Academia.eduAcademia.edu
This art icle was downloaded by: [ Sodert orns Hogskolebibliot ek] On: 06 Decem ber 2013, At : 13: 18 Publisher: Rout ledge I nform a Lt d Regist ered in England and Wales Regist ered Num ber: 1072954 Regist ered office: Mort im er House, 37- 41 Mort im er St reet , London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Contemporary European Studies Publicat ion det ails, including inst ruct ions f or aut hors and subscript ion inf ormat ion: ht t p: / / www. t andf online. com/ loi/ cj ea20 ‘ Power Investigation: The Political Culture of Nordic Self-Understanding’ : Introduction a Ainur Elmgren & Norbert Göt z a b Net work f or European St udies, Universit y of Helsinki, Finland b Cent re f or Nordic St udies, Universit y of Helsinki, Finland Published online: 03 Dec 2013. To cite this article: Ainur Elmgren & Norbert Göt z (2013) ‘ Power Invest igat ion: The Polit ical Cult ure of Nordic Self -Underst anding’ : Int roduct ion, Journal of Cont emporary European St udies, 21: 3, 338-340, DOI: 10. 1080/ 14782804. 2013. 831598 To link to this article: ht t p: / / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14782804. 2013. 831598 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTI CLE Taylor & Francis m akes every effort t o ensure t he accuracy of all t he inform at ion ( t he “ Cont ent ” ) cont ained in t he publicat ions on our plat form . However, Taylor & Francis, our agent s, and our licensors m ake no represent at ions or warrant ies what soever as t o t he accuracy, com plet eness, or suit abilit y for any purpose of t he Cont ent . Any opinions and views expressed in t his publicat ion are t he opinions and views of t he aut hors, and are not t he views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of t he Cont ent should not be relied upon and should be independent ly verified wit h prim ary sources of inform at ion. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, act ions, claim s, proceedings, dem ands, cost s, expenses, dam ages, and ot her liabilit ies what soever or howsoever caused arising direct ly or indirect ly in connect ion wit h, in relat ion t o or arising out of t he use of t he Cont ent . This art icle m ay be used for research, t eaching, and privat e st udy purposes. Any subst ant ial or syst em at ic reproduct ion, redist ribut ion, reselling, loan, sub- licensing, syst em at ic supply, or dist ribut ion in any form t o anyone is expressly forbidden. Term s & Condit ions of access and use can be found at ht t p: / / www.t andfonline.com / page/ t erm sand- condit ions Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 2013 Vol. 21, No. 3, 338–340, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14782804.2013.831598 INTRODUCTION Downloaded by [Sodertorns Hogskolebibliotek] at 13:18 06 December 2013 ‘Power Investigation: The Political Culture of Nordic Self-Understanding’: Introduction ¨ TZb AINUR ELMGRENa* & NORBERT GO a Network for European Studies, University of Helsinki, Finland, bCentre for Nordic Studies, University of Helsinki, Finland ‘Power investigation’, or the need for power to renew and legitimize itself through public self-reflection and self-criticism, has a long history in northern Europe. The tradition has been traced, especially by Norwegian commentators to the Heimskringla, an Icelandic collection of sagas on Norse kings written in the thirteenth century. A modern tradition of investigating power and its effects on society has emerged in the twentieth century, with the first power investigation in the present sense initiated by the Norwegian government in 1972. It in turn inspired similar endeavours in the other Scandinavian countries in the decades that followed. The most recent power investigation was concluded in Finland in 2010. All Nordic power investigations have been motivated as responses to perceived changes in society, politics, and the economy. The investigations of the 1970s and 1980s were triggered by increasing criticism directed towards the welfare state and the desire of the Social Democratic parties of Norway and Sweden to come to terms with the decline of their political hegemony. Fears of bureaucratic stagnation were tempered by attempts to integrate the concepts of liberty and openness into the discourse of the welfare state. In the 1990s and 2000s, conservative and liberal parties continued along this path, where Europeanization and internationalization of policy-making were conceived as mounting challenges to be addressed by power investigations. Five power investigations have been conducted in the Nordic countries since 1972, and they constitute a unique body of scholarly work. The close connection of these investigations to state power has not dissuaded prominent scholars from participating in them, nor have their findings evoked strong criticism. Combining politically guided perspectives with collaborative research, power investigations represent public events that typify the ostensibly open political culture of the Nordic countries, rather than simply existing as texts or a