The exhibition “Russia – Norway. Through centuries and borders” dated for the centenary of the establishment of Norwegian and Russian diplomatic relations was opened in June 2004 in Oslo and in April 2005 in Saint Petersburg. By the most conservative estimate above 200 specialists from both countries took part in the discussion and creation of the project conception and in the program of its preparation. But this project became an unexampled phenomenon in the history of cultural mutual relations of Russia and Norway not only by its dimension but also by the power of cultural effect.
It is notable as well that for the first time in the whole history of such cultural and historical exhibitions the mission of the planned things realization was placed on two oldest in Europe ethnographic museums: the Russian Ethnographic Museum (Saint-Petersburg) and the Norwegian Museum of Cultural History (Oslo). In the historical prospect the creation of ethnographic museums or “public”, i.e. museums devoted to the culture of their own nation, is correlated with the period of national and state idea formation. Their role and functions in the process of states’ building as well as the place in the modern national and cultural space are various.
Both museums-participants of the project contributed the considerable share to the reconsideration process of obsolescent notions about mutual relations of the museum and society, science and education. Our nations’ knowledge enlargement about each other and throwing light upon unknown pages in more than millennial history of mutual relations was the main aim of the exhibition project. This wording was based on realities of modern relations of our states and on the fact that wide sections of the population are badly informed about their past and present. The question of Norwegian and Russian audience’s expectations from the exhibition historically, culturally and visually was discussed during numerous meetings of coordinators and experts. The attempt of overcoming of mutual clichés and stereotypes in notions about each other was designated among the main tasks of the exhibition.
As a view on the definite historical events and facts is different in Norway and Russia we have come to the agreement that exhibition plans of subjects can be different within the accepted conception and texts with different interpretations will be used for illustration of both standpoints at the exhibit in Oslo and Saint Petersburg. It was represented in full measure at the exhibition in Russia where visitors could read Norwegian texts in English with other content and accents among the exhibition sections together with texts in the Russian language. Such method was also used for the first time in the practice of international exhibitions. We conceived that it could give the possibility to think about the nature of our own prejudices. Notes in the reference book showed that it put native visitors knowing English on their guard and Norwegians including students visiting it in Saint Petersburg liked it.
In the team-work at the project various schools and the experience of museum and exhibition work were fully reflected, culture distinctions of spectators’ perception affected it in our countries.
At the exhibiting originals predominated in Saint-Petersburg (300 displays more than in Oslo), in Norway – plane copies and multimedia methods of the presentation. We accented Norway presentation in Russia, they accented the show of the events of the XX century.
The special video interviews shot in Oslo and Moscow, Petersburg children’s pictures about Norway, type matters containing the list of manual descriptions became the main materials demonstrating stereotypes at the exhibition in Russia. The subject cannot be presented so expressively in Norwegian variant where only video interviews were presented.
This is what I would like to note particularly: having intention to demonstrate “stereotypes” we found ourselves faced with the fact of their extreme firmness of the creators themselves. It often prevented understanding each other and it was overcome in the small collective and at the common friendly attitude prevailing in the expert groups. But having set the problem of stereotypes overcoming we declared it to a greater extent than we avoided it. I will explain it by examples.
Our traditional idea about Norwegians comes to the following notions: Vikings, polar explorers, traveling public, skiers, and the sport nation as a whole estimating healthy life-style and standing up for ecology preservation. In Norway it is an imprescriptible for every Norwegian part of the history that can be read in any history reader, culture and everyday life that our partners did not conceive it so important to illustrate once more at our exhibition in Oslo.
The Russian spectator would hardly understand the absence of materials and monuments narrating glorious Vikings many of whom not only campaigned against Russia but also lived there for a long time and married princes’ daughters. We couldn’t help accenting a number of symbolic persons of contemporaneity at the exhibition. One of them was Thor Heyerdahl personifying passion for journeys and crazy ideas that is estimated as the very attractive and making us related part of the national Norwegian character. His person became the symbol of free image of life, messenger and man of the world. It is known that his image in Russia does not coincide with his image in Norway.
