism

1

and muted subtle power rationale for the subsequent international relations need to downgrade Denmark too.

Introduction. – From the “small and influential” state phenomenon to power regression (Qatar) and role reversal through literary whistleblowing (Denmark)

In his article, Qatari Foreign Policy and the Exercise of Subtle Power, Mehran Kamrava presents an argument against realpolitik notions in international relations that is as theoretically interesting as it is practically important, especially if true beyond a too categorical Perception is Reality interpretation.1 In the case of certain small states, so Kamrava begins his argument, a transition from traditional “soft” (as opposed to “hard”) as well as “smart” power to modern and so-called “subtle” power has occurred.2 Using Qatar as his example, Kamrava goes on to identify the source of Qatar’s emergence as a subtle power state in, inter alia, the country’s role as an “influencer” and, qua this branding, as a valid analogy to the “great powers” that constitute the Primary Political Players in international relations.3 More concretely, Kamrava refers to Qatar’s participatory transformation between 1995 and 2013. During this period of history, Qatar proceeded as a stakeholder that actively affected regional and global politics as opposed to being relegated to the business-as-usual role of the passive recipient of their foreign policy through one or more of the implied hard power (realpolitik) determinants: size of territory and/or population, military strength, wealth and/or economic capability, and stability.4 As an influential player, Qatar implemented a strategy that combined “a highly calibrated and carefully maintained policy of hedging; an equally aggressive global campaign of branding; significant capacity on the part of the state; and prudent use of the country’s comparative advantage in relation to neighbors near and far” in a way that enabled Qatar to pursue our vision.5 In terms of power, therefore, Qatar’s 1 Mehran Kamrava, Qatari Foreign Policy and the Exercise of Subtle Power, International Studies Journal (ISJ) / Vol. 14 / No. 2 /fall 2017 / pp.91-123.Note that any type of power that derives from perception alone arguably qualifies as an instance of either naiveté or cynicism in so far as it logically presupposes an element of (self-)deception. To the extent that a particular perception relies on political convenience or expediency, the resulting Perception is Reality must be said to contain a realpolitik modality. See M. Cherif Bassiouni (for realpolitik as an agenda of political convenience or expediency).2 As an explanatory premise, Kamrava adopts Joseph Nye’s combination approach. This means that the various distinctions between the various types of power do not amount to dichotomies. See Kamvara p. 105 (for smart power as a combination of hard/tangible (re)sources like force/coercion and money and soft/intangible (re)sources like institutions, ideas, values, culture, and perceived legitimacy of culture); p. 119 (for subtle power as a combination of hedging, branding, state autonomy, and comparative economic advantage (cf. the case of Qatar)); see generally Joseph S. Nye, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, (New York: Public Affairs, 2004); Joseph S. Nye, The Future of Power, (New York: Public Affairs, 2011).3 Following Kamvara’s analysis, a contrast between realists like Kenneth Waltz (cf. power as a combination of “the size of population and territory, resource endowment, economic capability, military strength, political stability and competence”) and theorists like Robert Dahl, Steven Lukes, Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz appear in so far as the last-mentioned emphasize the exercise of influence (Dahl) through the ability to create conditions [favorable to one’s goals] (Lukes) while relying on the use of values as opposed to threats (Lukes) so as to shape the preferences/perceptions of other states (Bachrach and Baratz). See Kamvara, p. 102, p. 119. See generally, Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics, (Long Grove, IL: Waveland, 1979); Robert A. Dahl, “The Concept of Power,” Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 3, (July 1957), 1957); Steven Lukes, Power: A Radical View, 2nd ed. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005); Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz, “Two Faces of Power,” The American Political Science Review, Vol. 56, No. 4, (December 1962).4 For references to national self-interest as a deceptive justification of realpolitik and/or the consequence of amoralism, see Bassiouni/Matwijkiw.5 Kamvara, p. 94.

2

success can be viewed as a byproduct of the country’s ability to set the agenda, that is, to shape the preferences of others. Given that Qatar managed to secure such a Persuader Ace in a global context, it follows that the overall power balance shifted proportionally, thereby also redefining the place of (hard) winners versus (non-hard) losers.

One constant in the game between small-and-influential states vis-à-vis the great powers is prestige. As a meta-stake, this is “derived from and commensurate with norm entrepreneurship” or “from brand recognition and developing a positive reputation” or, for that matter, from any other tactic that produces a goodwill gain.6 Both theoretically and practically, the main points are that (i) prestige operates as a factor at the deeper (interpretation) level of state conduct and interaction and that (ii) prestige, if used effectively, may result in advantageous outcomes – for Self (cf. that individual state). In conclusion, so Kamrava’s argument entails, it is possible to compensate for (a country’s small) size – and even to assume a leadership status. In the case of Qatar, this coveted stake was co-facilitated by image-building in targeted areas, namely mediation and conflict-resolution as an instance of “doing the right thing” (cf. norm entrepreneurship) for the purpose of establishing a positive reputation as a “good citizen” within the community (cf. alliances) and, as far as the national and, in stakeholder terms, more narrow interest of Qatar was concerned, securing a proactive presence on the global stage (read: an ongoing opportunity to exercise its subtle power). Rather than consolidating its progress after 2013, however, Qatar discontinued its combined strategy and, as a consequence of this (mis)step, the country was, once again, relegated to the margins of power politics.

The 1995-2013 case of Qatar’s success is rendered particularly interesting through the fact that it not only contradicts the traditional realpolitik link between power and size (although it does confirm the one between wealth and influence), but it also applies regardless of any considerations having to do with democracy. Even in the modern era – where global institutions like the United Nations engage in pro-democracy advocacy as an integral part of its rule of law philosophy – democracy cannot be construed as a necessary premise for subtle power.7

The question is, though, if a self-declared democracy loses out in circumstances where internal practices and policies must be said to contradict its official image, however well-established in the eyes of the world community?8 To take the example of Denmark, which Kamrava also mentions in his elaborate and synergetic power typology, the authors wonder if this country has to accept a substantial subtraction of its small-and-influential state status on account of the recent series of changes in the government’s responses to political crises as far as refugees are concerned? While reputation and (the gain in terms of) prestige may have operated as actual sources of subtle power in the past and, furthermore, while Denmark may have been a forerunner or role model on “issues related to gender,” the influence which the Nordic country in question

Since the relationship between rulers and the ruled, in the case of Qatar, can be defined in terms of “the controllers and the controlled,” democracy is not a premise. See Giuliana Ziccardi Capaldo (for controllers/controlled).6 x7 With democracy, political legitimacy is expressis verbis at stake, according to the United Nations Rule of Law Resolution. See x.8 The logic is that although a positive image is well-established in regional and global politics, this may reduce to a realpolitik factor if there is no ethical foundation for the perception is reality, meaning that (image-)reality should and, mutatis mutandis, should merge with a notion of substantive morality pertaining to democracy. In other words, justice in a more than merely formal sense should and, mutatis mutandis, should be secured – within group X.

3

amassed as a consequence may, upon scrutiny, reflect a pragmatic interest. What is more, even if it did incorporate idealism (cf. vision), the toleration of The Other gender (i.e., women) may still not (*correspond) to an adequately persuasive concept of international justice.9 The potential paradox is as follows: On the one hand, Denmark may have promoted equality in the area where sexism traditionally prevailed (cf. “issues related to gender”) and, with this, the assumption of men’s superiority may have changed. On the other hand, Denmark may have overplayed equality in one important sense, meaning that the path towards equality was paved without the right kind of intention behind the initiative, viz., to maximize equity and fairness at home and influencing other states “to do the right thing” abroad. As a potential paradox, the hypothetical scenario works as a thought-experiment, a way of challenging Kamrava’s (diplomatic) lack of a distinction between a global good citizen that acts on the basis of principle and one that disregards (by virtue of being irrelevant) ethics in the game of politics because, in a realist and radical interpretation of this (cf. realpolitik), power-conservation as an incentive and end-goal or telos (cf. final outcome) must be accommodated.10 An approach that allows a mixed or, per Kamrava’s terminology, combined analysis does not commit experts on international relations to subscribe to an assessment which imports normativity without any regard for a particular player’s (read: country’s) way and outlook. Furthermore, and again concerning Denmark, the authors of this article wish to transfer some of Kamvara’s insights and findings to the discussion of Denmark’s response to political crises in the case of refugees and the fashion in which global stakes like interdependency and humanity have been handled or, according to some observers and commentators, mishandled.

Certainly, it is not possible to derive a domestic preference for recognition as a global good citizen if Denmark’s response to political crises is viewed on the basis of international humanitarian standards.11 One reason for this owes to the fact that Denmark has introduced a new and very strict law for refugees, “Lov om Ændring af Udlændingeloven [Law to Change the Law about Foreigners] no. L 87 of 26 January 2016” (hereinafter law no. L 87) to drastically reduce the cost and number of foreigners, including immigrants and displaced people from other countries whose populations are victimized by war or armed conflict.12 To make matters worse, prior to law no. L 87, the Minister for Immigration and Integration Ms. Inger Støjberg, launched a “scare campaign” in the Middle East, which targeted refugees from Syria in spite of their need

9 This shows that idealism may be played purely pragmatically, to create a deceptive perception. For a discussion of pragmatism and idealism in the context of international law, see Matwijkiw.10 Power for the sake of power/maintaining the political, economic, military, etc. status quo competes with justice, which is often used as a bargaining chip (to conserve power), see Matwijkiw.11 Gammeltoft-Hansen; United Nations General Assembly resolution 429(V) of 14 December 1950, available athttp://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3b00f08a27.html; UNHCR, The UN Refugee Agency, 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and 1967 Protocol (for the Agency as a “guardian” of the instrument), available at http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/1951-refugee-convention.htmlNote that the 1951 Convention’s “core principle is non-refoulement, which asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom. This is now considered a rule of customary international law.” 12 L 87 Forslag til lov om ændring af udlændingeloven (stadfæstet), 26 January 2016, available at http://www.ft.dk/samling/20151/lovforslag/l87/beh3/forhandling.htm#speak0; Anders Legarth Schmidt, Idag skal Folketinget stemme om den kontroversielle udlændingelov nr. 87, Politiken, 26 January 2016, https://politiken.dk/udland/fokus_int/Flygtningestroem/art5608180/I-dag-skal-Folketinget-stemme-om-den-kontroversielle-udl%C3%A6ndingelov-nr.-87; https://www.information.dk/indland/2017/02/hver-tredje-flygtning-ramt-regler-midlertidig-beskyttelsesstatus

4

for security and protection.13 Assuming that it is correct to claim, as Kamrava does, that different types of power may “reinforce” each other or, alternatively, cause a condition of general anemia through the absence of positive “drive,” the resulting bad image on behalf of Denmark translates into the loss of at least two soft power elements and effects, respectively “values expressed in a nation’s culture” and “examples set by internal practices and policies.”14

