Retaining Modern Nordic-American Identity amongst Diversity in the United States Today

CHRIS SUSAG

his article examines Nordic-American identity as it exists to day in the United States. Four groups will be the focus of this discussion: Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish, and Finland-Swedish Americans. (Icelandic Americans also belong in the multi-ethnic group, but were not surveyed for this study.) Many of the factors contributing to what some scholars see to be an apparent decrease in Nordic-American group identity will be examined. This article will also examine those aspects of each group that are important to its members and continue to serve as important aspects of the group's culture. Some comparisons will be drawn and the future of Nordic- American group identities considered. The United States has historically struggled to bring its citizens together as Americans. The American "melting pot" was one attempt to homogenize many diverse groups into the larger, collective group as Americans. Over time it became obvious, however, that not all Americans shared similar practices or identities and were thus not easily homogenized into this model. While it could be said that the melting pot encouraged many to give up their ethnic identity in favor of some sort of vaguely defined American identity, over time it has been largely abandoned. In its place, the contemporary approach to differentness in the United States is to encourage "diversity." This typically stresses the acceptance of the differences between groups and encourages the celebration of racial, ethnic, and cultural differ-

CHRIS SUSAG holds a Ph.D. from the University of Joensuu, Finland. His research interests include Nordic American group membership and symbols of ethnic group identity. He is currently an adjunct assistant professor at the University of Minnesota Duluth. 7 ences between people, while it addresses issues of institutional racism and discrimination. Certainly stressing diversity, equality, and respect between people is valuable and needed today. Accepting differences and valuing diversity contributes positively to any country's ability to adapt to today's world. Additionally, diversity is one way to address the wrongs of the past by valuing differences and giving those who may have been discriminated against the opportunity to be treated more fairly today. It would be wrong not to address historical issues of inequality and not try to correct them. Such approaches need to be a priority. Yet there may be an unfortunate consequence to the diversity approach. Indeed, both the melting pot and diversity models do not encourage the discussion of white ethnic group membership. Because of the historical problems that the United States has had with racial equality and the fact that diversity has come to stress racial diversity, the discussion has discouraged awareness of differences between white ethnic groups. For small, white ethnic groups such as the Finnish Americans, taking attention off the unique contributions and prac• tices of the group may result in younger members not knowing much that is meaningful about their group. A direct result of this process is that for many white ethnic groups their ethnic institutions have de• clined, language use has been lost, and knowledge about the groups' cultures and experiences in this country is lacking. This is but one unfortunate result of a country wrestling with its history while trying to carve out a new understanding of racial and ethnic issues at a time when people of different cultures are coming in contact and being influenced by each other more than ever.

THE THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

At many universities history, literature, and language make up the core of ethnic studies programs. These fields certainly lie at the center of the country's Scandinavian studies departments. As H. Arnold Barton has noted, "The Scandinavians [were] among the first immigrant groups in America to chronicle their own histories. . . . Scholars of Scandinavian background . . . played a leading role in establishing immigration history as an academic discipline in America" 8

