Rhetorical Strategies of Unashamed Sámi Citizens

ABSTRACT

This article explores the rhetorical strategies applied in two political debate books published in 1979 and 2021, respectively, advocating for the rights of the indigenous Sámi people. Writing in the early stages of the Sámi struggle for recognition, Nils-Aslak Valkeapää used the rhetorical trope of irony to provoke the majoritised population and give the Sámi population an opportunity to laugh at the prejudices they are faced with. In the 1970s, the struggle for the survival of Sami culture overshadowed all other issues, and in Valkeapää’s book there is no discussion of women-specific challenges or gender issues. Ella Marie Hætta Isaksen, however, writes in an era affected by the #MeToo movement and has herself been a victim of sexualized violence. In her book, she uses her own experiences of growing up as a Sámi girl in Norway as rhetorical examples in discussions about prejudices against the Sámi, but also in a critique of gender roles in Sámi culture.

KEYWORDS:

• Sámi literature
• indigenous studies
• rhetoric
• political literature
• citizenship

“Only pride trumps shame” (Isaksen, 2021, p. 10),¹ the Sámi musician and activist Ella Marie Hætta Isaksen (1998–) writes in her book Derfor må du vite at jeg er same (That Is Why You Must Know That I Am Sámi). Isaksen became a household name in Norway when she won the popular singing competition Stjernekamp on Norwegian television in 2018, wearing a gákti—a traditional Sámi costume—and performing a joik—a traditional Sámi song. In her book, Isaksen (2021) writes that after the competition, she was contacted by a number of “people who have been ashamed all their lives to be Sámi, people who have inherited this shame from their parents” (p. 9),² and now, she wants to use her position to become an “ambassador—for the Sámi of my generation” (p. 10).³ She wants to overcome shame by cultivating her Sámi pride and acting as a positive role model for young Sámi as well as non-Sámi. With her book, Isaksen aims to inform the Norwegian public about Sámi culture and fight discrimination against the Sámi people.

The public image of Isaksen created through her book, her media appearances and her political activism is the image of—to use Jill Locke’s term—an unashamed citizen. In Democracy and the Death of Shame, Locke (2016) argues that throughout the history of democracy, shame has regulated behaviour and prodded “people to do what they are meant to” (p. 10). Unashamed citizens, however,

interrogate and denaturalize the terms of shame and shaming, dethrone the arbiters of what counts as officially political, claim space for themselves in the world by whatever means available, and fight for a reconstituted social order that gives real meaning to democratic commitment. (Locke, 2016, p. 12)

According to Locke (2016), tensions between these unashamed citizens and a ruling elite that calls for the restoration of shame typically appear “in moments of democratic expansion, specifically the extension of the category of citizen to persons previously denied its protections and privileges” (p. 13).

The past decades have been just such a moment of democratic expansion in Norway. From the middle of the nineteenth century, the indigenous Sámi population was systematically repressed by the Norwegian government. Sámi were denied the right to buy and own land unless they learned to speak and write fluently in Norwegian, and territories traditionally used by the Sámi for fishing and reindeer herding were expropriated by the state and industrialized (Cocq & DuBois, 2020; Weinstock, 2013). The Sámi struggle for recognition as an indigenous people gained momentum in the decades after World War II, and the late 1980s marked a turning point in the history of the Sámi in Norway. In 1988, the Sámi paragraph was included in the Norwegian Constitution. In 1989, Sámediggi (the Sámi Parliament) opened, and in 1990, Norway ratified ILO Convention no. 169 on indigenous peoples and tribal peoples in independent countries (C169). The Sámi population had won important civil rights as citizens of Norway.

An important figure in the Sámi struggle for recognition in Nordic countries during the late twentieth century was the Finnish-born poet, musician, artist and political activist Nils-Aslak Valkeapää (1943–2001), who moved to Norway in the 1990s. Like Isaksen, he had the public image of an unashamed citizen. At a time when the Sámi had yet to be formally recognized as an indigenous people, Valkeapää appeared publicly in traditional Sámi costume and renewed Sámi culture through his poetry, music and art. Fifty years prior to Isaksen, while living in Finland, Valkeapää also wrote a political debate book, Terveisiä Lapista (Valkeapää, 1971) (Greetings from Sápmi), with the aim of informing the greater public about Sámi culture and fighting discrimination and prejudice. In 1979, the book was translated, revised, expanded and published in Norwegian as Helsing frå Sameland. Similarly to Isaksen, Valkeapää (1979) refused to be ashamed of his Sámi background and stated at the end of his book: “I am proud to have been born a Sámi” (p. 126).⁴ Isaksen has expressed great gratitude to Valkeapää for his contribution to Sámi culture and for paving the way for all those who followed in his tracks, including herself (Lundgaard, 2020).

