Promoting Nordicness through prizes: Regional soft power in speeches at the Nordic Council Prizes award ceremonies (1962–2012)

Constructing the Nordic shared identity through culture and history (1962–1981)

In the early years of the Nordic Council Prize (awarded in literature since 1962 and in music every other year starting in 1965), the NC presidents’ welcoming speeches often clearly express the role of culture for the Nordic region. This is illustrated by quotes such as:

For the poets of our countries, it [the literature prize] should be an expression of the council’s recognition of the central importance of literature for the cultural community, which is the basis of our popular and political cooperation, and be a modest repayment of the debt we all owe to the past and today’s great writers and poets in the Nordic countries. (Harald Nielsen, Danmark, 1966) ⁵

Literature has had great significance for the creation and development of the common culture of the Nordic peoples. The works of the great Nordic writers of the last century were the common property of all the Nordic peoples. (Eino Sirén, Finland, 1967)

In these speeches, culture is portrayed as a shared historical experience, which shapes a common Nordic identity. Cultural collaboration is explicitly understood as the foundation upon which other (political) cooperation can be built. References to the late 1800’s romanticism of Scandinavia as a unit with a shared culture, language, and territory, now extended to the Nordic countries, are made. Culture is seen as a unifying force, and also distinctly as a goal in itself, something to be valued and prioritized with the resources that material prosperity creates. This view of culture is different from later conceptions, where culture is legitimized as a means to create economic benefits. Still, in the early days, culture, particularly literature, is highly valued, as illustrated in the idea of owing a debt to historic Nordic writers, and rewarding artists thusly:

Our forefathers appeared before kings and earls and recited poetry. Then the poets received good weapons and beautiful valuables as a reward for their poems. Here, authors and composers are recognized in Danish kroner from the legislative assemblies of the Nordic countries. This is how the old custom lives, the esteem for art and for our people’s spiritual chieftains. Today’s democracy will not be outdone by the autocrats of a bygone era regarding the valuation of poetry, prose and music. (Sigurður Bjarnason, Iceland, 1970)

In this narrative, the speaker thus makes a connection between the historic valuation of artists and the current Nordic Council prizes, as a way to emphasize the status of the prize. In the second decade of the Nordic Council prize ceremonies (1972–1981), the presidents’ welcoming speeches continue to make references to a shared Nordic history. The common past is portrayed both as an undefined historical period, and as specific periods or artifacts such as the Viking Age and the Edda texts. Compared to the 1960s, when references to the 19th-century literary scene also occurred, during this period there is a more consistent reach further back in time. Notably, references to later periods of intra-Nordic wars and colonization are absent from the historical narratives.

Another recurring theme is the importance of a shared Nordic culture, in particular as it is described as linked to, and a facilitator of, other types of cooperation:

The Nordic peoples have a common cultural heritage with origins far back in prehistoric times. I hardly think that there is any other country group in the world that has so much in common in the field of culture both as a historical heritage and as a living reality in the present. In ethical values and social conditions, in music, literature and visual arts, the Nordic peoples have so much kinship that we can in reality speak of our countries as a unified cultural sphere in our part of the Western world. Our relatively uniform culture is the foundation on which Nordic cooperation in modern times has developed. The common view of the Nordic peoples in terms of essential cultural values has facilitated the construction of contemporary cooperation in the social and economic field. (Johannes Antonsson, Sweden, 1974, our italics)

In the above quote, several recurring elements are united: reference to distant past, the shared values and appreciation for the arts, the Nordic countries as a cultural-identity region, and the importance of shared cultural values as a foundation for cooperation in other spheres. In addition, words such as essential, kinship, and uniform serve to emphasize similarity among the Nordics. In 1977, when the Nordic Council celebrated its 25th anniversary in connection with the prize ceremony, the speech given by the president at this time, V.J. Sukselainen (Finland), is particularly interesting, as it is very explicit about the intention and motivations of the Nordic cooperation:

