Quite wary of the polarized and dumbed-down Swedish discourse on how to best transform into a heterogenous, open and multi-cultural society, the recent private mobile-video of a drunken troupe of "Sweden Democrat" nationalist MP's armed with iron bars is just irresistible.
Sweden has been a conformist and homogenous society for centuries. Swedes like to think of themselves as cosmopolitan, open and dynamic, a self-image not always neccessarily rooted in reality.
When I first moved to the UK in the early 2000's and got to parttake in discussions on the Iraq war, I was benevolently asked by an older lady if I was "Used to discussing issues like these, given how isolated Sweden is?"
Naturally I balked at the insolent assumption that Sweden would be isolated and not up to scratch on international politics - inwardly comparing this to the popular urban legend having it that Americans believe polar bears to be roaming the streets of Stockholm.
However, over the duration of a few years, I came to see that by and large, Sweden is isolated and not very experienced in discussing international realpolitik in a sophisticated manner.
"Not In My Name", they chanted down Tottenham Court road during the Blair administrations unpopular participation in Iraq. The white-poppy movement (A provocative take on the traditional red poppy worn to support veretans of war) - a political movement with some similarities to Swedish activism which is keen to take to the streets. The impact of these manifestations are generally of no consequence, but where Britain and Sweden firmly diverge is in terms of the level of intellectual debate surrounding the boisterous idealists in the streets.
One of my favourite video-clips to illustrate this is one in which Margot Wallström, top Social Democrat party official and member of the European Parliament gets crushed on Newsnight. To be fair to Wallström, English is her second language and she is at a distadvantage in that respect, however she does work internationally and ought to be experienced in handling situations of this nature. It is clear how the Eton-breed sophistication and rethorical journalistic eloquency has her shivering like a rabbit caught in the headlights of an oncoming truck loaded with witty sarcasm and Oxfordian debate-group training.
In spite of this situation, the Swedes emotionally perceive themselves as morally more advanced than the rest of the world, and thus swing between condemning the morally inferior and attempting to teach others how to behave. Social Democrat Marita Ulvskog is a treasure trove when it comes to finding practical examples of the emotionally based, often logically self-contradictory, morality. In the 1990’s, when defending an internationally controversial bill against the criticism that her fraction of politicians were elevating their own morality to law, she retorted: (My translation) “This has nothing whatsoever to do with morality. We are merely trying to instil certain values and establish certain norms that allow men and women to live together in society.” It would have been interesting to hear her explain what she thinks constitutes “morality”.
When confronted with arguments of other European nations not passing such laws and still getting the same societal results she merely offered: “We can pass these laws because we have come the furthest with these questions.” I wish to make it clear that it is not my intention to slam Ms. Ulvskog, but I do think the quality entertainment she provides is dampened by the fact that she still wields some political influence.
Part of the moral code that the Swedes have accepted are traditional humanistic values (which, incidentally, is nothing more than secularised Christianity no matter how religiously pluralistic they claim to be). This morality advocates self-sacrifice, the greater good as a moral end and solidarity with the needs of the state as a whole. In Sweden this sacrifice is chiefly made through taxation and by surrendering choice in social matters.
As the citizen morally accepts giving up the greater part of his life to working for the state he attains two things:
1) He can grant himself the sense of moral righteousness (as he willingly sacrifices himself for the good of the people), and
2) He is relieved of personal responsibility for his own life as the state for which he altruistically has accepted to work will now protect him.
The state owes me what I need, and I am good.
This outlook creates a comfortable political stability and social homogeneity, where the only source of conflict (save for the self-glorifying indignation of the media when the needs of select groups of citizens are deemed to not have received enough attention from the state) comes from the world outside Sweden.
How does the Swede sustain the self-image of tax-based altruistic moral superiority, which is necessary to deserve the right to not be responsible - when there is suffering in the rest of the world?
As above: by swinging between condemning the morally inferior and attempting to teach others how to behave.
The moral imperative of altruism advocates free immigration and pluralism. The political imperative of socialism demands homogeneity and obedience. The resolution of this conflict in Sweden has been achieved by reducing the meaning of multiculturalism to dabs of fascinating new colors on the surface of the Swedish machinery.
To encourage pluralism, to accept multiculturalism, to allow diversity, would have required a partial dismantling of the Swedish system, and as a consequence a partial dismantling of the self-image of the Swedes. Instead the policy slogan of “All the same, all different” was adopted, which effectively means: “We welcome you to sell falafel and to teach belly-dancing in subsidized study-groups as long as you willfully embrace the moral and social codes by which this state is run.” This attitude is perhaps best manifested by Mona Sahlin, former leader of the Social Democratic party (Who incidentally was elected to the post by a similar kind of twisted logic in which sexism was used to propagate feminism) when she used young (popular with the kids) Eritrean (popular with the immigrants) girl (popular with the feminists) rapper (culturally diverse with a hint of ploished street cred) "Feven" as a political vehicle designed to illustrate how the “New Swedes” were being embraced and embracing the socialist government machine.
As the morality of altruism cannot permit ordering how others should behave, two constructions are formed to sustain the Swedish morality of superiority and self-image in the face of deviance: the unspoken social agreement that serious deviations from the established norms are the result of immaturity and ignorance and will fall away as the deviant matures and becomes moral, and secondly that while wishing to deviate, society may graciously grant the deviant a contained arena in which to do so.
This is not multiculturalism, this is Jurassic Park-style social governance.
So in a sequence of events: the top-down hegemony of Swedish altruistic socialism will feel morally superior to other European countries by allowing sanctity to more refugees and asylum seekers, then indirectly punish them as socially deviant and morally inferior, then altruistically grant them subsidies and an arena in which to deviate, then antagonize them when the behavior violates the regulations of the social system hosting the arena.
This process contributes to the friction that is now being made flesh on both ends of the spectrum:
1) turbulence in immigrant-heavy areas with the swathe of social problems that follows
2) Undereducated blue-collar disgruntlement and sense of betrayal, followed by surging anti-immigration parties.
In Sweden, the two political blocs consist of a left wing which favors big government left-wing programs, and a right-wing bloc which favors big government right-wing projects. To scale back government itself can never be on the agenda as it alone can provide the necessary system for sustaining the right morality.
Faced with the consequences of this morality there are three evident possible reactions:
1) For opportunistic politicians to reverse the law of cause and effect and claim that it is a lack of morality (morality manifesting through regulation enforced through taxation) that has produced the increasingly chaotic situation, a road at the end of which one inevitably finds the muzzle of a gun.
2) Partial rejection of the dominant social morality which is manifested through the surge of iron-bar equipped populist and racist political parties which we are currently witnessing, with the "Sweden Democrats" hitting a hefty 12% of the popular vote in the latest polls.
3) A progressive dismantling of the top-down collectivist government style, and the permission of individual identity opposed to the morality of the collective.
Take a wild guess which of the above I might suggest as preferable?
