Abraham Kuyper A Life in Journalism
by Johan Snel
Two major themes dominated the life of Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920): theology and politics. These interests led him to mainly publish, and in this he was unique, in two specific print media. As a politician, Kuyper primarily voiced his ideas in his own daily newspaper, De Standaard, and as a theologian he wrote first and foremost for his own weekly magazine, De Heraut. He literally worked seven days a week alternately on this daily and weekly. His total production for the weekly was not much less than that for his daily, because he supplied more columns for De Heraut. His main articles appeared in De Standaard on fixed days: on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. His output for De Heraut usually amounted to three or four different articles and was also accomplished during the week. He invariably wrote the meditation on Sunday mornings when the rest of his family was in church, or when he was having a day of rest during his travels.
Kuyper the journalist was born when, still a pastor in Utrecht, he began writing for the then weekly De Heraut in the summer of 1869. He started out as a political editor and continued as editor-in-chief ad interim from the fall of 1870. Once he had formally become editor-in-chief, in January 1871, he confirmed the course that had been set before informally: De Heraut acquired a distinctly anti-revolutionary sound. This became the testing ground for the hoped-for realization of an anti-revolutionary daily newspaper. That daily became a reality on April 1, 1872, and for that daily Kuyper would provide the lion’s share of his journalistic production.
For more than half a century, from July 1869 to December 1919, Kuyper worked as a journalist in this way. Most of the time he combined his journalistic work with his other public duties, as a pastor and professor at his own Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, a Member of Parliament and chairman of the ARP, the Anti- Revolutionary Party. Even as Prime Minister (1901-1905), he continued to covertly supply copy for De Standaard in which, among other things, he commented on his fellow ministers, both in editorials and three-stars (i.e. brief commentaries announced by three little stars). However, in retrospect it is no longer possible to determine with certainty what was his own work and what was the work of others on the editorial staff.
For about as long, from 1870 to 1920, he was editor-in-chief: first of the weekly De Heraut, then from 1872 of the daily De Standaard. From December 1877, moreover, he formally led a weekly and a Sunday paper, again to be called De Heraut (but with a more theological content). Only in the years of his premiership and subsequent trip around the Mediterranean Sea, from 1901 to 1906, did he not formally function as editor-in-chief, although he did supply some copy from time to time. During his nine months’ travel around the Mediterranean, he is even said to have supplied an editorial for every Saturday.
For half a century, journalism formed the basis of Kuyper’s public appearance. He launched the ideas that also guided his political and public life mainly in his own newspaper. This is where he also fought his many opponents. His editorials and three-stars were read by his opponents as well as by his anti-revolutionary followers: precisely as a journalist and a publicist, Kuyper enjoyed a wide reputation, not only among journalists. The fact that he took position and expressed his own anti-
revolutionary sound did not deviate from the equally clear position held by liberal and certainly socialist journalists alongside him. Political outspokenness was a widely recognized feature of Dutch journalism around 1900.
What made Kuyper a journalist, in addition to his work as a politician and theologian? First, there was his already mentioned journalistic output, born entirely in the morning hours, from nine to half past twelve. In half a century, he delivered some 5,000 editorials and nearly 17,000 ‘three-stars’ for the daily newspaper De Standaard, in addition to thousands of articles for the weekly De Heraut. By any standards, his production was abundant and it was also influential: Kuyper used it to set the tone of the entire anti-revolutionary movement; De Standaard was his main political stronghold.
From the very beginning, Kuyper contributed to ‘his own’ daily newspaper in two sections: the editorial, at first still often a commentary but from 1881 mainly a – somewhat more timeless – editorial with a title, and three-stars. In addition, from 1887 a third section appeared, ‘Uit de pers’ (i.e. from the press), for which he apparently made the selection that was dealt with at the editorial office. ‘From the press’ often contained the news selection also addressed in three-stars, and in some cases in an editorial. Of all these sections, ‘Uit de pers’ and the three-stars were closest to current events and were the most journalistic. But even Kuyper’s majority of editorials in De Standaard covered the news in a broader sense, so that De Standaard was indeed a news magazine, despite its opinionated character (‘journal d’ opinion’).