In this article, I will analyse and compare the rhetorical strategies applied by Valkeapää and Isaksen in Derfor må du vite at jeg er same and Helsing frå Sameland. This analysis explores how minoritised, unashamed citizens use rhetorical figures and argument types to expose and criticize the ideologies and prejudices of the majoritised population. The analysis also focuses on the important differences between these two Sámi authors, writing 50 years apart, thereby providing new insights into how rhetorical strategies have been used in different periods in the history of Sámi activism. The main thesis is that the pioneering author Valkeapää uses irony and a deliberate provocative style to spark debate and put the issue of Sámi rights on the public agenda. The contemporary author Isaksen, on the other hand, uses herself as a rhetorical example of what is like growing up as a young Sámi today. The theoretical framework for the analysis is based mainly on rhetorical theory, but the books are also discussed from an intersectional feminist perspective (Crenshaw, 1991). Both Valkeapää and Isaksen belong to and speak on behalf of the minoritised Sámi population. Isaksen, however, also addresses and criticizes gender roles in Sámi culture and sexual violence against Sámi women, while Valkeapää never explicitly discusses gender issues.

The Two Books

The Norwegian edition of Nils-Aslak Valkeapää’s Helsing frå Sameland was commissioned by Samisk Aksjonsgruppe (Sámi Action Group), a group protesting the Norwegian government’s plan to build a hydroelectric power station in the Alta-Kautokeino waterway in Northern Norway (Cocq & DuBois, 2020). The book was published in paperback by Pax Forlag, a publisher founded in 1964 with the expressed purpose of promoting left-wing radicalism and counterculture in Norway. Helsing frå Sameland can be characterized as a political debate book, and in the preface to the Norwegian edition, Valkeapää (1979) writes that the first edition was written during a period of pamphleteering in Finland: “Small books appeared, where one expressed oneself as blatantly as one could manage” (p. 9).⁵ Helsing frå Sameland is 127 pages long and consists of 30 chapters about different aspects of Sámi history, culture and way of life and how the Sámi have been—and still are being—treated by the states of Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia. Valkeapää discusses, among other things, joik, Sámi art, contemporary reindeer herding, Sámi languages, tourism in Sápmi, the forced Christianization of the Sámi people, education and the relationship between the Sámi and other indigenous peoples. Some chapters are mainly informative and present facts and figures, often backed by quotes from the research literature. Other chapters are mainly argumentative, criticizing the treatment of the Sámi and appealing for changes. Most chapters, however, have both informative and argumentative aspects.

While the Norwegian edition of Valkeapää’s book is clearly a part of the left-wing counter-cultural movement of the 1970s, Ella Marie Hætta Isaken’s book has more the appearance of a mainstream publication. Derfor må du vite at jeg er same was published in hardback with a dust cover by Cappelen Damm, the largest publisher in Norway. In the publishing catalogue, the book is classified as non-fiction, and there are no specific genre indications on the cover. Derfor må du vite at jeg er same is 208 pages long, including 19 pages of references, and similarly to Helsing frå Sameland, the book consists of 27 short chapters discussing different aspects of Sámi history, culture and way of life, and the treatment of Sámi in Norway. Several topics overlap between the two books, including joik, reindeer-herding, Sámi languages, tourism and education, but—as previously noted—Isaksen also discusses negative aspects of gender roles in the Sámi community. Derfor må du vite at jeg er same is partly an autobiography. It is not a chronological narration of Isaksen’s life, but in the different chapters, the author uses episodes from her life as starting points for more general discussions of topics. Thus, in the individual chapters, Isaksen combines passages of personal narrative text with informative text passages about a current topic and argumentative text passages where she argues for change. In contrast, Valkeapää is rarely visible as a narrator, and he never discusses his private life.

Rhetorical Situations

In this analysis, the two books are interpreted as rhetorical utterances. Lloyd F. Bitzer (1968) describes a rhetorical utterance as an utterance that aims to produce a change in the world: “The rhetor alters reality by bringing into existence a discourse of such a character that the audience, in thought and action, is so engaged that it becomes mediator of change” (p. 4). Both Valkeapää and Isaksen state explicitly that they aim to produce change. Valkeapää (1979) wants to provoke readers and make them “debate for and against: on the Sámi question” (p. 9).⁶ Isaksen (2021) wants to “educate the majority population” and fight “the unfair treatment that the Sámi people has been, and still are, a victim of” (p. 10).⁷

According to Bitzer (1968), a rhetorical utterance is embedded in a rhetorical situation, that is, “a complex of persons, events, objects and relations” where it is possible to produce changes through utterances (p. 6). Bitzer identifies three constituents of any rhetorical situation: exigence, audience and constraints.

