You are on page 1of 14

D

SociologyStudyISSN21595526
November2012,Volume2,Number11,834847

DAVID

PUBLISHING

DiscussingYoungAdultLiteraturein
Norway.InterdisciplinaryComments
InspiredbyModernTheory
SteinarBjrkLarsena
Abstract
YoungadultandchildrensliteraturefromNorway(Scandinavia)isoftenconsideredtobeamongtheworldsleadinginthe
genre.Thishastakenplaceinaperiodofrapidculturalmodernization.ThisarticlewilldiscussNorwegianyoungadultand
childrensliteraturefromtheperspectiveofsocialandculturaltheory.Thepaperwillgobeyondthestrictlyaestheticfield
and discuss young adult and childrens literature from the perspectives of three internally related, though different
continental modern theories, two of them left Hegelian. One of the great names of this school of theory of socialization is
ThomasZiehe,GermantheoristofSozialisationstheorie.Ziehegivessomecluesforanewdescriptionoftheimpliedreaders
inscribed in this literature. Axel Honneth is another theorist who has implications for general humaniora. His theory of
recognition, fruitful for social sciences, may also give a clue for a metatheory of literature. Young adult and childrens
literatureisalsosubjecttochangesofsimulacricorderandoftheculturaldisorderoftheageofextremes,asJeanBaudrillard
wroteaboutinhisbookTheTransparencyofEvil.
Keywords
Postjuvenileimpliedreaders,lackofrecognition,liberatedchildhood

Literary research in childrens and young peoples


literature has always shared much interest with or
been impacted by developmental studies, mainly
psychology. Thus, the frame of reference for academic
studies has been the question of adaptation of books to
the level of psychological development of the
intended readers. Most of the academic studies in
Norway in this field have been deeply integrated in
this (short-lived) tradition. One obvious consequence
is that the focus of the studies has been less literature
itself than evaluation of adaptive strategies. Another
keystone has been the way that books are (or are not)
able to convey the favoured lessons of socialization
(values, generally accepted conceptions) to the readers.
The tradition of Norwegian (and Scandinavian)

studies of childrens literature has been structured


along these two interrelated strategies (Weinreich
1997; Risa 1979).
Recent studies in Norway have been developed
and updated to recent international trends in studies of
young peoples literature (Bache-Wiig 1997). Maria
Nikolajeva, Shavit Zohar, and Perry Nodelman are
well-known and accepted references of modern
research all over Scandinavia (Ommundsen 2010).

aUniversityofTroms,Norway

CorrespondentAuthor:
Steinar BjrkLarsen, University of TromsILP, N9037
Troms,Norway
Email:steinar.bjorklarsen@uit.no

BjrkLarsen
However, the contextualization according to and
in relation to modern cultural and social theory of
Norwegian research in young peoples literature has
not been obvious, though from the point of view of
this article very stimulating, and of growing relevance.
The following paper is an inquiry into the aesthetics
and also the institutional and cultural environment
of Norwegian young adult literature. However, the
perspective is, in a wider sense, that of modern social
and cultural philosophy and theory. Certain aspects
concerning both the dynamics and the aesthetics of
young peoples literature in Norway should be
interpreted, not only through an internal analysis
(literary analysis in a more restricted sense of the
word), but alsoand sometimes solelyby means of
certain fields of modern theory.
This analysis is loosely related to contextualist
positions in modern literary theory, not the least one
should point on different kinds of new historicism and
cultural studies. The assumption behind the
investigation is that the historical and cultural context
is a key concept for the interpretation of a literary text.
Surely not the only key, but a necessary one. But the
text will not follow this line of thought in detail, as
much as it is way out of focus for the following
discussion (for an interesting outline of this subject,
see Hawthorne 1996). The purpose of this article is to
introduce some new and presumptive creative ways of
reading literature for young people, inspired by some
(in this respect) uncommon perspectives.
One expression that could characterize Norwegian
literature for young people is that it has an enormous
momentum. It has been in a constant state of
development, always on the move, and has gained
positions that Norwegian literature in general has been
far from achieving. However, its success in some
arenas has no parallel at an institutional level.
Recognition is a term that does not apply to young
peoples literature at the level of the Norwegian
literary institution. This understatement is seemingly
paradoxical, though in no way surprising. The

835
Norwegian institution of literature has always shown a
significant disrespect for the literature of young
people. On the other hand, this lack of
recognitionto quote a familiar concept from social
sciencescould be interpreted as a premise for
understanding certain aspects of the aesthetics of
Norwegian contemporary literature for young people
(Interestingly enough, the newspaper Dagbladet
[Daily Journal] some time ago had a column entitled:
Is it embarrassing to be caught reading young
peoples literature?).
This text intends to support this in no way
reductionist analysis, inspired by social sciences, over
next few pages.

THREEPERSPECTIVES
In the following discussion, the paper shall apply three
different perspectives of cultural philosophy/theory: it
aims to demonstrate that these perspectives might
shed some light onto the texts as well as the strategic
positions of Norwegian young peoples literature.

AxelHonneth
Pierre Bourdieu is considered as being invaluable
when attempting to understand the strategic levels of
cultural lifewhen discussing taste, subordination,
and superiority of cultural taste.
Alternatively, one might try to apply a different
perspective, namely the social philosophy of Honneth
(1995, 2007). What is so intriguing about Honneth is
his sense of tracking the logic of respect and
disrespect, both individually and collectively. This
also refers to his Hegelianism, namely the logic of
master and slave by Hegel. What Honneths theory
might explain is the dialectics of respect and
disrespect in the literary field. Honneths theory also
might be applied in an analysis of certain motifs
within the texts, considered as aesthetic objects.