Main articles for De Standaard could be about anything, but the main theme was still practical politics. They formed the elaboration of what Kuyper saw as the anti-revolutionary principles, as explained in Ons Program (‘Our Programme’, 1879). The main articles written by others also dealt mostly with practical politics so that this was the main dish for those who read De Standaard. In addition, a minority dealt with the underlying ideology, spiritual roots, and principles. Also three-star articles were mainly about current affairs and thus most often about practical politics, but they could literally be about anything. In the 1895 volume examined, Kuyper was most likely the author of all 352 three-stars. Indeed, they were about anything, including 31 times about ‘Dr Kuyper’ himself.
The latter was the consequence of Kuyper’s diverse responsibilities, so that Kuyper as the editor-in-chief regularly came to talk about Kuyper the politician and sometimes one of his other roles. It was a role-play – the anonymous editor Kuyper about Dr Kuyper – to which he adhered in De Standaard practically all his life. Anonymity in journalism was a general rule of play to which most Dutch dailies adhered, but in Kuyper’s case it allowed him to hide behind ‘the editors’ even when it was about himself. Moreover, De Standaard was a paper of which he was not only the editor-in-chief but also the owner from 1887 to 1916. So it was in all respects ‘his’ newspaper, and also the outside world saw it this way, making ‘anonymous’ less anonymous than it seemed. What appeared in De Standaard was generally understood as Kuyper’s point of view, and there was often good reason to do so.
Kuyper occasionally took part in polemics – a common form of debate in the Dutch newspapers and journals of his day. In his reflections, and contrary to popular belief, he thought it wise to comment as little as possible on polemical articles by opponents and even less on those by kindred spirits, such as those at the daily De Nederlander. When he did enter into polemics, it was regularly outside De Standaard – where scarce space also prevented him. Examples of pamphlets Kuyper published are two brochures of 1889 in which he responded to a critical review of his own
deputation speech in De Gids by Willem Hendrik de Beaufort, who in turn responded with another brochure. An example of a polemic in another newspaper is that with I.A. Levy in 1897 in the daily De Telegraaf. Levy also regularly polemicized against Kuyper in his ‘own’ weekly De (Groene) Amsterdammer. A common complaint was that in his own polemics Kuyper did insufficiently justice to his opponent’s position. In his 1895 editorial on polemics, Kuyper himself mentioned this as a disadvantage, which he attributed to lack of space (including the opponents’ point of view required more space than was available).
Internationally, Kuyper published only on special occasions, writing in English, French, and German. His most successful pamphlet, La crise sud-africaine, he wrote in French, but it soon also appeared in English (‘The Crisis in South Africa’), German, and other translations, usually in large print runs. It became the best-selling publication during his lifetime. After the English and French publications of his earlier life, two more followed around World War I in German. In these he sided with the German emperor – he wrote a tribute – and was convinced that the Netherlands had more to lose from a British victory in the war than from a German one, as he argued in an article ‘Die Niederlande’ in the weekly Die Woche that also appeared in translation as a Dutch pamphlet.
As an interviewee, Kuyper often expressed his affection for journalism, and he frequently addressed interviewers as confrères. Of the 81 interviews and interview excerpts found, 33 featured Kuyper as Prime Minister, the position that provided by far the most occasion. Of the remainder, nineteen were related to his 1898 America tour, with most American reporters making reports of no more than a few casually expressed words. Truly detailed interviews, which required a few hours and also produced a detailed story, were given by Kuyper only a dozen times in his life, such as to a German reporter during his premiership and also in 1907, on the occasion of his 70th birthday. All in all, his interviews betrayed his penchant for journalism, a reason for describing them in chapter three.
A second reason, besides his output, why he could fully pass as a journalist were his journalistic connections. Among journalists, Kuyper gradually formed a considerable network, especially outside his own anti-revolutionary circle. Initially, he saw mainly opponents: in his eyes, journalism was completely in the hands of the conservative and liberal elite, a bastion he had yet to storm. And journalists were the mouthpiece of modernism – admittedly in different tones, but for Kuyper these concerned only variants of the same ideological basis. In particular, Jews and ex- pastors represented for Kuyper the dominant spirit of modernism in journalism.
