Det villrådiga samhället: Kungliga Vetenskapsakademiens politiska och ekonomiska ideologi, 1739–1792

Abstract

The Royal Academy of Sciences was an important organization in eighteenth-century Sweden. It brought together scientists and scholars contributing to a wide spectrum of areas, encompassing nature as well as society. But it also maintained close ties to the elite and the political establishment. The academy formed part of the institutional landscape of power and functioned as a consultive body and an arena for the upper echelons of the Swedish realm. The monograph sheds light on the political and economic outlook of the Royal Academy of Sciences during the period 1739–1792 against the background of its intimate connections to the ruling stratum. Not least the Hat Party, which dominated the Swedish political scene during the Age of Liberty, and the autocratic King Gustav III. The study shows that the members of the academy overall gravitated towards traditional viewpoints and that their conceptualizations of society were substantially affected by their interactions with the power holders. While some fellows offered new ideas in line with an increasing contemporary emphasis on spontaneous societal development and the capability of individuals to act responsibly on their own accord, such notions were by no means prevalent. Moreover, the book demonstrates that neither the academy nor its members constituted a passive tool for the elite and the powers that be. Rather, they engaged in self-promotion by attributing themselves a crucial role in the project of general improvement they envisioned and added to.

The crying boss: Activating “human resources” through sensitivity training in 1970s Sweden

“…Even though the crying boss was ridiculed in the press, and despite all the harsh criticisms directed at the method from psychiatrists and medical doctors at the time, sensitivity training still received significant support from high‐profile actors, such as representatives from SAFs: institute for education (Jonasson, 1975a; Larmén, 1975), the PA‐council (Aschberg, 1980; Jonasson, 1975b) or company leaders (Jonasson 1975a; Ramsby, 1972). As we remember, the PA‐council had been founded by the Swedish Employers’ Confederation and also had representatives from the largest trade union umbrella organizations on its board, which means that it represented some of the most established, resourceful, and politically influential actors of Swedish society at the time.…”

“…In an interview with the daily newspaper Svenska Dagbladet in 1975, Arne Derefeldt, who was both a sensitivity trainer and director of the PA‐council's office in Malmö, was asked why “group training, often with elements of group dynamics and sensi[tivity training], has become so modern and popular.” To this he replied: “The unions have been involved in this push for greater co‐determination. Political decisions on increased transparency and increased co‐determination have been made.” He also emphasized that these demands had come “from several political platforms” (Jonasson, 1975b). Derefeldt argued (in his book on sensitivity training) that the driving force behind the Council's work with group‐dynamic learning methods was the conviction that the methods would “facilitate both employees and management with the quite large and difficult adjustment issues” that had to do with “co‐influence and corporate democracy” (Derefeldt, 1975, p. 67).…”