After a demanding working day, we have managed to reserve a couple of hours to celebrate the slow work that five sovereign states have done over a quarter of a century, when they have built a modern Nordic community . . . We have not renounced our national right to self-determination. We have not started to change our borders. We have, at the parliamentary and government level, begun the construction of a collaboration, the purpose of which is to teach the members of five small nations how to eliminate the disadvantages that borders bring in a permanent and effective way. . . . How did the Nordic Council come about? . . . We remember how we sat at the Nordic Interparliamentary Union’s meeting in Stockholm City Hall. We remember how Hans Hedtoft stood up and spoke, how he presented his case with warmth and eloquence and immediately took us with him. When he had finished, we were obliged to admit that something had now been proposed, which must take place, and which, in fact, was something which each of us felt we had sometimes thought within ourselves. . . . We thank fate that during these 25 years we have been able to take part in consolidating the Nordic sense of belonging . . . (1977, our italics)

Here, in a narrative about the history of the making of the Nordic Council, its creation is almost spoken of as an inevitable force, something that was as driven by a need within the people who were part of making it happen. The benefits of the cooperation are praised, but it is also emphasized that the national sovereignty of each member remains intact, that the Nordic Council is a collaboration of equals. The ambition to “teach its members” to cooperate across borders speaks directly to the soft power strategy of regional integration through cultural cooperation.

Introducing the idea of unity in diversity and independence (1982-onwards)

In the 1982 to 1991 period, some changes occur in the narrative of Nordicness. While the previous emphasis on common history and culture is still present, in statements such as “[t]he Nordic cultural community is far older than organized Nordic cooperation. The sense of community is, of course, the prerequisite for cooperation in other areas” (Karin Söder, Sweden, 1988), it is less consistently prominent than before. Instead, there is a new focus on the distinctiveness and independence of the different members of the Nordic region. Iceland emphasizes the Edda, Finland’s linguistic position is discussed, ⁶ and the first Faroese and Sami awardees are remarked upon. This can be illustrated with this quote about the importance of the first winner from the Saami language area:

All those who love literature know that literature in our mother tongue gives our own language community its identity and its self-respect, and it does not matter whether it is a large or a small language community. And when we [. . .] read and become acquainted with the literature of the neighboring languages, we actually get both an experience and something to know about how in that language society one understands one’s own surroundings and oneself and perhaps also ourselves. (Anker Jørgensen, Denmark, 1991)

Thus, rather than a story about Nordic commonalities, a narrative about the ambition of the prize to spread knowledge and familiarity about culture and language among the Nordic neighbors is in focus. Anker Jørgensen phrases this as “although we are Nordic, we are also a bit nationalist!” (Denmark, 1986), in the sense that one is particularly happy if someone from one’s country wins. Overall, the third decade of speeches thus introduces a slight shift from a narrative that emphasizes shared Nordic history and essential similarities, to a narrative of cooperation that maintains and rewards differences, uniqueness, and independence.

Placing Norden in the world and depoliticizing the award ceremony (1990—onwards)

In the 90’s, some new themes emerge in the speeches opening the awards ceremonies. First, there is a slight change in the structure of speeches: they are much shorter, and it is not always the President of the Nordic Council who delivers the welcome address. This results in less elaboration on the idea of the Nordic compared to previous years, and can be seen as a depoliticization of the ceremony. The most distinctive new themes in this period are the introduction of the environmental prize and references to politics in the rest of the world, taking note of the end of the Cold War and the entry of Nordic states into the EU. The latter theme brings with it a focus on the importance of strengthening Nordic regional unity outward, which can be seen in references to how awardees have been successful in representing the Nordic region internationally, or in this quote about the importance of shared identity for the Nordic countries in external relations:

The Nordic cultural community has often, and rightly, been said to be a fundamental prerequisite for other forms of Nordic cooperation. Through the efforts of the Nordic Council, cultural identity has become a central part of the work we are now conducting between our countries. Our own national and Nordic identity is also an important factor in European integration. A strong Nordic community provides us with good conditions to actively participate in European cooperation, to promote Nordic alternatives, and to maintain a cultural climate in the Nordic region that is receptive to outside influences. (Ilkka Suominen, Finland, 1992)

