Along the path of love, the group of extremism researchers is instructed to keep two thoughts in mind simultaneously. The beautiful tradition of inviting a crush for a stroll on top of the cliffs. The terrible July-night which makes the island of interest to extremism researchers.
"Kjærlighetsstien", the path of love. The sign to keep two thoughts in mind simultaneously. Foto: Amund Aasbrenn / UiO
It is the opening day of the sixth Nordic conference on violent extremism.
This time hosted by C-REX, Center for Research on Extremism. On the deck of MS Thorbjørn, some researchers are meeting for the first time, others for the sixth. They are significant voices in a growing field of study.
They hug and greet each other on the ferry that once transported a violent extremist.
- We believe that holding the opening day here can give extra weight to our discussions in the days to come, says Tore Bjørgo, director of C-REX.
In his opening speech, Bjørgo focuses on the island's contradictions. An arena for summer camps, political discussions, socializing, and romance. The scene of the darkest day in Norwegian history since World War II. The struggle to reclaim the island. The struggle for joy, hope, and democracy to grow again. The attack that once again illustrated the importance of research on extremism. The reason why C-REX received funding and was established.
Tore Bjørgo hands the floor over to Anders Ravik Jupskås, deputy director of C-REX.
- If we are to understand the societal impact of a terrorist attack, we must consider how the attack is interpreted by both the elite and ordinary people. Otherwise, it becomes difficult, perhaps even impossible, to understand why some terrorist attacks lead to increased polarization, and some lead to increased solidarity.
Ravik Jupskås explains that even though terrorism is viewed as a communicative tool, there's little information in the act of violence itself. We need interpretations of the terror for it to be meaningful. We must understand the causes and the stakes involved. It's about the narratives surrounding the terrorist attack. Later in this text, Ravik Jupskås will present three central narratives that emerged in the public domain after July 22nd, but first, let's join the Nordic extremism researchers on a tour around the island.
The tour starts in "Arbeidsmiljølåven" (the Work Environment Barn).
The barn tells the story of Utøya through a timeline. AUF (Labour Youth) receives the island as a gift in 1950. The path of love comes into being with the help of volunteer spirit from 1951. Economic problems lead to the island closing from the mid to late 60s. The 70s with protest songs against the Vietnam War, NATO, the coup in Chile, and the EU. The 80s with modernization and economic upturn. The 90s with a new era, new rental policy, a new EU battle, and a new ferry to transport people. The 2000s with a fight for LGBTQ+ rights and more diversity.
When the timeline in Arbeidsmiljølåven reaches 2011, the tour passes through a pitch-black corridor. A swallow circles the ceiling. It lands on the ceiling beam. Looks down at the extremism researchers along the timeline.
On the other side of darkness, the story continues about the reconstruction of the island. The struggle to change. The struggle to hold two thoughts in mind at the same time. The way forward for Utøya. The Utøya memorial site. Frode Grytten's poem from July 2011.
after july 22
after we were blown to pieces
after friday fell apart in our hands
after we had to learn norwegian all over again
after the grief reached the roots of our hair
after the days began raining down over us
words survive a nine millimetre glock
love is stronger than a five hundred kilo bomb
holding hands is mightier than a loading motion
a little kiss worth more than fifteen hundred pages of hate
a we worth so much more than an I
there'll be another july twenty two, there must be
a ferry to carry other beating hearts across
tents pitched on the green grass
the kiss of the morning sun to awaken the island
hey, hey, time to get up and change the world
Frode Grytten, july 2011.
The poem helped set the direction for how Utøya would be rebuilt. A possible narrative. A focus on unity. Get up and change the world.
From the podium, Anders Ravik Jupskås explains that the first narrative following a terrorist attack is often constructed by the terrorist himself.
- This narrative typically provides an explanation of why the terrorist believes the attack was necessary and legitimate, and an illustration of that individual's political goals.
After July 22nd, the terrorist constructed the first narrative in his copy-paste manifesto. The right-wing extremist narrative.
Given the brutality of terrorist attacks, the first narrative is often immediately met with a counter-narrative, Ravik Jupskås explains.
- The elite-driven counter narrative often, but not always, becomes dominant. Whether the dominant story receives public support, however, depends on the extent to which it resonates with cultural and political values in the society.
After July 22nd, then-Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg called the terrorism an attack on democracy. Not just an attack on Norwegian Social Democracy, represented by the Labour Party, but on democratic values as a whole. The terrorist was described as a political terrorist, but not a party political terrorist. The nation should fight back with "more democracy, more openness, more humanity. But never naivety." The democracy narrative received wide public support. As many as 82 percent said they were positive to Stoltenberg's response, and the government saw increased backing.
