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.