(Barton, 47). In the past, history, literature, language, and the result• ing area studies programs were instrumental not only in interpreting the past, but in helping to establish Nordic group identity as some• thing worth studying and preserving. Today, when issues of group membership and identification are still relevant to Nordic Ameri• cans, this may no longer be the case. It appears that these programs, while still important in their own right, no longer address the more central questions of what it means to be a Nordic American. The self-image of Nordic Americans, like those of many other groups, has evolved in the last thirty years. Researchers such as S. Kellogg have noted "that in order to understand ethnicity in late- twentieth-century America, we might consider thinking about it less from a macro structural and more from a symbolic perspective" (Kellogg 1990, 29). From this perspective new questions emerge. Many previous approaches simply have not addressed group mem• bership and ethnic group identification today. As the Nordic-Ameri• can groups established themselves economically, linguistically, and culturally in the United States, issues of identity were of central importance to group members. Ethnic identity was a vital aspect in the development of collective self-esteem, and for many later-gen• eration members of these groups it remains important today. Still, there is good evidence to argue that for other Nordic Ameri• cans the importance of ethnic group identity is on the decline. "Tra• ditionally the elements of ethnic identity and activity have been linked. In the past one could not imagine identifying with an ethnic group without sharing some obvious participation with that group's activities and ethnic community" (Susag 1999, 33). Today this is not the case for many Nordic Americans who no longer engage in ethnic activities on a regular basis and whose ethnic community no longer provides its members with institutional completeness. This study will approach the issue of ethnic identity from the perspective of collective group membership and collective self-es• teem. It is the issue of collective self-esteem arising from being an active member of the ethnic group that is the most important aspect to consider in understanding why some people still identify with their Nordic-American group. Cases such as these have been described by Peter Kivisto, who 9 has noted that many ethnic Americans "desire to feel ethnic without manifesting a willingness to engage in ethnic activities that demand considerable amounts of time, energy, or resources" (Kivisto and Nefzer 1993, 2). This tendency has also been noted in reference to other Nordic-American groups (see Stoller 1996 and Susag 2000). Furthermore, this situation is what Herbert Gans has called "sym• bolic ethnicity" and what Thomas Archdeacon has labeled a persis• tent "ethnic hum" (Kivisto and Nefzer 1993). With this situation being so prevalent, the relationship between ethnic activity and iden• tification is central to our discussion. The issue of ethnic group "fit" is also important to discuss. John Turner calls fit "the degree to which reality actually matches the criteria which defines the category. For example, a person would not be perceived as French if he or she did not look, speak, or act in the ways the perceiver stereotypically defines as French" (Turner 1987, 55). The concept of fit needs to be examined with regards to the Nordic Americans, because group members often self-report being "ethnic" while genuine ethnic activity, ethnic knowledge, and lan• guage use are absent. Related to fit is its twin concept, "accessibility." Accessibility is the readiness of a stimulus, with its given properties, to be identified in terms of a specific category. For example, when two self-categori• zations are available to a person, the more fitting identity will be• come obvious. So, when two equally fitting self-identities are avail• able to an ethnic American, the one more accessible will become the more important. There are two major determinants of how people access an iden• tity. They are one's past learning of what makes up a social category and the person's current motives (Turner 1987). Nordic Americans who value their Nordic group identity and who want to access this identity are motivated to do so. They may also be relatively free to choose this ethnic identity, in that it may not be so different from their more pronounced American identity. This issue will also be investigated below. As already mentioned, the importance that a given Nordic group identity has to an individual is of key importance in understanding why a person accesses that identity. Social identity theory purports 10 that self-esteem is derived from one's social group memberships, as well as from personal identities. Thus, "social identity is defined as those aspects of a person's self-concept based upon [her/his] group membership together with the emotional, evaluative, and other psy• chological correlates" (Turner and Oakes 1986, 240). For those who value their ethnic identity, it is one's Nordic-group membership that contributes to one's self-esteem. Members of the Nordic-American groups generate positive self-esteem through identifying with their groups. This premise is based in the belief that people have a need for positive self-esteem, including and derived from the positive dis• tinctiveness of one's social group (Abrams and Hogg 1988; Hunter, O'Brien and Grocott 1999). While ethnic activity and ethnic iden• tity are separable, ethnic identity is still part of social group member• ship. Based on this assumption, it can be argued that for those Nor• dic Americans who value their ethnic group membership, this group identification is an important part of their self-concept.

THE CENTRAL QUESTIONS

This study focused on two specific issues and touched generally on a number of other topics involving ethnic group membership. The first central question was, What purpose(s) does having an eth• nic identity serve each group's members? It was expected that mem• bers would say that being a member of their Nordic-American group gave them positive distinction and enhanced their self-esteem. This assumption is based in the results of previous studies (Lay 1992; Luhtanen and Crocker 1992; Susag 1999). The second primary question was whether it is realistic to call someone an ethnic American if they do not speak the ethnic lan• guage and do not practice the ethnic culture on a daily basis. The study did not have any firm expectations regarding this question, although it was suspected that many would say that one is an ethnic American not based on what they know or do but solely on ancestry. This question is important to ask today of the Nordic Americans, because it addresses both the changing and the subtle nature of ethnic identification. It has been suggested that today's situation for many Nordic Americans may be described best by its casual nature. 11

Their ethnic identity is not something associated with one's daily activities and not overly involving in terms of one's invested efforts (Gans 1979; Kivisto and Nefzer 1993; Susag 1999). Furthermore, considering the issues of fit and accessibility for these group mem• bers, this question seemed provocative.

THE NORWEGIAN AMERICANS

I will begin with the Norwegian Americans. In contrast to most American ethnic groups, the Norwegian Americans have a truly international organization, the Sons of Norway, to provide an envi• ronment where they can gather and conduct various ethnically cen• tered activities. Because the group has been assimilated into the larger culture to a great extent, the Sons of Norway serves an impor• tant role for Norwegian Americans today. Taking advantage of this situation, a short questionnaire was developed and given to various Sons of Norway groups throughout the Midwest. The purpose of the questionnaire was to determine how being a member of the Norwegian-American group is experienced today, the ways in which the group is portrayed, the importance of group mem• bership, and the kinds of factors important to defining membership. Also, its purpose was to develop a device that could be used to compare a variety of ethnic groups. In the end, 69 questionnaires were returned from lodges in Min• nesota, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and New York state. Some basic statistical analysis was done on the questionnaires to produce the results which are included below. It must be recognized that this small sample does not speak to the Norwegian Americans generally. Still, it is the author's hope that something meaningful can be drawn from this information. It must also be stated that this study was not directly concerned with a historical discussion of emigration or its causes. Rather, it was designed to shed light on how the group has developed down to the present time, over seventy years since the end of the exodus of Norwegians to America.

Demographics A typical respondent filling out the questionnaire was 70 years 12

old and grew up in a household that earned around $20,000 a year. There were roughly twice as many women as men who returned questionnaires. Regarding education, 39 percent of respondents had a high-school education, while 52 percent reported a college educa• tion. According to the returned questionnaires, 34 percent lived in Minnesota, 57 percent lived in North Dakota, and smaller percent• ages lived in Wisconsin and New York. The percentages of those living in rural and urban places were almost equal: 55 percent urban and 42 percent rural. Respondents reported being overwhelmingly Lutheran (86 percent). Finally, 87 percent said that both of their parents were Norwegian Americans. This demographic information is important in developing an understanding of this group. It is also interesting in describing who is active in the Sons of Norway and who values their membership to the extent that they would com• plete and return a questionnaire.

