Syndrom velkého vlka

by Thomas Hylland Eriksen

Genres: Nonfiction, Anthropology

212 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2008

About the author

Geir Thomas Hylland Eriksen was a Norwegian anthropologist known for his scholarly and popular writing on globalization, identity, ethnicity, and nationalism. He was Professor of Social Anthropology in the Department of Social Anthropology at the University of Oslo. He has previously served as the President of the European Association of Social Anthropologists (2015–2016), as well as the Editor of Samtiden (1993–2001), Norsk antropologisk tidsskrift (1993–1997), the Journal of Peace Research, and Ethnos.
Hylland Eriksen was among the most prolific and highly cited anthropologists of his generation, and had been recognized for his remarkable success in bringing an anthropological perspective to a broader, non-academic audience. In Norway, Hylland Eriksen was a well-known public intellectual whose advocacy of diversity and cultural pluralism had earned both praise and scorn. Right-wing terrorist Anders Behring Breivik, perpetrator of the 2011 Norway attacks, cited Eriksen critically in his manifesto and during his 2012 trial.
In the academy and beyond, Hylland Eriksen had been highly decorated for his scholarship. He was the recipient of honorary degrees from Stockholm University (2011), the University of Copenhagen (2021), and Charles University in Prague (2021), as well as one of anthropology's most prestigious honors, the Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography's Gold Medal (2022). He was a member of the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters.

Reviews

[Majavrisidivu · Rating 5 out of 5]

snad to nejlepší, co mi povinná četba v rámci školy mohla nabídnout hahahahah

[Nils Lid Hjort · Rating 5 out of 5]

Forfatteren, som jeg beundrer (og etterhvert kjenner), må arresteres på ett punkt: Det er dristig å bygge et helt bokkonsept på *en eneste sentral litterær referanse*, og så ikke sjekke denne. Jeg skal ikke overdrive min litterære kritikk, Hylland Eriksen *har* forstått essensen i den Storeulv-historien han henter sin tittel fra. Men referatet han gir er *grundig galt*.

> Det er nemlig ikke godt å si hvem som er smartest: storebror Gris, Storeulv eller professoren. I boken Storeulvsyndromet siterer Thomas Hylland Eriksen storebror Gris i en kritisk passasje med Storeulv, som spenner ut en større himmel over tegneserien, hele boken og dernest til våre liv. Det skjer når Storeulv med stor innsats og oppfinnsomhet har lykkes fange grisene, fått bundet dem i gryta sammen med passe mengde oppskårne gulrøttene og løk. Pepper og salt står klart, sammen med veden under gryta som er tørr og klar til å bli satt fyr på. Lilleulv er langt borte, og alt ser veldig mørkt ut for de stakkars tre små grisene. Storeulv tenner fyrstikken. Det skal bli et herlig måltid! Endelig skal Storeulv få bli skikkelig mett, kanskje overmett, etter å ha gnagd de siste kjøttfliser av beina på smågrisene. Han får vann i tennene av forventning og glede. Nærmere har han aldri vært. -- Da er det storebror Gris, klarer å få eplet ut av munnen, og stiller Storeulv spørsmålet: Hva skal du gjøre i morgen? Når vi er spist opp og borte? Hva skal du holde på med da?

Hallo: Lilleulv er naturligvis ikke "langt borte", og det er *han* som har den kloke innsikt i sin fars sinn og eksistens, og den geniale filosofiske inspirasjon, hvilket altså redder (a) hans tre beste venner fra døden i gryten og (b) hans egen far fra et liv uten mål og mening. Det er *ikke* Practical Pig som på sitt vanlige eplekjekke vis redder situasjonen.

Historien er heller ikke "fra 1970-tallet", slik Hylland Eriksen skriver, men fra Walt Disney's Comics & Stories #170, November 1954, i norsk utgave nr. 2 fra 1956. Den er tegnet av Gil Turner (1913--1967), som også burde fått sitt navn nedtegnet i en fotnotespekket bok som bærer en tittel som så åpent bygger på hans arbeid.