In the final decade studied (2002–2012), it is more common for the leader of the delegation from the hosting country to deliver the speech than the NC president. As in the 90’s, the speeches are short, and references to Nordic collaboration are usually a variation of the phrase “The prizes are an expression of the importance of culture and the environment in Nordic cooperation” (Gabriel Romanus, Sweden, 2004). In the few speeches by NC presidents, we again see themes that have been consistent throughout all the studied years, namely the idea of a shared culture as “the flagship of Nordic cooperation” (Outi Ojala, Finland, 2002), functioning as the basis for cooperation in other areas. In this period, formulations about challenges from the outside world are reoccurring, in the form of references to globalization, as are references to the environment: “Our greatest task as politicians is to combat climate change and to protect biodiversity and the natural capital we have” (Helgi Hjørvar, Iceland, 2010). References to the support from Nordic citizens are made in on some occasions: in 2006, an opinion poll has been conducted by the NC to examine support for cooperation in the cultural and environmental areas, which “shows that there is strong popular support for creating focus, attention, and results in Nordic cooperation” (Ole Stavad, Denmark, 2006).

To sum up this analysis of the idea of the Nordic in the Nordic Council presidents’ speeches, three main points can be made: First, ideas of a shared culture and a common historical past are very prevalent, and historical narratives are used to construct the (imagined) Nordic community, particularly in the first three decades of the awards. Culture is seen as a foundation and precondition upon which other types of collaboration can be created. Second, from the 90s onwards, elements of challenges from outside, such as international competition, emerge. Finally, about halfway through the period, there is a slight shift in emphasis from a focus on what the Nordics have in common to a focus on internal diversity and what can be learned from collaboration and cross-border exchanges with one another.

The Nordic idea in a world of war and conflict (1960s–1970s)

The presence of the “Nordic” is salient in winners’ speeches during the first decade of prize ceremonies, showcasing a strong idea of the Nordic region in an international arena as united by a shared culture. The first recipient of the Nordic Council Prize in Literature was Swedish author Eyvind Johnson, awarded in 1962. Like several other authors during this period, he reflects on international tensions, in the aftermath of the Second World War, highlighting Nordic cooperation as exemplary for the entire world:

We dream of a community, and suddenly, for a moment, for a time, it is there, and in it is Europe, and in the end we may dream of the free community which, for a moment, we may dream of a community which can become the community of the whole world. We in the Nordic countries have a common history, a common culture and cultural protection and, I would add, a largely common view of society.

Perhaps even more explicit about the exemplary and imagined role of the Nordic in the world is the Swedish author Olof Lagercrantz (Sweden, 1965):

I fervently hope that on the way to a United States of the World there is a stage called the political union of the Nordic countries. What would it take to create such a Nordic state? Wise statesmen braving wintry seas—we already have them. Good laws, common ideals—we have them. Common roots and fathers who mixed blood, though not always so peacefully. A vast common source of words far away, but still steaming hot; we have it in the Icelandic sagas.

Others, such as author Tarjei Vesaas (Norway, 1964), call the Nordic their home, refer to themselves as Nordic citizens, like composer Joonas Kokkonen (Finland, 1968), and see themselves as part of a Nordic cultural tradition, like author Gunnar Ekelöf (Sweden, 1966). These speeches highlight the value community of the Nordics as something for the rest of the world to emulate. The shared history, marked by wars but ultimately overcome, and the cultural heritage of written sagas, have forged bonds of brotherhood among the Nordic peoples. The winners thus, to a great extent, share and continue to build on the idea of the Nordic and the role of culture that is presented in the NC presidents’ speeches. Yet, they do so with a clearly international outlook, for example, Ekelöf (Sweden, 1966) hopes for something good and innocent in a world marred by wars and racial hatred. Or, as author Johan Borgen (Norway, 1967) notes, an author needs to write for a better world: “For every time the meaninglessness of life seems to manifest in the current situation, it is our human right to stifle despair. Everyone’s duty. Including that of the writer.”

