But new data and aged facts do not mean that knowledge is something of the past. On the
contrary, basic knowledge becomes more important. [...] the basic theoretical doctrines are
decisive–both for interpreting new information and to govern the search for new facts. [...]
Production of new knowledge makes it more necessary than ever to know these fundaments
of understanding. The great stream of discoveries andfindings demands basic knowledge–
systems for understanding and action–now more than ever. Without this systemic
knowledge, the knowledge explosion will lead to confusion and despair. Theflow of ideas
will be disorderly if the referential frames that can give them meaning are missing.
(Universitet og Høyskoleutvalget and Hernes 1988 , p. 9, authors translation)A restorative and conservative view of knowledge, university ideas and a
back-to-basics strategy was put forward to meet the knowledge explosion. It was
both an orthodox and an idealistic reaction. The policy documents promote the
importance of core knowledge, traditional values, classic science and religious ideas
of the past as key elements for controlling the modernflow. In the rhetoric, wefind
metaphors of place, architecture and construction symbolising order, solidity and
stability against all metaphors depicting shifts, disorder and movement that are a
consequence of the knowledge explosion and knowledge society.
There was also a vital discourse on how new global mass culture and global
media influence threatened national unity and common opinion-making.
The media technology cuts through national borders and spreads an international
mass-culture. [...] But when the world becomes one and the same public, that is related to a
global monoculture, the question of national uniqueness and cultural preservation are raised
in a new and radical way. [...] In the same way the knowledge explosion demands stronger
concentration on basis and core knowledge, and common scientific values, international-
ization demands that we give importance to our own culture to preserve the diversity in the
world community. (Universitet og Høyskoleutvalget and Hernes 1988 , p. 16, authors
translation)Such a classical political reaction to influx can also be clearly identified in cur-
riculum texts for primary and secondary education.
When transitions are massive and changes rapid, it becomes even more pressing to
emphasise historical orientation, national distinctiveness and local variation to safeguard
our identity. (KUF 1993 , p. 29)The central government took afirm grip on curricula, teaching methods and cur-
riculum development in the 1990s. The motive for creating a common reference
and grounds for association for all people through the national curriculum was
clearly expressed and exemplified with the headline Common References in a
Specialized Societyin the core curriculum.
Common background knowledge is thus at the core of a national network of communi-
cation between members of the community. It is the common frames of reference, which
make it possible to link what one sees, reads or hears, to a shared, tacit mode of thinking. It
makes it possible to fathom complex messages, and to interpret new ideas, situations and
challenges. Education plays a leading role in passing on this common background infor-
mation–the culture everybody must be familiar with if society is to remain democratic and
its citizens sovereign. Education must, therefore, provide the fertile soil for cultivation of
coherent knowledge, skills and outlooks. (KUF 1993 , pp. 26–28)364 T.A. Trippestad