ThomasZiehe
Other aspects might be studied better through

Sociology Study 2(11)

836
alternative theorists like Baudrillard and Ziehe. Ziehe
and Honneth have more than their German
background in common. Both should be considered as
left Hegelians and both work in the Frankfurt tradition,
though more from a subjectivistand somehow less
politicalposition, compared to the original Frankfurt
theorists. Ziehe is another German sociologist, whose
special contribution is within the theory of
socialization. Ziehes (1997) special contribution is
the way that he demonstrates the interconnection
between general modernization and cultural trends of
late modern western youth, especially when
discussing
the
detraditionalization
of
the
contemporary culture. This leads to a reformulation or
recharacterization of typical implicit readers of
Norwegian literature for young people.

JeanBaudrillard
Baudrillard (1993) gives some interesting clues when
trying to describe the range of all powers involved in
the rapid change of the society. His position, often
considered as nihilist, is that the culture has passed the
point of no return. The culture has exploded that
everything is liberated, even childhood. What, then, is
a literature for the time of history when childhood is
liberated and lacks any constraint? Could this
superfluous liberation explain some of the recent
developments of Norwegian literature for young
people?

NORWEGIANLITERATUREFORYOUNG
PEOPLESOMEOBSERVATIONS
Cross-writing and dual readers are examples of
recent conceptual developments in the theory of
childrens and young adult literature. The widely
spread feeling and conceptualization of a change in
international young adult literature is manifest. For
example, the German Svenja Blume has introduced a
restructuring of the concept of young peoples
literature (German: Jugendliteratur) in Scandinavia

and Norway:
Die
Vermehrt
von
postmodernen
Strukturen
durchgezogene skandinavische Jugendliteratur hat also einen
Wendepunkt erreicht, der die Literaturwissenschaft vor ein
Dilemma stellt: ffensichtlich sind die Jugendbcher der
1990er Jahre im Hinblick auf ihre Struktur gar nicht mer als
Jugendlitteratur im eigentlichen Sinne zu kategoriesieren
(The Scandinavian literature for youthincreasingly
permeated by post-modern structureshas reached a turning
point that puts the literature in a dilemma: Obviously, the
books for youth in the 1990s arein terms of their
structureno longer to be categorized as youths literature
in the true sense of the expression). (Blume 2005: 15)

This restructuring/change has implications which


of course have been studied in the field of literature,
but which also might be an object of social sciences.
And similar phenomena as those dealt with here, are
in no way restricted to Scandinavia, but might be
found everywhere in the international literary
landscape. A corresponding fact, a pendant to Blume,
is that one has seen a division into two though not
very distinct categories of literature: traditional vs.
restructured young adult literature. This restructured
young adult literature, which will be examined closely
in the following pages, has in a relatively short period
of time gained new positions, seems to dominate the
interest of skilled readers, reviewers, and researchers.
The intention of the following paper is to show
that some contributions from (partially) Hegelian and
continental social theorists might well enough explain,
or at least shed some light on the change indicated.
Norwegian literature for young people is
comparably less than its Danish and Swedish
counterparts. Eleven-hundred books are published
annually, from which a little more than 300 books are
new titles for children and young people. Relatively
speaking, the number of childrens and young adult
books in Norway is comparable to that of
Swedenmore people in Sweden, but also quite a few
more books published. In Denmark, on the other hand,
the total number of releases of childrens books is

BjrkLarsen
close to double of Norways, even when the
population is comparable.
The Scandinavian literary market is separated into
different countries. Still, the literature of young people
in Scandinavia is considered as world-leading.
This is a very interesting situation. Norwegian
literature in general was world-leading in the time of
Henrik Ibsen, a period of historical change and rapid
development from a relatively under-developed,
peasant society into a (late) modern one. The
Norwegian young adult literature was, internationally
speaking, almost dominant (together with its Swedish
counterparts) for some decades in the late 1980s and
1990s. This was also a time of change in society and
of literature, when Norway at last developed into a
late modern or post-modern society.
Key features in the development of childrens and
young adult literature are as follows:
(1) Extremes: Difficulty, levelany level of
difficulty might be found in books for young adults;
(2) Composition: Compositional developments of
post-modernism and modern narratives in general
might be found;
(3) Gender: The gender developments of late
modern societies might be observed;
(4) Young people and adults: The relationships
between young and old seem to be changing;
(5) Power: Older people seem losing power, while
young people seem empowered;
(6) Dystopias: Negative utopias occur even more
often, all the time;
(7) Onthology: Ontological uncertainty and doubt
occurs in many novels;
(8) Games: Some books seemingly introduce the
readers into complex gaming;
(9) Multimodal discourses: Books seem infected
by and derived from multimodal discourse of film and
other genres of pop-culture.
Norwegian young adult literature is in the
forefront of international trends and tendencies. The
real change took place some 20-30 years ago. Jostein

837
Gaarder (author of The Solitary Mystery and Sofies
World) and Tormod Haugen (author of, e.g., Zeppelin)
started publishing their world-famous and sometimes
revolutionary books for young people. Younger
generations have shown up, even if the literary
creativity and imaginative power have decreased,
interesting books and authorships are still being
presented. Maybe it should be called a golden age.
Some examples are as follows.
Alexander Melli in 2006 published a novel for
young children called Barneregjeringen (The
Childrens Government) (Melli 2006), which was an
enormous book of about 500 pages. The plot of the
novel is a bit like Lord of the Flies, but also points to
later Suzanne Collins dystopias, when describing
some sorts of mixture between a reality TV series and
bitter social conflict. The novel brings into discussion
a wide variety of subjects normally intended for adults,
like politics, but ends up in a dystopia.
Sverre Knudsens Aarons Maskin (Aarons
Machine) from 2011 was a book loved by reviewers
for handling philosophical questions of business and
hypermodern technology in a way that might be
understood by young readers (Knudsen 2011).
Kjetil Johnsens Den Fjerde Parallel (The Fourth
Parallel) from 2009 to 2011 was an interesting kind of
science fiction for young adults; this novel also
presented a scientific appendix including titles by
well-known scientists in the international arena
(Johnsen 2009-2011). String theories and multiverses
are fundamental concepts for Kjetil Johnsens
quadrology.
Johan Harstads Darlah172 Timer p Mnen
(Darlah172 Hours on the Moon) was an example of
scientific horror, now published internationally and
ready for a media conversion into cinema (Harstad
2009).
Steffen Srums Ddsengler (Death Angels) from
2011 began with an explosion in the Louvre in Paris,
and demonstrated a literary universe which one could
compare to Oslo in the wake of the terrorist attacks on