Using the above-mentioned values, practices and policies in an examination of Denmark, the recent measures that Denmark adopted cannot be interpreted as a great surprise, however shocking this statement as well as the measures themselves may be to some observers and commentators.15 To the contrary, a negative response to The Other is the root-cause behind a symptomatic legal measure like Danish law no. L. 87. Deeper than any positive or codified law, an analysis of Denmark shows that behavior is first and foremost regulated by the so-called Law of Jante, a cultural norm and practice whereby no individual should deviate from the measurements defined by the majority ruler.16 Typically, therefore, the Danes are more or less in tacit agreement whenever The Other gets “the boot” simply because his existence amounts to a foreign body and, in the case of people with a different ethnic background, in every possible sense of that expression (foreign body).17 Besides the single most vulnerable stakeholders, people (including children) who are fleeing their country to seek asylum as victims of war or armed conflict, immigrants with a preference for Denmark over their own country and descendants of immigrants belong among those who are considered to be foreign(ers) or rather foreign bodies.18 The stigma of the outsider, however, reaches even further. Among the Danes themselves, Martin Heidegger’s notion of Das Man permeates the idealization of the average citizen, the one who

13 See x.14 See supra.15 At the national level, prominent individuals and humanitarian organizations offered a relativist dissenting voice, including Dansk Flygtningehjælp [Danish Refugee Organization], which criticized L 87 and the various pre-L 87 changes cum restrictions, as well as various post-L 87 proposals for further restrictions. At the international level, other states condemned the government of Denmark, e.g., Portugal. In response to the condemnation, the Danish Speaker of the House, Ms. Pia Kjærsgaard, offered a “description” of the legal measure and in the course of this, she defended smykkelov/ the jewelry law, the part of the 2016 law whereby Denmark’s welfare state “principle” (should) permit the authorities to stop-and-strip refugees of their personal belongings upon arrival, with the exception of “sentimental” artifacts like wedding bands and pictures. See Dansk Flygtningehjælp, available at https://flygtning.dk/frivillig/nyheder/nye-regler-for-familiesammenfoering-permanent-ophold-og-udvidelse-af-integrationsydelsen (for ”general criticisms”); https://flygtning.dk/om-dfh/det-mener-dfh/hoeringssvar (for specific criticisms of L 87 and pre- and post-L 87 changes or proposals); The Republic of Portugal, Vote of Condemnation No. 35/XIII (against the Parliament of the Kingdom of Denmark pertaining to immigration and asylum) (submitted by Eduardo Ferro Rodrigues), 5 February 2016, available at http://www.ft.dk/samling/20151/almdel/UUI/bilag/97/1600930.pdf; Speaker of the House (Denmark), Seizure of cash and assets (response to Speaker of the Assembly of the Republic of Portugal), March 1, 2016, available at http://www.ft.dk/samling/20151/almdel/EUU/bilag/408/1607327.pdf16 Talk about the ruler, therefore, entails measurements on the basis of size. We, the majority, constitute the average and nobody should rise above that same average, according to the Law of Jante. It holds that “You should be like us --- not an inch more (read: higher)!” The majority ruler is the “right form” (cf. formalism) and this, in turn, imposes a type of feudalism. No matter how The Other rises above the average by virtue of being different, the implied violation of the Law of Jante translates into the reality of a “wrong form.”17 The boot is used as a symbol on the front cover of Sandemose’s novel.18 Foreign bodies, by definition, do not belong and, worse still, can never come to belong.

5

does not stick out.19 The constellation of average size-and-form suggests that “sticking up” is a cardinal sin.

At the national level, the Danes are well aware of the power of the Law of Jante, its individual impact and implications for social relationships and interaction. As it happens, the same is true of people from Sweden and Norway. Aksel Sandemose, the novelist who wrote the famous book that best captures the subtleties of the Law of Jante, A Refugee Crosses His Tracks, was born in Denmark but emigrated to Norway; and both countries claim him.20 That said, Sandemose’s book takes place in Nykøbing Mors, his own place of birth in Denmark. To cover his tracks, however, Sandemose uses the fictitious name “Jante” (instead of Nykøbing Mors), especially since the competitive, if not selectively negative cum homophobic, attitude he uncovers can be found in any narrow-minded environment.21 In (any) Jante, there is equality before the law. In practice, this means that anybody who is different will be made to feel how much this displeases (people in) Jante. Jante or Jante’s law is not just a code of conduct. It is a deep-rooted value system, an ingredient of the very soul or basic make-up of the citizens (cf. national psyche). Typically, citizens have internalized the Jante culture to the extent where they have become norm-carriers and -transmitters and, if the Law of Jante is breached, norm-enforcers. Although a phenomenon that primarily relies on a subconscious and rather primitive stimulus-reaction scheme (as in “if you are different from us, then we will retaliate with the goal of correction, negation, and/or elimination in mind”),22 the Law of Jante is as effective as any legal system. Nobody rises above the law – not as a requirement from democracy, but because of its inbuilt pressure to conform.

The authors of this article do not purport to be able to function as impartial adjudicators of the new Danish refugee, asylum and immigration law no. L 87. As pointed out by M. Cherif Bassiouni, there is no “value-neutral” response to a state of affairs or conflict-resolution that involves different stakeholders23. In Denmark, these encompass the Danish government of the Kingdom of Denmark, in addition to a citizenry stakeholder spectrum of opinions. Two of the extremes in the discussion anno 2018 are, respectively, the anti-government and pro-solidarity opinion and the pro-government and comparatively much more popular anti-foreigner position. Whereas critics of the Danish 2016 L 87 law argue that the relevant measure is, at best, proof of the dangers of nationalism and, at worst, a parallel to some of Nazi Germany’s policies,24 the defenders of stricter treatment of refugees in particular and foreigners in general counter-argue that the context for the Danish state’s (here borrowing Kamvara’s terminology) “grand strategy” should, as a minimum, remain status quo, although the ideal situation would be to reserve welfare state provisions for the Danes; a kind of “Denmark First” strategy in other words.25 It 19 The idealization entails that people not only must/should not “stick out” but also must/should not “stick up,” i.e., rise above the average. See supra note x; Martin Heidegger.20 See x.21 David Zucchino, “I’ve Become a Racist:” Migrant Wave Unleashes Danish Tensions over Identity, New York Times, 5 September 2016, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/world/europe/denmark-migrants-refugees-racism.html An attitude of tacit resentment and, as a logical implication, preparedness to complete the rejection of the other in in act of elimination, even murder is always a theme in Sandemose’s work on the Law of Jante. 22 If you are not like us, we will turn against you (in self-defense) And “we will not be there for you if you are in need”23 Bassiouni24 Smykkelov/the Jewelry law, New York Times.25 President Trump’s administrateion, no refugees from Syria in the US.

6

follows that “If you are not like us, we will not be there for you if you are in need.” If an international emergency or crisis requires a humanitarian effort on behalf of Denmark, this should be designed as a “help to self-help measure in their place” or at least “in neighboring countries” which --- in the case of refugees from Syria after 20 March 2016 --- means Turkey.26 If this fails, the latest reform proposal whereby Denmark should be forced to accept quota refugees in conjunction with the “Dublin Forordning” (Dublin system) may have to be negotiated, at least for the purpose of remaining a European Union partner and/or “flexible” stakeholder (as they see us).27 Here and now, in 2018, Denmark’s Retsforbehold, i.e., exemption from quota refugees still stands. Once again, however, the authors of this article do not attempt to assess positions per se.28 Instead, their objective is to “go behind the scenes” in order to detail, with the help of Sandemose, the Law of Jante. To understand the Law of Jante is to better understand the Danes as a people as well as the (typical) mind-set of small states in Scandinavia and, for that matter, places that constitute an analogy to them.29 As a starting point, the Law of Jante regulates behavior and conduct among people within the home group --- which is also why Sandemose’s refugee is the individual who flees from his own kind of people. It does not require much of a stretch of the imagination, though, to extend its applicability to, inter alia, visitors, so-called guest workers and other people who come under temporary or permanent Danish jurisdiction by virtue of entering the country.

26 In a 2017 report on a durable solution for Syrian refugees, there were 5.2 million Syria refugees hosted in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt. Furthermore, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCHR), the “key durable solutions for refugees from Syria are resettlement and complementary pathways of admission to a third country, voluntary return to Syria in safety and dignity, and protection and assistance in countries of asylum.” As a member of the EU, Denmark is a partner to the 2016 agreement with Turkey whereby migrants and refugees who arrived in Greece from Turkey after March 20th 2016 who are considered not to require protection are sent back to Turkey. For every Syrian citizen sent back to Turkey, another must be relocated from a Turkish camp to an EU country, under the terms of the agreement. See Michael Barret, Denmark asylum applications lowest for ten years: ministry, The Local DK (Denmark), 3 January 2018, available at https://www.thelocal.dk/20180103/denmark-asylum-applications-lowest-for-ten-years-ministryNote that between 1989 and 2016, Denmark received a fixed number of 1,500 resettled refugees every period of three years; the so-called ‘quota refugees.’ The programme was suspended indefinitely in February of 2016, thereby sparking controversy, especially as the suspension included those with disabilities who earlier enjoyed a special protected status within the quota system. Seehttp://politiken.dk/indland/politik/art5635326/Regeringen-%C3%A6ndrer-kurs-og-vil-nu-ikke-tage-imod-handikappede-kvoteflygtninge27 KamravaDenmark is a party to the Dublin system/forordning whereby the first country refugees arrive to is also the country that, as a rule, processes an application for asylum. The reason for Denmark’s support of this arrangement consists in the fact that “it has sent more [refugees] out of Denmark than into Denmark.” A Danish reservation/retsforbehold, that is, a Danish decision to be exempt from the EU’s quota distribution of refugees means that it is the Minister of Immigration and Integration that determines the number of refugees per year. In and of itself, this policy had reduced the annual intake of refugees from 1,500 to “no more than 500.” In the event that the European Parliament makes the EU quota distribution an integral part/component of the Dublin system/forordning, as suggested in a 2017-reform proposal, Denmark will be “forced” to cooperate or, alternatively, reconsider its place within the EU.See TV2, EU vil tvinge Danmark til at gå med i flygtningekvoter, 7. marts 2017, available at, http://nyheder.tv2.dk/politik/2017-03-07-eu-udspil-vil-tvinge-danmark-til-at-ga-med-i-flygtningekvoter;Vi accepterer ikke EUs tvungne flygtningekvoter, Fyens.dk, 19 October 2017, available at https://www.fyens.dk/udland/DF-Vi-accepterer-ikke-EUs-tvungne-flygtningekvoter/artikel/3195690;28 Critical commentaries by non-residential Danes, e.g. Christian Mørch, have been received with resentment because such people “don’t understand Danish politics.”29 X.

