In the same way as the EU applicants Estonia and Latvia won the Eurovision Song Contests in 2001 and 2002 respectively, and thus took a giant leap away from their histories as satellite states to the former Soviet Union, and in so doing proved in a popular cultural manner to the entire Europe that they are on their way to becoming just as ordinary and modern as any other European country, this will in due course also be the case with (the 2003 winner) Turkey.2
The above commentary in the Norwegian regional daily newspaper Bergens Tidendeon Turkey’s 2003 victory in the Eurovision Song Contest indicates that there might be some connection between the said contest and the realm of real-life politics despite popular criticism to the contrary. It indicates that the manner in which the host countries stage the international finals is significant not only in its own right, but that it might serve as a manner of achieving a goal of a different order.
It can be seen as an attempt to put the participating countries on the map, to improve their public image or to enhance tourism. The Eurovision Song Contest, – the international song competition arranged annually by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and its member broadcasters since 1956, has been criticised for being an expensive exercise in commercial popular culture without any real significance, for featuring mediocre participants playing substandard popular music, and for being an event most people love to hate. On the other hand, it has also been praised as an international contest in popular culture where national artists might receive their initial gusts of international exposure.3In competitions, participants are supposed to be competing on equal terms, and in the best of worlds small contestants might have the theoretical opportunity of defeating large and powerful contestants. In a competition of popular songs, therefore, a song coming from a small country might make the publics in powerful countries listen, and perhaps even dance, to a different tune.
Hypothetically, the powerful countries and other political and cultural entities might possibly change their attitudes about the small, and no longer insignificant, country. This seems to be the rationale behind the staging of the countries hosting the international final in the years studied in this article.
The Eurovision Song Contest has held its international finals in Estonia, Latvia, and Norway three times in the ten years covered by this project, Tallinn (2002), Rı¯ga (2003), and Oslo (1996).4Hence, this article will focus on the staging of the host nation in the three international Eurovision Song Contest finals in question with a view to analyse their representation of nation, cultural stereotypes and myths. This will be done concentrating on the opening sequences, the so-called video post
1 The author would like to thank the National Library of Norway for video tapes (unfortunately for viewing only) of the international finals in 1996, 2002, and 2003, and Kate Augestad in the Department of Information Science and Media Studies for a videotape copy of international 1986 Eurovision Song Contest final in Bergen. Thank you to Marius Bratten for providing background information to the world of Eurovision Song Contest. Particular thanks are due to fellow project member Lars Arve Røssland for constructive comments in our initial discussion about this project and on the article in draft form. Needless to say, the faults of the article remain with the author.
2 My translation from Norwegian of a commentary article by the cultural editor in Bergens Tidende, Jan Nyberg, on 27 May 2003, page 44.
3 The most well known example of this initial step on the rise to international fame is when the Swedish pop group ABBA won Eurovision Song Contest in 1974 with the song “Waterloo” which became an international hit and was key in the group’s rise to fame.
4 The international finals in Eurovision Song Contest have been held in the Nordic – Baltic region quite a few times since its inception in 1956, but only the three held in the Baltic states or Norway during the past decade (1996, 2002 and 2003) have been chosen for this article, because of the time frame covered by the current project (1994–2004). The international finals previously held in the region are: Copenhagen, Denmark (1964), Stockholm, Sweden (1975) Gothenburg, Sweden (1985), Bergen, Norway (1986), Malmoe, Sweden (1992), Stockholm, Sweden (2000) and Copenhagen, Denmark (2001).
cards, i.e. the segments introducing the song entries from the participating countries, and what is commonly referred to as the intermission, the period in the broadcast when all the competing songs have been performed and before the voting process has been concluded. Theoretically, concepts will be drawn from Stuart Hall (1992 and 1997), Benedict Anderson (1983), and others within the Cultural Studies tradition. The body of literature dealing with the Eurovision Song Contest has served as a way into an unknown world (for instance Ericson 2002; Mogen 2000; Pedersen 1996; Tunaal & Wattne 1997).
The Setting
The geo-political position and cultural situation of the various Baltic states have throughout history meant that they have occupied a position of simultaneously being “the West of the East, and the East of the West” (Lauristin & Vihalemm 1993).