Exigence

Exigence is “a defect, an obstacle, something waiting to be done, a thing which is other than it should be”, and these defects are what the rhetors are trying to change with their rhetorical utterances (Bitzer, 1968, p. 6). The exigencies—the defects that the authors want to amend—in the rhetorical situations of Helsing frå Sameland and Derfor må du vite at jeg er same are to a great extent the same, although the situations are 50 years apart. First, the majoritised population are uninformed about the Sámi population. Isaksen (2021) has discovered “large knowledge gaps about Sámi culture and history” (p. 10),⁸ and Valkeapää (1979) writes that—contrary to common belief—the world does not end ’at the top edge of the map’ (p. 16).⁹

Second, because of the long repression of the Sámi by Nordic countries and Russia, many Sámi feel shame in who they are, and they are reluctant to identify themselves as Sámi. Valkeapää writes that many Coastal Sámi, the part of the Sámi population that traditionally had lived as fishermen and farmers along the coast of Norway, are not involved in Sámi politics and “do not want to belong to the Sámi people” (Valkeapää, 1979, p. 82).¹⁰ As mentioned previously, Isaksen has been contacted by older Sámi who confessed to her that they felt shame in being Sámi.

Third, Sámi territories and traditional reindeer herding and fishing are threatened by pollution, industrialization and commercialized fishing. In the preface to the revised Norwegian edition from 1979, Valkeapää comments on several current threats, such as forestry and mining in Sweden and the building of hydroelectric power plants in Norway. Isaksen (2021) also addresses industrialization and mining in Sámi areas, and has herself been involved in protests against mining around the Nussir Mountain, but writing in 2021, she is also aware of how global climate change alters nature in Sámi territories: “The Barents Sea is changing—and the living conditions of salmon will be affected by changes in temperature and CO2 concentration” (p. 114).¹¹

Fourth, the Sámi population do not have the right to govern their own territories; Sápmi has been—and still is—colonized by the states of Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia. Valkeapää (1979) draws parallels with the European colonialization of Africa and quotes the French ethnologist Erica Simon, who states that “Sápmi has also been the victim of colonialism” (p. 108).¹² However, there were important developments during the period between Valkeapää’s situation in 1971/1979 and Isaksen’s in 2021, including Norway’s ratification of ILO Convention no. 169, guaranteeing the Sámis’ rights as an indigenous people, and the establishment of the Sámi Parliament in Norway. Still, conflicts regularly occur between the interests of the Sámi population and actions taken or sanctioned by the state of Norway, such as mining in the reindeer pastures around Nussir.

Audience

The second constituent of a rhetorical situation is the audience. According to Bitzer (1968), the audience must be distinguished from “a body of mere hearers or readers: properly speaking, a rhetorical audience consists only of those persons who are capable of being influenced by discourse and of being mediators of change” (p. 8). In other words, the audience is the people who are willing and able to change the world in line with the intentions of the rhetor and amend the defects in the rhetorical situation.

The people who have the power to amend many of the defects addressed in Helsing frå Sameland and Derfor må du vite at jeg er same are the majoritised population of Norway and in Valkeapää’s case also Finland. They are the ones who can learn more about Sámi history and culture, overcome their prejudices and support the Sámis’ demands for rights to control their own territories. The majoritised population is also clearly the primary model reader (Eco, 1979) addressed by the two books. The titles and cover illustrations signal that the books are messages sent from within the Sami community to recipients outside. Valkeapää’s title alludes to texts typically printed on travel postcards: “Greetings from Sápmi”. The cover illustration is a black-and-white photo montage showing an elderly man in traditional Sámi clothing sitting in moss, smoking a pipe and looking at the reader. Behind him loom huge high-voltage masts, referring to the current conflicts surrounding the building of hydroelectric power plants in the Alta-Kautokeino waterway. Isaksen’s title—That Is Why You Must Know That I Am Sámi—defines a communication situation with an “I” and a “you”, where “I” am a Sámi and “you”, presumably, are not. This communication situation is underlined by the cover illustration, a portrait of Isaksen herself wearing a traditional Sámi costume with large silver brooches looking at the reader.

However, one of the exigencies in these rhetorical situations cannot be resolved by the majoritised population alone. The shame many feel over being a Sámi is something that members of the Sámi population can confront in themselves by being proud of their Sámi identity—as both Valkeapää and Isaksen demonstrate. Therefore, the audience in the rhetorical situations of Helsing frå Sameland and Derfor må du vite at jeg er same also includes the Sámi population in Norway and in Valkeapää’s case, Finland. In both books, there are passages explicitly addressing a Sámi model reader. One of the chapters written for the Norwegian edition of Helsing frå Sameland bears the title “Together we are stronger” (Valkeapää, 1979, p. 114),¹³ in which Valkeapää addresses the Sámi people as “we” and asks them to join forces with other indigenous people around the world. Similarly, Isaksen (2021) ends her book with an appeal to young Sámi, where she—like Valkeapää—addresses them as “we”: “At the same time, we have a future that is ours, we who belong to the new generation of Sámi. And our unity will move mountains. We can shape the future as we wish. Without feeling ashamed” (p. 183).¹⁴

Constraints

According to Bitzer (1968), the constraints of a rhetorical situation are made up of “persons, events, objects, and relations which are parts of the situation because they have the power to constrain decision and action needed to modify the exigence” (p. 8). Typical sources of constraints include “beliefs, attitudes, documents, facts, traditions, images, interests, motives and the like” (Bitzer, 1968, p. 8). When entering the rhetorical situation, the rhetor also “provides additional important constraints—for example his personal character, his logical proofs, and his style” (Bitzer, 1968, p. 8).

