Urbanities,
Vol. 3
·
No 2
·
November 2013
© 2013
Urbanities
56
media. However, it is still hard to identify a rational explanation as to why so many Lithuanians
have chosen Norway as their new home. In order to begin to answer this question, we must first
consider the importance of social networks (one newcomer invites his or her friends, relatives,
and so on) and the influence of the media on public opinion, particularly regarding information
on the countries where most people go and the problems they encounter. Notably, in this respect,
Norway became a destination for Lithuanian emigrants fairly recently. The country was not a
major attraction for Lithuanians until a few years ago, with people usually choosing the UK and
Spain.
Imagined Sameness: Norwegians and ‘Others’
Immigration trends and attitudes to immigrants are a little different in Norway from those in
other Western European countries (Campbell 2007: 108). Norway has no history of colonialism
and was not directly involved in the slave trade. The country was fairly isolated and homogenous
over the last few centuries (Campbell 2007, Howell and Melhus 2007, Gullestad 2004). It was
only in the 1960s that Norway, which now has a population of 4.5 million, began to see a
significant rise in immigration from non-European countries. By 1980 immigrants accounted for
2 per cent of the country’s population and the proportion rose to 5 per cent by 1998, with almost
half staying in Oslo (Gullestad 2002: 47). The number of immigrants increased to 12 per cent in
2013. Oslo still attracts many immigrants – 30.4 per cent of Oslo’s inhabitants are immigrants or
have immigrant parents (189,400 out of a total population of 624,000).
9
When considering ethnicity and nationality in the context of migration, Norwegian
anthropologists conclude that holding a Norwegian passport (citizenship) is not sufficient to treat
immigrants as belonging to Norway (Howell and Melhus 2007: 54). The question of what makes
a Norwegian Norwegian is much broader than a formal condition of citizenship and encompasses
‘imagined sameness’ (Gullestad 2002), which refers to ‘the interaction style in which
commonalties are emphasised, while differences are played down’ (Gullestad 2002: 47). This
notion is based on ideas about locality, origin, belonging, language and identity, on which the
‘imagined moral community’ is constructed (Howell and Melhus 2007: 54). One can hardly
speak of voluntarily belonging to the ‘imagined moral community’; this should rather be
understood as the ‘unchosen’ (Khefif 2007: 2). This cannot be changed even by the fact that
immigrants (in addition to having the country’s citizenship) adapt to social and cultural patterns
during the many years they spend in Norway and feel part of its society. The attitude of those
around them prevents immigrants from feeling part of the ‘imagined moral community’. The
well-known Norwegian anthropologist Marianne Gullestad offers a vivid illustration of this
attitude towards ‘the other’. In her article (Gullestad 2002), she described a situation in which a
university professor was contacted by a woman whom he did not know and who asked him to
9
See
Statistics Norway
. Available at:
- Accessed 15
August 2013.