Norwegians are proud of their literature. Scandinavian colleagues were sincerely astonished at our ignorance of the names of modern Norwegian writers. It seemed more important for us to demonstrate the activity of the publishing house “Norla” at the exhibition. It is founded specially for the promotion of translations of modern Norwegian authors in the foreign book market.
The Norwegian part constantly reminded us of the main differences between our countries. As Russia is a big power and Norway is a small state Russia was always of more importance for Norway than on the contrary. It is indicative that the first variant of the exhibition name suggested by Norwegian was the following one: “Small Norway and a Big Russian Bear”. Twenty-kilometer frontier for northern inhabitants of Norway is not only real state frontier but the important division between religions, language, mentality, political system and culture.
In spite of the fact that Russia is interpreted as a distant and exotic land in Norway the facts are the evidence of the following: the big and powerful east neighbor had a strong impact on Norwegian national politics in the alliance with Denmark, Sweden as well as in the capacity of the self-dependant nation. Especially strong impact of Russia is traced in the development of Norway labor movement, formation of radical political trends during the XX century. That is why in the Norwegian variant of the exhibition just the history of the October Revolution and Soviet building up, and the Cold War were accented. In our opinion such decision made the exhibition excessively politicized but, on the other hand, it can be regarded as the reconsideration way of old perceptions from the position of the present and the wish to get rid of traditional directions for the past estimation. It is necessary to make a reservation here: I think that the Norwegian Establishment but not usual citizens (especially in the north of the country where they remembered old close contacts with northern neighbors and knew Russians not by hearsay) had a permanent fear of the unpredictable east neighbor for a long time during the Cold War. Many people still keep thankful remembrance about Russian prisoners of war and Russian soldiers-liberators. But as this fear’s echoes exist to present day Norwegian organizers of the exhibition emphasized the illustrating of the most various events of that period in Norway and also the present-day ecology problems. The latter is connected with the probability of ecocatastrophes provoked by Russia.
Differences in the perception picture and historical estimation of Russian-Norwegian contacts were reflected in the catalogue articles as well. The editorial board had to be consistent with the copyright principle. And if opinions differed on the same events, facts and persons they had to demonstrate two different positions by the articles of different authors. Individual freedom and respect for everybody’s opinion is the very important component of mutual relations in the Norwegian society. We confronted it many times during discussions among participants of the exhibition project.
That is why the exhibition visitors in Oslo and Saint-Petersburg saw not a specular return of our contacts history; they were given through the prism of the existing and till now deeply implanted and typified notions about each other. As a result we got the possibility to look at ourselves from the outside, to feel that existing stereotypes of mutual perception are the result of many long years of ignorance and the lack of interest – from our side and “fear, waiting” and avoidance – from the Norwegian side. These are the results of our recent common history that can be called common quite relatively.
As studies showed during the project preparation our ethnic and national self-consciousness is very conservative. In spite of anew opening information and some progress in the official valuation of the events between our countries there are little changes at the personal level. The present stereotyped ideas about each other, saying relatively, by “any passers-by” (of groups different in sex, age and different social groups of Russia and Norway) were turned out to be presented at the exhibition not only with the help of vide-taping but also in the reference-books. They are the eloquent evidence of differentiation stability in the valuation of natural and geographical, ethnic social and cultural and political factors and have the character of “foreign”.
The very neutral positive image of the coterminous northern country, viewed from afar and not very narrowly, and its people becomes visible from the Russian interviews. I will enumerate: pure water, mountains; a lot of deer; fish, salmon, herring, good canned fish; oil, high standard of life; people are very economical, quiet, boring, even-tempered, tight-lipped and courageous; they fish and they are crazy about sport and healthy life-style; they are nice to the Russian and keep thankful remembrance about liberators of their native land during the Great Patriotic War; the explorers are T. Heyerdahl, R. Amundsen and F. Nansen.