7

In the next sections, it will appear that the Law of Jante both dismisses equality and, at the same time, applies this value as a core criterion for belongingness, recognition and respect of The Other as a member of the first concentric-circle group, the home group or in-group. Furthermore, the correlation between economic desert (cf. having the goods for basic-need satisfaction) and being just like us, that is, most people who already belong (cf. the ordinary Dane with his normal characteristics, traits and features and average ambition-level) is addressed as an aspect of the interpretation that the Law of Jante implies the welfare state philosophy as a premise.30 But, first the reader will be briefly introduced to the central socialization theme behind the “Ten Commandments” that make up the Law of Jante. Thereafter, a section that contextualizes the insidious practices with the use of a democracy-typology follows, with a view to opening up for a cross-cultural comparison.31 Three types of democracy that have relevancy for an understanding of the Law of Jante are described.32 In the case of Denmark, it will appear that Sandemose’s mediocrity over merit(ocracy) paradigm prevails. Here the Law of Jante cuts the Other down to (his appropriate) size/shape and puts him in his (appropriate)place, thereby replacing freedom with formalism (whereby the right form is required) and norm-deviation with traditional feudalism (whereby one’s place is dictated).

The Law of Jante: Some Preliminary Remarks

Since its publication in 1933, A Refugee Crosses His Tracks has functioned as a catalyst for experiential, existentialist and ethical debate.33 Sandemose’s novel about “being a Jante,” that is, somebody who follows the Law of Jante to the letter is commonly interpreted as a description of most Danes. Consequently, the expression “being a Jante” has become synonymous with a statement about the identity, mentality and character of the Danes as a people and, even more broadly, society in Scandinavia; the way that Nordic people/s believe and behave on account of their cultural DNA.34 Somehow Sandemose had managed to capture a folkway which – given its intangible nature – could be subsumed under UNESCO’s Cultural Heritage designation.35 Notwithstanding, what the Danes swear allegiance to at home (cf. in-group) my pose a challenge at the inter-state level (because): If you are not like us, we will formally be against you and, if pushed, we will turn on you! That was and, so it should be emphasized, remains the essence of Jante intolerance. Otherness causes resentment; and resentment that is further stimulated (read: aggravated) by closeness causes rejection. In addition, the rejection is mediated by the strategy of exclusion – by and from us as a measurement of what and how you should be (namely like us). The perception, if not imposition of equality in terms of sameness is the reason why, of course, The Other cannot hope for inclusion on the basis of humanity simpliciter (as in “we will welcome and, if need be, assist you simply because you are a fellow human being”).36 If otherness has the effect of “rubbing us the wrong way,” the implied exclusion may even translate into an elimination, as a minimum, a way of terminating social co-existence.37 They should not

30 X.31 x.32 It is not necessary, therefore, to attempt to outline a more exhaustive typology. That said, the authors are aware of the possibility of alternatives that may capture ideas that warrant further reflection.33 A Refugee Crosses His Tracks. All references are to the English translation.34 Nordic isles, Farore Islands, Islands, Greenland, etc. See http://www.ruachministries.org/JanteSpirit.htm35 UNESCO, http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/what-is-intangible-heritage-0000336 Immigration and especially integration are precluded beforehand.37 Sandemose’s theme of the murderer.

8

be allowed to cause any insult or offense to us or our sensitivities. Instead, they should be made to understand who is in control here.

Sandemose went so far as to outline the Law of Jante in terms of “Ten Commandments.”38 Each of these serve to convey a reverse Bible message, namely that your neighbour is your oppressor, somebody who will put you in your place whenever needed. In Sandemose’s opinion, this happened so often and for so many reasons that Janteism merged with terrorism defined as an everyday social practice of bullying the Other into submission – to become like us.39

And, that was and, for that matter, remains the rub in places like Denmark, according to Sandemose. The citizens’ existence is based, at least in part, on deception. This is to say that they are “taught” to lead a double life.40 Socialization in accordance with the Law of Jante is tantamount to developing personhood and agency that draw on a deeper and unofficial anti-democratic subculture. In turn, this means that atypical or unusual beliefs, convictions and thoughts cannot be absorbed and accommodated in Janteism. The same is true of unusual traits and features, together with extraordinary talents, especially if these are of an intellectual kind.41 Democracy may welcome and even celebrate and reward the various differences, but the Law of Jante will attempt to correct them, ultimately to undo any (wrongful) presumption of having equal worth.42 Sandemose writes:

This is the Law of Jante”, their Ten Commandments for you:

1. You shall not believe you are anything [special]. 2. You shall not believe you are as much as us. 3. You shall not believe you are wiser than us. 4. You shall not imagine you are better than us. 5. You shall not believe you know more than us. 6. You shall not believe you are more than us. 7. You shall not believe you are good for [much, if] anything. 8. You shall not laugh at us. 9. You shall not believe anyone [unselfishly] cares about you. 10. You shall not believe you can teach us anything.43

The possibility of an eleventh commandment in the “Mosaic Law” is a question which a priori calls an individual’s bluff: – Perhaps you think that we don’t know about you?44 Jante people are not easily fooled, nor are they receptive to negotiating settlements pertaining to our versus their

38 x.39 Sandemose.40 X.41 Resentment, rejection and, if pushed, elimination is the triple response to highly intelligent and educated people. As recent examples, note the mother who bragged about her son’s grades, thereby forgetting Jante. Furthermore, The Speaker of the House officially aspires to reduce the numbers of educated people in the Danish Parliament and instead replace these with members of the working class.42 x.43SANDEMOSE, supra note 2, at 77. P. 77, 99. Since a bad conscience constitutes a form of punishment, Sandemose decided to exclude the question from the list. See id., 124.44 124.

9

values. Jante people do not feel sorry for those who belong to a minority. The (Jante) assumption is that The Other feels entitled to deviate from the majority and its ordinary and average person standards, as if (we don’t know) your zero-sum game plan… if we let our guard down.

The Ten Commandments that comprises the Law of Jante are all preventive or pre-punishment measures that are intended to individualize that particular individual or person to make certain that he never dares to see himself as being One of a Kind. He is not (anything special). The emphasis on (indivi)duality means, of course, that if and only if a person is made in our image is he good enough.45

The Jante Equation & Contradiction: The Democratic Framework

As an undemocratic subculture, Janteism introduces a tension with the modern and Western political(ly preferred) ideal and, if the United Nations are consulted on the issue, the global imperative for governance. The relationship between rulers and the ruled may, however, comply with a number of criteria which, in turn, present democracy as a notion that contrasts with yet other usages of that same terminology (of democracy). As a generic term, references to democracy cover a variety of ideological arrangements. In particular, socialism, welfare liberalism, and the kind of neo-liberal capitalism that accentuates the autonomy of market agents at the expense of social and economic solidarity measures and policies for vulnerable stakeholders can be interpreted in terms of three types of democracy, which consequently socialize its citizens differently.46 However, the distinction cannot be defended as a sharp and significant one because real-world observations more often than not disconfirm complete consistency. Theory is one thing; practice another. Empirically and typically, democracies are combination models. At the same time, elements from the experiential domain play a role. For example, it matters if people are made to suffer in a given society if the treatment does not accord with the official and basic rules for behaviour and interaction and, ipso facto, inflicts victimization. Thus, practice is one thing, and theory another. With the issue of responsibility-ascriptions in tentative brackets, such a discrepancy may be the outcome of a(nother layer of the) socialization-pathology, the split way pertaining to the fundamental norms that guide democratic citizens. This is to say that citizens are taught both to embrace democratic principles and to not expect fair consideration. This lesson is learned indirectly, namely through painful experiences that the citizens (theoretically/ideally) should have been spared from.

Prior to an account of this Jante perversion, the authors first summarize the three above-mentioned types of democracy. These are relevant for a contextualized understanding of the socialization of democratic citizens. Thereafter, they address the Jante phenomenon to illustrate the extent of the hypocrisy in the case of Denmark where the implied deception is mediated by an actual need for equalization through socially condescending response-mechanisms.47 If Danish citizens or other people who can be subsumed under the Kingdom of Denmark’s jurisdiction (immigrants, guest workers, etc.) appear to be unaffected by the unwritten rule in question, this may mean that its bad consequences were transmitted to other and innocent parties. 45 Although “being good enough” is not saying very much on account of the fact that a perpetual and incurable feeling of inferiority is a component of the Jante person.46 For a social contract emphasis on solidarity at the national at international levels of law, see LOUIS HENKIN ET AL, HUMAN RIGHTS 285 (1999).47 AKSEL SANDEMOSE, A REFUGEE CROSSES HIS TRACKS 77 (1933).

10

That said, the existence of non-victimized victimizers is an illusion. One of the discoveries that inspired Sandemose’s book of revelations consists in the Law of Jante’s systemic application, thereby covering both primary and secondary socialization.48 Hence, the underlying Jante mentality may be so culturally hard-wired as to constitute second nature or, per Hannah Arendt, a fundamental condition of coexistence. Obviously, this is cause for pessimism. Worse still perhaps, proper religion cannot be a source of comfort or consolation. In Sandemose’s opinion, faith is “a stage” which, if anything, reinforces the dialectics between sentimentality and brutality.49 People suffer more (needlessly) at the hand of the Father. Furthermore, they are unprotected as long as they expect mercy in a place where Jante rules. To exercise the “demon,” it is not sufficient to pray or publicly lament the unreasonable mistreatment or humiliation that this two-faced Janus-like spirit has in store for everybody.50 One has to go elsewhere: flee.51

Socialist Democracy: By prescribing collective ownership of the means of production, socialism delineates the type of democracy that relies on nationalization as a control-strategy for the state. Centralization constitutes another method for transferring power from the individual and private domain to the public sector, thereby giving rise to Big Government. As a part of this phenomenon, socialists resort to planned economy and, more generally, regulation as a methodology for establishing a communality of values. In so far as the government is assumed to know what is in the people’s best interest, laws and public policies function as paternalist decrees. For the same reason, subjectivist and relativist preferences are limited, especially since the higher societal norms concern communitarian values derived from utilitarian ethics. The belief in promoting the good of the majority emphasizes social welfare as opposed to individual autonomy. It follows that the objects of the economic/social rights which are ascribed priority (over civil/political rights) are such as to preclude those market-strategies that are incompatible with (workers’) freedoms to unionize, to safe and healthy working conditions, to fair and equal wages, to social security in the form of unemployment benefits, and (for those who cannot take care of themselves) to be provided with socio-economic goods in accordance with need. The implied trade-off of rights is premised on the idea that liberation (of humanity) is primarily about economic freedom. By extension, revolutionary cum anti-capitalist practices should give weight to the same norm. While doing so, the most human activity and right, namely work, is freed from the class concept.

