Abstract
Sociology in Sweden is part of Palgrave Macmillan’s ‘Sociology Transformed’ series. Editors John Holmwood, of the University of Nottingham, UK, and Stephen Turner, of the University of South Florida, United States, intend to document the rapid changes in sociology over the last few decades. The nine volumes in the series focus on chronicling changes on a country-by-country basis with the goal of contributing to discourse on the discipline’s future. The first two volumes published in 2014 dealt with American (just the United States) and Australian sociology. In 2015, volumes on sociology in Ireland and Denmark, along with the Swedish volume, were published. In 2016, volumes on sociology in Portugal, South Africa, France, and Poland were issued.
Larsson and Magdalenić’s self-described ‘brief overview’ of 89 pages aims for a comprehensive national history of sociology. Their previous accomplishments indicate appropriate expertise to tackle the challenge. Larsson, an associate professor of history of science and ideas at Sweden’s Umeå University, authored A Science of the Modern Society: Establishing Sociology in Sweden (2001) and co-authored Social Science in Context: Historical, Sociological and Global Perspectives (2013). Magdalenić, a program officer at Sweden’s Socialstyrelsen (National Board of Health and Welfare) with a PhD in sociology from Stockholm University (SU), authored Gendering the Sociology Profession: Sweden, Britain and the US (2004).
In addition to the acknowledgments and an introductory chapter, seven chapters attempt to cover the breadth and depth of sociology in Sweden. Hedvig Ekerwald, Göran Ahrne, and Per Wisselgren, whose works are cited extensively, are acknowledged as key informants. Beside obligatory thanks to an anonymous reviewer for constructive commentary, a slew of unnamed sociologists are also thanked for contributions.
In Chapter 1 (‘Introduction’), previous attempts to outline the development of Swedish sociology are lucidly presented along with appropriate disclaimers. The main foci, sources, and the organization of the volume are also provided. Larsson, Magdalenić, and other Swedish sociologists have been introspective about their discipline. Periodization, shifting theoretical orientations, and a combination of both have been used to outline sociological development. In 1987, Katrin Fridjónsdóttir (p. 2) proposed three periods: formation in the 1940s and 1950s; consolidation and expansion in the 1950s and 1960s; and reorientation in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In 2007, Göran Ahrne (p. 2) proposed three periods as well but focused on the shifting dominant view of the relationship between society and the individual. From the 1950s to mid-1960s the focus was on individual adaptation to society (e.g., modernization); from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s, the focus was on society changing to enhance individuals’ quality of life via the workplace, housing, and neighborhoods; and from the mid-1980s on, the focus was on how individuals adapted to one another via gender, ethnicity, and power. In 2014, Hedvig Ekerwald (p. 3) proposed periodization based on two revolutions in sociology related to shifts in theoretical orientation. Although evaluation research persisted as a stable core, the upheavals of the 1960s facilitated a shift to qualitative methods and the 2000s experienced a shift from material aspects to ideational ones.
Three perspectives were guiding principles: (1) scientific boundaries and their making, including how formed, maintained, transformed, when appeared, and outcomes effected (pp. 3–4); (2) gender’s impact on development and structure presenting both ‘her stories’ and ‘his stories’; and (3) interconnections between the Swedish welfare state and sociology, which has mostly been characterized by interdependence and mutual trust.
In Chapter 2 (‘Disciplinary Precursors and Burgeoning’), the roots for sociology as an academic discipline in Sweden, prior to Torgny T Segerstedt assuming the first sociology chair at Uppsala University (UU) in 1947, are documented. Segerstedt’s appointment is commonly assumed to have established sociology as an autonomous discipline. However, the creation of a chair held by evolutionary sociologist and political economist Gustaf Steffen between 1903 and 1929 at Gothenburg University College is identified as first institutionalizing sociology in Sweden. His cited works support this claim although his eventually rejected evolutionary views resulted in most Swedish sociologists in the 20th century either not being aware of his work or not considering him a sociologist. Although Steffen’s chair was not continued after his death, the interest in sociological issues continued to grow in both academic and political circles. Sociology complemented rapidly developing Sweden and contributed to the notion that Sweden might function as a laboratory for the social sciences.
In Chapter 3 (‘Establishing a Scientific Discipline’), state intervention in society, along with the view that sociology was the ideal method of interpreting and dealing with contemporary social realities, is documented. In 1947, sociology chairs and departments were established at the two state universities with Segerstedt being installed at UU, but it was 1954 before Gösta Carlsson was installed in Lund. Also in 1954, Gunnar Boalt was offered a chair in sociology at SU. As the lone professor for seven years, Segerstedt had enormous influence in a variety of avenues over the development of sociology. His theory of social reality was promoted as the core of academic sociology and helped construct a sociology based on quantitative methodology that was distinct from previously defined ‘theoretical, speculative’ sociology.
In Chapter 4 (‘Boundaries under Construction’), the success of sociology is attributed to canny strategic choices and effective boundary work. Contemporary international sociology was described as divided into two distinct camps: American, positivistic, and empirical, versus Continental and speculative. The former was considered the best choice for Swedish sociologists (not without some, but quelled, dissent), helped set boundaries between sociology and other related disciplines, and created an exclusive domain for sociology. By the 1960s, Swedish sociology was well-established, enjoyed wide acceptance and respect, but had a rather narrow focus.
In Chapter 5 (‘Rise, Fall and Reorientation’), these topics are highlighted: producing textbooks, founding the Swedish Sociological Association, demonstrating sociological research’s relevance, and establishing new departments. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the discipline made enormous gains in popularity with student numbers increasing exponentially. But the expansion ended rather quickly due to radical critiques and the discipline’s crisis. At the same time, specialties began to flourish, including an expanded focus on family issues (barely acknowledged in this book), and related early efforts considering the importance of gender (covered in great detail).
In Chapter 6 (‘Expansion, Fragmentation and Export of Knowledge’), these issues are highlighted: renewed expansion, increase in women earning PhDs, and the discipline and sociological theory becoming more pluralistic. The demise of the Swedish welfare state in the mid-1980s took its toll, contributing to fragmentation in theory, method, and primary research plus the diffusion of sociological theories and concepts to other disciplines. Some subfields expanded and even separated from sociology altogether (e.g., criminology). Female sociologists played a prominent role in initiating widespread debates on the impact of gender on the discipline, and retired founding professors recognized earlier contributors to the making of sociology in Sweden.
In Chapter 7 (‘Reclaiming Sociological Expertise’), sociology facing diverse external and internal challenges in the 21st century is addressed. Transformations in Swedish and global society and university organization led to internationalization, peer reviews by a national agency, restructuring, and shrinking career opportunities. Internationalization hastened the fragmentation of the sociological community. The Swedish Sociological Association and its journal Sociologisk Forskning (Sociological Research), and the Swedish language, emerged as debate topics within the sociological community. Attempts were made to reclaim sociological expertise and to envision the future development of sociology.
In Chapter 8 (‘Conclusion’), the three perspectives and how they contributed to the history of sociology in Sweden are summarized. Boundary-making processes, both within sociology and between sociology and other social sciences, have been ongoing; gender played an integral role that was unrecognized in the past; and sociology’s successes and challenges are strongly related to the evolution of the welfare state. The overview of past events is comprehensive despite its brevity, plus new light is shed on some previously overlooked dimensions, especially gender. But national sociologies are always to some extent shaped by the imagination and values of authors and in that way uniquely ‘their’ history. Larsson and Magdalenić acknowledge this by recommending opening up the history of Swedish sociology to a ‘wider variety of voices that have contributed to its making and to reflect on the history of sociology through a sociological lens’ (pp. 88–89). Good advice to pass along! Larsson and Sanja Magdalenić’s volume, and its companions in the series, should contribute to productive communication leading to a more comprehensive understanding of sociology’s development, current status, and a more fruitful future.