The Nordic extremism researchers arrive at Kjærlighetsstien (The path of love). Guide Maria Moen Østby stops the group. She encourages keeping two thoughts in mind at the same time. Two stories. Two narratives. The beautiful tradition of inviting a crush for a stroll atop the cliffs. The terrible July-evening that makes the island of interest to international extremism researchers.
Up in the heather, wild strawberries are growing.
After Kjærlighetsstien, the extremism researchers admit it was a challenge to see the light along the way. One is drawn towards the dark narrative.
Maria Moen Østby gathers the group and tells the story of an elderly couple she had on a tour a few years ago. How they fell in love at the AUF summer camp. The impossible long-distance relationship that awaited. The doubt they had when they walked along Kjærlighetsstien and discussed. The one partner who asked the other to wait by the viewpoint. The theft of a can of pineapple rings from the Café building. The proposal with the pineapple ring on the edge of the cliff. There are tears in the air.
- The democracy narrative was not the only counter-narrative to the right-wing extremist one. In the "diversity narrative," the terrorist was seen as part of a growing anti-Islam movement, and not disconnected from populist right-wing politics. This was considered too divisive, says Ravik Jupskås.
Although there was strong support for the diversity narrative internally in the Labour Party and AUF, Stoltenberg prioritized unifying messages over political confrontation. Ravik Jupskås explains that research shows that the media also facilitated the democracy narrative becoming the dominant one. Dissenting voices, like the diversity narrative, as well as more critical and right-oriented perspectives, were suppressed in the first phase after the terrorist attacks.
In the aftermath of terrorist attacks, it's common that one of the narratives becomes dominant. However, other understandings can continue to live "beneath the surface" in society. In December 2020, C-REX conducted a survey to delve deeper into the understandings that simmered after July 22nd.
Three main narratives emerged in the representative data. The right-wing extremist narrative, the democracy narrative, and the diversity narrative. These narratives are not mutually exclusive. The same person might support several.
- Almost ten years after the attacks, as expected, there was still broad support for the democracy narrative, with more than four in five agreeing. The same was true for the diversity narrative, where three out of four respondents answered supportively. For the right-wing extremist narrative, it was the opposite. Nearly half of the respondents completely opposed this narrative. Yet, slightly more than one in four of the respondents were supportive.
The tour reaches the clearing. Every time one of those we lost would have celebrated their birthday, there is a tradition to place flowers in their names. A short text about the departed is read. On Monday, June 17th, there is a birthday commemoration. The extremism researchers fill the name of the girl who never aged past 18 with colorful flowers.
- The 10-year commemoration of the terrorist attacks in 2021 was a turning point for the public discussion about July 22nd, says Anders Ravik Jupskås from the podium.
- A comprehensive analysis of media coverage suggests that the entire political spectrum, from left to right, was heavily involved in the discussion. Much of the debate was spurred by AUF, which shed light on what the youth party experienced as a lack of recognition as victims of terror; insufficient confrontation with the perpetrator's ideology, and limited freedom of speech in the aftermath of the attack.
This renegotiation of narratives around the 10-year anniversary of July 22nd led C-REX to conduct a new survey. The results showed a high degree of stability, but the support for the narratives had changed.
- After the 10-year commemoration, it became more common to think that the attack targeted the Labour Party and AUF (61 percent), rather than democracy (55 percent), and multicultural Norway (44 percent).
Before the extremism researchers again board the ferry that once transported a violent extremist, Anders Ravik Jupskås concludes his lecture with three fingers raised.
- Let me conclude by focusing on three insights from the focus on narratives.
The first insight. Elites have different interpretations of terrorism, and these interpretations matter to the public discussion. After July 22nd, the focus was on the democracy narrative rather than the diversity narrative. Even though the diversity narrative was strong within the Labour Party and AUF.
The second insight. Even though the elite's interpretation of terrorism is important, the experiences of regular people also matter. Ordinary people are not just memory consumers, but are active producers of alternative narratives. A good example is "Je Suis Charlie" after the attacks against Charlie Hebdo.
The third insight. Interpretations and narratives can determine whether terrorism leads to polarization or not. There is an interaction between elite discourses and the ideological dispositions of ordinary people. This interaction is crucial, not just in the short term when the situation is marked by uncertainty, but also in the long term when the situation is under control.
- The main point is that narratives that resonate well with the public immediately after a terrorist attack may not resonate as well as time goes by. In fact, stories that initially created unity can end up creating polarization if those who were more directly affected by the violence do not feel that their experiences, perspectives, and emotions are recognized in society.
The extremism researchers go out into the summer sun.
Down to the ferry.
Back to Oslo with inspiration for fruitful discussions and new insights. With a poignant experience in their hearts.