Norwegians’ image about Russians is more capacious. It is based on historical and the present estimation of the USSR and the Russian Federation; their ideas are negative enough and politicized from our point of view. Here this list is: furs, fur-caps; winter, cold; oil; a big nation, the proud neighboring nation, arrogant big women and men, a militarized nation; the difficult language; the largest country in the world, untapped resources, the huge Siberia, Siberian exile, the Soviet Union, communism, Stalin, GULAG; national, political and economic instability; swindlers, “turbocapitalists”, mafia, corruption; vodka; Moscow and the Red Square, Petersburg is a beautiful city, the Hermitage, rich folk culture and music, Dostoevsky. Norwegians still believe that the Russians are a reading nation as before: “They read “serious literature” – Tolstoy and Dostoevsky even in the underground”. According to young Norwegians the Russians are very patriarchal and still keep inequality between men and women; in their opinion equal rights in Russia are mostly declared than fulfilled.
Describing a foreign country and culture Norwegians, as well as Russians, tell about their own moral and ethical values revealing their own characteristic features. And here we see respect for personality, others’ opinion/traditions of personal liberty; aversion to arbitrariness, infringement of democracy and law, order; intolerance to corruption, stealing and drunkenness. The equality problems of people (especially men and women) have a significant place in the notions about equality and liberty as well as in other countries of Scandinavia.
What does the Russian reference book report? Most of all, it was obvious that it was visited by many interested and literate spectators. They are those who have been to Norway and who were charmed with this country, and also who got an additional impulse for aspiration to see everything first-hand.
The aim at friendly neighborhood and getting knowledge is looked through. “Thank you for the organization of the interesting exhibition enlarging our ideas about the neighbor. It is interesting now to look at everything first-hand”// “I have learned much that was new and impressive! I would like to go to Norway.”
Among visitors there were a lot of people who were connected with Norway personally or historically: descendants of Norwegians and coast-dwellers (Russians living at the coast of White Sea – translator’s note), schoolchildren and students studying the Norwegian language and history, people who took part in the Great Patriotic War and liberated Northern Norway, polar explorers: “Thank you that I understood where I have such a strong character from! <…> I’m happy that I descend from the family of coast-dwellers. How much such exhibitions open in everyday life! How much they give for the future!”/ “I’m glad that I’ve visited this important nice exhibition. Thank you very much. I like Norway, its wonderful nature. My relative Alexander Kuchin lived and navigated together with Amundsen and Nansen”/ “Everything I’ve seen is very close to me as I was born and grew up in the Russian North in Onega town <…> The inhabitants still speak so: “Onegians (i.e. citizens of Onega town) are the same Norwegians only the pronunciation (i.e. the language) is not the same”. <…> And coast-dwellers talked: “Went to Norway”/ “Thank you for the wonderful exhibition! I was especially interested in it. I was born in Russia in 1953. My granddad (my mother’s father) was Norwegian”/ “It’s very interesting. I was waiting for such an exhibition for a long time. It contains much new information about wartime. Thank you!” / “Thank you that you’ve kept the friendship history during all the time and did not leave out the Soviet period”.
***
Certainly, preconceived notions of ethnic, professional, social, age-specific and other groups exist in any social community and state. Any social phenomenon is an object of social stereotypification. Especially ethnic stereotyped notions have bright emotional color and long temporal stability. Being a real psychological phenomenon – one of the components of the perception aim, stereotypes reflect cultural differences and the previous experience of mutual relations, especially, if it concerns neighboring nation as in our case. At that the nearer, longer and closer their contacts are (that is typical, for example, for the history of Russian-Norwegian relations in the North) the more difficult and many-sided stereotypes’ system is. According to the expression of the famous Norwegian specialist in Russian philology P.N. Waage, it is important that a neighbor’s eyes see not only differences in others’ culture they also see something that can enlarge their knowledge and experience, inspire and enrapture.