Welfare Liberalism:

Rather than contribute to ideological polarization, exponents of welfare liberalism avoid the classical Cold War between socialists and capitalists by borrowing a set of rights-conferring norms from each position. They do this by presupposing, on the one hand, that the ideal state of affairs requires political freedom and economic freedom from want and, on the other hand, by introducing limits for distributive justice. As a starting point, the government has an obligation to secure the existence of conditions that make it possible for individual citizens to provide for themselves. More to the point, it holds that they (the citizens) should be granted an equal

48 X.49 20750 X.51 X.

11

opportunity to gain any allowable positions of “favourable inequality”, say income and wealth, standing and power”.52 Consequently, the socialization is geared towards the ability and willingness to accept (free market) competition and class structures. The same is true of the implications of these, namely, socio-economic differences in terms of superiority versus inferiority. However, justice is not consistent with a gap between rich and poor that leaves the worst-off at a (wrongful) disadvantage, in a situation where they would have been better-off given any other way. To avoid such a contradiction of John Rawls’ original (social contract) position, welfare liberalism advocates egalitarian protections. It is noteworthy that the attempt to remedy the imbalance does not conflict with the doctrine of individual rights. In practice, this is to say that the Principle of Liberty (rights to vote and to be eligible for political office, freedom of the person, etc.) should be respected as the higher (justice) norm in comparison to the various parts of the Principle of Difference (progress towards equal opportunity, poverty-reduction).53 Furthermore, given that even very serious welfare liberals like Alan Gewirth define civil/political rights as ones that entail negative duties of non-interference whereas economic/social rights are matched with positive duties to render aid and assistance, economic/social rights may have to be sacrificed.54 Even if an inter-categorical approach is taken, so as to make all rights correlative to negative and positive duties, liberals of a realist orientation cannot undo the problem of resource-dependency, which then comes to cost rights-recognition in addition to rights-protection.

Neo-Liberalism:

Neo-liberals too may end up in a no-rights situation, although they, ex ante, do not accommodate economic/social rights beyond the call for market freedoms. Socio-economic benefits belong under entitlements, which contrast with rights stricto sensu and which are ideologically suspect by virtue of involving strangers in matters that pertain to (extensions of) Self. Feeling entitled to receive goods from people who are doing better – and who may not believe that they owe anything – is a violation of the Principle of Individual Freedom (under Individual Responsibility). This is also why the notion of the minimal state, which results from neo-liberal capitalism, is founded on privatization, deregulation and decentralization as justice-securing strategies. Besides minimizing governmental intervention, a better-world outcome is accomplished through the fact that welfare dependency is negated by a non-coercive organization of market activity whereby individuals are free to create value for themselves. Thus, relying solely on voluntary cooperation, Milton Friedman believes that no exchange between A and B will take place unless both parties benefit. As for competition, this is presupposed in the “impersonal forces” which make possible a self-regulated marketplace.55 In turn, this is a condition of democracy, i.e., political freedom. The implied (repetition of the) laissez-faire approach entails that the government should not engage in redistributive strategies that are motivated by generalized considerations, especially since freedom and welfare constitute incompatible interests.56 Therefore, it not only follows that a “socialist democracy” is an oxymoron, but that any attempt to violate the separation thesis is an instance of totalitarianism.57

52 See generally JOHN RAWLS, A THEORY OF JUSTICE (rev. ed. 1999) (1971); TED HONDERICH, VIOLENCE FOR EQUALITY 46, 121 (1989) (1976).53 HONDERICH, supra note 3, at 46-47, 119.54 ALAN GEWIRTH, REASON AND MORALITY 340 (1978).55 Milton FRIEDMAN, CAPITALISM AND FREEDOM 15, 21, 119 (2002) (1962).56 Matwijkiw57 Friedman (separation thesis).

12

By extension, utilitarian norm-impositions qualify as analogies to state-sponsored wrongdoing. Legitimate government is limited to recognition and protection of individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness together with corresponding (negative) duties of non-interference, so as to accomplish survival (as opposed to subsistence), negative economic freedom, and a socio-economically unimpaired opportunity for self-realization (becoming “self-made”). The use of the free marketplace strategy is so empowering as to make it true to say that vulnerable stakeholders comparatively enjoy more toleration and less discrimination on the basis of subjectivist and relativist preferences because capitalism is purely merit-oriented. If people have hang-ups about diversity, they are likely to engage in counter-productive strategies.

Although different types of democracy vary as regards their view of political and economic freedom, they all agree that fair consideration is a fundamental norm. At the same time, this agreement cannot resolve their differences. From the perspective of neo-liberalism, socialism is synonymous with injustice, whereas welfare liberalism translates into a risk for victimization of the more capable and, therefore, more deserving. That granted, while welfare liberalism attempts to balance value-extremes, it still tilts the weight-scales in favour of liberty instead of solidarity (e.g., reduction of poverty). It follows that socialists have more reason to fear welfare liberalism than neo-liberals, which can count on certain core concepts of fairness (traditional individual rights). It also follows, of course, that ideological variables matter. In the case of Denmark, inserting democracy as a constant in the equation at the national level is, as a starting point, the outcome of a broad fairness form. Like the rest of Scandinavia, Denmark is proud to be listed as a country with a liberal mind-set and a high welfare score concerning freedom from want.

Notwithstanding, people seem to have to make do with the dream of democracy. The Jante law and practice not only makes the contradiction obvious; it is also a force that pulls the state of affairs in a particular direction, away from democracy. Danish culture is pregnant with tragedy, according to Sandemose. Friends and family behave the same way as strangers and public officials do, that is, as “terrorists” who obey by the Might Makes Right dictum in their endeavour to shape or, more to the point, shave both the despicable (what is unpopular) and the desirable off their fellow human beings, especially goals that are out of their own reach.58 The point is that Jante enforcers seek revenge.59 They are victims who have become victimizers on account of the ill treatment that was afforded them in the past. Throughout their childhood, they were brainwashed with negativity concerning their appearances, attitudes, and abilities. Their original self-confidence/reliance had been the shooting-target in the warfare that the surrounding community had launched the same moment Something Different was detected… even if this only existed in a purely potential form. As adults and after many projections and “considerate” obstructions had been put in their path to prevent them from being, thinking, believing and doing anything out of the ordinary (for this is bad form), the victims had finally lost their soul and humanity – and become victimizers.

The fact that Jante victims are taught the values of democratic citizens adds to the suffering. This is particularly so because the Jante mould is first utilized during the most formative stages of life where people have no (Self-)defence mechanisms. If democratic principles are instilled – “You should not inflict serious harm on other people,” “You should give equal consideration to the

58 SANDEMOSE, supra note 2, at 79, 152.59 Ibid., at 79, 151.

13

needs and interests of other people,” “You should not discriminate against other people on the basis of features, traits or characteristics which they had no fair opportunity to acquire or un-acquire (through subjective or relative preferences)” – simultaneously with the practical negation of these, children/adolescents do not know what to believe, but they are likely to hide their confusion.60 They err on the side of caution by continuing “to buy it;” to behave as if their co-citizens are kind and well-meaning. Before losing trust in The Other and, furthermore, to avoid a separation from the peer group (cf. trauma), they are more than willing to reason that “There must be something wrong with me.”61 It is this naïve surrender (phase) that the victimizers take full advantage of by inflicting the coup-de-grâce while they still have the upper hand concerning knowledge of the norms. Victims only learn about the societal trump (cf. the Law of Jante) when it is, in one important sense, too late… when they are down for a count. However, escaping the mould does not mean that they are off the Jante hook. Survivors will never be pardoned (read: allowed peace), if they stay.62 On the other hand, if the Jante socialization is completed, they cannot reacquire the advantage they once had, the chance of Self-realization that does not reduce to a (re)creation in the image of the victimizers. The psychologically great(er) discomfort of being ridiculed, shunned and frozen out, treated like an exiled scapegoat, perhaps a life-long target for them, is the deterrent that Jante people rely on. Once the clay is dry in the mould, any independent pre-Jante thoughts will be distant memories. All forms of behaviour, being, and expression will bear the imprint of that same mould “Made in Jante.” Alternatives to this will hang on the cross, metaphorically speaking.63

A Layer of Cross-Cultural Complexity

That which establishes democracy as a lie is a cross-cultural phenomenon, according to Sandemose.64 More precisely, pretending to be an open society while proceeding, in reality, in ways that testify to the existence of brutal but tacit norms for near-absolute conformity is not a state of affairs that is entirely unique for citizens in Denmark or, to recall the paradigm, the small town experience. In some instances, Sandemose explicitly mentions large places in large countries like the United States, just as he sometimes appears to allude to a universal experience in his work on the Law of Jante.65 That said, Sandmose’s scattered remarks are not intended as premises in an academic and systematic treatise. Consequently, readers of his famous novel can only accommodate the few cross-cultural examples that are in fact provided without at the same time attempting to digress too much from the main theme, namely the almost absurd pettiness with which Danish Jante people proceed and use as a foundation stone in the toxic environment they create together: with an unforgiving attitude towards The Other, harsh criticisms and, again according Sandemose’s own observations, verbal and/or physical assaults on those who dare to “turn the other cheek.”66

60 X.61 X.62 X.63 A protest may spark a debate about democracy, but it will die out because, in Denmark, people are free to express themselves. There is no democratic dilemma in this regard.64 Judith Shklar’s idea of law as a noble lie contrasts with Sandemose’s lived democracy. 65 X.66 A Refugee Crosses His Tracks is, in part, an autobiographical account of the negative and hostile life-form that Sandemose had to endure while growing up in Nykøbing Mors. See ibid., at 16.

14

The layer of cross-cultural complexity is sufficient to make the following statement true: Size does not matter when it comes to the Law of Jante, which regulates the rigid adjustment process. But, while the way in is tantamount to fitting in irrespective of whether the place is large or small, the notion of size nevertheless assumes significance in connection with the products of the process, that is, the (post-socialization) citizens. The reason for this owes to the fact that the Law of Jante functions to “stunt growth” by cutting everybody down to one and the same size and, as an auxiliary strategy, to limit choices.67 Not surprisingly, Denmark’s monarchy is a constant reminder of the inbuilt structural limits for non-members and non-descendants of the ancient Danish royal lineage and dynasty that go back more than 1000 years.68 Although the current Danish monarchy manifests itself in terms of a constitutional monarchy, its continued existence translates into a version of formally and officially justified inequality which, in turn, adds (another complex layer) to the contradiction between democracy and Janteism.