838
the government building last year (Srum 2011).
Although the book is a work of fiction, an unintended
parallel could be drawn to the dramatic scenes from
Oslo last year. The sense of a crisis of Norwegian
culture is present, even if the novel itself is
weakerfrom an aesthetic point of viewthan other
three ones.
Still the situation at the institutional level is more
complex, reflected in the fact thatcontrary to
SwedenNorway has no academic careers offered in
the study of young peoples literature. In public
discourses in the newspapers, etc., the situation is like
before: One sees from time to time short entries from
different critics on literature for young people.

AMETATHEORY?
The purpose of this discussionwhat it is trying to
elaborate (though not in any detail), is a metatheory of
young adult literature in Norway. The intention
basically is to develop theories alongside a cultural
line of interest. In this process, fundamentals of
cultural theory and of pedagogy will be touched, even
concerning some basic assumptions on the formation
of civilized politics. And, they all are closely
connected to continental theories of culture, left
Hegelianism, and critical post-modernism.

HONNETHANDDYNAMICSOFTHEFIGHT
FORRECOGNITIONOFYOUNGPEOPLE'S
LITERATURE
Norwegian young adult literature is caught in the same
underdog position as anywhere else in the world when
it comes to the literary institution. The structuring
forces of this institution do not accept young adult
literature as art. And, if it is not art, then it is
something else, i.e., pedagogy. Thus, it is a matter of
education and of socialization. The important term
here is restriction. Young adult and childrens
literature is restricted in so many fieldsexamples

Sociology Study 2(11)


here are the implied reader, the aesthetic vocabulary,
etc.
Obviously, Norwegian researchers and writers of
young adult literature are now striving to get out of
this dead-end road of humiliation and disrespect.
Norway has not reached as far as Sweden, but is on
the move.
According to Bourdieu, the tag lack of cultural
capital can be used to denounce this position.
Another way of denouncing this is to call it
disrespect, the non-succeeding result of striving for
recognition. This is the fundamental term of
Honneths reformulation of Hobbes, from the
perspective of Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel and his
concept of Sittlichkeit (ethics). Hegel is at his best
when he investigates the game going on between
master and slave, and when reasoning about
recognition. In Honneths reading of Hegel, this turns
out to be very fruitful.
The basic figure is the German philosopher and
sociologist, professor in Frankfurt, Axel Honneth.
Honneths theories have been known all over the
world for their contribution to a reformulation of the
philosophical basis of, e.g., Hobbess theory of state.
What he seems to be doing is focusing his attention on
reading Hegel against Thomas Hobbes. As we all
know, Hobbess theory of the political institution tells
us that the state is developing from a state of bellum
omnum contra aomnies, the war of all against all.
What Honneth is really up to is to read Hegel
against Thomas Hobbes and even George Herbert
Mead and empiricist social science. It seems that
Honneth is trying to save a rationale from Hegels
philosopical approach to the theory of recognition as a
softer variety of Hobbess war of all against all. This
state of war against everybody else is the very
foundation of the social contract, according to Hobbes.
Via Hegel, Honneth finds another fundamental
principle: The momentum of the process of historical
change issays Honneththe fight for recognition.
According to Honneth, Hegel outlines this struggle for

BjrkLarsen
recognition in three major directions. This will not be
discussed in detail, and it is just the third kind of
recognition that has an interest for the theory of
childrens literature.
As is widely known, Honneth distinguishes
between three kinds of recognition according to
Hegels concept of Sittlichkeit. The rather vague
concept of recognition then gets a lot closer and more
detailed/fruitful to the study of society.

TheInitialFormofRecognition
The initial form of recognition for any individual is
the maternal and paternal form of love for their
children and vice versa. The medium of this
recognition is love. It starts in the interplay between
mother and child in early childhood. Any successful
adaptation to life depends on this loving recognition,
and any kind of self-esteem is founded in this loving
relationship. This recognition is critical for the
individual human being. The consequences of any
mis-recognition are fatal and very long-term. This has
also been studied in numerous books on childrens
fiction.

TheSecondKindofRecognition
The second kind of recognition is accountability and
judiciary independence. The second mode of
recognition is the civil accountability and
independence delivered by the judiciary institution of
society. When you are being recognized as an
accountable person, you are also recognized for
responsibility for your actions and as an individual at
the same level as anyone else. This position expanded
over the last 200 years: women, young people, etc.
Recognition at this level garners self-respect.

TheCrucialThirdKindofRecognition
The crucial third kind of recognition is respect and
acceptance. The third mode of recognition is the
Sittlichkeit of Hegel. This is to be developed
through interaction with other citizens through work

839
and the educational system. It also supplies the
individual with respect and acceptance from other
members of society. This is also crucial for the
balance of the individual as well as society as a whole.
When it is successfully implemented, one feels honour
and dignity when satisfying the need for acceptance of
ones traits and abilities. On the other hand, when it is
not successfully implemented, the resulting
deformation is denigration and insult. This is the
negative anti-recognition. Arenas for gaining
recognition of this kind are typically work-related, and
other parallel arenas for civil performance, such as
education.