While there is agreement on the role of culture, the romantic shimmer of Nordicness and its strong association with the award is sometimes challenged, as by author Per Olov Enquist (Sweden, 1969), who states that not everything in the Nordic region is positive, especially not in politics: “In the face of this illustrious political assembly, I dare to assert that many people constantly feel helpless in the world of politics.” Similarly to Enquist, Klaus Rifbjerg (Denmark, 1970) also critiques the idealized image of the Nordic in world politics. He argues that authors in the Nordics struggle to conform to the international perception of the Nordic region as a form of utopia, highlighting the ongoing rivalry and competition between countries and their influence, as shown below.

Nordic center-periphery dilemmas (1960s-onwards)

Starting with the first time the music prize was awarded, some winners have addressed Finland’s peripheral position in Nordic cooperation. This becomes clear in how significant it is for Finnish recipients to win on behalf of Finland. Composer Joonas Kokkonen (Finland, 1968) emphasized that Finland had triumphed when he won, while author Tua Forsström (Finland, 1998) remarked that the prize is viewed as a national team match in Finland, and expressed her happiness in representing Finland and contributing to its victory. In 1973, author Veijo Meri addressed the language barrier that may contribute to Finland’s marginalization, stating, “I believe that this prize, especially in Finland, feels important. We find ourselves behind the language barrier, which surrounds us from all sides.”

This theme also resonates with Iceland that needs to “fight for one’s existence” (Antti Tuuri, Finland, 1985). Composer Atli Heimir Sveinsson (Iceland, 1976) discusses the significant role of the prize for Iceland and its marginal position:

We, who live there, sometimes have the feeling that we live behind the world. Precisely for this reason, the ever-growing Nordic cooperation has had very positive effects in Iceland. I dare say that cultural cooperation in music has already had a very stimulating influence on Iceland’s musical life.

This is especially important during a time when Iceland was engaged in the Cod Wars with the United Kingdom (aided by West Germany). In this context, author Ólafur Jóhann Sigurðsson (Iceland, 1976) argues that the prize could work as a force to solidify Iceland’s connection with the Nordic region and the world beyond, in opposition to the United Kingdom: “After all, I am optimistic enough to believe that many poetic works by contemporary Icelandic authors are capable of promoting a genuinely friendly attitude towards a small nation that struggles against overwhelming forces.”

Winners from Nordic autonomous regions and minorities also relate to a peripheral position. To be in the periphery is also to speak from what otherwise would be silence, as expressed by a Faroese awardee, Rói Patursson (Faroe Islands, 1986). Author Bo Carpelan (Finland, 1977), who belongs to the Swedish-speaking population of Finland, also addresses silence and says, “I could mention much about the struggles of the minority — about a limited readership, small publishers, about the ignorance and lack of interest that Finland-Swedish literature has encountered and continues to encounter in Nordic contexts.” Further, criticizing the prize-givers and highlighting the issue of marginalization, author Nils-Aslak Valkeapää (Finland, 1991) addresses the fact that the Sámi, as an indigenous people, are not represented in the Nordic Council, calling it a “shame.” He ties the Sámi flag around the microphone as a reminder of their existence and their political interests within the Nordic political community. He states, “It would be more important if the rights of indigenous peoples, including rights to land and water, were recognized and clearly defined in agreements.” Although he accepts and thanks them for the award—thereby fulfilling the ritual—he uses the opportunity to voice his political concerns and contest the meaning of both the award and its ceremony.

Speaking to politicians about cultural politics: the problems of mass consumer society (1970s-1980s)

In contrast to earlier speeches, during the 1970s and 1980s, recipients grew increasingly concerned about the political power and autonomy of culture. Through their remarks, they critically engage with political actors, emphasizing how culture has been subordinated to economic interests. Over time, the balance between giver and receiver shifts. From a belief in culture’s power to inspire political imagination to a view of culture as something requiring support in the face of mass consumer society.

