If you think you are special, you are most likely not Scandinavian. You might be Jens Stoltenberg, the former Secretary General of NATO, or Margrethe II, the former queen of Denmark, but you should not not see yourself as superior to other people; that is, as long as you abide by “Janteloven”. Explicitly, the ten “Laws of Jante” state that humans have no individual worth, but culturally, the laws have been manifested to promote the idea of a humble self-perception. As opposed to individualistic cultures which foster strict self-reliance, such as elitist circles where influence and wealth is valued, “Janteloven” celebrates a collective model that elitist societies should incorporate in their institutions.
The “Laws of Jante” were coined by Danish-Norwegian author, Aksel Sandemose, in his 1933 A Fugitive Crosses His Tracks, but the philosophy behind it has existed in Scandinavia for centuries. The harsh wording of Sandemose’s laws, such as “you are not to think you are good at anything,” can come off as discouraging, but if it is interpreted in a mild way, “Janteloven” can have a positive influence on society by inspiring collective success. Scandinavian countries have high levels of trust and welfare, resulting in a feeling of security. This community-centered attitude can curb the toxic individualism that can occur within elitist institutions when individual success trumps supporting the less well off.
Most importantly, “Janteloven” reduces stress on an individual level. Without jeopardizing individual autonomy, Scandinavian countries manage to have social security and solidarity, leading to the subjective satisfaction and well-being of citizens. In an elitist setting, pressure to perform well is at an all-time high, and the self-confidence of individuals is often dependent on living up to societal expectations. By emphasizing the idea of not standing out, the “Laws of Jante” remove this pressure to excel. In closed environments, like elitist universities, it is evident that people must have stood out in some way to have been accepted; however, that does not imply that superiority should be strived for once inside the institution. Rather, those spaces should promote cooperation and a sense of belonging. Instead of only being dependent on oneself, having a collectivist mindset can reduce the constant call for personal achievement and allow individuals to find joy in accomplishing things together.
On a collective level, “Janteloven” can curtail stigmatization and polarization, specifically when it comes to social cohesion. With the contemporary concept of “elites”, we have a universal understanding that people belong to different “levels” of society. This implicit mentality of hierarchy fosters stigmatization towards people that can be categorized as the “others”, and it leads to polarization between groups of people that are divided by their perceived worth. The “Laws of Jante” place everyone in society on the same level, not in the communist sense, but in terms of utility. This spirit removes the idea of supremacy. Although it might lead to a lack of individual expression, it encourages inclusion and acceptance for people regardless of their qualities or shortcomings. We might be inherently skeptical of people different from ourselves, but we should try to construct a culture where we do not perpetuate negative stereotypes and where the people at the top of the social ladder acknowledge the structural causes for gaps in society.
“Janteloven” has been influential on a societal level, as it has shaped cultural and political standpoints in Scandinavia. In the social sense, the “Laws of Jante” tell us not to feel more important than others or that we deserve more than someone else. Translated into politics, it demands a socialist system based on the social welfare model. On the other hand, elitist institutions get legitimacy from ideals such as intellect, expertise, and dedication, but they are blind to the fact that meritocracy is not an idea rooted in reality. In his book, The Tyranny of Merit, Michael Sandel argues that the “self-made” sentiment is clouded by a normalization of unequal opportunities. The meritocratic way of thinking lacks the values of gratitude and humility that Scandinavian societies have learned from “Janteloven”. Although it is not necessary to change one’s whole political identity to fit the Scandinavian systems, it is important that we question the structures we are in.
There has always existed a tug of war between the individual and the collective. In Scandinavia, “Janteloven” has set the scene for a unifying societal character. In its most palatable form, the “Laws of Jante” can influence cultures to value individual well-being, collective openness, and a socialist mindset. However, for many people, socialist Scandinavia might be scary, as it to some extent disregards individual freedom. “Janteloven” also has its faults, such as social control on how to behave and the sanctions that are awarded to those who stand out with pride . Additionally, it might be paradoxical to promote “good” Scandinavian values while simultaneously arguing that Scandinavians do not think of themselves as better than others. What I will argue instead is that we should constantly rethink our worldviews, and with the “Laws of Jante” in mind, we are left to ponder who should win: ourselves or “us”.