It has been argued that the Baltic states during the era of the Soviet Union, “acquired the image of a foreign land”.5To individuals and countries in the West, however, the Baltics appeared both as one single cultural entity, and one belonging to the Soviet block, i.e. the East. Although the three Baltic states’ relations with the Soviet Union differed and changed throughout the various epochs of the Soviet occupation, cultural life, sports, and environmental protection were among the areas that enjoyed greater freedom.6After the Baltic states broke lose and achieved their independence from the then Soviet Union in 1991, their formerly more or less secluded position vis-à-vis the West came to an end, and the ties to the East were reduced. The three Baltic states embarked on different ways to make their psychological entry back into the western European realm. The media are key players in such processes of change, and the media proved vital in the independence process in the Baltic states (see for instance Høyer et al(eds.) 1992 and 1993). Profound changes in media structures in the three Baltic states have taken place since independence, some of which the project “The Baltic Media World” attempts to trace. The fact remains, that the Baltic states are situated in the border areas of Europe, and despite their 2004 entry into the European Union, are struggling to be included in the common understanding of what constitutes the European common public space.
Norway is also a country on the outskirts of Europe, and a country that has opted to stay outside the EU to uphold its cultural and political specificities. Independence from Danish rule was achieved in 1814, although Norway quickly entered into a union with Sweden which lasted until 1905. The media situation in Norway has thus enjoyed a long time of freedom.
The model of public service broadcasting which enjoyed a monopoly situation until the early 1980s is significant. It can be argued that Norway has attempted to use its outside position to create an exotic image of breathtaking scenery and a high level of technological development to attain both political and tourism goals. As we shall see, this can also be found in the international Eurovision Song Contest final broadcast from Norway.
This article takes this dual position of the Baltic states as belonging to bothEast and West, and Norway as being firmly planted in the Western realm, as the starting point when studying how small countries such as Estonia, Latvia and Norway, in a position outside the European Union yet within the European cultural community, present themselves to international television audiences.
The Eurovision Song Contest: A Few Notes on its History
The Eurovision Song Contest was launched in 1955 by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), and the first international final was held on 2 May 1956 in Lugano Switzerland, with seven participating countries.7Part of the initial rationale behind the competition was to create an opportunity for the EBU members to join in an entertainment project across national
5 Lauristin and Vihalemm further argue that during the period of thaw in the relations with Moscow (from 1956 to 1968), the “authorities in Moscow tried to make the Baltics a sort of display-window for the West, demonstrating through developments in the region how much more humane, open and Western the Soviet Union had become” (Lauristin & Vihalemm 1993:30, in Høyer et al(eds.) 1993).
6 It is important to keep in mind that the Baltic states’ relations to the Soviet Union did not only change in time, but that it differed among the three Baltic states as well.
7 At that time it was called the “Eurovision Grand Prix”. This name is still its commonly used name in Norway.
and cultural borders. What was initially intended to be a single competition, became a success and was subsequently made into an annual event. Over the years, the contest has changed its format, its rules for participation, its on-stage rules such as rules for in which languages the participating songs can be performed, and greatly expanded the distribution of the international final around the world. The EBU guidelines for the Eurovision Song Contest international finals pose strict limitations of what can be done during the live show broadcast to a great number of nations chiefly in Europe, but recently also to countries in Asia. Nevertheless, it will be seen that the broadcasters in question solved the access to a global audience in different manners, and that they managed to place key elements of national exposure into the international broadcasts.
The Eurovision Song Contest can thus be seen as an early instance of entertainment programme cooperation that has taken place across national borders. It is now broadcast far beyond the EBU member states.8Thus, it has become an illustration of processes of globalisation and international trade in television formats. In fact, it emerged as a format in TV production even before the concept of the format appeared in the media business and in media research.9 The number of participants in Eurovision Song Contest has increased from the start in 1956. With time, restrictions in the number of participating countries have become necessary, and different ways of qualifying rounds for participation have been tried out. Four countries (Spain, Germany, France and United Kingdom) are now, however, guaranteed participation each year, so as to secure public interest and sufficiently large audience figures in the biggest European markets. Norway has participated in the contest since 1960, and the three Baltic states joined a few years after their independence. Norway was for a long time infamous for its frequent zero point result, and it was often argued that the best Norway could hope for was a few points from its neighbour country of Sweden.10 Indeed, the Norwegian commentator in the international finals often concluded his words of welcome with the following wish: “and may the best song win, and may we beat the Swedes”. Norway has won the international final twice, in 1985 when Norway secured the first place with the “La det swinge, la det rock’n roll” (Let’s swing, let’s rock’n roll), and with “Nocturne” by the group Secret Garden in the final in Dublin, Ireland in 1995. The first ever Eurovision Song Contest victory to the Baltic states went to Estonia in 2001 when Tanel Padar, Dave Benton and 2XL won in Copenhagen with the song “Everybody”. In the 2002 final in Tallinn, Marie N singing the song “I Wanna” won for Latvia and thereby secured that the competition remained in the region for another year.