genre. Although such investigations have been thought of as critical studies of power, the articles in this special issue suggest that they are also tools for wielding power. Whatever shortcomings they may uncover in their respective countries, *Correspondence Address: Network for European Studies, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 54, Helsinki, FI-00014, Finland. Email: ainur.elmgren@helsinki.fi q 2013 Taylor & Francis Downloaded by [Sodertorns Hogskolebibliotek] at 13:18 06 December 2013 ‘Power Investigation: The Political Culture of Nordic Self-Understanding’ 339 the utility of these investigations in suggesting transparency and self-reflection enhances the legitimacy of Scandinavian government. The investigations are persuasive exercises through which the commissioning authorities and those scholars hired to carry them out engage in a mutually beneficial exchange. Underlying this strategy is the perception, deeply embedded in Nordic political culture, that politics is a progressive, rational endeavour, and that identification with the state is an honourable role for scholars. VALTA,1 a multidisciplinary research programme on power conducted in Finland, is the latest of such investigations, but it is distinctive from the others in crucial ways. The VALTA programme, which has recently undergone its final evaluation, offers a particular occasion for us to reconstruct this topic from a broader, historical perspective. Unlike its predecessors in Norway (1972 – 1982, 1997 – 2003), Sweden (1985 – 1990), and Denmark (1997 – 2003), VALTA was neither initiated by a government or parliament, nor did it culminate in a report synthesizing its conclusions. It was sponsored by a semi-public research foundation and resembled a thematic multidisciplinary research initiative that called for the implementation of independent projects. It simultaneously placed itself in the tradition of the Scandinavian power investigations and distanced itself from them because of its autonomy and the multiple perspectives embodied in its approach. This counterpoint to the Scandinavian model of public investigation obscures one of its important ideological purposes: providing the public open access to the inner workings of power, and thereby increasing possibilities for participatory democracy, accountability and trust. VALTA has permitted a fresh look back at the results of all power investigations and their role in the public discourse about power. It also reminds us of the continuing relevance of power studies as a unique form of public inquiry in the Nordic countries. The contributions to this thematic issue were written by academics from the disciplines of history, political science and media and communications studies, all of whom combine an interest in social theory with empirical historical exploration. The introductory article by Norbert Götz gives an overview of the power investigation as a politico-cultural practice that has evolved in the Nordic countries over the past decades. Carl Marklund contextualizes the Swedish investigation in the reconfiguration of the welfare state that took place in the 1980s, arguing that the efforts to renew Swedish public administration led to a discursive change from planning and rationalization to the new language of public service, participation and openness. Ann-Cathrine Jungar takes a comparative perspective on the issue of popular rule and multilevel governance from 1997 to 2003, and shows how public investigations of democracy and power in Denmark, Norway and Sweden, viewed through their narratives about integration into the European Union, national sovereignty and domestic power relations, reveal historically and socially influential differences in experience and outlook. The two final contributions by Lotta Lounasmeri and Ainur Elmgren provide analyses of the most recent power investigation in Finland from two different viewpoints. From her vantage point as a participant, Lounasmeri discusses some results of the VALTA programme in challenging the existing power structures. Her article provides an endogenous glimpse into the power investigation, expanding the concept to include the societal role of the media. Elmgren offers the first scholarly appraisal of VALTA and its reception as seen by an outsider. Her article explores the contradictory expectations placed on the most recent power investigation, which was different in character and aims from the publicly commissioned Scandinavian investigations, and yet was expected to provide comparable data about Finland and fulfil similar needs in the public discourse. Downloaded by [Sodertorns Hogskolebibliotek] at 13:18 06 December 2013 340 A. Elmgren & N. Götz The idea for this special issue arose within the research project ‘Nordic Openness: Opportunities and Limits of a Consensual Political Culture’, funded by the Network of European Studies at the University of Helsinki and by the Kone Foundation. The contributions exemplify interdisciplinary area studies that examine the concepts and practices that shape the notions