Jeg gikk faktisk til innkjøp av 1 eks. av dette bladet fra 1954, via eBay, og sendte det til Hylland Eriksen. Han har behørig takket, for bladet og for oppklaring av misforståelsen.

(Fotnote: Som vanlig er den norske 50-talls-oversettelsen noe bleksottig. "The Handy-Andy Jim-Dandy Pig Catching Suit -- Every Wolf Should Own One!" blir "Fiks og smart grisefangerjakke", osv. "Den Lille Snille Ulven" heter f.ø. ikke The Little Good Wolf, men The Li'l Bad Wolf, på amerikansk. Norske barn må beskyttes!)

[Magnus Grundstad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Norges sosialantropolog er på jakt etter lykken. I alle fall på jakt etter å forklare lykken.

Hva skaper det gode liv? Gir vekst og velstand økt lykke? Eller har man det tålig bra og er lykkelig i Nambia også?

Alle dere som leser denne bokanmeldelsen er med i den globale middelklassen. Vi har velstand. Vi har sikkerhet. Vi har velferd. Vi har penger. Og vi lever i overflod. En overflod som ødelegger verden.

Men vi som setter et overveldende økologisk fotavtrykk etter oss, som har alt vi kan ønske oss og mer til, må da være lykkeligere enn de andre?

Svaret ble da et nei, dessverre, og da er det vel litt mer deprimerende at vi ikke blir lykkeligere når vi først ødelegger jorda med vår levemåte.

Så hva gjør en lykkelig? Det er på mange måter opp til hver enkelt individ å svare på. Vi har forskjellige interesser og ønsker, er i forskjellige livssituasjoner og har forskjellige erfaringer. Men noen ting kan være felles:

Et fellesskap (solidaritetsinstinktet), noe å strekke oss etter (konkurranseinstinktet), å føle oss nyttig, anerkjent og verdsatt, være en del av noe større. Dette er noen fellestrekk.

Men å gi et eksakt svar på lykke er umulig. Vi har nok ulike svar på det. For meg er lykke å lese en 270 siders bok, der forfattere, i søken etter å svare på hva lykke er, går gjennom et rom av tekster, skrifter, vitenskapsartikler, romaner, sanger, dikt, filmer, serier og samtaler, for å til slutt finne ut at lykke i grunn er noe subjektivt, men at det er noe som går igjen hos alle.

[Marfiik · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nikdo není svobodnější než právě propuštěný věžeň.
Vše relativně relativní.
Kdyby Bůh neexistoval, museli bychom si ho vymyslet. - Voltaire

[Christian Leonard Quale · Rating 3 out of 5]

Storeulvsyndromet is probably not a book I would normally read, but I make a point of reading books that are given to me as Christmas-presents. It's a Norwegian book discussing the concept of happiness in a society where everyone pretty much already has everything. Before reading it I was a little nervous that this book would just be the stream of consciousness of a social anthropologist summarising his personal thoughts on his research. The first couple of chapters justified my fears. Sure, many good points were made, but these were repeated and overstated to the point where it felt like the target audience was a lecture-theatre full of sleepy students. Fortunately the book only went uphill from there.

As it progressed, the book started discussing more complex aspects of life, satisfaction, and happiness in general. It is easy, as I often do, to consider these kind of discussions irrelevant. (Sure, I already know that I'm an ungrateful, thankless, spoilt brat who should be a lot happier than I am. What else is new?) It impressed me the point to which the book managed to discuss these seemingly obvious things (happiness is relative, stupid!) in a way which didn't bore me. Sure, the final destinations of the trains of thoughts were familiar, but some routes were used to get to them which I personally hadn't previously explored. The title is a reference to a recurring story in the Donald Duck comics, apparently a highly respected source when it comes to philosophy, and one this book cites a lot, of the bad wolf which spends all of his time trying to catch some pigs. At one point the wolf catches the pigs, but he then lets them go after realising how empty his life would be if there were no pigs for him to hunt down. This nicely sums up what I see as the theme of the book. Happiness is having a perceived purpose in life, an ambition to strive for, and goals to be met. Of course, some people are more disposed to be happy than others, and it is likely that this will be the deciding factor of whether someone is happy or not. Along with how happy and successful, relative to themselves, they perceive everyone around them to be.