One major source of constraints in both rhetorical situations is the majoritised population’s beliefs and attitudes about—and more specifically their prejudices against—the Sámi. Valkeapää (1979) writes that the Sámi are considered a “primitive people” (p. 15)¹⁵ living as reindeer-herders in tents way up north, far from civilization, with a strong tendency towards alcohol abuse. Isaksen also comments on the prejudices behind an apparent compliment she received from a boy in high school: “You’re so tall and pretty, Ella. And you speak perfect Norwegian. Who would have thought you were Sámi” (Isaksen, 2021, p. 30).¹⁶ Such prejudices fuel feelings of shame about being Sámi, and according to Isaksen, many Sámi are reluctant to speak in a Sámi language, wear a traditional Sámi costume or in other ways display their Sámi identity in public. Isaksen (2021) writes: “Through the harsh Norwegianisation, many Sámi—consciously or unconsciously—have adopted society’s attitudes towards them. It’s called internalized racism” (p. 172).¹⁷ If the authors are to succeed in remedying the defects of the rhetorical situation, they must persuade their readers in the majoritised population to change their beliefs and attitudes and overcome their prejudices.

Despite many similarities, Valkeapää and Isaksen also faced different constraints. The two books are separated by half a century, and when Valkeapää wrote Helsing frå Sameland in 1971 and 1979, the struggle for Sámi rights was still in its early stages. The Sámi were not recognized as an indigenous people, the possibilities to learn and use Sámi languages in school were limited, and the Sámi Parliament in Norway was not yet established. When Isaksen was born in 1998, however, many important victories had been won by Valkeapää’s generation of Sámi activists. As she writes in her book, Isaksen had the opportunity to attend a Sámi primary school, study according to the Sámi national curriculum set by the Sámi parliament, take lessons in joik and celebrate Sámi National Day on February 6th.

Public awareness of and attitudes towards gender roles were also different in 1971/1979 and 2021, respectively, both within and outside the Sámi population. As Halsaa (2020) argues, many women were involved in the Sámi struggle for civil rights during the 1970s, but because the survival of the entire Sámi culture was at stake, there was little room for gender conflicts and women-specific issues. Also, Kuokkanen (2015, p. 279) wrote that there has been a “widespread inclination to conceal and ignore” cases of sexualized violence against Sámi women, particularly during the process of rebuilding Sámi culture and society:

Sámi involved in this process since its inception in the 1970s had learned that to get the approval of Norwegian authorities, the Sámi society has to speak with one voice. Accounts of sexual abuse were therefore perceived as acts of disloyalty and a threat to the development of Sámi society. (Kuokkanen, 2015, p. 279–280)

The lack of discussions of gender issues in Helsing frå Sameland can therefore be considered typical of this period in Sámi activism.

Isaksen (2021), in contrast, writes in a cultural context affected by “#MeToo and greater focus on the taboos and culture of silence in Sámi communities” (p. 157).¹⁸ Derfor må du vite at jeg er same is also part of a recent trend of intersectional feminist activism in Norwegian literature (Oxfeldt, 2021). Young authors such as Amina Bile, Sofia Nesrine Srour, Nanzy Herz and Camara Lundestad Joof write autobiographical texts discussing the challenges of minoritised women in contemporary Norwegian society, particularly the structures of repression of women in the majoritised as well as in the minoritised society (Oxfeldt, 2021). Isaksen also has an intersectional perspective in her book, criticizing the way she and other Sámi women have been treated both by the majoritised population and within the Sámi community. Growing up in the Sámi community in Tana, Isaksen (2021) found the “Sámi gender role pattern” (p. 156)¹⁹ too restrictive and shaved her head to mark her distance from the gender expectations she experienced, sparking questions about her sexuality: “Many had wondered if I was a lesbian, but now there was a new theory that I could rather be asexual” (p. 157).²⁰ Isaksen also writes about her own experiences with sexualized violence and refers to statistics that show that one in two Sámi women has been subjected to violence in close relationships. Although much has changed since the 1970s, when Valkeapää wrote Helsing frå Sameland, Isaksen (2021) argues that “Abuse in our Sami communities is a major societal problem that is still not talked about enough” (p. 162).²¹

One final difference in the constraints that Valkeapää and Isaksen face in their respective rhetorical situations is related to their public status. In the 1970s, Valkeapää was an established artist and musician. However, it was not until the late 1980s and early 1990s that he became a household name in Norway through acting in the Academy Award-nominated movie Ofelaš (Pathfinder) in 1987, winning the prestigious Nordic Council Literary Prize in 1991 and performing a joik at the opening ceremony of the Olympic Winter Games in Lillehammer in 1994. Isaksen, in contrast, wrote her book after a massive media breakthrough. Thus, to a greater degree than Valkeapää, Isaksen can build her rhetorical strategies on a strong initial ethos—that is, a personal credibility that exists prior to the text (McCroskey, 2005); the audience knows who she is and what she represents. Isaksen also shows that she is aware of this advantage when she writes in the introduction that she wants to use her position to be an ambassador for the Sámi people.