THREESTRATEGIES
Now, the present state of affairs of Norwegian
childrens and young adult literature is that it may be
interpreted metaphorically as trapped in a lack of
recognition, or social esteem. This is partially what is
theorized by Bourdieu by his concept of cultural
capital, also his concept institutionalized cultural
capitalinstitutional cultural recognition. This kind
of lack of social standing obviously has implications
at the individual level, for the individual author, who
might feel embarrassed, but also humiliated. This
author himself will be perceived as a kind of hobbyist.
For young adult literature per se, this also has serious
implications. It will tend to be disintegrated from the
benefits of belonging to the literary institution,
scholarships, awards, etc. It is also perceived as some
kinds of institutionalized abuse.
One may find at least three ways of coping with
the present situation.
This might be analyzed as different ways of
transaction (or interaction), and at least three different
ways of overcoming the missing/lack of recognition.
Some of them might be found as very common ways
of dealing with such a lack of recognition:
(1) By establishing a subculture of childrens
literature;

Sociology Study 2(11)

840
(2) By changing the literature itself to fit into the
general concepts of literature (of adults);
(3) By a revolution of the structures/hierarchies of
disrespect in the field of literature.
Each of these implies a change of childrens
literature and its cultural position, even if the
boundaries between differing strategies are not always
very distinct.

Subculture
The formation of a subculture is in one favored way of
handling the experience of disrespect and denigration,
according to Honneth (1995: 160-170): The breeding
ground for these collective forms of resistance is
prepared by subcultural semantics in which a shared
language is found for feelings of havind been unjustly
treated.
A subculture of childrens and young adult
literature may imply establishing its own literary
criteria and a special aesthetics/poetics of its own. The
common slogan of this position is to emphasize that
after all, childrens and young adult literature is
different from literature for adults. So why should one
try to deny the facts? Instead of trying to elaborate an
aesthetics that might undermine its position as young
adult literature, the young adult literature should try
to shape its own subcultural standards and gain
respect from its own peers. This could mean special
literary awards and scholarships, or special literary
reviews in special literary magazines. This is a very
common way of handling such a situation, and the
single problem is that it does not give any hope
for recognition from the literary institution. This
might also mean that it implies a rather conservative
force.
This conservatism in any field, when it comes to
new categories of young adult literature, is a rather
tragic way of keeping up with institutionalized
disrespect. When the present situation in Norway is
far from that of a choking conservatism, then this
implies that other ways of coping with this

dis-recognition has emerged.

DiminishingDifferences
It is well-known that Shavit (1986)and Bloom
(2001)revolutionalized the research of childrens
literature by claiming that real art in childrens
literature included just a few books, and that the rest
of it was garbage, or at least not real art. This position
is, of course, elitist. Young adult literature,
specifically, is in a different position. After all, the
modern young adult literature began only some 50
years ago, and was institutionalized much later. This
means that one now has the first generation of adults
that even got the opportunity to read young adult
fiction (e.g.) out of interest when they have become
grown-ups. This is exactly what is happening right
now. At young adult literature classes in Norway, one
are now meeting grown-up students who read young
adult fictional novels, not as librarians or reviewers,
but out of literary interest. This means reading
international bestsellers like Suzanne Collins and
Stephanie
Meyers
and
their
Norwegian
contemporaries, like Kjetil Johnsen with his Den
Fjerde Parallel.
This could generally mean an attempt to dismantle
or diminish any systematic differences between young
adult and general literature. Numerous books might fit
into this category, e.g., Jostein Gaarders Sofies
World. The aesthetics of young adult literature seems
to be in a state of fluency, and the border seems to be
under discussion or even direct attack.
Another way of putting this is to suggest that
young adult literature may be or become equal to adult
literature in any artistic/aesthetic or thematic field.
This might seem surprising. This literature is almost
50 years of age. Is its period in history already over?
Then one really are talking of an intermediary guest
role. The rise and fall of young adult fiction, so to
speak. But this is precisely what could be the
implications of Zohar Shavits research. Undeniably,
this also reflects the changes of some of the best

BjrkLarsen
novels for young adults.
Young adult literature will eventually develop into
literature (as art) regardless, with no limitation. One
have then reached the end of young adult literature,
and Western culture is left with literature in a general
meaning of the expression.
One way to avoid these challenges is to inscribe
secret or hidden codes for grown-ups into books for
youth (as well as childrens books). This possibility is
elaborated thoroughly by Shavit, who observes this
undercover strategy in several books officially
meant for young readers.
Analysis of the first solution, that of the ambivalent text,
reveals that writers overcome systemic constraints by
manipulating two addressees and the current literary models.
They use the child as a pseudo-addressee but actually
assume the adult as a reader, hence gaining the liberty to
manipulate the existing models of childrens literature and to
suggest a new model (Alice in Wonderland serves as a test
case). (Shavit 1986: 179)

RevolutionorChallenge
Especially in the post-modern universe of anything
goes, it is an obvious possibility that as long as the
traditional distinctions between high and low are
being undermined, young adult literature will claim to
be equal to adult fiction, even if it is and will always
be different in certain ways.
Young adult literature will insist to be equally
respectful as adult literature. This is a revolutionary
position because it is a claim for a respect that it has
been questing for, and to some extent has been denied
because of the traditional ways of disrespect for
children and young people.
Young adult literature will consider its own
aesthetics as equal to adult literature. This is a
statement that demands fairness and equality.
It will insist to be equally challenging as adult
literature in any aesthetic field. This differs from the
subcultural way of reasoning. When some writers tell
us that the differences should be held, this position

841
underlines that there are special challenges to
aesthetics and poetics when talking about childrens
and young adult literature, which makes it equally as
challenging as any other genre of literature.

