A notable aspect of Norwegians' national identity is that they think of themselves as a 'peace nation' and a 'humanitarian superpower'. It is not obvious, however, how they make this identity work: Foreign politics is a distinctly expert field, and as such, its practice is quite distant from the everyday experience of most citizens. How does an area of politics that most people are largely ignorant about become such an important part of a nation's identity? In this article, I argue that maintenance of this identity requires a certain type of rhetorical work that mediates between the technical sphere of foreign policy practice and the public sphere in which national identity is made and maintained. This rhetorical work falls in large part on the cultural type I call 'the humanitarian persona' – a role that bridges the technical and the public, and which tends to solidify the idea of Norway as an exceptionally benign actor on the international stage. Using the career of activist-academic, politician-diplomat Jan Egeland as a notable performance of this type I argue that the humanitarian persona allows Norwegians to claim ownership to what, at the outset, is literally as well as figuratively foreign to them.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kristian Bjørkdahl (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: