The Passion of the Swede

A picture that has been prolific in Swedish social media lately is this snapshot from a catalogue of toys:

This is the marketing material of a purveyor of products aimed at children, and as visible in the picture, the reason for its current viral status is the fact that the gender roles have been inverted in all the pictures.

As the father of two daughters, I am certainly in favour of equal opportunity in all spheres of life - and I generally perceive the dismantling of social and political structures that limit free choice as an excellent development for both the economy and the individual.

Albeit the PR-company that has developed this concept has done a very good job managing to get a catalogue of toys to trend in social media, and in spite of it deserving some criticism for being somewhat too obviously opportunistic in targeting morally anxious middle-class parents, what stands out is something else: the reactions in the user commentary.

"Absolutely wonderful! Finally! :)"
"This is superb!"
"I never expected this, after all attempts it was feeling hopeless. But look! How lovely!"
"Good! Wonderful!!"
"Amazing, I'm sharing this immediately!"
"Finally!"
"He he he, my heart grows warm and happy!"
"Just my feeling, smiling inside!"
"I had been waiting for this..."
"Super"
"Wow! Totally amazing, finally, not a day too soon!"

The list goes on in the same style all over social media. Going by the the unanimous and ecstatic praise one would perhaps associate with unexpected peace in the middle east or a cure for cancer, it is a perfect example of the Swedish psyche: once a value gains moral footing in society, the middle classes will fall over themselves to outdo each other in expressing their alignment with the aforesaid morality.

As stated before (and I am doing it again to protect myself from the furore of my Swedish audience) I am all in favour of equal opportunity and liberalisation from culturally inherited roles for individuals.

The religious certitude of the above quoted commentary is worrying in the sense that it exemplifies how easily large numbers of Swedes can be manipulated and passionately mobilized in favour of various causes as long as they are presented carrying the correct moral value-symbols. The Kony 2012 campaign (a partisan and politically questionable viral YouTube-video) is a recent example of this, where the moral markers "care for third world" and "love the children" were effectively paired with "you can make a difference by sharing this" - accompanied by a grand Hollywood-style soundtrack. Within hours social media was littered with unreflected convictions ("Share this! It will change your life!"). The interesting thing about the Kony campaign was that it's luridness quickly got it called out by various groups who were working to actually make a difference in it's sphere - who responded with viral campaigns of their own. This prompted some muted but apologetic shares of videos countering the Kony emote-fest, sans ecstatic exclamations. What differentiates the Swedish reaction to Kony compared with most other countries was the coordinated excited alignment as per the quotes above, which rapidly switched to coordinated silence when the campaign lost it's moral credentials.

The toy catalogue presents an inversion of roles, not a liberalisation: it merely substitutes one set of roles with a new set of roles. This is acceptable - given that this is just ordinary marketing material half-cleverly capitalizing on the moral convictions of it's target demographic. Albeit unsophisticated, the attempted promotion of gender neutrality most likely has some genuine good intentions complementing the strategic market positioning.

However, this is not about the catalogue or gender equality, Kony or any other specific issue. This is about the Passion of the Swede.
As made apparent with the advent of social media, they will descend on any and all events or trends and lavish unreflected praise on anything being presented with the right moral markers - and destroying anything superficially at odds with those same markers.

Brilliant economist Joseph Schumpeter wrote of the inevitable transition from high-output capitalism to the high-maintenance welfare state, and the corresponding shift of power from accomplishment to entitlement. The free market forces that created the resources required for mass-education were voted out of power by the unaccomplished as soon as their level of education made it possible.
This demographic substitutes activity with activism, a characteristic that in collectivist Sweden has established superficial "questioning" as an integral part of education,  often more highly valued than knowledge.
As long as you question the right things, that is.

As a result, Sweden abounds in half-educated, mediocre, aligned, collective and synchronized moral posing masked as questioning and taking a stand.

Taking a stand requires opposition and force. When everyone is taking the same stand it's really just a bunch of people standing around.

The Debate Climate

British author Andrew Brown writes in his biographical memoir "Fishing in Utopia" on life in Sweden: "Their conformism does not mean that the Swedes do not change, but when they do, they do it like a school of fish: all of them change direction at the same time." (Quoted from memory, hopefully approximately correct)

During the six months since my return to Sweden, this statement has strongly resonated with me.
In stark contrast to the internationalism and pluralism of British quality news reporting, Swedish media seems to pick a focus-grouped theme that over its life-cycle of around three weeks, will dictate the debate climate of the entire nation.

It is obvious that commercial media anywhere will favour stories that sell, but the striking difference between Sweden and the UK is the passionate seriousness with which the population as a whole will invest themselves in each of these themes - and the fact that there will not be room for any parallel debates (a situation likely aggravated by the diminutive population and market.)

Let it, in the name of clarity, be noted that this does not concern daily news reporting, which in Sweden is  adequate albeit with a forgiveable provincial slant. The debate-themes however, mono-debates, are most often opinion-material with a strong moral component (though sometimes evolved from a news story with moral implications) - and once one is in swing it will suffocate most other debates that might be relevant at the same time.

A typical example might be last year's debate on the ethical treatment of ferrets by the fur industry. This story obliterated any plurality in the debate climate for around three weeks in early 2011. The evening news in all channels ran heart-wrenching stories on the squalid conditions of ferrets. The tabloids headlined with ferrets in both news- and opinion-sections. Upheaval in the blogosphere and on social media networks where people would collect signatures and arrange demonstrations. Follow-up with subjective news reporting on representatives form the fur industry and activists. Cries for new legislation, witch-hunt for those, somebody, anybody responsible.

...and then it slowly petered out, like a flame that had consumed all oxygen.

The average swede will likely, upon this reminder, argue that they still care deeply about the fate of the ferrets, and if things are still awry in ferretland that somebody ought to do something and that there is something wrong with a society that allows ferrets to be mistreated - and then return to making passionate indignant Facebook-posts about whatever mono-debate is the current rage and how the coalition-block of choice would be best at dealing with the issue.

A few weeks ago, the debate focused on the morally ambitious linguistic engineering suggestion to introduce a gender-neutral pronoun, with the hope of facilitating the dismantling of perceived oppressive patriarchal structures. Cue passionate reporting on both sides of the issue, with conservatives painting the issue as the end of civilization, and its proponents as the key to gender-neutral nirvana. Cue social media havoc, broadcasting specials, tabloid reports, propaganda, demonization. Cue reviews of the opportunist but progressive children's book first out to make use of the new pronoun, cue reviews of the second, critical, children's book to make use of the new pronoun. Cue interviews with gender specialists at daycare centres wanting to implement the new pronoun, cue interviews with those opposed to sending their children to gender-neutral daycare and cue a favourable special with the Stockholm hipster couple raising gender-neutral baby Kim, whose sex is kept a secret.

...and then it slowly petered out, only to be replaced with a hairy armpit, which is the hilarity that triggered this post.

I will not linger on the details, but a lady was captured on camera with ungroomed armpits and subsequently ridiculed in social media by adolescent boys. Cue everything, everywhere, with gusto.

Some might argue that these stories are all modestly relevant, if somewhat quaint, storms in a teacup - but they then fail to realize that living in Sweden means living in the teacup, and when it storms it will splash into every corner of your existence.

During my years in London, the only thing that comes even near the Swedish debate climate is that surrounding "baby P", a social services scandal involving negligence causing the death of a baby.

British press is generally characterised by qualitative latitude, ranging from the Sun all the way up to the Times and the Guardian - but also with pluralism. All the media channels will not be debating the same issues at all times.


Swedes might oppose criticism of this kind by emphasizing how plural and broad the news reporting really is, and simultaneously argue that a manifestation where 15 young ladies decide to showcase their hairy armpits is newsworthy enough to be broadcast in a segment of it's own on national primetime TV on all channels, as it confronts an important issue (right up there with Nelson, the baby rhinoceros that died from its cerebral palsy after only eleven days in 1995 and caused national mourning and a complete media meltdown).
This is nothing short of absurd as it leaves out the most critical element: that importance is best determined through pluralist trial - and that sacrificing pluralism on the altar of perceived importance most likely has yielded Sweden very little of both. It would be the keen hope of this blogger that the diversity Swedish ideologues so keenly claims celebrate and strive for indeed will break up the mentally collectivist hegemony to facilitate a less contrived state of affairs when it comes to open debates.