NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology Master’s thesis Faculty of Humanities Department of Historical Studies in Norway1897/1898 suffrage aboutuniversal The debate Other? ofthe Obscure – AMatter oftheCrowd The Fear Tirza Meyer Trondheim, November 2014 November Trondheim, thesisinHistory Master’s Acknowledgements Jeg takker min veileder Håkon With Andersen for troen han hadde på mitt prosjekt. Uten din tillit, dine gode råd og ikke minst oppmuntringer ville jeg aldri kommet så langt! Tusen takk til mine venner og min familie for en fantastisk støtte gjennom den tiden. En spesiell takk til korrekturleserne Louis Hunninck, Masa Smole og Tale Reiersen Stensdal for en fantastisk innsats fra deres side. Table of content 1. Introduction – The fear of the obscure other.............................................................................. 1 1.1. The conservatives attitude towards the introduction of universal suffrage and the 'new voters' – How can we examine this?...................................................................................................................2 1.2. Newspaper articles as the main source..........................................................................................5 1.3. Literature........................................................................................................................................7 1.4. Structure.........................................................................................................................................9 2. Theoretical background Gustave Le Bon, Peter Sloterdijk and Albert O. Hirschman........ 12 2.1. Gustave Le Bon...........................................................................................................................12 2.1.1. Cultural pessimism, conservatism, religious criticism, anti-educational and anti-democratic tendencies...........................................................................................................................................13 2.2. The crowd in disguise?................................................................................................................16 2.3. Peter Sloterdijk: “Genius go home”............................................................................................17 2.3.1. Sloterdijk and the media – 'A startled chicken pile'................................................................. 20 2.4. Le Bon and Sloterdijk..................................................................................................................22 2.5. Perversity, futility, jeopardy - Hirschman and the argumentation pattern of the conservatives. 24 3. Historical preconditions – Leading to the debate about the male universal suffrage in Norway.............................................................................................................................................. 27 3.1. The Constituent Assembly in Eidsvoll 1814 and it's consequences............................................27 3.2. The rise of the power of the Storting on the edge to parliamentarianism....................................28 3.3. Conservatism and the formation of the party Høyre...................................................................31 3.4. Høyre's main topics from 1884 until 1905 - The union and universal suffrage..........................33 3.5. Høyre's attitude towards democracy............................................................................................36 4. The introduction of the male universal suffrage in Norway in 1898 – a heated debate.........38 4.1. The result of the passing on April 21st 1898................................................................................38 4.2. The news coverage concerning the debate on 21st April – Protocol and reports.........................40 4.3. The comment and debate articles issuing male universal suffrage..............................................43 5. Frequent used terms, phrases and stylistic devices in the articles concerning the debate.....46 5.1. General observed pattern of the debate visible in the headings...................................................46 5.2. Metaphors and comparisons and other stylistic devices..............................................................48 (1) general warnings (2) The new majority (3) The proletarian and the guarantees (4) Other countries 5.3. Often used terms and phrases......................................................................................................55 (1) The crowd (2) Socialists and radicals (3) Proletarians (4) Hazards 5.4. The sinking state ship – Language as a weapon. How the conservative newspapers advised against universal-suffrage...................................................................................................................61 6. The argumentation pattern of the conservatives.......................................................................63 (1) The crowd is a hazard (2.) Selvhjulpenhed – the crowd is not able to make reasonable decisions (3.) in the first place the crowd has no need to take part in political decisions (4.) a “rule of the crowd” will lead to horrible consequences, as is demonstrated in other countries 7.Conclusion......................................................................................................................................70 7.1. A conservative argumentation pattern?........................................................................................70 7.2. Albert O. Hirschmann and the rhetoric of reaction......................................................................73 7.3. Gustave Le Bon's description of the crowd reflected in some description of the new voters in Norway................................................................................................................................................76 7.4. Sloterdijk's Genius go home attitude – reactionary rhetoric today – Is the fear for the crowd a shared reactionary belief?...................................................................................................................78 7.5. Challenges and perspectives........................................................................................................79 8. Bibliography..................................................................................................................................81 1. Introduction – The fear of the obscure other “Jeg er ikke redd for 'de andre', for de fremmede. Jeg er redd for det som skjer med oss når vi ikke lenger er i stand til å se det enkelte mennesket”1 This quote is taken from Margreth Olin's documentary “De andre” that was released in 2012, which tells the stories of teenage asylum-seekers in Norway. Margreth Olin criticizes the authorities for their rigid asylum policy. Her concern is that the individual fate of each teenager is overseen. Instead, the society is confronted with an anonymous mass of people they can not relate to because they are alien to them: “the others”. The moment we are no longer able to see the individual, we see a crowd. Why is Margreth Olin's documentary 'De andre' relevant for my thesis about the introduction of universal-suffrage in Norway in 1898? It is the element of “the others” which is crucial here. “The others” are the alien masses of people entering a public space they have not had access to before. Margreth Olin talks about the asylum seekers who come to Norway. She documents how the authorities meet the challenge of their immigration and balance either welcoming them or sending them back. In her documentary the others are the asylum seekers. When universal suffrage was introduced in Norway in 1898 the authorities also had to deal with a mass of people, 'the new voters', who were entering a public space they had not been a part of before: political decision-making. In this thesis I want to examine how the introduction of universal suffrage was dealt with in Norway in 1898. I will concentrate on the opponents of universal suffrage: the conservatives. I want to study how they met the challenge of having to accept 'the others', 'the new voters', to be a part of political decision making. In the end of the 19th century social and political dynamics in Europe were going through a transition. Parliamentarianism and democracy were one the rise. In Norway one particular event marked a great step towards democracy: the introduction of male universal-suffrage in 1898.2 Due to the old suffrage legislations only state officials, citizens paying a certain amount of taxes and those who owned property were allowed to vote.3 But with the rise of the party Venstre, that won the elections in 1884, the old legislations were questioned. Venstre advertised the 1 Olin 2012 2 Aftenposten (Nr. 299) 1898: 1 3 Cf.: Berg Eriksen 1992: 66, Kaartvedt 1984: 161/162/163, as well as St. meld. nr. 7 1898: 508. 1 introduction of universal-suffrage while the conservatives were critical towards that. They had already been overruled by a party that stood for a more democratic government. Consequently, they were not too keen on having to deal with a big number of 'new voters' who most likely would support the Venstre and strengthen their political power. The conservative's monopole over political decision-making had long been gone, there was no reason for them to support the democratization process if this implied a further weakening of their political influence. 1.1. The conservatives attitude towards the introduction of universal