The analysis here rests on the fact that it is customary for the hosting institutions to seize the opportunity of presenting the host country to the international television audience, as well as presenting the participating artists and their home countries. As such, the international final show may be seen not so much as an exercise in international (or lately global) media representation, but as a showcase of the host nation presented to the international audience.11The practice of
8 Eurovision Song Contest has often been seen as an European competition, and it has been criticised that non-European states compete along with European states. It is therefore worth noting that non-European states may compete in Eurovision Song Contest as long as their broadcasting corporations are members of the European Broadcasting Union, EBU. For instance, Israel is a long-standing participant in the Eurovision Song Contest because the Israel Broadcasting Authority is a member of the EBU, although the country is not a European nation.
Morocco joined the competition in 1980, and Egypt in 1981. The recent years’ inclusion of new participating countries, such as Turkey, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Rumania, etc. has brought the history of Eurovision Song Contest into a new stage in terms of competition size, musical styles and voting procedures. (http://www.eurovision.tv/ebu/history.htm)
9 Literature on processes of globalisation and the medium of television tend to concentrate on the global distribution of news and entertainment programmes such as soaps and reality shows. See for instance Barker, Chris (1997) Global Television, or Herman, Edward & McChesney, Robert (1997) The Global Media: The New Missionaries of Global Capitalism.
10 Allegations of voting for geographical neighbours, political allies, regional voting tactics and members of various diasporas voting for their counties of origin have surfaced throughout the history of the Eurovision Song Contest.
11 The national finals also contain this element of showcasing. For instance, the Norwegian national final in 2003 broadcast intermission entertainment with the Norwegian band “Cheezy Keys” featuring the Latvian flag together with Cossack uniforms, balalaikas, and other symbols first and foremost associated with the long years of Russian rule. This was not taken lightly in Latvia. Indeed, it caused intense critical debate, and the head of the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporationhad to issue a formal letter of apology to the Latvian ambassador to Norway, Normunds Popens. http://nrk.no/nyheter/kultur/2589734.html (6 March 2003). Allegedly intended as a humorous intermission entertainment in the Norwegian national Eurovision Song Contest final by playing on the stereotypes that Norwegians have about Latvia, the entertainment entry did not manage to toe the delicate line between humour and blunder, and ended up with offending Latvians, in particular the older generations.
A decade after independence, it is quite understandable that this caused criticism among Latvians, and indeed caused some damage to Norway’s public image among Latvians.
presenting the subsequent entry’s country by means of a “video post card” featuring both the artist and the country in question was introduced in 1990, and quickly became a central feature of the international finals. It can be argued that this tradition was broken when Estonia in 2002 chose to present various aspects of Estonia instead of presenting the various participating counties in the video post cards. The country, or the imagined community of the nation, behind the artist or the host broadcasting corporation are in any instance of key significance, and we will now turn our eyes to the national level being presented in Eurovision Song Contest.
Representing the Nation
The three Eurovision Song Contest finals analysed here celebrate the inclusion of the host nations in the community of European states. Estonia, Latvia and Norway are all relatively young as independent nations, they are geographically seated on the outskirts of Europe, they are relatively small in terms of populations, and they have all gone through recent national debates of whether to become a member state in the European Union.12Estonia and Latvia became member states in the EU on 1 May 2004, while referendums returned a no vote in Norway both in 1972 and in 1994. In Eurovision Song Contest, however, these countries participate because broadcasting corporations in these countries are EBU members. The link is therefore made between the broadcasting corporation and the nation, in such a way that the image made by and the song produced by the said broadcasting corporation together represent the nation in the Eurovision Song Contest.
The participating song entries are selected in national competitions prior to the international final. In most instances during the past few years this has taken place through a process of a national televote, or a combination of televote and a national jury.13Nevertheless, these processes take place within the realm of the state and the broadcasting corporations. This combination of levels can best be made sense of by applying Benedict Anderson’s concept of the nation as an imagined community (1983), as the national level here combines images of national character, national tastes in popular music, national image on an international market, with the formal requirements of the broadcasting corporations and vote procedures limited by state boundaries.
Other key concepts in this regard are the one of myth and stereotypes coupled to the level of the nation, in terms of creating or maintaining the image of nation in the minds of the members of the said nations. For the purposes of this article, it is necessary to expand this to include the minds of the international audiences watching the Eurovision Song Contest finals.