The way of life that Sandemose himself had to endure while growing up in Nykøbing Mors depicts Janteism as the antagonist to individuality, diversity and toleration. Here persecution “was like a religion,” an angst-determined aspiration to standardize because “people believe that there are forms which express what is right” (cf. formalism).69 At the meta-level of analysis, the notion of uniformity overlap with the collective, thereby making exceptions to the Danish Millimetre Democracy that otherwise is the outcome of the standard measurement.70 Furthermore, while most Danes “worship” the high and mighty, this reality is dialectically synthesized with practices like slander (cf. severe and unfounded criticisms), thereby also cutting down the superior without eliminating them completely.71 The point is that class is untouchable because it is strictly not supposed to be and because it has to be – from the perspective of formalism. Subject to one qualification, the Law of Jante secures that everybody remains in his designated place.72 It follows that feudalism defined as a strategy that secures a static society operates via formalism.

Notwithstanding, Sandemose writes the Law also rules with its “’passion to conform’ in Brooklyn”, that is, in global cities that historically have received large numbers of immigrants on a continuous basis.73 Thus, the effects are felt in melting pot circumstances, the exact opposite of those that describe places with traditions for homogeneity, such as Denmark. Admittedly, Denmark has ratified the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, just the country

67 SANDEMOSE, supra note 2, at 146.68 The Danish monarchy is among the oldest royal houses in the world. The current monarch, Her Majesty Queen Margrethe II, can trace her lineage back to the first Viking kings of Denmark69 Ibid., at 197.70 The standard measurement is a measurement tape, whereby each inch is measured with a view to determining if the individual fits into the right mould/form. This is the essence of talk about the Danish Millimeter Democracy. 71 Ibid., at 196.Note that Denmark’s form of monarchy, namely a limited constitutional monarchy, is no exception the Jante rule. Members of the Danish royal family are subjected to criticism, especially if individuals “stick out” by virtue of being, for example, defenders of higher culture and fine arts values or people with a foreign accent. HH Prince Henrik (married to HRH Queen Margaret II of Denmark) is one example. When Prince Henrik died in 2017, the Danish majority mood changed from brutality to sentimentality. It became popular to state that Prince Henrik should have been treated better and that he had made many valuable contributions. See x.72 Ibid., at 197.The qualification consists in a permission to become somebody. See infra p. 7.73 SANDEMOSE, supra note 2, at 15.

15

has imported guest workers in accordance with marketplace needs.74 But, these facts do not change anything. To the extent that it makes sense to talk about integration, the underlying philosophy is in stark contrast to the melting pot expectation of present and future diversity as a direct consequence of having people with different origins and backgrounds living with one and the same jurisdiction. For this reason alone, it can be inferred that refugees and immigrants in general are virtually impossible to welcome as potential citizens in Denmark.

Unlike the Danish sign of equation between upwards mobility and special privilege, the American experience highlights individual initiative and risk-taking as a matter of principle and Self-empowerment response to the absence of the kind of (welfare) safety net that exists in Denmark. The assumption is that The Other should not be made responsible for your subsistence, at least not as a norm. In return, as it were, the individual is encouraged to assert himself while trusting in his own ability. The parameter of protection that is provided is also the individual’s security in the pursuit of happiness, first and foremost (protection against the arbitrary loss of) life and freedom.75 The driving force, viz., to realize the American Dream, may unfortunately fail for some stakeholders. A place like Brooklyn confirms this, however tolerant towards immigrants in general.76 Worse still, toleration may escape some of its own citizens. E.g., a practice like gentrification has been implemented in order to secure social (dream) cohesion.77 Hence, the Law of Jante does not have this kind of socio-economic growth and development on its repertoire (in America), thereby allowing only certain people to become successful, i.e., to avoid being cut down and to have their choices limited. What is more, genuine admiration is part of their reward. However, given that gentrification is neither value-neutral nor exempt from Who-Knows-Who factors (cf. powerful connections), minorities, together with refugees and first-generation immigrants, have to (continue to) expect a tough(er) experience. In spite of being citizens, African-Americans may be at an even greater disadvantage than non-citizens, Green Card-holders (cf. permanent residents without citizenship), and foreign-born individuals who have been nationalized. Apparently, the sign of equation between being black and being less worthy (of consideration) remains a matter of Perception is Reality which results in the internalization of inferiority among the victims themselves in addition to the lower standards that society enforces, e.g., poor(er) neighbourhoods and education.78 In turn, this adversely affects participation in the marketplace, ranging from spending ability to competition. In this way, a vicious circle is created between discrimination, low Self-esteem and failure – one which will continue until the established (and white) society’s conventional mind-set evolves and progresses or, alternatively, African-Americans internally cease to play along psychologically, to be an enemy of their own kind of people by virtue of subconsciously subscribing to values that work against equal belongingness, respect and recognition. To not show passive tolerance towards a white conformity measure(ment) like gentrification is, in the final analysis, a vote in favour of (values that confirm) shared humanity and interdependency at the national level.

74 See http://www.unhcr.org/3c5e57b07.pdf (UNHCR); http://www.iom.int/cms/en/sites/iom/home/what-we-do/resettlement-assistance/assisting-quota-refugees-for-resettlemen.html (IOM). 75 X.76 See generally JUDITH N. DESENA & TIMOTHY SHORTELL, THE WORLD IN BROOKLYN: GENTRIFICATION, IMMIGRATION, AND ETHNIC POLITICS IN A GLOBAL CITY (2012).77 Gentrification is sometimes referred to as “negro removal.” See x. 78 TONI MORRISON, THE BLUEST EYE (1970).

16

As an atypical application that uses skin colour as a criterion or, per Sandemose, form, the American experience has to be differentiated from the original paradigm. In the Danish case, the Law of Jante is mediated or, perhaps more to the point, triggered by envy in that the individual is subjected to the so-called crab bucket syndrome if he does not await their permission to move up.79 Thus, the individual is not permitted to move up just because he is capable. The individual is (perceived to be) deserving if and only if they say so. The individual is not granted a measure of discretionary personal freedom so as to be able to control the direction of his life. In this way, Janteism renders the distinction between Self and The Other precarious. At the same time, Sandemose states that the Law is “enforced for everybody else but oneself”.80 Because, once again:

This is the Law of Jante”, their Ten Commandments for you:

1. You shall not believe you are anything [special]. 2. You shall not believe you are as much as us. 3. You shall not believe you are wiser than us. 4. You shall not imagine you are better than us. 5. You shall not believe you know more than us. 6. You shall not believe you are more than us. 7. You shall not believe you are good for [much, if] anything. 8. You shall not laugh at us. 9. You shall not believe anyone [unselfishly] cares about you. 10. You shall not believe you can teach us anything.81

In the light of this, it would be a mistake to believe that you are of the same standing. Another implication consists in the double-layered linkages (however illogical) between formalism and its (equality via) sameness impositions and traditional feudalism. As a meta-norm, the Law of Jante does not allow the individual to think of himself in the same terms as his Ruler.82 As already explained, the feudal component of the law works like a measurement tape that always registers and, whenever needed, arrests-and-stops individuals who try to climb or move up, although Jante enforcers primarily use psychological means of coercion when they teach or, more correctly, dictate The Other his place. However, envy entails that The Other is, here using Heideggers’s expression, already always more or higher on comparison and so the revenge that Jante enforces seek is indirect proof of the fact that they (perceive themselves as people who) do not measure up. Sameness impositions silence the opposition that may argue that “We don’t have the right form of ruler.” This is also why the moral fabric of society is woven without any pattern of ambiguity as far as the popular Danish People’s Party’s type of democracy is concerned. 79 SANDEMOSE, supra note 2, at 111. See generally http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9340.pdf.In Rawls’ Original Position, people do not suffer from envy. See HONDERICH, supra note 3, at 119.80 SANDEMOSE, supra note 2, at 79.While this statement is inconsistent with the idea that victims eventually take over the oppression (see infra at p. 9), the lack of integrity that follows from the “self-inflicted harm” could be interpreted as a notion that begs the question of a person’s authenticity.81 P. 77, 99. Since a bad conscience constitutes a form of punishment, Sandemose decided to exclude the question from the list. See id., 124.82 This statement (in the same terms as his Ruler/s”) contains an implicit reference to the notion of the so-called Millimeter democracy

17

Vulnerable individuals include artists, intellectuals and highly specialized experts from disciplines that engage in critical discourse and assessment. These belong (so the Jante premise is) to a much too arrogant “elite” which, if given the opportunity, would take advantage of their alleged credentials and qualifications.83 With the exception of contributions to scientific/technological progress (which interests and benefits ordinary people), the verdict stands: “They don’t know anything… which is worth knowing.”84

In Denmark, which has a mixed market model and a corresponding rule of law philosophy that relies on the United Nations interdependency principle for economic/social and civil/political rights, there should not be any room for the Law of Jante. Bullying, that targets those who deviate from Das Man or “the grey masses” on the basis of less common characteristics and preferences, and if the victims resist the pressure, societal exclusion in addition to socio-economic deprivation (cf. marginalization), counts as an illiberal practice. In turn, this translates into a comprehensive (rights) negation of democracy in terms of meritocracy. It is important to emphasize, however, that it does not take being a Genius, a Free Spirit or a Greater than Life Personality to be seen as a foreign body.85 Formally, whatever sticks out/up must and, mutatis mutandis, should be cut down.

As it happens, conformism is so strict as to reverse the notion of Being Somebody, meaning that it is the mediocre and allegedly modest (Jante) people, who tend to move up in the hierarchy and, consequently, excel. Needless to say, the pre-stratification pattern that separates monarchy and the rest of society makes it necessary to note that the hierarchy in question refers only to the general population of non-royals and non-aristocrats.

With (potential) winners as losers and losers as (actual) winners, the conflict in the socialization could, (so the authors think), be resolved by introducing a one-track system that eradicated any norm-duality, thereby creating transparency. Knowing “the basic rules of the game” is a fundamental fairness issue that constitutes a non-negotiable stake.86 Differences that are interpreted as wrongful forms unless they have been blessed by the majority as in “We made you what you are” could then be reclaimed as sources of cultural legitimacy on condition, of course, that the Danish people decide to (negate the Jante Law and instead) raise the bar.87 Consulting the theory of Sigmund Freud, the current way is fixated at the anal stage.88 As candidates for transitional justice measures – to at least recognize the need for a cure or an anti-dote against the Law of Jante – the Danish people could also consider more open debates about the problems that stem from Janteism, including popular sentiments against refugees and immigrants in general. In the case of these vulnerable stakeholders, differences accumulate simply because they come from other places. It may be prudent to begin with debates about Danes who went unrecognized at the national level until their international breakthrough in literature, art, architecture, etc.89 If

83 See x (for elite).84 In Denmark, the strong emphasis on utilitarianism has produced social outcomes that can be interpreted as parallels to the former USSR. Here blue-color workers enjoyed more respect than university educated and employed citizens.85 In Denmark, free thinking consists in scandal-mongering. See ibid., at 197.86 Friedman.87 (cf. the qualification, op sit).88 X.89 X.

