Futures Past

This chapter discusses the relationship between historiography, ideology and politics. Its starting point is Scandinavian historiography in general and the historiography of Scandinavianism in particular. It is shown how both are marked by methodological nationalism and a Scandinavian variant of the ‘Whig interpretation of history’. Moreover, it is argued that the master narrative within the historiography on political Scandinavianism is highly politicalized. It has been shaped by the arguments and rhetoric of the opponents of Scandinavianism, the so-called anti-Scandinavianists. The combination of political bias and a failed ideology project that does not fit into the national narratives explains the negative press that Scandinavianism has had within Scandinavian historiography. The ideology has not been seen as a possible future past, but rather as a project that was doomed to fail. After this discussion of Scandinavian history-writing, the attention is turned to a discussion of nineteenth-century European nationalism. Nationalism is in general understood as an ideology that strives for the creation or the maintenance of nation states. In this chapter, it is argued that this definition of nationalism does not capture much of nineteenth-century nationalism. Here, many national movements only sought limited autonomy or tied their aspirations to pan-nationalist or federalist projects. This suggests that Eric Hobsbawm may have been right in claiming that liberal nationalism between 1830 and 1880 was characterised by a ‘threshold principle’. A principle which affirmed that only states of a certain size could survive. This may explain why many nationalist movements prior to 1880 were defined by unification nationalism and pan-nationalism. These movements that flourished in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars were to an extent motivated by an existential fear. This explains why many within the elites of Scandinavia became Scandinavists and saw a united Scandinavia as a possible future.