Representations of Cultural Stereotypes
The 47thinternational final of Eurovision Song Contest held in Tallinn in 2002, features, as do most international Eurovision Song Contest finals, plenty of images of nationally significant landmarks, people, and culturally significant locations in the hosting nation. Furthermore, they include representations of aspects of the national, or majority, culture(s). Thus, the Tallinn final features the use of cultural types and stereotypes through representations of the nation, the nation’s culture(s) and its relationship with the rest of the world outside the nation’s borders. This section will focus on the representation of inclusionand exclusionin the Eurovision Song Contest international finals. The subsequent section will deal with representations of myths of origin.
The stereotype is an ambiguous theoretical concept, and it is often used rather loosely. What do we mean when using such a widely cited and diverse concept? Richard Dyer in Stereotyping(1977) distinguishes between typingand
12 Please see Maria Golubeva’s article in this volume for a discussion of the EU debate on the Internet in the various Baltic states.
13 The voting procedure in Eurovision Song Contest has changed over the years and among the participating countries. For several years, each participating broadcasting institution appointed a national jury to award points to the participating entries. The system of televote has now been adopted in most countries eligible to vote in the contest.
stereotyping. Typing, he argues, is central for making sense of the world, for placing elements we perceive into classificatory schemes that render them meaningful and understandable. Typing is then identifying certain broad and general categories in the object or notion we are trying to make sense of, and classifying them accordingly. Typing is key, and indeed necessary, to the production of meaning. We make sense of the world in terms of certain wide categories, or types.
According to Dyer, a type is “any simple, vivid, memorable, easily grasped and widely recognized characterization in which a few traits are fore grounded and change or ‘development’ is kept to a minimum” (Dyer 1977:28, quoted in Hall 1997:257). Stereotyping also concerns such “simple, vivid, memorable, easily grasped and widely recognized characterization” but goes further to reduce everything to those traits, exaggerate and simplify them, and more importantly, fix these traits without change or development. Stuart Hall summaries this first categorisation of stereotypes as such: Stereotyping “reduces, essentializes, naturalizes and fixes ‘difference’” (1997:258). Secondly, stereotyping includes a strategy of ‘splitting’, i.e. “closure and exclusion. It symbolically fixes boundaries, and excludes everything which does not belong,” argues Hall (1997:258).
This second feature of stereotyping is central in the maintenance of social and symbolic order. It helps individuals make some sort of categorisation of what is acceptable and what is not considered to be acceptable. According to Stuart Hall, it builds a “symbolic frontier” between the insiders and the outsiders. This feature of stereotyping goes beyond merely making the world understandable and thereby helping people cope. It thus helps tie together fragmentary publics into imagined communities. Stuart Hall explains that the stereotyping “facilitates the ‘binding’ or bonding together of all of us who are ‘normal’ into one ‘imagined community’; and it sends into symbolic exile all of them – ‘the Others’ – who are in some way different – ‘beyond the pale’” (1997:258).
For the purposes of understanding how stereotypes work in Eurovision Song Contest, it is this second feature of stereotyping which is of key significance, lumping what is considered normal (the Us) into one imagined community, with more or less clear differences from the others (the Them).
Hall even points out stereotyping’s third feature, as it typically occurs where there are “gross inequalities of power” (Hall 1997:258). In this manner, stereotyping typically occurs towards individuals, groups, cultures or nations that are considered subordinate. Thus, stereotypes of individuals in distant cultures or of individuals in other social and class positions, flourish.
Studies of such a nature can be found within popular culture, advertising and journalism.14There are thus certain key terms which are needed to understand the Eurovision Song Contest analysed here: How stereotypes work, how they combine to establish myths, and how both stereotypes and myths are used in attempts to present the imagined community of the host country to the international television audiences.
With the television production of the Eurovision Song Contest finals, the opening sequences are of key importance in setting the scene and in attempting to grab the audience’s attention. Specifically, they are key in making the first favourable presentation of the host country. Indeed, in these first moments of the television show, it is its characteristics as a television production that matters, not that it also is a show performed on a stage in front of a physical audience.
For that matter, it can be argued that Eurovision Song Contest is significant only as a television broadcast, not as the show performed in the physical auditorium. Ericson (2002) argues that the Tallinn final exists first and foremost as a media event (Dayan & Katz 1988 and 1992) received by the international television audience, and that the show does not primarily exist as a physical show performed from a stage in front of a live audience in the Saku Suurhall in Tallinn. Let us have a look at the opening sequences of the Tallinn Eurovision Song Contest final in 2002, to illustrate this point.
14 See for instance the recently published collection News of the Other: Tracing Identity in Scandinavian Constructions of the Eastern Baltic Sea Region(edited by Kristina Riegert, Nordicom 2004) for a discussion how stereotypes make their way into Scandinavian journalism about the Eastern Baltic region.