Valkeapää’s Irony

In Helsing frå Sameland, Valkeapää addresses two rhetorical audiences: the majoritised population in Finland and Norway and the minoritised Sámi population. To amend the defects in the rhetorical situation, Valkeapää has to convince the majoritised population to overcome their prejudices towards Sámi people and at the same time convince the Sámi population to free themselves from shame and be proud of their Sámi identity. Valkeapää’s extensive use of the rhetorical figure of irony in Helsing frå Sameland (Linneberg, 2005) may contribute to achieving these goals.

In classical rhetorical theory, irony is typically defined as a figure that is “contrary to what is said is to be understood” (Quintilianus, Institutio oratioria, IX.2.44). From the rhetor’s character or tone of voice, the subject matter or the situation, the audience infers that the rhetor intends to express the opposite of what is literally stated, resulting in laughter or even ridicule at someone else’s expense (Canter, 1936). The relationship between rhetor and audience in ironic communication has been a subject of debate in modern rhetorical and literary theories. According to Kaufer (1977), some theorists, such as Chaim Perelman, Wayne C. Booth and Kenneth Burke, argue that this “relationship is marked by association and sympathy” (p. 94). The rhetor presupposes an agreement with the audience and trusts them to understand that the ironic statement should not be interpreted literally. Others, including Søren Kierkegaard, Alan Thompson and Northrop Frye, argue that irony distances the rhetor from the audience by forsaking literal communication that can be understood by anyone.

Kaufer merges these opposing perspectives into a theory of irony as a rhetorical strategy that enables the rhetor to address different audiences simultaneously. According to Kaufer, an ironic expression can be interpreted in two ways: literally or ironically. These two possible interpretations are contradictory, and the audience must choose either one or the other. Kaufer argues that the rhetor therefore can use irony to convey a message that will be understood literally by an audience of the rhetor’s opponents and ironically by an audience of the rhetor’s allies. One example is communication among dissidents who cannot speak freely and must pretend that the victims of their irony, “i.e., the ruling elite, are part of their chosen audience” (Kaufer, 1977, p. 102). The rhetor seemingly agrees with the ruling elite, but other dissidents understand the rhetor’s ironic intentions.

In Helsing frå Sameland, there are numerous passages where Valkeapää—if interpreted literally—expresses the opinions and prejudices of the majoritised population in Finland and Norway. One example is the chapter on the Christianization of Sápmi where Valkeapää (1979) seemingly agrees with the missionaries that the Sámi were primitive people in need of salvation: “God was a strict God, he burned the remains of paganism, removed the idols. Then life was good for enlightenment and culture” (p. 23).²² Writing about himself, Valkeapää rarely reveals personal details, as opposed to Isaksen, whose book contains long, autobiographical passages. Instead, Valkeapää describes himself as a stereotypical Sámi character possessing many of the traits that the majoritised population associates with the Sámi. He describes himself as an unintelligent person: “Of course I’m trying to think. To the extent that I am capable of it with my little brain” (Valkeapää, 1979, p. 14).²³ And the reason why he is unintelligent is his Sámi heritage: “Unfortunately, I came to belong to a primitive people. My song is a joik. And I live so pitifully far-off; there is nothing, no theatre, no opera, not even indoor toilets” (Valkeapää, 1979, p. 15).²⁴ Because of the harsh conditions in the North, the Sámi are “small and crippled” and have “squinting, teary eyes” and “reddish, dark skin that dirt and sunburn make appear even darker” (Valkeapää, 1979, p. 13).²⁵

When describing the majoritised population in Finland and Norway, Valkeapää seemingly supports their self-image as enlightened, modern, culturally advanced and clearly superior to the Sámi. They are “spiritually awake and noble people” (Valkeapää, 1979, p. 13)²⁶ and “the conscience of the world” (Valkeapää, 1979, p. 11).²⁷ He also describes how the school system in Finland taught him that Sámi culture—and particularly joik—was primitive: “Still, it so happened that I got to know the elevated music in school: we sang the aria ‘the king who was plagued by a flea … ’” (Valkeapää, 1979, p. 126),²⁸ referring to an aria by the Russian composer Modest Mussorgsky. In Helsing frå Sameland, Valkeapää repeatedly refers to and sometimes directly addresses the president of Finland, and these passages are written in a rhetorical high style, signalling the elevated status of the president. One example is a paragraph describing the president’s yearly fishing trip in Sámi territory:

Our High Lord, the President, arrives every year. If not otherwise, then by plane or helicopter. At 7 PM, there is dinner. One minute prior, the ministers and the county governors gather and await the big moment. The entourage is numerous; admittedly, half of them are journalists. The prince of Sweden goes to the toilet. The air is filled with heroism. (Valkeapää, 1979, p. 54)²⁹

In the rhetorical situation, as well as in the text itself, there are numerous signals that passages such as these should be interpreted ironically. First, Valkeapää was actively involved in the struggle for Sámi rights in the 1970s, and readers who were familiar with his political activism understood that he would never argue that the Sámi are inferior to the majoritised population. Second, the opinions and prejudices expressed in these ironic passages are directly contradicted by other parts of the book, where Valkeapää describes in detail the positive aspects of Sámi culture and criticizes the repression of the Sámi people by Nordic states. Third, the prejudiced portrayal of the Sámi and the elevation of the majoritised population are taken to such extremes that a literal interpretation seems absurd. The prince of Sweden’s visit to the toilet can hardly be judged as an act of heroism.