THOMASZIEHE:THEMETAMORPHOSIS
OFTHETERMYOUTHANDTHE
INSCRIPTIONOFNEWIMPLIEDREADERS
Thomas Ziehe is a German sociologist whose position
might be associated to Jrgen Habermas and the left
Hegelians, and his field of research is the sociology of
pedagogy/education,
in
German
known
as
Sozializationstheorie.
In Scandinavia, he has had a far-reaching
influence on the fields of pedagogy and educational
theory. One of his favourite subjects is the situation of
youth and young people in late modernity/
post-modernity. He has tried to point out some major
characteristics of youth in post-traditional societies,
when tradition is losing its importance. What
consequences does Ziehe see, even at interpersonal
levels, as well as cultural bias?

YouthintheLateModern/Postmodern
Society
One point should be noted: The vocabulary of the
Norwegian and German languages do not contain a
corresponding term to the English young adult. The
German Jugend as well as the Norwegian ungdom
are general terms, denoting young people from about
12/13 years old up into their 20s.
As previously stated, the characterizing aspect of
the
culture
of
late
modernity
is
the
de-traditionalization, the rejection of tradition. The
speed of change is so high that it is a drawback even
to belong to elder generations per se. Their experience
of life, the benchmark of former supremacy, now has
turned into a problem. The experience is a drawback,
in a situation where changes are driven into extremity.
Another characteristic category of youth inscribed

842
into leading cultural discourses. Different kinds of
forces work in parallel directions. Youth and young
people in late modernity are idols for other
generations. Both grandmother and granddaughter are
influenced almost in the same way. Youth has become
the simulacrum for any generation, from which the
phenomenon emits lots of meaning. This is a
statement that goes for the symbolic level, not an
empiric one. Thus, youth has become the metaphor for
the discourse of the societys and the cultures future.
The symbolic loading of youth then has been
maximized.
The late modern cultural situation even has
consequences at an intimate level close to every
individual. One now experiences changing positions
of subjectivity, ramifications running out from late
modernity/post-modernity:
(1) Subjectivation, which in general means that the
individuals are in a search, a quest for intimity. Now,
the change of society moves in another direction. The
individuals search for intimity cannot under any
circumstance fulfilled. The search then grows even
stronger, but never satisfied;
(2) Onthologization, which means that young
people find themselves in a quest for basic
values/fundamentals, principles. What is the very
basic fundamental principles for philosophy, society,
etc.? Young people tend to be serious people, and ask
the fundamental questions, which can hardly be
answered;
(3) Aesthetizaton, which means emphasizing
codes of semiotics: clothes, music, emo, etc. Young
people tend to identify with different styles of clothing,
music, etc. One example of this is the emo style, very
common among Norwegian youth. And young people
seem to be masters of this universe of semiosis, and
their despair even bigger when seen together with
their parents who do not know the codes.
Die erste Suchbewegung will ich einmal als
Subjektivierung kennzeichnen. Es ist eigentlich eine

Sociology Study 2(11)


Suchbewegung nach Nhe, Diese strebt Intimizierungen
an, den dichten Bezug innerhalb kleinster sozialen
Beziehungen und Zellformen. Und sie ist auch getragen von
der Sehnsucht nach Expressivitt
Eine zweite Suchbewegung, die in mancher Hinsicht als
eine Steigerung der ersten darstellt, will ich als eine
Ontologizierung fassen. Die Bewegung sucht eigentlich
nicht mehr Nhe, vielmehr gilt es hier um die Suche nach
Gewissheit. Gesucht wird ein fester Boden, ein Korrektiv
zur Kontingenz
Und damit komme Ich zu einer dritten Suchbewegung
Ich nenne diese Suchbewegung eine nach Potenzierung
Als
voneinander
abgeschottete
knnen
diese
Suchbewegungen gewissermassen Grundlagen fr stilreine
Milieus oder Szenen bilden
(The first mode of search I will call subjectivation. From
its origin it is a way of looking for close relations This is
striving for intimity, the closeness inside microsocial
relations and cells. And it is also carrying a longing for
expressivity
A second mode of searching, which might be looked
upon as an intensifying of the firstI will call
onthologization. This search not really for closeness, it is
far more a search for certainty. One search for a solid floor
(fundamentals), a correction of the contingency
Thereby I arrive at the third mode of searching. I shall
call this movement for searching potensation These
search movements can be seens as searching for milieus of
style) (Ziehe 1997: 126-129)

Ramification/DiffusionoftheTermYouth
Thomas Ziehe also makes some remarks on a subject
that even Neil Postman and other theorists have
pointed to. The central meaning of the term youth
seems to be developing, in a process which might be
named as an ongoing ramification of this term:
(1) Physical youth13-18 years old, commonly
denoted as adolescence in certain languages. This is
the common and traditional use of the term; youth are
people from puberty age and to the late teenage;
(2) Psychological youth18-21 years old. This is
the category commonly denoting ages of the freshman
of colleges and universities;
(3) Cultural youth22-? years old. The cultural
category is even broader and runs from around 22
years old. The upper limit is uncertain. You will not

