— from Learner Limbach —
Last night, Thursday, I flew into Copenhagen, and I plan to spend eight days digging in to the details of Denmark’s progressive social policies and structure and then to head to Spain for five days to learn about the Mondragon Cooperative.
I have a long list of things I hope to learn about and experience on this trip, including the general frameworks of social policy in Denmark and an arranged tour of Mondragon’s Headquarters, Cooperative Training Center, and Mondragon University. My plan is to document as best I can and publish updates.
What can we learn from the happiest countries in the world?
As you may know, Denmark is consistently referred to as one of the happiest countries in the world. They consistently rank in the top five countries, in the UN’s World Happiness Report, coming in third on the list in 2018 just behind Finland and Norway, and just ahead of Switzerland, Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, and Australia. The US is moving the opposite direction, having dropped from 14th on the list in 2017 to 18th in 2018. Though I can only scratch the surface in this short trip, my hope is that I can get a more grounded understanding of why Danish people are so happy, and which of their ideas may have applicability in the US.
Equality and community above all else
What I have already learned in less than 24 hours in Denmark is that the values of equality and community are placed above all else. Janteloven (Jante Law) was explained to me by the first few people that I spoke with as an unwritten code or social norm that basically says that no individual is better than anyone else, and that the well-being of the collective is more important than individual success. This is in stark contrast to the US, which is one of the most individualistic societies in the world.
Its easy to come up with critiques for Jante Law, but I am told, and I tend to agree, that you can’t have it both ways, that you can’t have a society where everyone puts the collective good above themselves, and also have a society where everyone tries to get ahead of everyone else. Not everyone likes the system. Detractors say that it stifles innovation and ambition. On the other hand, its hard to argue with the results they are getting. This is good food for thought and something I’m sure I’ll be rolling around in my head as I explore other aspects of Danish society over the next week.
Until the next update…
You go, Learner! We can’t wait to hear the nuggets you bring back about how we can build more community and equality!
Btw, Learner…a fuller response to your contribution isn’t possible here…hence the abbreviated use talking points with its choppiness.
Among much that was left out was “have a great trip and peering deeper while traveling is great.”
Many have the tendency to compare when abroad. It’s natural but more often than not leads to erroneous conclusions. As I’m wont to say context matters and comparisons are seldom instructive. Much more to be learned by studying other experiments at human organization unto themselves without comparison. It’s the level of human “deep learning” that AI is trying to reach. Let’s not lose our edge more quickly than we inevitably will.
Lol…hey Editors…’tis a bit unfair, no?
You deleted my fuller real response to Learner’s article and left the above follow-up without context …a bit manipulative to say the least.
What the editors deleted was a civilized rebuttal to the clear political message conveyed by Learner….it even had a like…lol..(a miracle for one who doesn’t toe the line of a monolithic group think)…now where was I, oh yes, by Learner, who I consider sincere and good natured from what little interaction i’ve had with him.
The Editors deemed it what? A different opinion supported by reason?
Is the OI merely a cheerleader for a particular political agenda?
If I say “yeah, good” to everything, no deletion.
If I offer a reasoned alternative viewpoint, Deletion!
As a gay rational man whose interests extend far beyond sexuality and victimization mindsets, I’m accustomed to such small mindedness; but I thought there’d be a bit more wisdom here in lieu of your provincial reaction to a different viewpoint.
Guess you think it’s easier to silence “a Gay” as you can always rely on a healthy dose of closet homophobia for reserve support.
You also deleted my civillzed criticism of the article about Senator Ranker taking up positions chairing both “environmental protection” and “tourism” committees? Fear of reprisal?
As mirrors often do, they reveal in your overreactions more about you than yours truly.
Don’t be so afraid of difference!
Happy Holidays!
@Chris Graham; yikes… what did i miss? A lot, apparently!
I’m sorry – I’m too late to read your deleted posts and the discussion – but where can I find that article on Kevin Ranker’s two task force roles that, at first thought when I heard about them, seem oxymoronic?
Sadie,
Ranker Chosen to Chair New Senate Environment & Tourism Committee
And lead on environmental budget
Posted on November 28, 2018
3rd article from top after hitting “older posts”
Thank you for the comments. Chris Graham – I am not threatened by your different opinions, but sometimes you do come off as talking down. I’ve experienced that before. In terms of this trip, of course there is context to consider. That is part of why I am making the effort to go to the actual country. I assure you I am looking at what is working, what is not working, and context as well as what ideas may be helpful here in the US. I don’t think I did a good job describing my approach in my post.
Thanks, Learner.
As far as I can tell you’re doing a fine job. Unfortunately my substantive comments were deleted so there’s not much to discuss here…perhaps over coffee some day.
Readers have been misled by my out of context afterthoughts (above) due to the editors’ selective deletions but by this point further misleading is voluntary on the part of readers and speaks for itself. But it is what it is and you’re not to blame.
Given the character limitations in this forum one often needs to choose between tone or substance and this may be why my words come across as they do—i see that, too. I trust you’re secure enough to take them as intended.
Your comments require substantive responses; to allow them without restrictions but not permit fuller rebuttals makes the OI somewhat of a propaganda tool in these limited contexts (most of the OI deals with practical information and thus isn’t subject to this criticism).
There is a fear of different viewpoints in the OI. Given that it may be coming from the editors who may have multiple agendas (commercial, political and/or social harmony) as well as a close-knit group of their frends, it’s easy to overstate this concern (1-4 dislikes is certainly not a scientific sampling…lol).
This opaque “like, dislike” runs counter to a transparent open society and permits the making of value-less statements (no substantive backing)— another indicator of backwardness.
Safe travels and absorb away.
My two and a half cents: I’d like to suggest that we all let Learner enjoy his vacation — and then quiz the heck out of him when he returns rather than expect real-time analysis of life in Denmark.
Here, here. And perhaps the reports can also await return and thus not prompt a need for real-time responses.
Very disappointed Graham’s original post was removed. It was factual and addressed a pivotal issue in our political divide; individual vs. collective rights.
Both of these gentlemen have expressed thoughtful and civil perspectives on myriad issues and further discussion might, at the least, help us better understand differences in what Woodrow Wilson termed the Newtonian Constitution (natural / individual rights) and the Darwinian Constitution (historic / evolutionary rights).
On this matter at least, I fear that OI has failed in its mission.