This use of irony may, according Kaufer’s theory, establish a relationship marked by association and sympathy between Valkeapää and the minoritised Sámi population. The author signals that he and his audience belong to the same group, sharing the same experiences, knowledge and attitudes, and thus are able to understand the real message behind the literal meaning. Furthermore, irony has the rhetorical effect of ridiculing the majoritised population, thus giving the Sámi readers the opportunity to laugh at prejudices that otherwise are a source of shame. Thus, Valkeapää’s extensive use of irony at the majoritised population’s expense may be interpreted as a form of colonial mimicry. According to Bhabha (1984), a colonized society often mimics the culture of the colonizer, resulting in something that is “almost the same, but not quite” (p. 126). The differences between the original and the imitator create ambivalence that mocks and undermines the authority of the colonizer. Valkeapää (1979) himself sees his activism as part of a global battle against colonialism, quoting Erica Simon: “As is well known, the third world—the developing countries—are former colonies. Sápmi has also been a victim of colonialism, as far back as the time the Sámi and the Norsemen met on the Cap of the North” (p. 108).³⁰ By ridiculing the majoritised population, Valkeapää may—according to Meyer’s (2000) theory of the functions of humour—“maintain identification and political unity among members of one group”, i.e. the Sámi, “while stressing contradictions and differences they have with others” (p. 322).

There are no reasons to believe that the second audience in the rhetorical situation, that is, the majoritised population, will read the ironic passages literally, as in Kaufer’s example of dissidents using irony to convey messages that the ruling elite cannot understand. Valkeapää’s irony is too overt to be misunderstood. Rather, his “ruthless and ironic thoughts” (Valkeapää, 1979, p. 10)³¹ can be interpreted as a deliberate provocation intended to make people “debate for and against: on the Sámi question” (Valkeapää, 1979, p. 9).³² According to Klujeff (2012), a “provocative style” (p. 101) of writing where an author violates decorum and mocks the opponent—like Valkeapää does—may have an important function in public debates. This style provokes reactions and rebuttals, thereby forcing the issue to be debated and deliberated upon.

Kaufer’s theory of irony may explain how this provocation functions rhetorically. As mentioned, an ironic statement can be interpreted either literally or ironically. In Helsing frå Sameland, Valkeapää expresses the prejudices of the majoritised population in such an exaggerated and parodic way that it becomes impossible to interpret the statements literally. The readers are therefore forced into the only other option: an ironic interpretation, whereby they are invited to share the author’s critical perspective on opinions and prejudices that they themselves may hold to some degree. Valkeapää makes—in Bhabha’s word—a mockery of the majoritised population and asks them to laugh at themselves. Some readers may find this thought provoking, others just plain provoking, but in either case, Valkeapää may achieve his aim of raising debate about the treatment of Sámi and the Sámi’s right to govern their own territories.

There is also another possible rhetorical effect. Readers from the majoritised population who are already sympathetic to the Sámi struggle may choose to align themselves with the author and laugh at other members of the majoritised population who are more prejudiced than they are. There are reasons to believe that many of the actual readers of Helsing frå Sameland in the 1970s belonged to this category, given that the book was published within the Norwegian counterculture movement. As Cocq and DuBois (2020) have shown, there were strong ties between Sámi activists and the Norwegian and international counterculture movements in the 1970s and 1980s.

Isaksen’s Examples

Like Valkeapää, Isaksen addresses two rhetorical audiences: the majoritised population in Norway and the minoritised Sámi population. However, the rhetorical strategy used to amend the defects in the rhetorical situation differs. In Derfor må du vite at jeg er same, there is hardly a single phrase that may be interpreted ironically. The tone is sincere throughout the book; Isaksen openly shares her thoughts, feelings and personal experiences, and she is overtly critical of the treatment of the Sámi in Norway, both historically and today. Personal anecdotes play an especially important role in the book’s rhetorical strategy.