Ethnic Identification In an attempt to arrive at the group's sense of what was essential to membership, questions regarding language use were asked. Here, 47 percent of respondents said that they could speak Norwegian, while 48 percent said they could not. More is learned about the depth of this language use when one considers that only 15 percent of respondents said that they speak Norwegian in their homes. Re• lated to language use was the question of how many generations of one's family had been born in the United States. Here 15 percent said only a single generation had been born in the United States, 34 percent said two, 24 percent said three, and 27 percent said more than three. These results give one a general picture of who these respondents are and what degree of assimilation they may have expe• rienced already. While Norwegian language use is still practiced, many of the respondents have lived in the United States for such a period of time that they do not speak Norwegian in their homes to a great extent anymore. The questionnaire then asked whether members of the group are truly Norwegian Americans if they do not speak Norwegian or prac• tice the culture. Respondents agreed 2 to 1 that yes, even if individu• als did not speak the ethnic language and practice the culture on a 13 daily basis, they should still be considered ethnic Americans. When the question of membership was presented in another way, however, respondents seemed to display a different pattern of thinking. The following question was asked: "Would you say that your ethnicity is a choice you have made or is an essential part of you?" In this case, 17 percent said their ethnicity was a choice, 30 percent said it was essential, and 33 percent said it was both. Thus the majority of this group felt their ethnicity was a choice as well as an essential compo• nent. These results compare well with a previous study, in which 19 percent of Norwegian-American respondents said their ethnicity was essential, 31 percent said it was a choice, and 31 percent said it was both (Susag 1999). Further investigation revealed that those who had a college edu• cation were more likely to say that a non-speaking, non-practicing individual should be considered an ethnic American. In contrast, those with only a high school or junior high education were more inclined to say that these persons were not truly ethnic Americans. The reasons for the differences in these responses are not clear, but they seem to indicate that education level influences one's opinion of what Norwegian-American-ness is. Addressing the topic of ethnic identification, 31 percent of re• spondents said that they considered themselves Norwegian, 57 per• cent said they regarded themselves as Norwegian-American, and 10 percent said they defined themselves as American. These figures point towards the tensions involved in constructing Norwegian-Ameri• can group membership today and what it means to be Norwegian- American. Being an ethnic American appears to be something very accessible to members. There seem to be few objective criteria defin• ing group membership. Adopting the identity appears to be rela• tively easy and flexible. This may explain why so many define them• selves as Norwegians or Norwegian Americans. Further discussion of this will be addressed later.

Group Image The next question was how the Norwegian-American group dis• tinguishes itself from other Nordic-American groups. Contrary to 14 what was expected, the respondents stated that practicing ethnic activities was very important to them. In particular, they viewed telling stories about their homeland and families' past, attending eth• nic club meetings, reading ethnic newspapers, and celebrating holi• days in particular ways as most important. Although having ethnic knowledge, such as knowing where one's family came from in Nor• way and knowing about Norwegian geography, current events, cus• toms, and history, were all reported as important, these items scored below ethnic activities in overall importance. The questionnaire also asked about threats to the group's identity and survival. According to respondents, the biggest threats were the loss of language use and interest in the group by the young. This confirmed the well-established trend of younger people not getting involved with the group. As reported earlier, members were aware that Norwegian language use was in decline, and they seemed to be acknowledging that language use plays an important role in the continuation of the group's identity. For those who do identify with the group, membership provided a positive identity in various ways. Regarding values, respondents most often said that their group was characterized as trustworthy and honest. They also said that they saw themselves as friendly and seemed to indicate that being Norwegian-American is something of which they are proud and which contributes positively to their sense of self. Similarly, there was a high correlation between group members being optimistic about the group's future and saying that the group was important to them. They felt others respected the group and were confident that the it would remain vital. These dimensions of group membership demonstrate that for these Norwegian Ameri• cans, belonging provides something positive for its members. If mem• bers did not feel that others respected the group, one could expect to find the members down-playing their membership in it. Instead, they believe the group is important, and this encourages members to value their belonging to it. In the past, other important forms of membership included a Norwegian Lutheran Church or bydelag. To• day, many of the old Norwegian churches have merged with the larger, American synods and are less ethnic in their identities. The homeland community-based lodges remain, but group membership is 15 more and more based on the practicing of a range of ethnic activi• ties. Many of the Norwegian-American respondents expressed the view that there is not just one way to be a Norwegian American. Instead, the results suggest that members exhibit various "forms" of group membership. For some, this may mean speaking Norwegian or practicing ethnic activities to a greater extent. Others may do nei• ther. Yet, both subgroups call themselves Norwegian-American. Re• gardless of differences in how they practice their ethnicity, the most descriptive element of group membership is the pride and sense of self that is near to the hearts of all those who value their group membership. This may be the key to understanding that there is no "definition" of membership that can be used to determine just what Norwegian-American-ness is.

