TY - ABST

T1 - Talking Division Up

AU - Villadsen, Lisa Storm

N1 - Conference code: 16

PY - 2014/5/22

Y1 - 2014/5/22

N2 - In 1864, Denmark lost a border-war against Prussia and Austria and 2/5 of its territory: Holstein, Lauenborg and Slesvig. These areas had for centuries been both subjects to the Danish monarch and associated with the German Realm as quasi-independent duchies. In this paper, I turn to the beginning of the political program of inflated self-conception that led Denmark to war. While its initial spark emerged in an effort to gain democratic influence via a constitution (Denmark was an absolute monarchy until 1849), a key event in the nationalist surge was a movement dedicated to the celebration and idealization of the Danish language, a movement that arguably misrepresented the pragmatic bilingual and multicultural tradition of the region and hijacked the underlying issues of distribution of civil rights.One person in particular, Peter Hiort Lorenzen, caused a scandal when he insisted on speaking Danish in the Kiel assembly of the estates (a body of elected representatives charged with advising the monarch) where debate was ordinarily conducted in German. This act of linguistic resistance had incendiary effects, impressing other political stakeholders in the region and in the capital. Within a year, Lorenzen was hailed as a cultural hero at an outdoor public festival dedicated to the celebration of the Danish language and cultural heritage. Here, Lorenzen was famously presented with a silver beaker with the inscription “He persisted with speaking Danish” – a translation into the Danish of the German language minutes from the meeting in Kiel. This is border rhetoric in the most literal sense. In an analysis of the movement to privilege the Danish language in the region, I discuss how constitutive rhetoric in this case both enjoyed tremendous success and led to tragic political results by effectively introducing concerns of division that were at odds with daily life in the region. I argue that it was driven by motives that were somewhat extraneous to the cause of language priority, based as they were on concerns of expediency with regard to the most effective way to escape the power monopoly of the absolute monarchy and gain more political independence in the region.

AB - In 1864, Denmark lost a border-war against Prussia and Austria and 2/5 of its territory: Holstein, Lauenborg and Slesvig. These areas had for centuries been both subjects to the Danish monarch and associated with the German Realm as quasi-independent duchies. In this paper, I turn to the beginning of the political program of inflated self-conception that led Denmark to war. While its initial spark emerged in an effort to gain democratic influence via a constitution (Denmark was an absolute monarchy until 1849), a key event in the nationalist surge was a movement dedicated to the celebration and idealization of the Danish language, a movement that arguably misrepresented the pragmatic bilingual and multicultural tradition of the region and hijacked the underlying issues of distribution of civil rights.One person in particular, Peter Hiort Lorenzen, caused a scandal when he insisted on speaking Danish in the Kiel assembly of the estates (a body of elected representatives charged with advising the monarch) where debate was ordinarily conducted in German. This act of linguistic resistance had incendiary effects, impressing other political stakeholders in the region and in the capital. Within a year, Lorenzen was hailed as a cultural hero at an outdoor public festival dedicated to the celebration of the Danish language and cultural heritage. Here, Lorenzen was famously presented with a silver beaker with the inscription “He persisted with speaking Danish” – a translation into the Danish of the German language minutes from the meeting in Kiel. This is border rhetoric in the most literal sense. In an analysis of the movement to privilege the Danish language in the region, I discuss how constitutive rhetoric in this case both enjoyed tremendous success and led to tragic political results by effectively introducing concerns of division that were at odds with daily life in the region. I argue that it was driven by motives that were somewhat extraneous to the cause of language priority, based as they were on concerns of expediency with regard to the most effective way to escape the power monopoly of the absolute monarchy and gain more political independence in the region.

M3 - Conference abstract for conference

Y2 - 21 May 2014 through 26 May 2014

ER -