Most chapters in Derfor må du vite at jeg er same include narrative sequences depicting episodes from Isaksen’s life, often from her childhood in the Sámi community in Tana. She writes about positive memories of playing by the river, building a bonfire and going to joik and drama classes, but also about being harassed by strangers on the bus and being mistreated by her boyfriend. One example is a scene from a lesson with the joiking teacher Inga Juuso:

I was lying on a hard linoleum floor with my hands lightly drumming on my stomach. Above me stood Inga Juuso, her gaze fixed on me. I had to close my eyes so as not to laugh. It felt almost comical to lie like that just waiting for the joik. Especially for a giggling twelve-year-old like me. (Isaksen, 2021, p. 74)³³

In each case, the personal anecdote leads to informative and argumentative passages discussing the same topic on a larger scale. The story about building a bonfire works as the introduction to a long description of how the Sámi traditionally have lived in close relationship with nature. Accounts of her own mental health issues are intertwined with a criticism of the culture of silence in the Sámi community:

The culture of silence in Sápmi – jávohis-kultuvra – can stand in the way of both individuals and society as a whole. But if you want to get rid of taboos, I think openness is the key. […] Life has taught me that it’s okay not to master everything. (Isaksen, 2021, p. 171)³⁴

In the informative and argumentative passages, she refers to research literature, statistics, newspaper articles, and some other sources, and the reference list at the end of the book is 19 pages long.

In classical rhetorical terminology, Isaksen’s combination of specific anecdotes from her own life and general discussions of related issues can be designated as argument by examples. Aristotle identifies example as one of the two main forms of rhetorical arguments—the other being enthymeme—and describes it as the rhetorical counterpart to inductive reasoning in dialectics (Aristotle, Rhetorica, I.2). Induction “is a passage from individuals to universals” (Aristotle, Topica I.12), and in rhetorical argumentation, the individual example is presented as proof of a more generalized and universal statement. In his interpretation of Aristotle, Hauser (1968) writes that examples are convincing arguments “since universals are abstracted from particulars” (p. 84).

According to Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, an example must meet two requirements to be convincing. First, it must be “appropriate to the subject” ([Aristotle], Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, 1439a); it must be a fitting parallel to the general issue it is meant to exemplify. This requirement is clearly met in Derfor må du vite at jeg er same. As a young Sámi herself, she can use her own life as a running example of what it is like to grow up as Sámi in Norway today. In the first chapter, Isaksen declares that she intends to be an “ambassador—for the Sami of my generation” (Isaksen, 2021, p. 10),³⁵ the particular that represents the universal. Her own experiences of growing up as a girl in a Sámi community also enable her to write convincingly about what she believes to be problematic aspects of Sámi culture, such as gender roles, sexualized violence against women and the culture of silence.

The second requirement is that an example must be close to “the audience in time or place” ([Aristotle], Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, 1439). According to Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, an audience is likelier to be convinced if they “have examples in their own minds of what is being said” ([Aristotle], Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, 1428). This means that the rhetor’s examples should be recognizable; they should be like something the audience has experienced or heard of before. Also, the audience is more inclined to believe the rhetor if they are “in sympathy with us on the subject on which we are speaking” ([Aristotle], Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, 1428). These requirements are also met by the examples in Derfor må du vite at jeg er same. As previously mentioned, Isaksen wrote her book after achieving mainstream success and becoming a household name in Norway. Because of her status, she has a strong initial ethos among both her rhetorical audiences: the majoritised and the minoritised Sámi population in Norway. They know who she is, and many also sympathize with her. Thus, when Isaksen uses anecdotes from her own life as examples, the audience is likely to recognize and believe her examples and, consequently, sympathize with the general issues that the anecdotes exemplify. In the first chapter, Isaksen writes explicitly about using her position to educate the majoritised population and fight the unfair treatment of the Sámi population. This rhetorical strategy was to a lesser extent available to Valkeapää in his rhetorical situation because Helsing frå Sameland was written before his major breakthrough.

The rhetorical effect of Isaksen’s argument by examples may differ between the two audiences. When reading about Isaksen’s life, the majoritised population learns more about Sámi history and culture. They also see how the colonization of Sápmi and the common prejudices against the Sámi population have affected a person with whom they know and sympathize, thus motivating them to overcome their own prejudices and engage in the political issues addressed in the book. For the minoritised Sámi population, however, Isaksen (2021) aims to be “a positive role model” (p. 10).³⁶ She describes her experiences of living as a Sámi in Norway as both positive and negative, which many of her readers may recognize from their own lives. At the same time, unlike many of the elder Sámi, Isaksen (2021) is free from shame and cultivates “Sámi pride” (p. 10).³⁷ In rhetorical terms, many of the autobiographical passages in Derfor må du vite at jeg er same can therefore be described as protreptic examples, that is, positive examples to follow (Andersen, 1995, p. 152).

Conclusion

Fifty years apart, Nils-Aslak Valkeapää and Ella Marie Hætta Isaksen wrote books expressing Sámi pride and attacking public opinions and prejudices that have made people ashamed to be Sámi. Although their aims are similar, my analysis has shown that the authors apply different rhetorical strategies to achieve these aims. On the one hand, Valkeapää uses irony to make a mockery of the majoritised population, their self-image and their prejudices against the Sámi, thereby provoking the majoritised population and giving the Sámi the opportunity to laugh at the prejudices that otherwise shame them. Isaksen, on the other hand, uses her own life as an example of Sámi culture and the treatment of Sámi in Norway. Unlike Valkeapää, Isaksen also criticizes the way women are treated in Sámi culture, but mainly, her book advocates Sámi pride. Regardless of the differences, however, Valkeapää and Isaksen are important figures in different eras of the Sámi fight for recognition and civil rights in Nordic countries. In their books, they present themselves as proud, unashamed citizens, but more importantly, they challenge common prejudices in a way that may inspire others to free themselves of shame.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by The Research Council of Norway under Grant 315360; Norges Forskningsråd.

