ABSTRACT [DK]

Troels Peter Roland
Hinsides markleddet
Claus Eskildsens Dansk Grænselære og de store fortællinger

Ud fra Anthony Smiths identifikation af førmodernistiske modsætninger i nationalisme undersøges sammenstødet mellem historiske narrativer om Slesvig i Claus Eskildsens Dansk Grænselære (1936) og de tyske modsvar. Tidligere tysk-slesvigsk populærhistorie indeholder en voluntaristisk-perennilialistisk narrativ, som minder om den ”franske” nationalismetradition, om end ”tysk” nationalisme er kendetegnet af en organicistisk-primordialstisk tradition, som i 1930’erne var underlagt biologistiske strømninger. I Slesvig blev denne tradition imidlertid fremmet fra den danske side, idet Eskildsens Blut-und-Boden-ideologi betragtede alle slesvigere som danske. Da Blut-und-Boden var officiel tysk ideologi, måtte hans modstandere for at hamle op med ham opgive den ældre opfattelse af tysk kultur som berettiget til udbredelse og holde fast i en ikke-ekspansiv perennialisme, samtidig med at den opbyggede en ”modprimordialisme” med en fortælling om kontinuitet fra oldtiden for tyske slesvigere. Eskildsen indlemmede imidlertid perennialismen i sit eget primordialistiske udviklingsbegreb og søgte at afmontere modprimordialismen. Den tyske side søgte så en syntese mellem narrativerne, men løste siden problemet ved at afskrive alle narrativer over for udefineret ”Germanentum”. Begge sider gjorde brug af en blanding af videnskab, pseudovidenskab og fejlbehæftet argumentation, og professor Otto Scheel manipulerede de tyske debattører. Over for et dansk publikum måtte Eskildsens ideologi imidlertid også redigeres, så Blut-und-Boden-ideologien blev nedtonet. Samtidig blev der fremmet en narrativ om Eskildsens bog som et ironisk tankeeksperiment, som fik et langt efterliv blandt danske slesvigere.


ABSTRACT [UK]

Troels Peter Roland
Claus Eskildsen’s Danish Border Lesson and the Great Narratives

On the basis of Anthony Smith’s identification of pre-modernistic contrasts in nationalism, the Danish-German struggle of historical narratives about Schleswig in Claus Eskildsen’s Dansk Grænselære (1936) and the German responses to it is explored. The earlier German popular history of Schleswig-Holstein follows a voluntaristic-perennialistic narrative akin to the ”French” tradition of nationalism, although ”German” nationalism is characterised by an organicistic-primordialistic tradition which is subject to biologistic trends in the 1930s. In Schleswig, however, this narrative was put forward from the Danish side by Eskildsen’s book promoting a biological Blood and Soil view of all Schleswigers as Danish. As Blood and Soil was the official German ideology, his opponents had to match his terms by surrendering the older view of German culture as entitled to expansion and holding on to a non-expansive perennialism but simultaneously constructing a ”counterprimordialistic” narrative of continuity from antiquity for the German population element. Eskildsen, however, annexed the perennialism into his own primordialistic concept of progress and debunked the counterprimordialism. The German side then attempted a synthesis between the narratives but eventually solved the problem by writing off all narratives as irrelevant in the face of undefined ”Germanicness”. Both sides were using a mixture of science, pseudoscience and flawed reasoning and professor Otto Scheel manipulated the German debaters. In order to be palatable to a Danish audience, Eskildsen’s thinking was also edited, downplaying the Blood and Soil ideology. Additionally, a narrative about his book as an ironic thought experiment was constructed, gaining a long afterlife among Danish Schleswigers.

Der er lukket for kommentarer.