From the press pavilion at the 1883 World’s Fair in Amsterdam and the founding of the NJK, the Dutch Journalists’ Circle onward, relations among journalists normalized considerably, and Kuyper, too, increasingly found himself among journalists. This was visible in his new relationships with liberal figureheads in journalism, from the friendship-tending dealings with Charles Boissevain to collegial relations with ex-pastors such as Van Duyl, De Veer, and Ritter. Parallel to this, moreover, he held a plea for independent journalism and open debate among different parties, especially in journalism, and this idea also contributed to collegial relations.
Particularly in the years 1895 to 1901, Kuyper was in the spotlights as a journalist and as a figurehead of the Dutch journalism movement. He had joined the NJK board during these years. In 1898 he succeeded the other figurehead, Charles Boissevain, and his presidency of the Dutch Journalists’ Circle (NJK), confirmed that very image. In that quality, he was also a board member of the international
journalists’ movement UIAP, for which he visited the international headquarters in Paris in 1900. Dutch journalists around that time considered Kuyper a prominent journalist, despite all the other public positions he held. Until the Interwar period, Kuyper enjoyed an indestructible reputation among his Dutch confreres and was regularly referred to as the ‘greatest’ journalist the country had produced.
Only after his trip around the Mediterranean would Kuyper return to active journalism, by now with an almost legendary status. Even in his later years he was among journalists, especially the type that had by then become predominant: the reporter. Kuyper’s journalistic career (1869-1920) thus encompassed not only two generations of journalists, but also two different types. Whereas at first he dealt mainly with chief editors, around 1900 a younger generation broke through, seasoned in reporting. This was a period of Sturm und Drang, during which journalism underwent a metamorphosis and the profession acquired a face of its own. Women remained underrepresented in this process. Even during Kuyper’s active years at the NJK, a few women were members of the journalists’ guild, but they remained in the background.
A third reason why Kuyper can also be called a journalist are his theoretical considerations. They were the main theoretical reflections on journalism of a Dutchman before World War I. He alternately described journalism as a ‘power in the nation’ and as a ‘circle’, mindful of the social circles or spheres that were entitled to autonomy according to his ideas about ‘sphere sovereignty’.
In particular, in the editorial series of ‘Het Vrije Woord’ (The Free Word, 1895), he laid the foundations for a journalistic theory in which everything revolves around independent opinion formation. For him, journalism is a public debate between different currents advocating different principles. Journalism is thus a battle for the public opinion – the other new ‘power in the nation’ that he distinguishes alongside that of journalism and closely related to it. Noteworthy here is his consideration of the interaction between public and journalism. In several crucial passages in ‘Het Vrije Woord’, Kuyper accounts for their mutual dependence. Journalism and the public are in the same maelstrom of ideas and the public has become just as much of an actor in modern society. Journalism exists by the grace of the values it shares with its audience, Kuyper argues.
As explained in the concluding remarks, a plural society was for Kuyper an ideal he pursued for the liberal-dominated society of his day. Already in the first issue of the weekly De Heraut for which he was responsible as editor-in-chief, on Friday, January 6, 1871, in his programmatic opening article he formulated the demand of ‘equal justice for ALL’, complete with capital letters. For Kuyper, journalism was closely related to his pluralism. Good journalism gave expression to life guiding principles that were in turn the expression of a plural society, he would argue. Journalism and pluralism were thus inseparable.
The irrevocable choices journalists make are related to this, he argued in ‘The Free Word’. For human perception is not value-free, ‘In all perception a subjective element interferes, and that subjective element makes partial, and in the face of such partiality the other party needs a counter-representation.’ Even if a newspaper offers only a news selection, every choice is subjective. Journalists are thus irrevocably biased: they cannot be otherwise.
Those biases or ‘tendencies’, however, are not arbitrary but flow from a ‘higher motive’. And this leads us to Kuyper’s principles or fundamental ideas. In his theory, these form the starting point of the various currents and thus of the journalistic bodies that represent them. It is not shared interests that guide journalism, but shared values
and ideals. And it is this mutual involvement of the public and journalism that Kuyper is concerned about. Only involved journalists can give words ‘to what goes on in the heart of such a group’. In Kuyper’s theoretical reflections, therefore, one can discern traits of an ‘advocacy model’ (Michael Schudson) that today is represented by ‘engaged journalism’ (Taco Rijssemus).