18

the Danish victims of the Jante Law were recognized on the basis of merit (and not for any other reason),90 the implied increse in receptivity and sensitivity could be applied to the discussion of humanity and interdependency at the international level. Unless international standards for humanity and interdependency are deemed to be favourable to Denmark’s goals, there is no incentive to try to exercise subtle power through the ability to create conditions for those same standards cum alternative values. While traditional positivism may grant Jante values and corresponding domestic state practices (formal!) validity, modern international customary law as well as international human rights law and international humanitarian law emphasize principle over power, right over might, ethics over politics. Contemporary trends in international positive law, e.g., American Legal Process Theory (ALPT), the Integrative Approach and Stakeholder Jurisprudence, take the step of (re)defining the concept (of law) to include values that are intrinsically superior as higher and natural law norms and, eo ipso, global trumps.91

Philosophical Aspects of Analysis

The intricate bias/prejudice web of misconceptions, state of nature indignities and abandonment tactics and inferiority complexes that work together to create/maintain a Danish Straightjacket Society also explain its homogeneity and hegemony. According to Sandemose, A perceives B as larger than himself, and vice versa.92 The underdog perception, therefore, captures a social condition which necessitates down-sizing The Other. But, however tempting, a parallel between Friedrich Nietzsche’s criticism of democratic equality (in the context of the slave rebellion) and the Law of Jante is misleading.93 Jante enforcers are always already in a democracy, but this does not satisfy them, nor does the right (form of) ideology give them a sense of security and protection (against The Other).94 There is no cure and no consolation to be derived from nominal, numerical or instrumental aspects to do with “our majority rule.” Jante enforcers do not conspire against the exceptional few. They co-exist as citizens who are conditioned the same way, to feel inadequate – and this painful experience isolates them to the point where they do not bear witness. Jante enforcers do not exclaim “I’m ashamed of the fact that I don’t measure up!” Once the transformation from victim to victimizers has taken place, it does not matter who I compare myself to; I remain inferior… fearful for the same reason; and then I begin to attack the difference/s, anybody (foreign) who poses a threat. A Hegelian master/slave dialectics whereby the master puts himself at risk in a zero-recognition strategy in relation to The Other qua the slave is not applicable either.95 On the premises for Sandemose’s Jante logic, it is too late for the victimizer to assert himself whereas the Jante target may in fact escape and remain emancipated in a pre-law sense, meaning that he has no chains to lose in the first instance.96 If The Other is constituted as a victim, there is no master in the equation.

Although provincialism and parochialism are causal co-determinants, the intolerant and mutually oppressive Jante mentality that is the norm in Denmark revolves around morality as a kind of breaking device. In particular, the step from not having had “big opportunities” (myself) to using 90 As in “Denmark is in no position to believe that ‘We know better than those other places or countries’”91 X.92 Ibid., at 79-80.93 Nietzsche.94 X.95 Hegel96 Marx

19

this fact as a limitation- and cutting-strategy (for The Other) is, in Sandemose’s opinion, key to understanding the Law of Jante.97 After all, it holds that “You should only (be allowed to) go so far.” Admittedly, it can be argued that the difference between this mechanism and American phenomena like discrimination against African-Americans concerns the scope of the intolerance and oppression.98 However, the fact that all Jante victims are assumed to “take over” the oppression, if only over time, introduces a dis-analogy.99 The American experience (practically-customarily) allows racial inequality, however unfair; but otherwise it builds its Dream culture on individuals who believe that they are as worthy as they are capable, that “We can do it… if opportunities exist.” Proto-typical Americans (white, male, middle class) may try to do better at the expense of others (cf. exploitation). They may also be bigots. But, they still are what they are without expecting that democratic co-citizens accept to make do with 50% or even less of what they are able to accomplish. To the contrary, they expect that people “make a go of it” and that they will “go all the way” if they have what it takes. Certainly, they do not expect that others aim no higher than the middleclass, that they would (borrowing Sandemose’s expression) “crucify” themselves rather than assume a new form.100 To the contrary, the American experience comes with in-built norms for a voluntary and advantageous restructuring of Self, something which is inconsistent with a too pervasive or domineering Jante (sub)culture. Furthermore, climbing the social ladder, people’s education makes a difference, whereas the Danish case shows that education is not an equalizer whenever aversions are involved.101 Then again: Only if the individual does not objectively exceed our (actual or potential) capability and performance level may he be entered among the chosen ones.102 The representative (for us) may bluff about his size (in comparison to us), but he himself is doomed to knowing better (for he is the mirror image of us). But, that is all right. Stronger still, that is how it should be.

If Jante victims do not become existentialist analogies to murderers, they end up as slave-like existences.103 The latter have the wrong measurement for Self. Unlike Nietzsche, however, Sandemose’s premise is one of apparent inferiority. Thus, it is the victims who do not believe that they are as large as they actually are.104 By underestimating themselves, they are often at risk of ending up in positions that cannot but make them feel ”out of place” even if they tell themselves that “[Little me…] I really should be content.” Denmark’s high score on the Global Happiness Index does not give rise to a paradox.105 If anything, a denial of reality is psychologically required to continue to endure. The longer the crippled remain what they are, they more right they must have been about their “own” form, at least so they reason internally. While existentialists like Søren Kierkegaard would blame the victim by holding the individual 97 Ibid., at 78.Envy or jealousy may also manifest themselves in practices like hate crimes. While these are committed on the basis of characteristics that are perceived as too deviant, it is ultimately attractive counterparts to these that justify the mistreatment. E.g., gay people have courage, ambitious minority members possess enthusiasm, etc.98 X.99 Ibid., at 78.100 Ibid., at 79.101 X.102 “Many are called, few are chosen;” but they are chosen by us.103 Ibid., at 80.Because of their Jante socialization, slave-like existences do not feel a sense of power through their higher number104 Id.A kind of self-inflicted disempowerment follows.105 See http://www.happinessresearchinstitute.com/danish-happiness-explained/4578972751.

20

responsible, assuming the socially appropriate size/form instead of becoming what one could and should is a much more morally complex phenomenon for Sandemose. In an environment that is allergic and hostile to autonomy and authenticity, the choice of non-conformist ways of being is almost precluded beforehand, unless it is assumed of course that the socialization has no normative pull.

The relationship between democratic citizens in a context that does not question the legitimacy of democracy while at the same time subjecting The Other to violence and various methods of indirect killing (cf. loss of opportunities) does suggest a necessity, though, for ascribing accountability to norm-givers for the discrepancy between theory and practice.106 Social inheritance does not impose any version of social determinism. Jante enforcers seek revenge, and this is consistent with having the freedom to choose to avoid a repetition of the victimization. The Danish and, it should be added, (domestically) notorious Millimetre Democracy would not be possible without a degree of awareness of the consequences of the systematic effort to equalize, to de-form The Other.107 Irrespective of whether this accomplishes its goal for every individual, Jante conformity implies an assault that has to be distinguished from the voluntary adjustment that even anarchy builds on, for the purpose of co-existence. The point is that the conformity/oppression constellation owes to the “dark” side of humanity.108 It does not follow from this that ideology is irrelevant. Unchecked socialist (governmental) power will predictably enhance the Jante effect. Finally, if capitalism cannot be separated from innate or inherent selfishness, the marketplace is going to maximize bad forms in spite of Friedman’s assumption that this will minimize conventionalist pressures.109

The fact that Danes tend to claim that they do value individuality and diversity when confronted with unfavourable judgments concerning the (Repressive) Tolerance Climate reveals two social arrangements, one for insiders and one for outsiders. As for ordinary Danes, it is not a problem to accept (representative) exceptions to the norm, namely those who share “our roots” and who went over and above the average because they were allowed to do so. Using Robert Nozick’s expression, individual rights are “hooked” for the in-group.110 Everybody else poses a challenge, though. This is also true of so-called Danes with a different ethnic background.111 They typically enjoy socio-economic benefits, but nothing more although that “more” coincides with the criterion for real belongingness, inclusion and recognition. Irrespective of who and why certain people are too different, the welfare state precludes freedom and equal opportunity in the case of people who are (consequently) not deemed worthy of a status upgrade. Thus, it is false that arbitrary unfairness, discrimination and structural inequity are only found in regimes that Denmark does not identify with.

106 X.107 X.108 Subconscious response-mechanisms do not mean that victimizers have no conscious awareness of the consequences of those same response-mechanisms, which they do not control rationally. See Bassiouni (dark).109 FRIEDMAN, supra note 6, at 15.110 ROBERT NOZICK, ANARCHY, STATE, AND UTOPIA (1974).Note that Denmark’s top-score on the global happiness index owes to a combination experience of welfare and autonomy. See supra note 30.111 X.

21

It is back to Freud: The first step is to name the troll, i.e., to admit the problem. Thereafter, the habitual reproduction of a (sub)culture which maintains group stability for the sake of maintaining group stability can be (re)evaluated. Without socialism, uniformity and hegemony is no longer the price of welfare. (Then again) If socio-economic fairness is not used as a bargaining chip for individual freedom, neo-liberal inequality may be the answer, however unfavourable for the worst-off class. But, the culture clash may prove to be too much in Denmark. This is to say that the political interests of the rural and working classes have significantly shaped the contemporary landscape, in effect, synthesizing conservative and “social democratic” values.112 Viable conflict-resolution transcends welfare liberalism, but the compromise cannot be restricted, of course, to classes and forces that Sandemose associates most closely with a hostile national psyche.113

Critics of Sandemose may argue that he pushes the envelope when he refers to Jante enforcers in terms of terrorists. If true, things would definitely be “rotten in the state of Denmark” – but William Shakespeare’s Hamlet play is not the way to substantiate such a verdict. That said, the national statistics verify the existence of widespread injustice in the form of discrimination or, more to the point, many forms of discriminations.114 Denmark’s image (as a country with a liberal mind-set) is not a reality. Therefore, while Sandemose may have exaggerated the situation in Denmark, intolerance is nevertheless a factor that affects a variety of people simply because they are different. Furthermore, it is much easier to fail to belong (to the right kind of people) in Denmark than in the United States where race and skin colour are made to matter. In Denmark, anything unusual or atypical is (as a matter of Jante norm) perceived as a threat. For the same reason, the Danish society cannot be expected to develop dynamically but merely to vary its pre-existing conventional forms in the future. Sociologically speaking, Kierkegaard’s Qualitative Leap is impossible.115 Meanwhile, any market advantage is lost – for lack of opportunities cost. Rationality aside, the Danish preference is “to remain who we are.”