Author Snorri Hjartarson (Iceland, 1981) argues that poetry reveals what is beautiful and ugly, right and wrong, but it can no longer change the world. He connects this with the challenges faced by small states: “And this can be a support in the fight for the ancient culture of small nations, which now must fight for survival against the aggression of international media.” The threat of international media, mass culture, and “bestsellerism,” is a recurring theme during this decade. While culture needs to defend itself, as argued by author Veijo Meri (Finland, 1973), others, such as composer Aulis Sallinen (Finland, 1978) see the Nordic Council prizes as “tangible proof” of politicians’ will to defend culture. The strongest condemnation is found in the speech by author Sara Lidman (Sweden, 1980), the first female winner, who calls for Nordic aid to avert a crisis in Swedish literature:

. . . fiction is in such a life-threatening situation in Sweden that you, dear siblings on the other side of mountains and water, must come to our aid! Our literature is being suffocated under the multinational pulp fiction publishing (“kioskvälde”). And our cultural authorities refuse to understand what the matter is about.

Music prize winners also share this problem. Composer Pelle Gudmundsen-Holmgreen (Denmark, 1980) sounds the “alarm bells,” noting that music is threatened by “mass-produced background music” akin to “American hot dogs.” In one of the most political speeches, composer Olav Anton Thommessen (Norway, 1990) criticizes commercialism, arguing that we need to learn about what was part of overthrowing the Soviet Union: “Artists, who have been so crucial in the struggle for democratization, will be pushed to the margins of society and attain the same insignificant status as their colleagues in the West.” Thommesson warns that another type of artistic value is favored in the West: marketability and entertainment. After several years of very short speeches or no speeches at all from musicians, Rolf Wallin (Norway, 1998) refers back to Thommessen. Wallin states that the situation has worsened beyond Thommessen’s fears, not in terms of culture, but regarding freedom of expression and market capitalism: “The seemingly obvious correlation between complete freedom of the market and complete freedom of expression is beginning to show serious cracks.” Perhaps the speech was too political, as the next speech from a musician happens four years later. In 2006, musician Natasha Barrett (Norway) talks about freedom from the “commercial forces” and “political dictatorship” as “the hallmarks of a great civilization.” Similarly, author Sofi Oksanen (Finland, 2010) refers to censorship in Soviet and Russia and says, “I thank the Nordic region for the good freedom of speech, for the freedom to write.”

In later decades, the speeches shift toward expressing gratitude for existing support systems, as cultural forms are not always self-evident in the public sphere or easily eligible for public funding. Film prize winners, for example, express concerns about the risks to Nordic films if they do not receive adequate funding. The Nordic Council Prize is thus viewed as a counterbalance to the pressure on cultural actors to conform to capitalism’s market demands, standing in stark contrast to culture’s inherent power to foster political imagination.

Nordic unity and similarity in difference (1980s-1990s)

Echoing the presidents’ speeches, the theme of Nordic unity in the 80’s and 90’s relates to similarity through diversity. Author Göran Tunström (Sweden, 1984) remembers the Second World War and the border between Sweden and Norway, fascinated with the now open borders between the Nordic countries. This openness is not only a “reminder of the possibility of peaceful coexistence, it is an invitation to transcendence. To another country, another world, that offers its uniqueness to enrich and expand one’s personality, making us greater and more aware of the adventure a human can be.” Author Sven Delblanc (Sweden, 1982) comments on the idea of such a shared Nordic identity:

A Nordic connection is often spoken of during these solemn occasions, and often—and rightly so—our community and mutual similarity are invoked. With all due respect for our kinship, it is rather our fruitful differences that I wish to speak of at this moment. It is never from identity but from the union of opposites that new life is created. Five first violins do not make a string quintet—no, it is five distinctly different instruments, each with its own sound, that bring life and harmony to the Nordic concert.