At the same time, Kuyper is more explicit in his choices. More than with Rijssemus, involvement for Kuyper has an identifiable basis. For him, this lies in the universal notion of the human conscience. Conscience, ‘the last refuge of the free man, the innermost of his personality’, forms the direct connection of the heart with the ‘order of a higher world’. Conscience refers to a ‘moral world order’, which he gratefully borrowed from the humanist Allard Pierson as early as 1871. And thanks to that ethical-moral world order, our thinking and actions are anything but neutral, let alone objective. Therefore, Kuyper’s ideal was engaged journalism rather than objective journalism.
About a decade ago, Marcel Broersma and Frank Harbers in particular raised objections to the dominant ‘grand narrative’ of the development of Western journalism, also known as the ‘Whig interpretation of journalism history’. This shows the long march through history starting with the American mass press of the 1830s and finally ending up with the commercial model everywhere in the course of the twentieth century. However, the empirical research of both men reveals a remarkably long standing presence of what Broersma calls the reflective style (as distinct from the news style).
The reflective style is above all discursive: focused on opinion, elevation and persuasion. Analysis and opinion are at least as important as news and reportage. A journalistic practice in this sense appears to be dominant in the Western European countries studied by Harbers until after World War I and in the Netherlands even considerably longer, until the 1970s.
Around 1900 the reflective style was still ubiquitous in Dutch journalism. This can help explain Kuyper’s popularity in journalist circles, which constitutes a fourth reason for considering him a journalist. Why was he hoisted on the shield by the first two generations of journalists? Not only because he, along with Boissevain, was the undisputed leader of the new journalists’ guild. But also because of the style and content of his articles, above all his daily three-stars. Kuyper was also the master of reflective journalism, the professional ideal around 1900, an opinion leader pur sang.
At the same time, new journalistic genres such as reportage and the interview made their appearance in Dutch journalism. Whereas Kuyper never held interviews, but gave dozens of them, the repercussions of reportage as a new journalistic genre are visible in his work, especially in his travel reports. Kuyper never adopted the attitude of a reporter, although, like a reporter, he worked a great deal with his own observations and impressions. This is particularly the case for his American travel impressions, first published as feature articles – read: reportages – in De Standaard and then collected as Varia Americana, from 1899.
Finally, Kuyper’s literary aspirations – he was considered by many in his time to be a great stylist – also served his journalism. Typical of his style was a rich imagery, ranging from archaisms to modernisms, but above all drawing on his own observations and imagination. Imagination formed the heart of Kuyper’s style; it guided his language and interpreted the world before him, as argued by countless commentators. Even as a language artist, he was a ‘créateur de valeurs’ (Gerretson); he was always concerned with the message. At the same time, for him, poetry represented the purest form of imagination. Poetry is the highest form of art because
it most purely keeps alive the sense of beauty in a broken world, a glimpse of eternity. Just as beauty reflects the divine, images offer a glimpse of the ideal.
Sometimes he wrote this literally. In a curiously meditative editorial in August 1901, when he had just completed his cabinet, Kuyper articulated the meaning for his own imagery in almost visionary words: the poet sees something of God’s eternity. ‘If the imagination is allowed to recreate even a little, albeit so imperfectly, of God’s wide world, visible or invisible, rare pleasure is tasted’. Creating images was pure and divine enjoyment: Kuyper was clearly also talking about himself.
Thus he added a number of words and expressions to the Dutch language. All his life he played the ‘keyboard of popular conscience’, the instrument of public opinion, expressing ‘architectural criticism’ of contemporary capitalist society. As Prime Minister in 1902, he christened the journalists ‘press mosquitoes’, as they frequently swarmed around him. Eventually, he would go down in history as a press mosquito himself.
From: Johan Snel, author of “Abraham Kuyper, Een Leven in de Journalistiek [Een Alternatieve Biografie] (English “Abraham Kuyper, A Life in Journalism an Alternative Biography”) and “De Zeven Levens van Abraham Kuyper” (English “The Seven Lives of Abraham Kuyper”)