THE SWEDISH AMERICANS

The Swedish Americans in this study were all members of the American Swedish Institute in Minneapolis. In this case, 36 ques• tionnaires were returned and analyzed. As with the Norwegian-Ameri• can group, the questionnaires were analyzed for basic demographic information, aspects of identification, and questions about the group's symbols. Also, particular definers of uniqueness of the group were investigated.

Demographics The Swedish-American respondents' average age was 69, with equal numbers of men and women. Two out of three respondents had a college education. Also, while 45 percent of respondents stated that their annual income while growing up was less than $10,000 a year, 24 percent reported a yearly income of $20,000 and 18 percent reported $30,000 a year. The majority of respondents lived in Min• nesota, and 60 percent resided in an urban area (mainly Minneapo• lis). Fifty-seven percent of respondents reported being Lutheran; 89 percent claimed their family background was Swedish. 16

Ethnic Identification The Swedish-American group was also asked a number of ques• tions about group identity. Thirty-three percent stated they were Swedish, and 63 percent said they considered themselves Swedish- American. The questionnaire also included some items drawn from Luhtanen and Crocker's Collective Self Esteem Scale (Luhtanen and Crocker 1992). The first was "Others respect my ethnic group." Here the respondents agreed with this statement to a great extent. The mean score was 5.69. (The options were: 5, Agree to some extent; 6, Agree; and 7, Agree Totally.) Comparatively, only the Norwegian Americans scored higher, albeit only marginally, on these questions, with a mean score of 5.70. When asked to respond to the statement "I'm proud to be an Ethnic American," the Swedish Americans scored higher than any other group, with a mean score of 6.36. The next highest was again the Norwegian Americans. Finally, a mean score of 6.11 was registered by the Swedish-American group to the statement "It is valuable for me to maintain my ethnic identity." Again, this was higher than for any other group. As before, other questions of identity were also posed. When asked whether it was "un-American" to think in ethnic terms, all 36 respondents said no. This was the strongest response to this question of any groups compared. Next, when asked if one's ethnicity was something essential, a choice, or both, the Swedish Americans answered in a balanced way: 29 percent said their ethnicity was a choice, 31 percent said it was essential, and 40 percent said both. Like the Norwegian Americans, the Swedish Americans recognize ethnicity as containing a choice component, but a larger percentage thought the essential aspect of their ethnicity was most important. Finally, the Swedish Americans were asked whether it is realistic to call someone an ethnic American if they do not speak the language of the group and do not practice the ethnic culture on a daily basis. This question produced mixed results. While 56 percent said it was realistic, 44 percent said it was not. Respondents were asked next to rank a number of important identities. This question attempted to find out more about the rela• tive importance of ethnic identity in comparison with other personal and social identities. The Swedish Americans ranked the identities in 17

the following order, starting with the most important: being an Ameri• can, being an individual, being an ethnic American, being a member of my race, and being from my state. They ranked their ethnic identity third in importance with a mean score of 5.86. (A score of 5 indicated Somewhat Important and 6 was Important.) This response was not surprising, since the respondents were committed to their ethnic group membership to the extent that they attended an ethnic group meeting and filled out the questionnaire. Finally, the respondents were asked questions about language use. Although 56 percent said they could speak Swedish, 94 percent said they did not use the language in their homes. Cultural assimila• tion and the fact that today the group contains many American-born members probably explain why these respondents speak English to a great extent.

Group Image A number of other questions were asked of the Swedish-Ameri• can sample group. They were designed to gain insight into those factors that make this group unique. First the respondents were asked, "Is there a [personal] value which is important to your ethnic group?" In response, many of the Swedish Americans said that "honesty" and "being hard working" were the two traits most distinctive of the group. Next, when asked if there was a personality characteristic that was a good example of the group's character, respondents said "being reserved" and "being friendly" best characterized them. When asked if there were any symbols of the group that were particularly impor• tant, the respondents mentioned some elements that have been noted in other studies, namely, the "three crowns of Sweden," the "dala horse," and the "Swedish flag" (Barton 1992). Continuing with this line of questioning, respondents were asked whether there was some• thing that distinguished the group from others. Here they said their "customs," "food," and "being refined" best distinguished them. Fi• nally, when asked about the main threat to the group's continued vitality, the most frequent answer was "a lack of interest by the young." Respondents were also asked to rank the importance of a num• ber of activities and knowledge of various types. These Swedish 18

Americans valued meeting with others from the same ethnic group, having knowledge of the group's history, traveling in Sweden, and knowing from where in Sweden their families came. The responses indicated that keeping the Swedish and Swedish-American culture alive were still important. Understandably, they emphasized the im• portance that Sweden and Sweden's history still retained for the group. Perhaps the most interesting results from this group concern their perceptions of their ethnic identity. The group members defined themselves largely as Swedish Americans. Indeed, out of the 36 respondents used in this analysis, only one member said he was "an American." One-third said they were Swedish, and a large percent• age, 63 percent, considered themselves Swedish-American.