Thus, it is through this Nordicness that the countries can contribute to Europe and the world. It can also be the shared cultural heritage, as argued by composer Åke Hermanson (Sweden, 1982), that is brought forward that may express Nordicness as a “utopia.” It can be specific literary works, like Eddan, that are a shared cultural heritage, as argued by composer Haukur Tómasson (Iceland, 2004). Bringing these small nations together is a force to be reckoned with in the world, according to Peter Seeberg (Denmark, 1982). Eva Ström (Sweden, 2003) adds that the prizes are peace prizes, in light of the dramatic history (including wars) in the Nordic region: “It is when borders and minds are open that we can partake in the culture, music, and literature of our neighboring countries.” Author Tua Forsström (Finland, 1998) also notes the combination of familiarity and difference, to be at home and away, that brings a special kind of feeling.

While several of the winners thus refer to a shared cultural heritage that also celebrates differences in the Nordics that echoes the ideas expressed in the presidents’ speeches, where unity in diversity is an important theme, this line of reasoning indicates a slight uneasiness among winners with being drawn into the political project of the Nordic community.

Globalization, individualism, and the role of nature (1990s-2000s)

As with the presidents’ speeches, the speeches become shorter in the 1990s. Similarly, the role of the EU and of the Nordics in the world emerges as an important theme. After being awarded the prize, the author Peer Hultberg (Denmark, 1993) realized that he needed to reflect on his own relationship with the Nordic region, finding that he feels more Danish and European. Hultberg indirectly addresses individualism and the difficulty of seeing oneself in the broader political context and feeling a sense of belonging, especially in the “postmodern” and fragmented state that prevails today, where there are no longer any simple narratives.

Some winners try to get a sense of “the Nordic” by taking an international outsider perspective. Dorrit Willumsen (Denmark, 1997) says that she can feel Nordic in this new fragmented world; when one is on the outside, feeling uncertain, one feels Nordic, as “we live in a world where everything is connected and nothing is whole.” The European Union is present in the speech by Einar Már Guðmundsson (Iceland, 1995), but he returns to the shared cultural heritage. Nordic storytelling has ancient roots, which are important to remember.

Nature emerges as a clear theme in the 1990s. Authors Tomas Tranströmer (Sweden 1990) talks about the breathtaking Icelandic nature and Nils-Aslak Valkeapää (Finland, 1991) about the arctic nature. Kerstin Ekman (Sweden, 1994) is critical of the Nordic myths about nature, not only for how they were used to foster a sense of commonality during the Second World War, but also for her belief that nature should be the driving force behind artistic renewal in a new urban world, stating:

. . . as we wait for the renewal, we can’t be at all sure that it is in snowy light and coniferous forest scent that it emerges. It may be suburban gray, or very hot colors. It may come with a metropolitan, metal-flavored language infused with doom, death and trash—a Nordic experience fused with the alien and the ravaged. It will take place deep inside the structures we see as national and distinctive. It will change them.

The theme of nature is particularly explicit with the introduction of the Nordic Council Nature and Environment Prize (today named the Nordic Council Environment Prize). Interestingly enough, winners, while accepting the prize, also several times include a critique of the Nordic countries’ inability to do what is needed to protect the environment. The inaugural recipient, representing Artdatabanken, spoke about Nordic nature and emphasized that the North is renowned for its natural beauty, which must be preserved (Torleif Ingelög, Sweden, 1995). He also addressed politicians, stating, “It is unacceptable and undignified that forests with endangered species are being cut down in our countries.” Other winners speak about the urgency of political action to save the earth, and that it lies in the nature of the Nordic Council and the idea of the Nordic, to be proactive in these matters (Bogi Hansen, Faeroe Islands, 2006). Thus, to some extent, the environment prize winners confirm the Nordic community while critiquing its politics. However, while the prize is also awarded to organizations, the focus has gradually shifted toward recognizing commercial enterprises and individuals’ actions, which stands in stark contrast to the collectivism and critique of commercialism expressed by many artists in earlier decades.