What is spiritual mobilisation?
- The International
- 8 hours ago
- 5 min read
In October, Mark Søderberg met with Ida Auken following her appointment as the government’s spokesperson on democracy to discuss the new emphasis on “spiritual mobilisation.”
Photographs: Various
Text: Mark Søderberg
If the concept of “spiritual mobilisation” sounds mysterious to you, don’t worry, it sounds mysterious to many people in Denmark. The concept was introduced early in 2025 and has since been used several times in Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen's speeches.
To grasp the concept, it’s helpful to know the Danish phrase for spiritual mobilisation: “åndelig oprustning”. The word “åndelig” can mean two things in Danish. It can mean something similar to the word “spiritual”, referring to religious and supernatural aspects. Or something more secular, referring to all kinds of intellectual and artistic endeavours.
“Oprustning”, meaning “rearmament”, the equipping of military forces with weaponry. Hence, “spiritual mobilisation” reflects military mobilisation, rearming people with spiritual and intellectual value.
The future of democracy
Mette Frederiksen said in her speech on Constitution Day at Rødding Højskole - the oldest Danish folk high school in Denmark - that democracy does not thrive in division and polarisation. Spiritual mobilisation would be a way to combat “conspiracy theories, fake news, and artificial intelligence”, and would help to “ensure the future of democracy”, she later added in a speech at Aalborg University.
With this in mind, LWID interviewed a democracy spokesperson, Ida Auken, to gain further insight into spiritual mobilisation.
Firstly, what is spiritual mobilisation?
“Spiritual mobilisation is about making us aware that we should not only mobilise militarily, but also be conscious of what we are actually fighting for. It’s an understanding that there is a threat to our community and our democracy, both from the outside, in the form of Russian aggression against Europe, but also from within, in the form of radicalised forces, both from the right and from the left, and also from certain religious environments.”
You say there’s a “threat from within”. But when you use this rhetoric of an “us and them”, isn’t there a risk of actually increasing polarisation?
“It’s a clear risk that one should be aware of. For me, it’s about building a stronger community. And that community consists of the very broad majority of the population, which should be protected against extreme views.”
But aren’t you also creating an “us and them” when you talk about a “threat from within”?
“No. We clearly denounce extremism. And there clearly is an “us and them” when we talk about Russia.”
The idea has been criticised for being an emotionally charged way of mobilising people, which goes against the Enlightenment ideals of critical thinking and institutional autonomy.
“It’s a total misunderstanding that it’s not important to have feelings for our community and for what we are fighting for.”
Is spiritual mobilisation also about distancing us from the cultural power that the US has exerted?
“No. For me, there are two things that we shouldn’t copy from the Americans. One is letting the country fall completely apart between rural and urban areas.The other is that we must be Europeans. We must understand that our culture has deep foundations and a heritage that we should cultivate, instead of letting everything come from American culture.”
Regarding freedom of religion, does spiritual mobilisation also mean granting greater space to other religions in the public sphere?
“As I see it, it’s important that we in Denmark have freedom of religion, but not equality of religion. That’s why we’ve called on the Church of Denmark - the religion that has shaped Denmark- to help demonstrate that Christianity can be a reconciling force, a force that binds people together, and not a force of conflict. Other religious minorities that hold the same attitude are, of course, welcome in the public debate.”
So what role do you see for the Church of Denmark?
“I would actually like the Church itself to come up with some proposals. But we can see that the mosques are quite good at inviting young people and students in to learn about Islam. Perhaps the Church could do the same. It could also be to participate in this debate. In fact, representatives of the Church can say different things than I can as a politician about the role of Christianity.”
Several priests have criticised this instrumentalisation of the Church. Some of them may not want to be part of a political agenda. How do you respond to that?
“No one is asking them to be. I think they should be uplifted when the Prime Minister is asking them to step forward and saying, ‘There is a need for what you are contributing.’ I really can’t see that as an instrumentalisation. On the contrary, it’s an invitation for them to fill that space with what they believe is right.”
The Social Democrats pride themselves on having a tough immigration policy. Is this debate about Danish values a way to position yourselves against the right wing before the coming elections?
“We believe that if you come to Denmark, you must become part of the community. It has nothing to do with some tactical move.”
In education, successive governments have cut funding to the humanities, citing market demands. Isn’t it hypocritical when you suddenly want to strengthen the role of the humanities?
“The whole exercise with the universities has been about getting more people to choose vocational education pathways. I don’t see it as an attack on the humanities. It’s about the need to ensure that, in a period when there are fewer young people overall in the population, more of them choose education routes that society needs.”
Are there any concrete proposals you would like to put forward?
“One of the first things I’ll look at is how we can get more young people to engage in democracy. Among other things, by making sure that youth organisations that are members of the Danish Youth Council (DUF) have access to all education institutions, so young people can encounter them there. And I also think we need to get smarter about how we can strengthen democratic conversation in the media that young people are actually using.”
“Those are some of the first concrete things I’ll be working on. But it will also very much be a spokespersonship about helping the other spokespersons in their areas think about how we strengthen our common values and communities, and the understanding that we cannot take things for granted in these years.”
The parable of the butterfly and the garden
As Auken has said elsewhere, the role of ‘spokesperson for democracy’ will very much be a role that creates debate. The prominent psychologist, Svend Brinkmann, used to be on board with the idea until proponents started focusing more on the religious aspects of the term. Some may remember when George W. Bush called the war on terror a “crusade”. That notion was repeated when Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs, Morten Dahlin, said that Danish soldiers “also fight for Christianity” That remark has since been heavily criticised.
Brinkmann also worried that the idea of spirituality would get lost if it were only used as a means to an end, comparing the freedom of the spirit to a delicate butterfly. To that, Auken responds: if the garden in which the butterfly lived was threatened, then it would be necessary to protect that garden.