THE FINNISH AMERICANS AND FINLAND-SWEDISH AMERICANS

Finnish Americans and Finland-Swedish Americans were the next to be studied. (For clarification, the Finnish Americans are those Americans of Finnish descent. The Finland-Swedish Americans trace their heritage to the Swedish-speaking minority in Finland.) For this analysis, various organizations in Minnesota, California, Washington, and Missouri participated. Fifty-one questionnaires were returned: 28 from Finnish Americans and 21 from Finland-Swedish Americans.

Demographics A typical Finnish-American respondent was 64 years old. There were equal numbers of men and women. The majority had a college education and were Lutheran. Additionally, out of the 28 respon• dents who gave information about self-definition, 19 considered them• selves Finnish-American. Two out of three said that they could speak Finnish, but two-thirds also said that they did not speak it in their home. The Finnish Americans reported some variance in terms of income growing up. The largest group, 39 percent, indicated earn• ings of under $10,000 a year. The majority of respondents lived in Minnesota, with roughly an equal number of respondents living in urban and rural places. The average respondent said that 89 percent of her or his background was Finnish. 19

A look at the Finland-Swedes' information revealed that a typi• cal respondent was 68 years old, and women outnumbered men in the group. The majority had a college education, and most reported being Lutheran, although other denominations were represented. Of the 16 respondents who gave a self-definition of their ethnicity, 11 considered themselves American. The Finland-Swede pattern fits well with previous findings on the other Scandinavian Americans, which indicated they stressed a close racial and cultural similarity with Anglo-Americans and the importance of their Protestantism (Barton 1995). Seventy-one percent said their background was Fin• land-Swedish. Half said they could speak Swedish. Of these, half said that they did not speak it in their homes. With this group, 90 percent reported yearly incomes of over $50,000. The majority of respon• dents lived in Washington state, and the smallest numbers were from California and Missouri. A majority had urban residences.

Ethnic Identifications As mentioned above, these two groups responded differently to the question of self-identification. While 68 percent of Finnish Ameri• cans reported they considered themselves Finnish-American, 69 per• cent of the Finland-Swedish-American group considered themselves American. J. Webster, who described Seattle's immigrant Swedish and Norwegian women, sheds some light on this pattern by noting that the majority of the Scandinavian community in Seattle had assimilated to become good Americans. "By the second generation of immigrant women, assimilation had been virtually completed. The sense of Swedish or Norwegian heritage remained, but the reality was American" (Webster 1978, 279). Since the Finnish Americans did not share the ease of language assimilation, they appear to have retained their ethnic identification longer than other groups that learned English more easily and sooner. Another way of explaining this difference in degree of ethnic identification is to recall the unique position of the Finland-Swedish Americans. As a minority group in Finland, retaining their group's identity has long been important to the group. This history makes for a complex situation, which is reflected even today by the multifac¬ eted explanation of threatening elements challenging the group. In 20

the United States, the Finland-Swedes chose to emphasize those things that were more similar to American rather than emphasizing those things Finnish. This is similar to how the Swedish and Norwe• gian Americans aligned themselves within their new environment. To their credit, the group has used this situation to their advantage by stressing those things which they share in common with their new Anglo-American neighbors. In addition, there is a tension involved in creating this social identity that will be apparent from the threats and symbols discussed below. These respondents were also asked whether it is un-American to think of oneself in ethnic terms. Both groups agreed overwhelmingly that it was not un-American to think in these terms. They then were asked, "Would you say that your ethnicity is a choice you have made or is it an essential part of you?" The responses were mixed in both groups. For the Finnish Americans, 20 percent said their ethnic iden• tity was essential, 27 percent said it was a choice, and 53 percent said it was both. For the Finland-Swedish Americans, 32 percent said their identity was essential, while the majority (63 percent) said their identity was both essential and a choice. These results demonstrate the complexity of self- and ethnic identification. They also show that although carving out a social identity is a complex issue, choices are made as to what aspects of the culture to highlight. In this way, each group uses its history and creates something new within the Ameri• can environment. Continuing this line of questioning, respondents were asked, "Is it realistic to call someone an 'ethnic American' if they don't speak the ethnic language and don't practice the ethnic culture on a daily basis?" This question addressed issues of symbolic ethnicity, and ech• oes the work of Herbert Gans (Gans 1979). It also attempted to get at the "fit" of these respondents' ethnic identification. To this, the Finnish Americans felt strongly that someone can be a Finnish Ameri• can even without the ethnic skills and practices (63 percent said yes to this question, while 37 percent answered no.) The Finland-Swed• ish Americans agreed, with 78 percent answering yes to the question. Respondents were next asked to rank the importance of a num• ber of identities in terms of which were important and which were not. It has been noted previously that the Scandinavians "willingly 21 worked toward becoming Americans at the expense of their Euro• pean heritage" (Webster 288, 1978). This conclusion was supported. There was agreement between both groups. In order of importance, the Finnish Americans ranked being an American, being an indi• vidual, being a member of their ethnic group, being a member of their race, and being from their state. The results were nearly identi• cal for the Finland-Swedish Americans, with a tie for their most important identity between being an American and being an indi• vidual. Considering these results, the groups are highly comparable. Of equal importance, they show the importance for these groups of being American. It would seem they have decided their ethnic iden• tity is of only marginal importance to them. These groups see their American and individual identities as most important, while their ethnic identity is of marginal importance. This strongly supports the conclusion that for both groups their ethnicity is largely symbolic.

