In the charged arena of Norwegian immigration discourse, few subjects ignite as much debate as national identity. When does a genuine affection for one’s country cross into the territory of exclusion?
In a recent podcast featuring Ole Asbjørn Ness, parliamentary representative Mahmoud Farahmand, and Helge Lurås, it was Farahmand’s insights that introduced a fresh perspective—an impassioned and principled defense of nationhood, culture, and shared values.
Embracing Norway: From Immigrant to Norwegian
At just eight years old, Farahmand arrived in Norway, where he witnessed firsthand how the state actively encouraged immigrants to preserve their original cultures.
– “During primary and secondary school, we were excused from Christianity lessons to receive compulsory education in our mother tongue, Farsi. Maintaining our cultural heritage was crucial,” he reflects.
Yet, he expresses concern over what he perceives as a contradiction within Norwegian society.
– “Norwegian culture and patriotism are frequently painted as dangerous or problematic. Conversely, the embrace of other cultures and traditions is celebrated,” he says.
For Farahmand, this inconsistency is not only perplexing but politically unwise.
– “Why is love for Norway seen as exclusionary? Is celebrating Eid in Oslo exclusionary? If not, why should expressing affection for the country one resides in be labeled as such?”
The Role of Culture in Shaping Society
A central theme in Farahmand’s argument is that societies do not emerge in a vacuum; they are shaped by history, climate, norms, and institutions.
– “Norway hasn’t developed its current state by mere happenstance. The oil fund wasn’t a stroke of luck; it springs from a long-term mindset characterized by planning and saving,” he notes.
Using the climate as a metaphor, he elaborates:
– “Anyone who has endured two Norwegian winters understands the necessity of chopping wood in summer to survive the cold months ahead. This foresight reflects our pension system, oil fund, and administrative practices.”
Farahmand believes this approach distinguishes Norway from countries with abundant natural resources but underdeveloped institutions.
– “Many nations boast more oil and gas reserves, even favorable geography, yet people choose to migrate here instead of those places. It’s not merely about resources; it’s also about culture and social structure.”
Integration and the Threat of “Negative Integration”
Ness raises a critical concern regarding what he terms “negative integration.” Rather than newcomers adapting to Norwegian norms, there is a risk that societal confidence wavers, leading to a retreat from European and Norwegian values.
– “We’ve long assumed integration is about newcomers adapting to our culture. But if society itself loses its self-assurance, the reverse may occur,” he warns.
Farahmand agrees, cautioning that Europe has exceeded its integration capacity.
– “Cultural understanding takes time to develop. An influx of newcomers within a short span complicates the transmission of the very norms that shape our society.”
He stresses that this issue isn’t a matter of morality or human dignity.
– “This isn’t about labeling immigrants as bad individuals; it’s about pace, volume, and the capacity to maintain a cohesive community of values.”
Europe’s Relative Decline
The conversation shifts to encompass a broader European perspective as Lurås describes the continent as experiencing relative decline.
– “In the year 2000, Europe represented approximately 25 percent of the global economy; that figure has now dwindled to around 14-15 percent. The trajectory is clear,” he states.
He identifies key structural issues—excessive regulation, soaring energy costs, and sluggish growth—as significant hurdles.
– “A society where there are more lawyers than engineers is overly regulated. Such an environment is unattractive to ambitious, young individuals.”
Ness connects this trend to Europe’s future outlook.
– “The welfare state has become the central European project. But a society cannot solely offer security in old age; it must also inspire dreams, ambitions, and hopes for the future.”
Cultivating Self-Confidence for Community Cohesion
As their discussion draws to a close, the focus returns to self-confidence—both nationally and culturally. Lurås believes that Norwegians often underestimate their capacity for integration, especially when guidelines are clear.
– “Norwegians appreciate those who wish to become Norwegian. We often feel a swell of pride when we see an immigrant donning a bunad or skiing. It demonstrates that our community is fundamentally inclusive when clarity prevails,” he observes.
Farahmand nods in agreement.
– “Many immigrants cherish Norwegian culture more than many Norwegians do—precisely because we have experienced alternatives. Norway stands for freedom, trust, and predictability.”
He delivers a powerful closing message.
– “A values-based community is vital for cohabitation. If we shy away from discussing what Norway represents and why it endures, preserving it will become increasingly challenging. Loving Norway does not equate to disliking others; it embodies a responsibility towards the society we choose to inhabit.”
In this way, the immigration debate transcends mere politics or statistics, evolving into a profound exploration of identity, self-confidence, and the vision for the kind of society Norway aspires to become in an ever-changing world.