Idrætshistorisk værksted

En beskrivelse af Gerlev Idrætshøjskoles idrætshistoriske værksted, som blandt andet har til formål at formidle viden om fortidens idrætter for at stimulere debatten om nutidens og fremtidens idrætter

Om Grundtvigs udviklingslære - og noget om Darwins

Om Grundtvigs udviklingslære - og noget om Darwins[About Grundtvig ’s theory of evolution - and something about Darwin ’s]By Ove KorsgaardThe idea expressed in the Danish word “udvikling” (meaning both ‘development’ and ‘evolution’) forms a principal category in the works of, respectively, Grundtvig and Darwin. However, while Darwin studied nature, Grundtvig was primarily preoccupied with history. Grundtvig’s two-front war against materialism and idealism is reflected in a great part of his writings. As far as nature is concerned, he was looking for a third position offering a different stance compared to the trends dominating in contemporary theology and natural science. Departing from his essay “On Man’s Condition in the World” from 1817, Grundtvig started to sketch a theory of evolution based upon a model of nature depicted as a ladder with each step representing a particular quality. Mineral kingdom stands for form, vegetable kingdom additionally for life, animal kingdom supplements with consciousness and, finally, human beings with self-consciousness. According to Grundtvig, it is the interaction between “hand and mouth” - from the grip of the hand to an understanding expressed in language - that is the most important motivating drive in the development of self-consciousness. In an epilogue, the author refers to natural scientist Jesper Hoffmeyer, who questions whether Darwin in his works on evolutionism did offer an exhaustive explanation of evolution. Hoffmeyer himself refuses to choose between believing in a conception of nature in which an intelligent being cannot possibly feel at home and believing that man becomes a living soul by receiving the breath of God

Idrætshistorisk værksted

En beskrivelse af Gerlev Idrætshøjskoles idrætshistoriske værksted, som blandt andet har til formål at formidle viden om fortidens idrætter for at stimulere debatten om nutidens og fremtidens idrætter

Debatforum: Hvordan erindres folkehøjskolens historie?

DebatforumBy Ove Korsgaard, Kim Arne Pedersen & Anja StokholmIn the Debatforum readers are invited to respond to issues raised, or to raise new issues relative to the field of Grundtvig studies. Items submitted, preferably in the form of an article, may be of any reasonable length and in any of the languages usually accepted by the journal. In the contributions in Grundtvig-Studier 2006, Ove Korsgaard proposes that “The future of the Danish folk high school depends upon a different understanding of its history from that which currently prevails”, Kim Ame Pedersen debates the Danish folk high school’s historical self-identification with the concept of Dannelse [development] as distinct from Uddannelse [education] and Anja Stokholm reflects upon the publication of a new edition of Gmndtvig’s sermons

>>Den kvindelige kvinde

Artiklen er en anmeldelse af Anne Lykke Poulsens afhandling, hvor det centrale spørgsmål er hvad der skal forstås ved den kvindelige kvinde

Debatforum: Hvordan erindres folkehøjskolens historie?

Debatforum[Forum for debate]In the Forum for debate, readers are invited to respond to issues raised, or to raise new issues relative to the field of Grundtvig studies. Items submitted, preferably in the form of an article, may be of any reasonable length and in any of the languages usually accepted by the journal. Contributions in Grundtvig-Studier 2007 are written by Ove Korsgaard and P.l Bødtker Walstad.Unfortunately, due to a mistake during the editing of Professor, dr. p.d. Ove Korsgaard’s contribution “Hvordan erindres folkehøjskolens historie?” in Grundtvig-Studier 2006, certain sections were misplaced. As this may have caused confusion to the readers, we are reprinting the contribution in its original form. The editors of Grundtvig-Studier 2006 would like to apologise for the misprint. Debatforum: Hvordan erindres folkehøjskolens historie?[Forum for debate: How do we recall the history of the Danish folk highschool?]By Ove KorsgaardIt is a well-recognised phenomenon in the process of historical recall that both deliberate manipulation and less conscious selectivity of what is remembered and what forgotten may distort the true record of events, even though the distorted record may then become the basis upon which the present generation shapes its prospect of the future. A close reexamination of the historical and constantly evolving struggle between competing ideals in the folk-highschools from Grundtvig’s day onwards reveals that unhistorical notions of pure and miscegenated educational models have established themselves. This distortion of the true history of the evolution of these schools may now be obstructing the clear-headed and pragmatic reassessment of its future that the folk-highschool movement is currently having to confront