Group Images A number of other questions were asked of these respondents in order to shed light on their differences. First, when each group was asked to what extent they agree or disagree with the statement "Others respect my ethnic group," the Finland-Swedish Americans stated to the greatest extent that others respect their group. Yet, when asked to agree or disagree with the assertion "It is important for me to be an Ethnic American," it was the Finnish Americans who agreed most strongly. Similarly, when asked to agree or disagree with the statement "It is valuable for me to maintain my ethnic identity," it was the Finnish Americans who showed the highest rate of agree• ment. This emphasizes the fact that the Finnish Americans feel oth• ers do not generally respect them to the degree that the Finland- Swedish Americans do. Results like these are predictable, consider• ing the difficulties that the Finnish Americans experienced upon arriving in the United States. Their situations seem to have contrib• uted to the stronger sense of ethnic identity and value for group membership. Interestingly, members of both groups did not believe buying ethnic products and shopping at ethnic stores were impor• tant. Respondents acknowledged buying ethnic products but ex• pressed doubts they had any real importance to ethnic group mem- 22 bership. In contrast, Wargelin has addressed this issue and argued that purchasing ethnic products is an important act of ethnic identity (Wargelin, 1990). The respondents may be saying that while such purchases are an act of identification to some, many regard this as mere consumerism. A number of miscellaneous questions were asked addressing the values, symbols, personality characteristics, and ways in which each group distinguished itself from other groups. The Finnish Americans noted that being "honest" was an important value of their group, and the "sisu stereotype" and being "reserved and enjoying privacy" were the most frequently cited personality characteristics of the group. Important symbols included the Finnish flag and the sauna, while the most often cited distinguishing aspects were the "sauna lifestyle" and "Finnish language." These aspects of Finnish and Finnish-American life have special places as Finnish Americans' prized symbols and have been noted before (Lockwood 1988; Stoller 1996). Finally, the Finnish Americans felt that being assimilated into the majority cul• ture, the loss of the Finnish language, and a lack of interest in learn• ing about the Finnish culture by the younger members of the group were the primary threats to the group's survival. All of these results have been noted previously as important issues in the group's struggle for vitality, and they deserve attention in future work (Ross 1978; Susag 1999). The Finland-Swedish Americans expressed slightly different re• sponses in their attempts to define a distinct group image. They described themselves as "hardworking" and felt that the group's per• sonality was best expressed as "having a good sense of humor" and being "stoic." When asked about important group symbols, a num• ber of responses emerged. These included Aland's flag, the Swedish flag, the flags of the five Nordic nations, the Swedish language, the Finnish flag, and the Finnish language. Members said the Swedish language and Lutheranism distinguished the group. Finally, a variety of answers were given as to the biggest cause of concern about the future of the group. These included Finland, being a minority in Finland, the U.S. media culture, the small size of the group, and disinterest by the young. These values, personality characteristics, and distinctive elements 23 demonstrate how creating a positive distinction and valuable group identity are central to ethnic group identification. Additionally, the concerns expressed by the group demonstrate that the Finland-Swed• ish Americans consider their identity to be vulnerable and fused with the Finnish group as a whole. Historically, being a minority group in Finland as well as a small American ethnic group has created a unique situation for the Finland-Swedish Americans. They must work at creating a social identity from their environments which distin• guishes them from the majority.

REFLECTIONS ON THE RESULTS

Demographically, all five groups were similar. The average age for each was around 68 years. Additionally, the majority of each group was college educated, with a minority of members being high- school educated. Also, each group reported being predominantly Lutheran. About 50 percent among the Norwegian Americans, Swedish Americans, and Finland-Swedish Americans said they could speak the ethnic language, but added they did not speak it in their homes. The Finnish Americans reported retaining their ethnic language to a greater extent. Around 68 percent said that they spoke some Finn• ish, and 30 percent said that they spoke Finnish at home. While these demographic results indicate that the groups are similar, there were significant differences among them in terms of yearly income and self-definition. The Finland-Swedish Americans reported a much higher yearly income growing up. The fact that the reported yearly income for this group was so high hints towards differences among these groups. It appears that the Finland-Swedish Americans achieved a degree of upward social mobility greater than the other Nordic Americans. However, while this may be one expla• nation for these results, it is important to remember that in Finland the Swedish-speaking majority has traditionally been better off finan• cially than the Finns themselves. It may also be that the members' income reflects their established wealth as a group.