BjrkLarsen
be surprised if you see a person of 30 who is openly
defining themselves as youth. Even 35 could work.
Clothes, jewelry, make-up, anything else than the age
seems to fit into the central characteristics of the youth
category.
Youth as a simulacrum, everybody wants to be
young/like a youth (5-75 years old). Finally, it can be
seen that youth tends to be a simulacrum, a copy
without original, a sign without central significance,
running around in the hemisphere of other signs
without significance. Any person in this culture, this
society, seems to be caught.
According to several theorists like Michael
Mitterauer, youth as a cultural category has its
beginning, and then probably has its end, too. So one
might be in a time when this category is in a state of
change and even diffusion. The consequence is that
this undefined term is plastic, moving in different
directions. And there exists a bridge between the
general ideas of youth and the literature of youth. This
is ideology and the inscription of the implied readers
of the literature of youth.
As a discipline of signs, literature will tend to snap
the signs and simulacras of society and put them into
orbit in the texts (sometimes even anticipate and/or
initiate these signs/simulacras).
Literature will tend (as an agent in societys of
cultural discourse) to inscribe the definitions of youth,
even without any clear intention, into the texts and the
books when inscribing its implied readers. So
accordingly, it is no surprise when one see new kinds
of books for young readers, the central category of
youth is diffusing and in a process of ramification.

Example
Jostein Gaarders post-modern Sofies World inscribes
a reader who in Ziehes terminology is determined by
ontologizierung. The epigraph of the novel says,
He who cannot draw from three thousand years is
living from hand to mouth, in other words: ad
fontesback to the sources of culture. The

843
protagonist of this book is seeking the very sources of
the wisdom and culture, and this means to return to
the sources in Ancient Greece and the Middle East, as
well as Rome and the philosophical traditional ending
up in about Anno 1900, which means, modern
philosophy is left out. In Norway, the book was
originally read by freshman university students in
basic philosophy classes, and the most well-read
among adolescents up to 17-18 years old. Then it was
spread among others as well, grown-ups as well as
college students. Philosophy light? Probably, but still
philosophy.
As this category of literature seems to end up in a
category in which the implied reader is of a new kind,
youth as simulacrum in an age when youth is more
indefinite than ever, it can be called as post-juvenile
literature. It is meaning literature for youth of the age
when youth seems to be disappearing out of historys
scene.

JEANBAUDRILLARD.LIBERATEDYOUNG
PEOPLE'SLITERATUREAFTERTHEORGY
According to the late works of Jean Baudrillard
(known as the nihilist works), one of the most
prominenteven though one of the most
difficultamong French post-modern philosophers,
the current pattern of the culture is the fractal. This
somewhat enigmatic expression probably has to be
interpreted metaphorically. Baudrillard (1993) (in The
Transparency of Evil) stated that western culture has
moved into a world behind the orgy. The moment of
the orgy was the moment of the explosion of
modernity. And from now on, one has to change
strategy. In a world which is delusional, we must
adopt a delusional standpoint towards the world (the
epigraph of The Transparency of Evil).
The following discussion is not meant to deal with
Baudrillards theories in any detail. This issue is
discussed by e.g., Selden, Widdowsen, and Brocker
(1997), who briefly suggested the common

844
perspective on Baudrillard: Baudrillard started out
with a critique of marxism by ranking consumption
over production. The following years Baudrillard
started a critique of the common sense view of
signifier and signified (placing signifier over
signified), introducing the theory of simulacra, etc.
Later on, Baudrillard turned into a state of melancholy,
where his theory itself in its core changed intoor
might be compared tosome kinds of science fiction,
and should be interpreted as this.
The expression behind the orgy seems to
indicate that something existed before and something
has come after this explosion. The explosion seems to
mean the moment of what Baudrillard calls the
universal liberation. Everything, he says, has been
liberated: the real, rational, sexual, criticism/
anti-criticism, development and its crisis. Obviously,
this means that the lines and limits of merely
everything have been crossed, and you cannot find
any limit whatsoever.
He wrote that western society has had the
liberation of politics, sex, forces of production,
women, children, unconscious drives, and art. And
when all this is done, one will be driven into a world
of shadows, a twilight zone, after the orgy, as he puts
it.
What next? He said: Now all we can do is
simulate the orgy, simulate the liberation. The present
form of the liberation is of another kind, the kind
where it is not serious anymore, when it is just a
matter of surface, of as-if! (Baudrillard 1993: 3-4).
Now everything is liberated, the chips are down, and we
find ourselves faced collectively with the big question: What
do we do when the the orgy is over?
All we can do is simulate the orgy: simulate liberation.
We may pretend to carry on in the same direction, but in
reality we are accelerating in a void, because all the goals of
liberation are already behind us. (Baudrillard 1993: 3-4)

What should simulated liberation of childrens


literature mean? It means a childhood without limits
and constraints of age and without ends, when

Sociology Study 2(11)


differences between children and adults are minimized.
Baudrillard indicates that when politics is liberated,
everything is politics and politics everywhere. When
sexuality is liberated, everything is sexual and
sexuality everywhere. Thus, when children and
childhood are liberated, everything is childhood and
children, and childhood everywhere. And so on, until
everything is everywhere and nothing is back. Things
disappear through proliferation or contamination.
The state of utopia is realized, of all utopias
realized, whereas paradoxically we must continue to
live as though they had not been (Baudrillard
1993: 4).
Other theorists of childhood, like Carl Jenks, posit
that western culture is now close to an introduction of
an alternative paradigm in childhood theory. Children
are no longer objects for adults, rather a period of life
of action and social formation. One word that might
be associated to this, is the term boundless.
Childhood is not what it used to be, and the cultural
expression (or even definition) of childhood has
changed. Thus the same goes for young people in
general.
One of the main sources of the definition of
childhood and the world of the young, is literature for
young people. Literature for young people is one of
the main symbolic cultural biases in which the
definition (of childhood and young people) takes place.
Unfortunately, the signifier now is in a position of
dominance above the signified, so the symbolic
representation seems to be liberated from the
signifed.
Anything goes:
(1) New themes: Horror, spleen, and scientific
fiction;
(2) Enormous novels (number of pages, trilogies
of 600 pages each);
(3) Dismantling of the borders between youths/
young adult and adult literature;
(4) Simulation of liberation, in terms of sexism,
cursing, dismantling of ethics, etc.