Samfundets trosbekendelse

After World War II, there was broad consensus that schools in Denmark should educate for democracy. But there was no consensus on the role of the state: Should the state ensure that everyone receives a democratic education? Or should the state ensure pluralism, and remain neutral in relation to different life philosophies? Or must both the state and citizens develop a knowledgeable stance in relation to democracy’s fundamental dilemmas? It was without doubt the liberal position that became most influential in post-war Danish educational policy. The core of this strategy was that in a democracy the state should adopt a neutral stance towards the various philosophies of life. However, with the values-political turn of recent years the liberal position is now in retreat. This new trend became clear in 2000, with the then Minister of Education Margrethe Vestager’s manifesto Values in the Real World, in which she stressed that „Now more than ever we need to put in words just what attitudes and values we hold in common“. And the present government has focused on the same issue since 2001, and has commissioned among other things a literary canon, a cultural canon and a democracy canon. The activist values policies of recent years have once again given rise to a number of questions concerning democratic upbringing and the role of the state in efforts to strengthen society’s cohesiveness.

Grundtvig et la formation des adultes en Scandinavie : une innovation radicale

La contribution de Nikolaj Frederik Severin Grundtvig (1783-1872) à la formation de l’État-nation danois moderne est essentielle. L’importance de Grundtvig tient au combat incessant qu’il mena pour « élever » la paysannerie danoise sur les plans culturel et social. Son objectif premier était de promouvoir parmi les « masses » l’idée d’appartenance à un « peuple », ce qui exigeait une éducation populaire et un nouveau type d’établissement d’enseignement – les « écoles populaires ». Le premier établissement d’enseignement pour jeunes adultes de ce type fut ouvert au Danemark en 1844, rapidement imité par la Norvège (1864), la Suède (1868) et la Finlande (1889). Au cours de l’entre-deux-guerres, les idées éducatives de Grundtvig et le mouvement des écoles populaires inspirèrent une série de réformes en Europe de l’Est mais également, après la Seconde Guerre mondiale, un certain nombre de personnes en Asie et en Afrique.Nikolaj Frederik Severin Grundtvig (1783-1872) is rightly regarded as the single individual who has had the greatest importance in the formation of the modern Danish nation state. His importance for this process is linked to his unremitting struggle to ‘lift’ the Danish peasantry culturally and socially. His prime purpose was to advance the idea among ‘the masses’ that they belonged to ‘a people’, and this required popular education and a new type of high school – a People’s High School. The first school for young adults opened in Denmark in 1844, the other Nordic countries followed suit, with the first People’s High Schools opening in Norway (1864), Sweden (1868), and Finland (1889). In the inter-war period Grundtvig’s educational ideas and the People’s High School movement inspired a series of reform movements in Eastern Europe, and after World War II several people in Asia and Africa. When it comes to teaching method Grundtvig distinguishes between ‘scientific thinking’ and ‘narrative thinking’ stressing the latter without overlooking the former.La contribución de Nikolaj Frederik Severin Grundtvig (1783-1872) a la formación del Estado-nación danés moderno es esencial. La relevancia de Grundtvig responde a la incesante batalla que libró para « elevar » cultural y socialmente a la población rural danesa. Su primer objetivo fue promover entre las « masas » la idea de pertenencia a un « pueblo », lo que exigía una educación popular y un nuevo tipo de centro de enseñanza : las « escuelas populares ». El primer centro de enseñanza para jóvenes adultos de este tipo se inauguró en Dinamarca en 1844 y fue rápidamente imitado por Noruega (1864), Suecia (1868) y Finlandia (1889). En el periodo de entreguerras, las ideas educativas de Grundtvig y el movimiento de las escuelas populares inspiraron una serie de reformas en Europa del Este, pero también, tras la Segunda Guerra Mundial, a numerosas personalidades de Asia y África