Ethnic Identifications Compared Comparison of the groups' responses revealed similarities and 24 differences. First, when asked to rank the importance of numerous social identities, all groups responded with similar rankings (with a tie for most important identity expressed by the Finland-Swedish Americans). This is perhaps the strongest indication that there is a common basic identity structure for these groups. All agreed that being an American and being an individual were most important to them, while ethnic identity was ranked third most important. This corresponds with previous research indicating that ethnic identity is not most important to ethnics but instead is something valued in a peripheral way (Gans 1979; Stoller 1996). Racial identity was not overly important to these respondents. The average importance for racial group membership was 4.36, indi• cating "neutral" importance. This result suggests that because they are white Americans, there is little need to emphasize their racial identity; it is taken for granted by these respondents. Further under• scoring the flexibility of identities for white Nordic Americans, all groups said it is not un-American to think of oneself in ethnic terms. Apparently, these respondents felt that being American and being ethnic American were compatible identities. They were also asked if their ethnic identification was a choice, essential, or both. Respon• dents from three of the groups answered strongly "both." The excep• tion were the Finland-Swedish Americans, who said most often (78 percent) that their identity was a choice. While the other groups recognized they had chosen their identity and acknowledged an essential element of identity, the Finland-Swedes emphasized the personal choice involved. This sort of choice-making may be a result of their complex past. The Finland-Swedish Ameri• cans appear to have resolved the issue of their complex group iden• tity by stressing similarities with the American identity. Others have stressed various aspects of the group's culture, values, and language, including being Protestant within the United States. This is one way of shedding a more complicated past identity and reestablishing the group within the new American environment. While this was the general trend for Scandinavians arriving in the United States, it appears that the Finland-Swedish Americans have done it more suc• cessfully than the other groups (Barton 1994; Ostergren 1988). Com• bined with the high yearly income they reported growing up, it 25

appears this strategy has paid off well for the group in terms of social mobility. Finally, on the issue of ethnic fit, the respondents were asked if it was "realistic to call someone an Ethnic American if they do not speak the ethnic language and do not practice the ethnic culture on a daily basis." Overwhelmingly, all groups said yes, it was realistic. By group the responses ranged from 56 to 78 percent in the affirmative. This suggests that these respondents believe ethnicity is something one has regardless of how it is manifested in daily life. The "minimal requirements" of Nordic group membership seemed to be a matter of the heart as much as anything. While ethnic knowledge and practices varied between respondents, they made it clear that they want to decide what it means to be an ethnic Ameri• can. While criteria for ethnic membership should be examined, ob• jective criteria alone cannot measure what ethnicity means—at least to the people in these sample groups. Considering the issue of fit, this situation emphasizes that members tend to value important identities that are accessible to them, even if objective measurement of group fit may be difficult to obtain.

The Importance of Distinguishing One's Group Each group demonstrated the importance of carving out a posi• tive image for themselves. In doing so, each cited a number of symbols, personality characteristics, and ways in which they perceive a distinction between their group and others. As has been noted previously, the Finnish Americans chose to characterize themselves as honest and having "sisu" (Susag 1999). Others, such as the Swed• ish and Norwegian Americans, chose to describe themselves as hardworking, honest, and stoic. When asked about important sym• bols, each group's flag was mentioned. These personality characteris• tics and symbols are socially acceptable, portray the group in a posi• tive light, and tell the world that the group is something of which its members are proud. While one would expect to see such responses, it is the content itself which is of equal importance. Each group said a lack of interest by the young was the most important concern for the future. Again, this perception is easy to understand. Lack of interest from younger members and the declin- 26 ing use of language and cultural practices characterize the Nordic Americans' situation generally. Since these groups share religious and cultural values in common with the majority culture, it is not surpris• ing that they are having difficulty generating interest among the young in distinguishing themselves from that majority. This is the part of the price to be paid for assimilating to a great extent. Surprisingly, none of these groups emphasized the church or liter• ary traditions, which have traditionally been emphasized as the im• portant aspects of these cultures. This may indicate that these groups have entered a new phase in the history of their presence in the United States in which traditionally valued customs are losing their importance and the groups are struggling to establish a modern iden• tity based on newer values and practices.