Connecting the Dots: Denmark and International Relations

In Janteism, law-obedient citizens are first and foremost people who know their place well, so well that they do not fight it but instead fill it with gratitude and a proportionate degree of humility and modesty. They expect the same response from other insiders, especially if they are among the “lucky ones” who have been socially elevated.116

Danes with a different ethnic background are legally classified as equal members, but normally their place or station overlaps with the destiny of second-class citizens. Worse still, if the relevant people make too exotic choices (keeping foreign names, continuing a foreign religion, custom, etc.) or are unable and/or unwilling to alter certain foreign features having to do with their appearance (dark skin complexion, dress code, etc.), they have to expect a proportional response. By virtue of already living among the Danes, the foreigners are, at best, subjected to a form of forced disappearance, that is, invisibility within society. As pointed out by Jean-Paul

112 DAVID ARTER, SCANDINAVIAN POLITICS TODAY 170-190 (2008).113 The main characters in A Refugee Crosses His Tracks are farmers and workers. See Sandemose, x. 114 See http://cms.horus.be/files/99935/MediaArchive/pdf/denmark_en.pdf.115 Reportedly, Sweden is showing “cracks in the Law of Jante.” See http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com.116 X.

22

Sartre, the decision to withdraw one’s glance is tantamount to an expression of non-recognition.117 If we do not even look at The Other, he does not exist – for us. This message will be followed up with more tangible forms of non-recognition if and when The Other complains about “the Danes’ lack of tolerance” or, worse still, calls for practical measures of inclusion in an environment where doors are firmly shot in order to prevent them from climbing the ladder, from consolidating and succeeding – if opportunities are not blocked and obstructed structurally.118

Accusations of homophobic behavior do not intimidate the Danes, although they may become extremely upset. They see themselves as open-minded and tolerant, but with a cultural group-right to remain who they are as a people. This right gives rise to convictions and statements like “Equal children play best together,” a traditional Danish proverb that is consistent with the “Separate but equal” message from the American experience.119

Interestingly enough, the Danish political parties that currently work together to reduce the cost and number of refugees and immigrants in general support an agenda that is similar to neo-liberalism, as espoused and defended in the United States.120 By virtue of being ideologically aligned with the radical pro-market philosophy, the Danish Government may now be faced with a counter-productive strategy. The more socialist components are removed from the welfare state, the more elements from liberal capitalism can be expected, thereby gradually replacing Big Government with the free market forces. As a consequence of this (Danish misstep), the entry of second-class cum undesirable stakeholders through the backdoor, as it were, will enable them in unprecedented ways and in spite of the tacit and cultural ban (on outsiders) that stems from the Law of Jante. The new-won freedom to escape marginalization may, however, be a limited success because the implied independent initiatives may consist in ethnic business enterprises. The reality is that the ghetto phenomenon has also reached the shores of Denmark.121 Be that as it may, a transition to a democratic model that borrows from liberal capitalism still represents a chance to rise above the usual lot of foreigners or descendants of foreign-born parents or grand-parents.122 As a rule, the appropriate amount or degree of Danishness is acquired with the 7 th

generation of people who are actually born in the country, thereby fulfilling the Biblical standard of misery. In other words, the formal waiting time could be shortened by a model that better accommodates the average life expectancy of human beings.

The worst fate befalls newcomers, in the case of Denmark, refugees from Syria. The harsh judgments that flow from Janteism are theoretically and practically incompatible with the human rights culture, which Denmark also makes an official claim to as an integral part of its modern rule of law and democracy. The ideological, moral and indeed emotional disconnect between legal measures like law no. L 87 whereby non-inclusion on the basis of humanity is rendered unproblematic and “our reputation as a country in favor of equality)” is obvious – but only to observers and commentators who understand the Danish people enough to also understand that there is a difference between equality and equality. 117 Sartre.118 X.If foreigners “slip through the cracks,” it is an “against all the odds” event.119 X.120 X.121 X.122 X.

23

For the same reason, a discussion of racism is inescapable, just as the “War on The Other” must be viewed as a pattern in a number of the non-legal measures that the Danish Government, first and foremost the Minister of Immigration and Integration Ms. Inger Støjberg, designed and developed between 2015 and 2018 to play on the fear of The Other. Over and over again, she has been warning the Danes against the dangers of religious extremism, of Islam to be precise. Very recently, Ms. Støjberg had one of Kurt Westergaard’s extremely controversial 2005 drawings that depicts the Prophet Muhammed (with a bomb in his turban) reprinted on Facebook media, as if this could serve to reconcile different stakeholders with different opinions about respect.123 Ms. Støjberg even went so far as to put the relevant drawing on her own ipad while entirely disregarding the foreign policy crisis that the original publication led to.124 The international media responded with indignation in the wake of Ms. Støjberg’s provocation, including the German Deutsche Welle, which call the initiative “racist” and an instance of “Islamophobia.”125 The Minister appeared immune to the international accusations. She also stated that she was disappointed to learn that Skovgaard Museum in Viborg, Denmark, did not exhibit the very same drawing in their (2017) exhibition on blasphemy. – She referred to freedom as the value that required such a (right) decision, at least in her opinion.126

In 2017, Ms. Støjberg “celebrated” fifty measures that “tightened” the refugee and immigration area --- with a large cake upon which the number (50) was written next to an edible confectionary Danish flag.127 The symbolism was unmistakable. By January of 2018, a total of sixty-seven (67) measures had been adopted within a three-year period (2015-2018).128 Meanwhile, Ms. Støjberg publicly announced that “more work had to be done.”129

Among the various measures, the Minister’s scare-campaign has been highlighted in connection with the drastic reduction in the arrival of asylum-seekers. The scare-campaign’s main message, “Stay Away!” had been published in Lebanese newspapers and, as a consequence, only 3,458

123 Inger Støjberg Facebook, available at https://www.facebook.com/IngerStojberg/posts/1594729667233411; International medier skriver om Støjbergs Muhammed-skærm, Berlinske Tidende, 26 September 2018, available at https://www.b.dk/politiko/internationale-medier-skriver-om-stoejbergs-muhammed-skaerm124 Prophet Mohammed Controversy: Timeline, The Telegraph, 4 May 2015, available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11341599/Prophet-Muhammad-cartoons-controversy-timeline.html 125 Deutsche Well (DW), Danish minister urges people to report illegal labor in pizzerias, 30 March 2017, available at http://www.dw.com/en/danish-minister-urges-people-to-report-illegal-labor-in-pizzerias/a-38207996.Note that Ms. Stojberg also targeted Muslim women in the area of education. See x.126 David Buch, Inger Støjberg har Kurt Westergaards Muhammed-tegning som baggrund på sin iPad og mener, at den bør udstilles på blasfemi-udstilling, TV2, 26 September 2017, available at http://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2017-09-26-muslimer-ikke-tilfredse-med-stoejberg-opslag-man-ved-jo-godt-det-kraenker127 Simin Fancony, Støjberg forarger: Fejrer udlændingestramning nr. 50 med lagkage, Politiken, 14 March 2017, available at https://politiken.dk/indland/art5870543/St%C3%B8jberg-forarger-Fejrer-udl%C3%A6ndingeshystramning-nr.-50-med-lagkage128 Michael Barret, Denmark asylum applications lowest for ten years: ministry, The Local DK (Denmark), 3 January 2018, available at https://www.thelocal.dk/20180103/denmark-asylum-applications-lowest-for-ten-years-ministry129 xxx

24

people applied for asylum in 2017 – the lowest number since 2008.130 Out of the 3,458 applicants, 35% of the applicants were granted asylum.

In the press statement that accompanied the figures, Ms. Støjberg exclaimed:

I am in no doubt that our strict line on immigration has become known well outside of our borders, and that is exactly the effect I wanted.131

She went on to say that:

I have never been in doubt that refugees differentiate between what welfare goods they can get in different European countries, and the government has now put a stop to the Danish gift shop.132

In addition to the EU’s 2016 agreement with Turkey, an agreement which effectively closed the Balkan migration route, the reduced number of asylum-seekers was also said to owe to “the jewelry law” which legalizes search-and-seizures of refugees’ personal belongings.133 The assumption behind this measure was the same as the one behind the closure of the Danish gift shop: while going through the “catalogues of countries” and differentiating between the welfare goods, refugees made careful calculations. The Minister counted on these while being one step ahead of the refugees. E.g., people from Syria did not arrive to share their own economic resources. Instead, they wanted to maximize our gain – by selecting a tolerant (read: generous) country.

Yet another very effective policy to curb both the cost and number of refugees can be found in the much tighter law for family reunions. Concerning this, it is interesting to observe that Ms. Støjberg only began to target this particular issue after the publication of statements made by experts on international relations. In response to the Minister’s 50% budget cut of expenses for refugees, they presented the argument that refugees do not choose a country on the basis of welfare goods and calculations but instead their priorities are based upon psychological and emotional needs, namely to be with those who are near(est) and dear(est) to them, if at all possible in a crisis. Rather than dismiss the international relations experts as more ignorant than the democratically elected decision-makers and authorities, an otherwise typical Jante reaction, the Minister optimized her pragmatic use of the information. This is to say that Ms. Støjberg introduced a measure that made family reunions a very lengthy and very difficult process.

The belief that the recipients of welfare goods should be Danes is consistent with traditional versions of legal positivism, which emphasize nationality or citizenship as a rights-conferring

130 Ms. Stojberg had also wanted to publish her message in Turkish newspapers, but nothing came of that plan to get the attention of refugees in this country. However, Lebanon is a so-called transit country and, therefore, a deterring effect could still be accomplished.131 Id.132 Id.133Dan Bilefski, Denmark Moves to Make Refugees Hand Over Valuables, New York Times, January 13, 2016, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/world/europe/denmark-refugees-confiscate-valuables.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=80C65D05B0DA71C3A0DF57D00846B78A&gwt=payIn September of 2017, there were 5.2 million Syria refugees hosted in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt.

25

criterion. Inclusion on the basis of humanity requires a human rights approach to desert, and the Danish Government’s treatment of refugees and immigrants in general does not reflect this. To the contrary, the Law of Jante can help to explain the way that refugees and immigrants in general are suspected of knowingly and deliberately arriving to take (read: steal) our welfare (away from us), to mistreat and abuse us, in essence, to try to do to Jante people what we do The Other.134

In the first and final analysis, therefore, it is the Life Form of the group that is at stake. For us to be able to continue as Danes, an internal survival of the fittest strategy (cf. Janteism, formalism, feudalism) has to be coupled with a similar version of vulgar Darwinism in international relations. For some reason or other, the country’s Danishness is rooted in something sacred – for why else invest time and energy and resources in sixty-seven strict measures to keep them out? Affordability per se is not an issue. Instead, it is the unwillingness to allocate resources to assist outsiders (cf. refugees and immigrants in general) that is the reason why the Danish Government and public authorities prefer to pay towards the implementation and future enforcement of the jewelry law. In turn, the searches are symptomatic of the much broader fear, that they are going to take over… if we do not engage in an analogy to a preemptive strike to control them before they can destroy us --- by polluting our (sacred) blood, making us obey by their norms and values, and ultimately by making the group disappear.