"Den kvindelige kvinde" Anmeldelse af Anne Lykke Poulsen: Kampen om kvindelighed, medborgerskab og professionalisering i dansk kvindegymnastik 1886-1940

Artiklen er en anmeldelse af Anne Lykke Poulsens afhandling, hvor det centrale spørgsmål er hvad der skal forstås ved den kvindelige kvinde

Fra tugtemester til skolemester: Om forskelle mellem Luther og Grundtvig

Fra tugtemester til skolemester: Om forskelle mellem Luther og Grundtvig[From Castigator to Schoolmaster: On Differences between Luther and Grundtvig]By Ove KorsgaardIs Grundtvig’s thinking to be perceived as a genuine appropriation and continuation of Luther’s? Or is it rather to be perceived as a renegotiation of Luther’s thought? Regin Prenter, Christian Thodberg and Svend Bjerg maintain three different positions on the question of the relationship between Luther’s and Grundtvig’s theological thinking. With Prenter, a tight connection is tied. With Thodberg it is “both...and”. With Bjerg there is a marked distance between Luther’s and Grundtvig’s theology. In this article a more conceptual-historical viewpoint is adopted which demonstrates that they used the concepts “nation” and “folk” with differing significations.Luther does not use the word “nation” in its modem signification. According to Liah Greenfield: “he did not take the step that connected the separation from Rome to the definition of the polity as a people.The ‘German nation’, for Luther, had none but the conciliar meaning of the princes and nobility of the Empire, and in this sense he used it in An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation.” Grundtvig on the other hand used the word “nation” in its modem signification, that is to say, he made an inseparable connection between the concepts “nation” and “folk”. And he is surely the person who, in Denmark, has exercised the greatest influence in linking these two concepts.Before “nation” and “folk” became synonymous concepts, the word “folk” signified kinship and household. The societal whole was comprised, so to speak, of a certain number of households. Each household had as its supreme authority a householder who exercised  English Summaries / danske resuméer power over his “folk”. The master tailor exercised power over the journeymen and apprentices who, together with children and other family members, belonged in the household. The combined households of a land were subordinate to a father of the land and belonged in his house, for example the Oldenburg House, the Habsburg House and so on. The supreme lord was the Lord God and all the houses within a society belonged in the final instance to his house. Individual freedom was no part of Luther’s political programme.His guardianship-society {formyndersamfund) was built not upon individual, responsible members of society but upon a fellowship between superiors and subordinates. The household constituted that social space within which a connection was forged between the individual and the Christian state. That Luther espoused political guardianship {formynderskab) as the best principle of governance is not remarkable. Everyone, more or less, did so at that time. The epochmaking and revolutionary thing about Luther was that he dispensed with the pope as religious guardian.But the sharp distinction which Luther drew between spiritual and secular governance is not, as is often alleged today, a distinction between State and Church but only between the State and “the Church Invisible”. In a continuation of Augustine, Luther in fact distinguished between two Churches, the invisible and the visible. The Church has both an outward, institutional and predominantly worldly side and an inward, invisible and predominantly spiritual side. As an incorporate member of the State one is obligated to be a member of the visible Church, that is to say the Church as an institution. Membership of the visible Church, however, grants no certainty of salvation. The visible Church cannot dispose over the relationship between the individual and God. Therefore membership of the visible Church is not enough to secure salvation. Faith is necessary. And faith is a personal and existential matter. With the doctrine of public polity, there is thus created a spiritual free-space. The formation of the individual’s morality and character, on the other hand, was placed under the aegis of secular government.Grundtvig grew up in a society whose world view was characterized by Luther’s thinking on calling and station. Lutherdom