So here we are again: Constitution Day, 17 May itself. And, true to tradition, the debate about wearing the hijab with the bunad naturally resurfaces.
I do not know how great the problem really is, and I do not myself regard it as the absolutely greatest threat to our culture and distinctiveness. But there is one particular argument in favour of wearing the hijab with the bunad that I would like to address, namely: “But Norwegian women wore headscarves! And it is the same thing.”
No, it is not. To put it somewhat bluntly, headscarves were worn by “wives” or “older married women” (“kjerringer”), not by beautiful young girls. At least not on 17 May, or at other major social occasions.
Norwegian girls have always shown their hair, and special attention has always been devoted to it when going to a celebration or other social gathering, to the market, livestock fair, or other places where many people assembled.
It was important both for the girl and for her family that people could see how lovely she was.
Incidentally, I should clarify that in this text I use the word “kjerring” in the sense of a married woman, and “girls” in the sense of unmarried young women.
To the extent that young girls wore headscarves, it was in connection with tending the cowshed and other work, in order to prevent the hair from becoming unnecessarily dirty. Or it was something one put on to go to the shop if one had not had time to groom oneself properly, or if the weather was bad.
The same applied to mature women. The headscarf is a garment that protected against dirt, weather, and wind, and a garment intended to conceal that one had not had the opportunity to wash and groom one’s hair.
Norwegian girls present themselves openly, and always have done so. I allow myself to generalise here, but girls wish, and have historically also wished, to appear attractive to a potential partner. And in a culture in which one seeks to forge bonds with other families, the entire family, and society itself, wishes young people to find one another and become a couple. And in order to find one another, one must be able to present oneself and be seen.
The role of the hijab is the opposite of this. That is not to say that girls wearing the hijab do not also wish to show that they are beautiful, but the garment is intended to shield girls and women from being looked upon with desire by “outsiders”.
The garment marks belonging to one’s own group, and its principal function is to conceal the hair so that men do not feel improper desire.
Showing one’s hair is regarded as so attractive that it is “dangerous” for men to be exposed to it, since the theory is that some Muslim men are then unable to control their own impulses.
Few things illustrate so clearly the difference between traditional, open Norwegian culture and the closed social structure of certain immigrant groups as precisely the hijab.
Where the headscarf was worn when one could not present oneself at one’s finest, the hijab is worn in order to conceal.
The hijab and the headscarf are therefore fundamentally different in their cultural function, even though the garments resemble one another somewhat in practical terms.
If we are to discuss the loss of national substance in connection with 17 May, I would personally rather see us, our politicians, and the press place greater emphasis on the hollowing-out of the Constitution and the surrender of sovereignty to supranational institutions.
But, for some strange reason, 17 May is supposedly not meant to be “political”. It is meant to be toothless, inclusive, and cosy. The children’s day, Norway’s birthday, ice cream and fizzy drinks.
That is all very well in itself, but it carries a certain bitter aftertaste when one sees how little respect is shown for the values the men of Eidsvoll stood for.
Regardless of what significance one attaches to the day, I wish everyone a very happy 17 May, wherever you may be in the world, and encourage everyone to stand by their opinions while at the same time remaining polite and kind.
If you see someone wearing a hijab with a bunad, one does not have to confront that person with one’s views on the matter precisely on 17 May.