Apparently, the Danish Government cannot see that its measures are unfair because a series of ulterior motives have already been assigned to them, however subconsciously (cf. Janteism). The Danish Government is not the only home-group defender at the international level. Sweden, Poland and Hungary, and other countries have adopted a similar policy-making course. But, this makes no difference as far as Denmark’s status as a so-called forerunner is concerned. The whole idea about being an exemplary model is that a state paves the path, not that it is a follower of a (Self-)protectionist program.

Europe’s borders are under pressure because “[t]here are now more refugees and displaced people around the world than at any time since the Second World War.”135 However, if national policy-making strategically aims to bypass the implied humanitarian tragedies, the lack of cooperation will eventually end interdependency as a factor in regional and global politics, thereby forcing countries to interpret their independence in terms of guaranteed abandonment by other states in circumstances that prove a serious test for our national and normal coping skills (e.g. civil war). In other words, if a future conflict here were to turn ordinary Danes into refugees there, then the construction of walls should be expected, together with concentration camps masquerading as civilized tent camps, sending rejected asylum-seekers to prison or to a “desert island” to await deportation and similar strict measures which, according to Ms. Støjberg are chosen exactly because they are strict.136

134 For the Law of Jante and refugees and immigrants in general, see xxx135 Chatham House. The Royal Institute of International Affairs, available at https://www.chathamhouse.org/research/refugee-crisis?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIjdnyt_6_2QIV17XACh3HYgKBEAMYAiAAEgLZgPD_BwE, 136 Støjberg åben for at sende afviste asylansøgere til øde øer, Berlingske Tidence, 7 December 2017, available at https://www.b.dk/politiko/stoejberg-aaben-for-at-sende-afviste-asylansoegere-til-oede-oeerNote that she also makes refugees the offer of paying for their return – to Syria

26

As far as forcing countries to continue or discontinue a certain way is concerned, the proposed 2017 reform for the Dublin system may be the Last Opportunity Denmark has to put its anti-solidarity response to foreigners, including refugees, right again. If adopted, Denmark will be forced to accept the refugee quotas it currently refuses as a direct consequence of its policy decision to combine Janteism and realpolitik. From the viewpoint of Danishness, there is a perceived need, as a minimum, to maintain the status quo regarding the distribution of real Danes and other people. The Danes are willing to play their hard power game at the expense of considerations having to do with humanity, although the Danish Government of the Kingdom of Denmark also appears to concede, at least at this point in time, that a humanitarian effort is required “over there,” out and away from Denmark. On the basis of the linkage between the Law of Jante and welfare desert, it can be inferred that the fairness or, to be more precise, the international justice of the implied assistance depends on it being true that “we don’t lose out…. that we have our needs satisfied.” The more the relativist agenda is pushed, the less likely it will be that the Danes will see themselves as being able to afford contributing to their needs too.137 While observers and commentators may argue that there is no way that envy can be accommodated in the discussion about refugees (for they are already suffering), the deeper moral psychology of envy suggests that the most effective strategy to prevent a threat (of ever becoming jealous) is to keep them in their place. If Sandemose is correct, this response is evil rather than amoral, albeit it cannot be that “we are victimizers” as a matter of choice. Preferential wrong-doing that affects the most basic human rights of the most vulnerable stakeholders is what it is: a crime against humanity.

In 2018, the legality of some of the legal measures that the Danish Government has introduced will be examined by the European Court of Human Rights, inter alia, the case of a 58 year-old man from Syria who claims that a three-year waiting period for a reunion with his wife is in violation of the 1951 Convention.138 While the Danes await the outcome, the Minister of Immigration and Integration continues as a popular politician. The same is true of the Speaker of the House Ms. Pia Kjærsgaard, a member of the Danish People’s Party. Together, they have managed to create the Perfect Jante Response to refugees and immigrants in general: “we don’t count you… and we are proud to be able to inform you that we have strict laws against you.” The Germans talk about “Die Dumme Dänen,” but the Danes will not be gullible anymore.139

Some commentators and observers are strongly critical. Prominent public figures like former Ombudsman Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen warn against the strategy of indirect deterrence as an instance of “negative nation branding.”140 In particular, he points to the Danish Government’s effort to make the asylum system and the conditions for refugees as “unattractive” as possible, thereby “serving as an inspiration for subsequent European and international developments.”141 Instead of assuming its fair share of the burden, Denmark has resorted to what Gammeltoft-137 A higher (than average) living standard in a country may very well result in a need versus want demarcation that places non-basic things for humanity under the need-category, although they strictly qualify as wants, that is, things that are not necessary to avoid serious harm as a human being. See Matwijkiw, x.138 Michael Hjøllund, Omstridt udlændingestramning skal prøves ved menneskerettighedsdomstolen, Jyllands-Posten, 24 Februar 2018, available at https://jyllands-posten.dk/protected/premium/indland/ECE10344122/omstridt-udlaendingestramning-skal-proeves-ved-menneskerettighedsdomstolen139 Wolf Wucherpfenning, Leben im Übergang, oder, Vom Kloster zur Wissensfabrik: Erinnerung und Reflexion (2007).140 X.

27

Hansen calls a “Beggar thy neighbor” strategy. Turkey is clear example of this way of handling its relations with others. The full weight of Janteism, as expressed in national values, practices and policies, is invested in Denmark’s ongoing attempt to essentially dump the problem on this transit country.

Outside of Europe, countries like the United States cannot deny an element of exclusion in the practice of its free market way (cf. democracy). The Law of Jante can be found everywhere, according to Sandemose, but the American and European mentality is still very different. In Denmark, the ticket to success is through Danishness, a carefully measured form. In the United States, an above-average ambition and corresponding effort is a source of admiration and for this reason alone Janteism is a limited phenomenon here. The fact remains, though, that the United States – just like Denmark – does not welcome refugees.142

For a balanced analysis, two concessions have to be made. The number of refugees is a problem – for countries that are concerned about their capacities as well as their identity and, if the underlying values are (perceived to be) at stake, social cohesion and stability. Furthermore, the problem is complex: countries that are concerned about the number of refugees cannot expect to have the conflict that originally caused the problem resolved without the stakeholder participation or the various parties to the conflict itself, i.e., the regime in Syria, Russia, etc. That is undeniable. What is also undeniable, however, is that this fact should not be used to support a reaction(ary) step like the one Denmark took when it gave up it past role as a forerunner and, per Gammeltoft-Hansen’s findings in the area that pertains to refugees and protection under the 1951 Convention, “liberal model” in favor of its present right-wing and extremist position on refugees and immigrants in general. After all, “two wrongs don’t make a right.”

Denmark used to progressively influence democratic ideas and ideals in international relations, but now the relevant nation’s role in regional and global politics has, upon scrutiny, replaced all (three of Kamvara’s listed) soft power elements and effects together with several significant subtle power components (branding, state autonomy) with a hard power threat to exit the Dublin system all together, if forced to accept quota refugees.143 Nobody is going to use what Michael Davis describes as “bully justice” against Denmark, not without punishment.144 It is not the substantive aspect of humanitarian law that matters; it is the method, the procedure other EU members follow. As formalists, the Danes do not think less of the prestige they stand to lose and the subsequent down-grading alone the lines of Qatar. – The Danes actually think that they are right and that that is why other states are joining their anti-refugee movement in international relations. If they can create a domino effect, they will have the upper hand by virtue of the majority consensus. But, even if Denmark were successful in undermining the value fabric of the order, the realpolitik competence this reflects still does not translate into more than perceived legitimacy. And, that is the single most important point for while perception is reality, the reality is not about universal morality, about global imperatives, about human rights, about security and protection on the basis of basic needs. Various theorists on general jurisprudence interpret humanity and interdependency as foundational values in the modern era because the international 141 Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, Refugee Policy as ‘Negative Nation Branding’: The Case of Denmark and the Nordics, Danish Foreign Policy Yearbook 2017, at 100.142 X.143 X.144 Michael Davis.

28

community “is no longer a community of states but of mankind as a whole.”145 By extension, modern international relations, contrast with state-centricity, just as strategies for the pursuit of “our national interest” (on behalf of the Danish people) that sacrifice shared public stakes falls under amoralism. Why? Because literary whistleblowing is as valid as any other approach that attempts to uncover the actually prevailing values together with the practices and policies that result.

By blowing whistle on Denmark and Janteism, Sandemose in effect redefined the premises for an analysis of the country. The Danes themselves know that the Law of Jante is their own everyday reality. With the exception of domestic egalitarianism for basic needs (cf. welfare goods for Danes), they also know that the Scandinavian equality myth is exactly that: a myth. The mistake they made was to put quintessential Jante leaders in power, in government. Normally, the Danes vote for candidates with the “right” opinions. Form(alism) is very much about “keeping up appearances.” So far, tolerance has been a game, one which the Danes also played skillfully during the Nazi occupation where the Conservative Party opted for a no-resistance course. This forced the party in question to change its name after the war – to “Venstre,” which literally means “left” as opposed to “right” in Danish. Nevertheless, Venstre continued as a voice for conservative stakeholders. Ms. Støjberg, the popular Minister of Immigration and Integration for Venstre, does not try to repeat any history lessons for her followers. Interestingly enough, she does have to deal with Germany and this country’s intense frustration over Denmark’s homophobic responses in the case of refugees and immigrants in general. Unlike Denmark, Germany went through a de-nazification program after World War II. For obvious reasons, Denmark did not have to do that, but the differences in the two countries’ responses are now equally obvious. Germany lifts, whereas Denmark resists.

As a nation, which has taken the official step from progressive democracy (forms) to aggressive Janteism, Denmark will now have to take the implications of its own loss of prestige into consideration. Janteism is now a governmentally sanctioned and indeed legally required strategy. Politically, it is not a threat; it is a reality. In terms of international relations, the introduction of Jantism is a Historical First…but the confusion (for this is so unlike Denmark!) is slowly but surely giving way to clarity. – Denmark is for ethnic Danes.

145 Anja Matwijkiw and Bronik Matwijkiw, ‘The Unapologetic Integration of Ethics: Stakeholder Realignments in the light of Global Law and Shared Governance Doctrine. - Distilling the Essence of Giuliana Ziccardi Capaldo's Jurisprudential Paradigm-Shifts’, 15 Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence (2016) 885-902.

29