encompassed not only the obvious foundation in faith with respect to the Church but also the foundation in morality with respect to the State. However, Grundtvig himself was engaged in reassessing this foundation. After 1825 he began to distinguish himself with quite Luther-critical viewpoints, which is connected with the fact that he himself became one of the leading contemporary spokesmen for the new viewpoint that it was not the dispensations of Lutheranism but the dispensations of the folk which should comprise the moral foundation of State and school.The shift from Lutherdom to ‘folkdom’ meant that after 1825 Grundtvig again and again pointed to errors in Luther and his disciples. Thus he tackled three central dogmas in Lutherdom. The first was fundamentalism in respect of Scripture. The second was fundamentalism in respect of sin. The third was Lutherdom’s fundamentalism in respect of the State. For Grundtvig, the alliance which Constantine the Great established in 325 between State and Church was nothing less than a great lapse into sin in the history of the Church. And this lapse Luther had not tackled. The process of transformation from Christian principality to democratic nation-state demanded a clarification of the relationship between religion, State and polity. What form of connection should there be established between individual, State and religion in a democracy? Should Christianity, which was deeply integrated in the state-structure of the absolute monarchy, continue to comprise the foundation for the State’s educational polity? Grundtvig drew a clear boundary between citizenship and religion and, according to the ecclesiastical-political premises of his day, advocated religious freedom, freedom to preach, and dissolution of parochial ties. In simplified terms one can say that Luther’s horizon was a world divided into religions, and these were subdivided into nations, while Grundtvig’s horizon was a world divided into nations, and these could be subdivided into various religious societies.A conceptual-historical viewpoint reveals that Luther and Grundtvig not only used the concepts “nation” and “folk” with differing significations: theologically, they also thought differently upon crucial points. These differences can be put into perspective by looking at Luther’s categories “law and gospel”, “householder and household” and “parents and children” set off against Grundtvig’s use of “the knot” as metaphor.According to Grundtvig, Luther did not go far enough in his understanding of the relationship between law and gospel. He did not manage to untie the “tight knot” [Haardeknuden]. Instead of, like Luther, regarding the law as castigator, Grundtvig spoke of “Moses as ‘schoolmaster’ for the whole world, who guides those desiring it to Jesus”. This shift in the view of the law - from castigator to schoolmaster - is a key to understanding Grundtvig’s thought.Grundtvig regarded the law as an “enlightenment of which one freely makes use according as one can and will”. Understood in Grundtvig’s English Summaries / danske resuméer terms, the law thus becomes a medium for folk-enlightenment. In other words, it is possible to untie the knot between the law and the gospel.The opening of the Gospel of John - In the beginning was the Logos - forms the basis of the whole of Grundtvig’s programme of enlightenment and exposition. Grundtvig distinguishes, however, between logos and dia-logos. Humankind does not have direct access to the logos of the great word, but must make do with the little word, the verity of which must be proved through dia-logos, that is, dialogue.For Grundtvig, “enlightenment” [Oplysning] is not an absolute, but a relative concept. The world cannot be overseen from a panoptic viewpoint, but necessarily has to be viewed with various eyes. The truth always emerges from out of the interplay between truths. Using a modem concept, one may say that for Gmndtvig enlightenment is a discursive concept, a concept open to argument. No one can boast of being in possession of the absolute tmth. We understand fragmentarily and in part. And such a process of understanding demands, according to Grundtvig, faith.[Editorial note: Danish tugtemester, as used in this context to refer to the Law, is not readily translatable into English. A tugtemester is one who enforces discipline by chastisement and castigation, whether a gaoler, a slavemaster, a disciplinarian pedagogue addicted to flogging or a rigorous moral tutor.