BjrkLarsen
It contains exactly what cultural conservatism
seems to be objecting to the late modern or
post-modern fiction for young people. A couple of
years ago, a well-known Norwegian politician
attacked post-modern young adult literature for not
being young adult literature anymore. What he
objected to the literature for youth is exactly those
four points.

APPENDIX:ANINTERPRETATIONOFA
NOVEL,INSPIREDBYHONNETH,ZIEHE,
ANDBAUDRILLARD
Sverre Knudsens Aarons Maskin (Aarons Machine)
is an enormous book of about 500 pages, the first one
of a trilogy, and belongs to the very popular genre of
dystopian science fiction. Briefly, the plot of this
novel is that a young man who, together with his
family, moves into some sort of community called
Libercasa. The perceived reason for this is that
Aarons father gets headhunted by a corporation
called Libercorp. But the real reason is that Aaron has
some special skills which Libercorp strongly wants to
control. Libercorp takes its name from a half-crazy
scientist (and well-known) character, Libermal, who,
fascinated by the progress in technology, is trying to
invent a new machine with a metaphysical mission:
All evil is going to be removed (from people who
have been treated by the machine), so that they can be
wholly good. This is from the beginning of a serious
interest of science, with obvious ethical dimensions,
but in Libercorp there are also other interests
represented. The corporation has another ethosthe
stockholders intereststo generate profit. There
exists even a third interest, which differs both from
the scientific fascination and optimism of Libermal,
and the business interest of the stockholders. This
interest is the metaphysical interest, to seek the best
interest of human kind. This causes trouble and double
bind interests into the core of the corporation,
therefore signaling the risk that Libercorp might break

845
down into different fractions.
Aarons special ability is the main reason why his
family lives in Libercasa: He is a brilliant young
computer gamer, and this skillwhich only young
people shareis necessary to control the metaphysical
machine called Aarons machine. This machine of
course is the turning point of Libercorp, and even if it
is constructed by Libermal, it can only be controlled
by Aaron, a young kid with the intuition and flexible
smartness that adults have lost. The machine can only
be controlled as if it was an advanced computer game.
Aaron is the incarnation of the nerd skills and
youthfulness that Libermal so strongly needs. The
original centre of the machine is a question of
metaphysics. The intertext of this project, The Garden
of Eden in the Bible, suggests that this is highly
questionable. The problem turns out to be that humans
change into zombies if they are only good, their
dynamics seem to disappear. Good can only exist in
opposition to evil, so the project seems to be bound to
break down.
The novel deals with a spectrum of advanced
issues:
(1) Business and ethos: This seems to be difficult
for Libercorps existence, and one of Libermals
co-leaderswho has withdrawn from the projectis
a monk. He might be said to represent a Buddhist
approach to business, and one obvious intertext is a
well-known text on Buddhism and the ethos of
business life (Schumacher 1968);
(2) The detraditionalization of (post-)modern
society and rapid development at many levels changes
the relationship between generations. According to
Ziehe, the traditional competences lost their meaning
and made the authority of older people invalid. The
computer world is the best example of this. Only
young people have the skills needed to deal with
computer games;
(3) The problem of metaphysics: the necessary
relation between good and evil. One of them cannot
exist without the other. This Saussurean

846
wisdomobvious to any linguistmakes any project
like Libermals highly dubious. Humans without evil
are not humans, only zombies, and new problems and
dimensions of the evil appears;
(4) Everything is liberated, hence the name
Libercorp with an allusion to Baudrillardbut what
next?
(5) The novel raises serious questions about
science and scientific progress. The keyword of course
is post-modernism and the breakdown of the great
narratives. Science does not hold what it promises!
Aarons own mother changes into a zombie in the end.

CONCLUSIONS
Some conclusions are as follows:
(1) The analysis performed by means of Honneths
social theory obviously is in no way an aesthetic one.
Contrary, it discusses the controversies between the
literary establisment and the literature for young
people as if they are social controversies. One
outcome of this article is that contextualizing, social,
and cultural studies might be a complementif not a
substitutefor tradititonal aesthetic analysis of
literature for young people. Negotiations between
agents of different institutional areas of the Norwegian
literary institution might be further analysed according
to/inspired by the theory of Honneth. Different
strategies occur, and they even have consequences in
the field of aesthetic choices made by writers.
The main concept is recognition. The literature of
young people itself has had problems with recognition
from adult literature. Research in this field has met
similar problems of recognition from traditional
literary research. Reactions to the lack of
recognition might be interpreted in the same manner
as lack of recognition in other fields of social
existence. Lack of recognitition is able to provide
momentum to social, seemingly solely aesthetic
processes. Recognition even might add new
interpretative power to internal analysis of young