This being a philosophical book rather than a self-help book, I expected it to be gracefully inconclusive and vague when it came to actually making claims as to what would make you happy. However, a bunch of surprisingly tangible suggestions are made. (Take a swim once in a while! You will rarely see as many happy people in one place as on beaches and by pools!) The book also ends on a more general note discussing the meaning of life, or rather, the discussions around the meaning of life. One unfortunate element throughout the book is the inclusion, sometimes subtle, sometimes blatant, of political views which take the form of sentence-long digressions. I don't mind politics being included, I happen to agree with most of them, but when they are injected into a larger, more general argument I feel that they distract from the point rather than add to it. However, I do like the fact that the book concludes with a purely political chapter. It puts the mostly abstract content of the book into a context of what we can, and arguably should, do to make the world a happier place for everyone else living in it. It is not unlikely that a happy coincidence of this added happiness might be that we make ourselves happier in the process.

[Jakob · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting book that discusses some of the most pressing issues in the contemporary world. It's main theme is the question of what is the good life, and even more so, what constitutes a good society.

One of the premises for this book is the findings from happiness research: the findings suggest that compared to the 1950's, many Western populations have not gotten anymore satisfied or happy--as a matter of fact, it seems we have become slightly less satisfied. This is despite the fact that our material comfort and lavishness has shot through the roof in this same period. When so much of our politics and societal structures are structured around achieving increased economical growth, while it isn't making us any more happy, then surely something has become lost in the bustle?

Eriksen takes us through a journey of surprising psychological, anthropological (his own field) stories and considerations, the thoughts of many different thinkers, in addition to personal anecdotes. The book is written in a very accessible manner, and the use of humor makes rather entertaining. The writer is quite digressive, though, and one gets the feeling that he has a lot of thoughts swirling around at once, and wants to jot down as many as possible.

Some of the thoughts that are presented are:
- how our self-images are created through the comparisons we make to other people. In the rich world, we mostly compare ourselves to other rich countries. It's hard to take pleasure in our new flat screen TV when our neighbor just got a newer and bigger one.
- that more is not always more. The more we have, the more we have to lose and worry about. A modicum of safety and material comfort is needed for a content life, but beyond that, it doesn't seem to make much of a difference. Those of us that constitute the "global middle-class" have surpassed this point long ago.
- the law of of diminishing marginal utility. The more we get of a good thing, the less special it becomes. Students in Minnesota report that they think students in California are happier due to the wonderful weather. The reality is that Californian students are neither more or less happy. For them, the weather is nothing special: after all, it's how they have it most every day.

The book ends on a rather political note. What we by now know incontrovertibly is clearly at a dissonance with how most Western societies are structured. Our continuous progress towards increased growth and wealth does not make us happier. In fact, at this rate, it depletes the planet, and the increasing inequality creates more harm than good. It would be very possible to have good societies than (over)consume less; societies that leave room both for common projects and solidarity, but also individual goals; that spreads the wealth in a way that also helps those really do need it (those in absolute poverty). The paradox is, of course, that so many of us know most of these things so well already, but still so little changes.

Basically, I think he makes a convincing argument.

[Agnes · Rating 3 out of 5]

Tahle knížka mi přinesla mnohem míň útěchy, než jsem čekala, což asi vystihuje úplně všechno.
Chick send me high (Csikszentmihalyi) pobavil - za mě flow pořád rulez.
A The Rain Before It Falls = ♥

[Dalibor · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kniha je spojením spousty rozumných postřehů, že více peněz a všeho neznamená více štěstí a levicových ideologií o maximalizaci sumy štěstí a zavedení rovnostářské společnosti. Zastává se věcí jako rovného příjmu, zavrhnutí pokroku a "návrat" do jednoduché společnosti.