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.