Sociology Study 2(11)


peoples literature. Old Hegel and (new) Hegelian
Honneth is highly interesting for this field of research.
Somehow there will be a meeting area of a
Honnethian analysis and a Bourdieu-oriented analysis.
Even the dialectics of master and slave (Hegel) might
be applied to aspects of the relation between general
literature and young peoples literature.
It might be observed that some results of this
analysis is partially quite parallel to Bourdieu and
even Shavit, who first provided this kind of a sober,
disillusioned analysis of the systemic relations of
childrens literature;
(2) Long-term evolution of generational relations
in the period of cultural modernization and weakened
tradition gives clues to a new way of understanding
implied readers of young peoples literature. Probably
this never was intended, but the theories of (the left
Hegelian) Ziehe have great relevance for young
peoples literature. This might add alternatives to
recent theories of crosswriting and new ways of
perceiving the ongoing transcendence of traditional
boundaries between young and adult literature. What
is especially remarkable about Ziehe, is his way of
pointing out cultural trends among young people as a
comment/reaction to the weakening of the power of
tradition in late modern society. In the future, one
might give more detailed descriptions of these
processes. Discoursive theory mightin future
researchexplain some dynamics of this process. One
might even be able to talk of young peoples literature
meant for psysical, psychological, or cultural kinds of
youth.
On the other hand, the relation (affinity) between
Ziehes theory of culture and de-traditionalization on
the one side and literary theory is still to be explored
in detail;
(3) Even another aspect of ramification is the
after the orgy analysis by Baudrillard. If the
liberation of children and childhood/young existence
is fullfilled, then what about the literature of young
people? The functions of this literature tends to fall

BjrkLarsen
apart, even if it looks like that this literature is still
fully functional. After the orgy, young peoples
literature has no distinct reader, it is not a real
literature for young people, it has lost its agenda and
has only seemingly any interest to human beings
whatsoever. Mannerism and delirious kinds of implied
readers tend to challenge conservative forces in the
society. Young peoples literature appears to be a
highly dubious genre. Still it is obvious that a more
detaliled approach to this study has to be performed;
(4) Still, the problems of generational relations do
exist. One way to perform additional research is to
adapt a kind of transactional analysis (in the sense
of Eric Berne) to these studies.

References
Bache-Wiig, H. 1997. Nye Veier til Barneboka (New
Approaches to Childrens Books). Oslo: Landslaget for
Norskundervisning/Cappelen Akademisk Forlag.
Baudrillard, J. 1993. La Transparence du Mal: Essai sur les
Phonomenes Extremes (The Transparency of Evil: Essays
on Extreme Phenomena). London/New York: Verso.
Bloom, H. 2001. Stories and Poems for Extremely Intelligent
Children. New York: Scribner.
Blume, S. 2005. Texte Ohne Grenzen fr Leser Jeden Alters.
Zur Neustrukturierung des Jugendliteraturbegriffs in der
Literarischen Postmoderne (Texts Without Limits for
Readers of Different Age. Introduction to the Restructuring
of the Concept of Literature for Young People in Literary
Postmodernity). Freiburg: Rombach.
Bourdieu, P. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays
on Art and Literature. Edited and introduced by Randal
Johnson. Cambride: Polity Press.
. 1997. Das Literarische Feld (The Field of Literature).
Pp. 33-147 in Streifzge Durch das Literarische Feld
(Forays Through the Field of Literature), edited by L. Pinto
and F. Schultheis. Konstanz.
Ewers, Hans-Heino. 2000. Literatur fr Kinder und
Jugendliche: Eine Einfhrung in Grundlegende Aspekte des
Handlungsund
Symbolsystems
Kinderund
Jugendliteratur (Literature for Children and Young People:
An Introduction into Fundamental Aspects of Systems of
Symbolics and Action of Childrens and Young Peoples
Literature). Stuttgart: UTB.
Harstad, J. 2009. Darlah: 172 Timer p Mnen. Oslo: Cappelen

847
Damm. English translation 2012 by Tara Chape: 172 Hours
on the Moon. New York: Little Brown.
Hawthorne, J. 1996. Cunning Passages. New Historicism,
Cultural Materialism and Marxism in the Contemporary
Literary Debate. London: Arnold.
Honneth, A. 1995. The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral
Grammar of Social Conflicts. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
MIT Polity Press.
. 2007. Disrespect. The Normative Foundation of Critical
Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Johnsen, K. 2009-2011. Den Fjerde Parallell (The Fourth
Parallel). Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag.
Knudsen, S. 2011. Aarons Maskin (Aarons Machine). Oslo:
Cappelen Damm.
Melli, A. 2006. Barneregjeringen (The Childrens
Government). Oslo: Cappelen Damm.
Ommundsen, se-Marie. 2010. Transcending Boundaries of
Literature: When Boundaries Between Childrens and
Adults Literature Diffuses. Oslo: Institute of Linguistic and
Nordic studies, University of Oslo.
Risa, G., E. Fosseng, and R. Jenssen, eds. 1979. Between the
Books and the Children. Oslo: Landslaget for
Norskundervisning/NKI-Forlaget.
Schumacher, E. F. 1968. Buddhist Economics. Retrieved
(http://www.worldtrans.org/whole/buddecon.html).
Selden, R., P. Widdowsen, and P. Brooker. 1997. A Readers
Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory. 4th ed. London:
Prentice Hall.
Shavit, Z. 1986. Poetics of Childrens Literature. Athens and
London: The Univerity of Georgia Press.
Srum, S. 2011. Ddsengler (Death Angels). Oslo: Aschehoug
Forlag.
Weinreich, T. 1997. Barnelitteraturens Egenart. Adaptation
(The Uniqueness of Childrens Literature. Adaptation). In
Nye Veier til Barneboka (New Approaches to Childrens
Books), edited by H. Bache-Wiig. Oslo: Landslaget for
Norskundervisning/Cappelen Akademisk Forlag.
Ziehe, T. 1997. Zeitvergleiche. Jugend in Kulturelle
Modernizierungen (Periodic Comparison [Analysis]. Young
People in Cultural Modernization). Weinheim: Juventa
Verlag.

Bio
Steinar Bjrk-Larsen, assistant professor, Faculty of
Humanities, Social Sciences and Teachers Education, Institute
of Pedagogy and Teachers Education, University of Troms;
research fields: childrens and young adult literature (in the
perspective of social sciences and theory, systemic conditions),
literary theory.

You might also like