In a recent article, I made reference to William Shakespeare’s line from the theatrical play ‘Hamlet’ from 1602, “To be or not to be, that is the question”. But it is not only a question of ‘being’; it is also a question of ‘belonging’ since human beings can only exist and be happy living in communities, in his or her ‘flock’ together with others. In our time, we should remember this more than ever, since we have become so individualistic and competitive; we care about ourselves and want to succeed alone, as individuals, and care less about others. We even give grades to children in kindergarten, and indeed through the rest of the school years. At workplaces and in social life, we also feel pressure to be best, if possible, do better than others, so that we get the best-paid jobs and opportunities, even if that means that we compete against friends and colleagues. The more information and smart solutions we keep to ourselves, not sharing with others, the better it is for us as the social climber, but not necessarily for those around us, the company we work for and the society at large.
I have borrowed the wordplay about Shakespeare’s deep thoughts about ‘to be’, and then the continuation, ‘to belong’, from a famous Norwegian doctor in general and social medicine, Professor Per Fugelli (1943-2017). He had, in turn, borrowed it from the French author and thinker Marcel Proust (1871-1922), who wrote the influential book, ‘In Search of Lost Time’, which was first published in 1913, and translated and published in English a decade later.
Today, I shall give some glimpses of Professor Fugelli’s thinking, made available to lay and learned through his large number of books and articles, and his lectures and speeches on radio and TV. He loved to pinpoint issues in simple concepts and words, yes, simple but deep and universal, often based on memories and data from his first job as a young doctor on the remote islands of Værøy and Røst, off the rugged coast in the far north of Norway. He came to understand much about people and about living together in a ‘flock’ when he worked there, and later in Porsanger, even further north.
He realized that no one can be a ‘No. 1’. We are all human beings with our strengths and weaknesses. We can only do well for ourselves and others if we realize that we depend on each other, that we learn from others, and teach others, in formal and informal ways. Happiness is not something we can enjoy alone; we can only be happy and live ‘the good life’ together with others, with our ‘flock’, in our community.
We must realize that to chase after the pinnacle mirage of success is a curse and it is unattainable to most, perhaps all. We must accept that ‘good enough’ is indeed ‘good enough’, achieved through hard work, seeing and having concern for others, and not only being selfish in pursuance of our own needs. Compassion lies deep in every human being’s heart and soul, but in our time, with so much competitiveness and self-realization as keywords, we need to focus on it, talk about it and learn to practice it; the reward is manifold.
The parish priest in Værøy and Røst once organized a little survey with his students in the preparatory class for confirmation, a bit like a ‘madrasa’ class, for youngsters at the age of fourteen or so. He asked the youngsters what they saw as the most important in their lives, yes, in addition to friendships with age mates and dreams about all kinds of things, realistic or unrealistic. But their main wishes and hopes were simple as if they had already become wise men and women; they wanted to be accepted and included in society just the way they were, with their strengths and weaknesses. They simply wanted to ‘belong’ and be respected, knowing that what they did would be ‘good enough’, feeling self-respect and dignity, and also, being open towards others.
Fugelli drew attention to the importance of everyone being able to master their own lives and do well in society, doing their best in reciprocal trust and dependence on others. In a fishing community off the rough and unpredictable Norwegian coast, people knew well that they had to trust each other. If an accident or disaster happened, they would have to face it themselves together, that they knew from self-experience since everyone would have someone of their loved ones at sea; the calm and beautiful ocean could suddenly turn into an inferno of wind, rain and snow. Then they had to rely on themselves and the others in their ‘flock’ – and send prayers to the Almighty, too.
Although Fugelli said he did not consider himself a religious man in a traditional sense, he lived in a deep respect for other people, for nature and for the thinking of wise men and women. About the Quran and the Bible, he said they are books of deep wisdom and advice. When he in his last several years struggled with terminal cancer, he reflected on existential and religious issues, and he also wrote about as late as only six weeks before his passing; the book was completed and published by his son, Aksel. He loved life, and he said he was not afraid of dying, but rather curious and optimistic about the Hereafter.
Fugelli carried out fieldwork and collected data in systematic and everyday ways in Norway, but also further afield. Just before his cancer was diagnosed, he had been on a four-month travel to Ethiopia, Uganda and Botswana. He didn’t go as a Western ‘Besserwisser’; he went to learn from the deep insights that doctors and thinkers in other cultures have, he said, and he came back humbled and in deep respect, having been reminded that the Westerners shouldn’t always sit on their high horse with arrogance about their ‘school medicine’.
Before I end this article about some of Professor Per Fugelli’s thinking, now also organized as a memorial society with periodic events at the University of Oslo, I would like to draw attention to Fugelli’s encouragement to us all, especially to young people. He said we must always ask questions and rethink old ways. We must dare to be independent, even controversial, and work both individually and in groups.
In politics, he said, we must debate and question the past, present and future, so that we can implement structural change and make things better than before. The social democratic parties led the establishment of the welfare state in the last hundred years, especially after WWII. But we must still question and renew many things. Sometimes, he said he felt that successful politics had led to a form of arrogance and righteousness. But every generation must be allowed to reconsider and take ownership of all issues, even finding new and better solutions.
We often talk about excellence, yes, in education it often becomes a slogan for an institution, and that is all right, too, but we must also realize that ‘good enough’ means excellence for all, not for the few. It is only in solidarity with people who need our help at home and abroad that we can feel real happiness. We can at the same time belong both to the small ‘flock’ and to the worldwide ‘flock’ of all good human beings.