Notes on contributors

Jonas Bakken

Jonas Bakken is an associate professor of Norwegian Language Arts Teaching and Head of the Teacher Education Programme at the University of Oslo. His research interests include rhetoric, language arts teaching and Sámi literature.

Notes

1. «Stolthet er det eneste som trumfer skammen.» All translations are by the author.

2. «[…] mennesker som har skammet seg et helt liv for å være samiske, mennesker som har arvet denne skammen fra foreldrene»

3. «ambassadør—for min generasjons samer»

4. «Eg er stolt over å være fødd som same.»

5. «Små bøker dukka opp, og i desse uttrykte ein seg så uforskamma som ein berre kunne få seg til.»

6. «[…] diskutere for og imot: om Samespørsmålet»

7. «[…] den urettferdige behandlingen det samiske folket har blitt, og stadig blir, utsatt for»

8. «store kunnskapshull om samisk kultur og historie»

9. «ved den øvste kanten av kartet»

10. «vil ikkje tilhøyre samefolket»

11. «Barentshavet er i endring—og laksens livsvilkår vil påvirkes av endringer i temperatur og C02-konsentrasjon.»

12. «Sameland har også vore offer for kolonialismen»

13. «Saman står vi sterkare»

14. «Samtidig har vi en fremtid som er vår, vi som tilhører den nye generasjonen samer. Og samholdet vårt skal flytte fjell. Fremtiden kan vi forme som vi vil. Uten å føle skam.»

15. «primitivt folkeslag»

16. «Du er jo så høy og pen, Ella. Og så snakker du perfekt norsk. Skulle ikke tro at du var same.»

17. «Gjennom den harde fornorskingen har mange samer—bevisst eller ubevisst—adoptert samfunnets holdninger til dem. Det kalles internatilsert rasisme.»

18. «#meetoo og større fokus på tabuer og taushetskultur i samiske samfunn»

19. «Det samiske kjønnsrollemønsteret»

20. «Flere hadde spekulert i om jeg var lesbisk, men nå kom det altså en ny teori om at jeg heller kunne være aseksuell»

21. «Overgrep i våre samiske samfunn er et stort samfunnsproblem som fremdeles ikke snakkes nok om.»

22. «Gud var ein streng Gud, han brende leivningane etter heidenskapen, fjerna seidane. Då vart det godt å leve for opplysninga og kulturen.»

23. «Eg prøver sjøvsagt å tenkje. I den grad eg er i stand til det med min vesle hjerne.»

24. «Diverre kom et til å tilhøyre eit primitivt folkeslag. Songen min er ein joik. Og eg bur så gudsjammerleg avsides; der finst det då ingen ting, ikkje teater, ikkje opera, ikkje ein gong innedo.»

25. «små og forkrøpla», «mysande tårevåte augo», «raudleg, mørk hud som skitt og solsteik får til å verke endå mørkare»

26. «åndeleg vakne og edelmodige menneske»

27. «verdas samvet»

28. «Likevel fall det seg så at eg fekk bli kjend med den høgtståande musikken i skoletida: vi song arien “kongen som vart plaga av ei loppe … ”»

29. «Vår Høge Herre Presidenten kjem kvart år. Om ikkje på anna vis, så med fly eller helikopter. Klokka 19.00 er det middag. Eitt minutt føreåt samlar minstrane og fylkesmennene seg og ventar på den store augnebliken. Fylgjet er talrikt, halvparten rett nok journalistar. Svenskeprinsen går på do. Lufta er full av heltedåd.»

30. «Som kjent er den tredje verda—utviklingslanda—tidlegare kolonistatar. Sameland har også vore offer for kolonialismen, frå langt attende i tida då samane og nordbuarane møttest på Nordkalotten.»

31. «uvørnde og ironiseranda tankane»

32. «[…] diskutere for og imot: om Samespørsmålet»

33. «Jeg lå på et hardt linoleumsgulv med hendene lett trommende på magen. Over meg sto Inga Juuso, med blikket festet på meg. Jeg måtte lukke øynene for ikke å le. Det føltes nesten komisk å ligge sånn å bare vente på joiken. Spesielt for en fnisete tolvåring som meg.»

34. «Taushetskulturen i Sápmi—jávohis-kultuvra—kan stå i veien både for enkeltpersoner og samfunn som helhet. Men skal man bli kvitt tabuer, tror jeg åpenhet er selve nøkkelen. […] Livet har lært meg at det går helt greit å ikke mestre alt.»

35. «ambassadør—for min generasjons samer»

36. «et positivt forbilde»

37. «samiske stolthet»