CONCLUSION

This article set out to investigate the importance of ethnic group membership for four Nordic-American groups. Although based on a relatively small body of data, it appears that, although their ethnic group membership is not a primary identity, it is still important to them. Additionally, for many language, history, and activities are important elements of their ethnic identity and affect their lives on a daily basis. The Finland-Swedish Americans seemed to show a greater degree of social mobility, while attaching slightly less importance to their ethnic identity. The Norwegian and Swedish Americans ap• peared to be more similar than the other groups in terms of assimila• tion patterns, language use, and the value placed on ethnic identity. Contrastingly, the Finnish Americans appeared slightly different in terms of both their level of assimilation and their level of ethnic identity; they have retained their language use to a greater extent, while also valuing their ethnic identity to a slightly higher degree than the others. Particularly important information was gained from this study about the importance of fit and accessibility to the individuals from these four Nordic group who responded to the questionnaires. All groups agreed that language use and ethnic knowledge were two objective measures not necessary for being Nordic-American. In- 27 stead, members generally agreed that being Nordic-American was a matter of both essence and personal choice. This flexibility may be rooted in the fact that American whites have options in terms of group identity. The Norwegian Americans demonstrated they be• lieved there were different types of ethnics: those who practiced the ethnic culture and spoke the language and those who did not. Mem• bers of both groups considered themselves to be genuinely Norwe• gian-American. For whites, the American environment affords them the leeway of choosing a mainstream white and/or an ethnic iden• tity—or both. Additionally, ethnic identities appear to be of mar• ginal importance and are not overly obtrusive to daily life, and the values and cultural practices embedded in them are similar to tradi• tional American practices. This results in the ethnic identity being relatively unobtrusive and fairly safe to acquire and practice. Further work needs to address these choices, which are so much a part of the process of white ethnic identity building. Without definite understanding of the objective criteria for mem• bership, the issue of personal choice and shared cultural values is particularly important in understanding these groups. Investigators need to ask what purpose ethnic identification has for these groups. Although ethnic group fit may be vague, ethnic group accessibility is readily available to these Americans. Remember that accessibility is defined as the readiness with which a particular cultural element, with its given properties, will be identified in terms of a particular category. In the case of the Nordic Americans, there seem to be strong similarities between "Nordic" and "American" cultural ele• ments, values, practices, ideals, and symbols. Thus, for many practi• cal purposes, that which could be considered something of an ethnic nature could also be something American as well. It is because of such interchangeability between many American and Nordic-Ameri• can cultural elements that the Nordic identity is simply very acces• sible to those who wish to identify with their particular group. Addi• tionally, this allows many to identify with their ethnic group while coexisting comfortably within the larger American culture. Consid• ering this, many enjoy emphasizing their group membership as it contributes toward their sense of positive self-esteem. It is obvious that not only do these group members feel American, but they also 28 feel proud to be members of a heritage-specific group. Such identities are regarded as meaningful and thus appear to give the group mem• bers something soulful which touches them deeply and is not contra• dictory to their more central identity as Americans and individuals. The notion that ethnic group identification can remain important to members even generations after ethnic practices have begun to wane speaks to the power of ethnic group identification. While the importance of group membership and the practicing of ethnic activities may have faded in recent years, these respondents were optimistic that their groups will survive. What is yet to be seen is how Nordic-American group membership will manifest itself in the twenty-first century. Members will continue to negotiate the essential aspects needed for membership into their group. As long as customs, language use, and the number of members continue to decline, the future will present challenges for each group. It is unclear how the groups will address these issues. Very possibly, Nordic-American group membership will continue to become something different from tradi• tional Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish, and Finland-Swedish group mem• bership, especially in terms of traditional activities and knowledge. Whatever the immediate worries about the future may be, it appears members of each of these groups will continue to derive positive esteem from membership in them—and this will continue to fuel the value of joining the group. It remains unclear, however, what ethnic content will define group membership in the future and what will define the essence of Nordic-American identity.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrams, D., and M. Hogg. 1988. Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in social identity and intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology 18: 17-334. Barton, H. Arnold. 1992. Cultural interplay between Sweden and Swedish America. The Swedish-American Historical Quarterly 43, no. 1: 5-18. . 1994. A folk divided: Homeland Swedes and Swedish Americans 1840- 1940. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press. . 1994. Where have the Scandinavian-Americanists gone? Journal of American Ethnic History: 46-55. Gans, Herbert. 1979. Symbolic ethnicity: The future of ethnic groups and 29 cultures in America. Ethnic and Racial Studies 2: 1-20. Hunter, J., K. O'Brien, and A. Grocott. 1999. Social identity, domain spe• cific self-esteem and intergroup evaluation. Current Research in Social Psychology 4, no. 6: 160-77. Kellogg, S. 1990. Exploring diversity in middle-class families: The symbol• ism of American ethnic identity. Social Science History 14, no. 1: 27-41. Kivisto, P., and B. Nefzer. 1993. Symbolic ethnicity and American Jews: The relationship of ethnic identity to behavior and group affiliation. The Social Science Journal 30, no. 1: 1-12. Lay, C. 1992. If personal self-esteem predicts personal enhancement, will collective self-esteem, predict collective enhancement? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 7, no. 1: 189-200. Lockwood, Y. 1988. Folklore and Finnish-American poetry, in Karni, M., O. Koivukangas, E. Lain, (eds.). Migration studies: Finns in North America. Turku: Institute of Migration, Typopress Oy. Luhtanen, R., and J. Crocker. 1992. A collective self-esteem scale: Self evaluation of one's social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18: 302-18. Ostergren, R. 1988. A community transplanted: The trans-Atlantic experience of a Swedish immigrant settlement in the upper middle west, 1835-1915. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. Ross, C. 1978. The Finn factor in American labor, culture and society. New York Mills, Minn.: Parta Printer. Stoller, E. 1996. Sauna, Sisu and Sibelius: Ethnic identity among Finnish Americans. Sociological Quarterly 37, no. 1: 145-75. Susag, C. 1999. Finnish American ethnicity as measured by collective self esteem. Joensuu: University of Joensuu's Publications in the Social Sciences. . 2000. Scandinavian group identity: The Kensington Runestone and the Ole Oppe Festival. The Swedish-American Historical Quarterly 51, no. 1: 30-51. Turner, J. 1987. Rediscovering the social group a self categorization theory. Ox• ford: Basil Blackwell Ltd. Turner, J., and P. Oakes. 1986. The significance of the social identity con• cept of social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology 25: 237-52. Wargelin, K. 1990. Ethnic identity for sale. The Finnish American gift shop. Finnish Americana 8: 32-37. Webster, J. 1978. Domestication and Americanization Scandinavian women in Seattle, 1888 to 1900. Journal of Urban History 4, no. 3: 275-90.