of a specific region, in this case the Nordic countries. The authors present a variety of views, including awareness of the affirmative potential of power investigations, their nature as political rather than scholarly projects, their language and their historical and social contexts. The integration of theory and methodology across disciplines shows the potential of area studies and, it is our hope, demonstrates its fruitfulness for the analysis of complex social phenomena. In addition to the six thematic articles in this issue, we are publishing two additional articles, both of which address the general theme of power, albeit from a distinctive perspective. Alex Prichard, in his article on ‘Justice and EU Foreign Policy’, examines the particular problematic of European claims to ‘an ethical foreign policy’. Using insights taken from virtue ethics, he argues for an approach to evaluating the EU which is based on the idea that justice is relative to the virtues that we pursue in our daily lives, and that these virtues can only be properly understood in relation to the practices through which they are realized and the institutions we build to defend them. Accordingly, he argues that we need to disaggregate the EU’s institutions and the practices of key officials and the virtues they promote or defend. Alexandra Hennessy’s article on ‘Informal Governance and the Eurozone Crisis’ focuses on the inadequacies of the EU’s political architecture and its policy-making processes in the (unforeseen) circumstance of a fundamental systemic crisis. In the absence of appropriate mechanisms of crisis management, consensusformation and popular legitimation, the inherited informal hegemonic system under German leadership has found itself wanting, threatening the very survival of the Eurozone project. As usual, the issue is rounded off with a reviews section, which includes a review article of three books relating to religion and religiosity in contemporary European society, along with a further 15 reviews of publications in the field of European area studies. Note 1 Research Programme on Power and Society in Finland, 2007 – 2010. According to project leader Petteri Pietikäinen (telephone conversation 22 October 2013), the title was selected to avoid the ambiguity of the English word ‘power’, which also means ‘energy’.
This art icle was downloaded by: [ Sodert orns Hogskolebibliot ek] On: 06 Decem ber 2013, At : 13: 19 Publisher: Rout ledge I nform a Lt d Regist ered in England and Wales Regist ered Num ber: 1072954 Regist ered office: Mort im er House, 37- 41 Mort im er St reet , London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Contemporary European Studies Publicat ion det ails, including inst ruct ions f or aut hors and subscript ion inf ormat ion: ht t p: / / www. t andf online. com/ loi/ cj ea20 Introspective Performance: The Scandinavian Power Investigation as a Politico-Cultural Practice Norbert Göt z a a Södert örn Universit y, Sweden Published online: 03 Dec 2013. To cite this article: Norbert Göt z (2013) Int rospect ive Perf ormance: The Scandinavian Power Invest igat ion as a Polit ico-Cult ural Pract ice, Journal of Cont emporary European St udies, 21: 3, 341-356, DOI: 10. 1080/ 14782804. 2013. 831599 To link to this article: ht t p: / / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14782804. 2013. 831599 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTI CLE Taylor & Francis m akes every effort t o ensure t he accuracy of all t he inform at ion ( t he “ Cont ent ” ) cont ained in t he publicat ions on our plat form . However, Taylor & Francis, our agent s, and our licensors m ake no represent at ions or warrant ies what soever as t o t he accuracy, com plet eness, or suit abilit y for any purpose of t he Cont ent . Any opinions and views expressed in t his publicat ion are t he opinions and views of t he aut hors, and are not t he views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of t he Cont ent should not be relied upon and should be independent ly verified wit h prim ary sources of inform at ion. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, act ions, claim s, proceedings, dem ands, cost s, expenses, dam ages, and ot her liabilit ies what soever or howsoever caused arising direct ly or indirect ly in connect ion wit h, in relat ion t o or arising out of t he use of t he Cont ent . This art icle m ay be used for research, t eaching, and privat e st udy purposes. Any subst ant ial or syst em at ic reproduct ion, redist ribut ion, reselling, loan, sub- licensing, syst em at ic supply, or dist ribut ion in any form t o anyone is expressly forbidden. Term s & Condit ions of access and use can be found at ht t p: / / www.t andfonline.com / page/ t erm sand- condit ions Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 2013 Vol. 21, No. 3, 341–356, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14782804.2013.831599 Downloaded by [Sodertorns Hogskolebibliotek] at 13:19 06 December 2013 Introspective Performance: The Scandinavian Power Investigation as a Politico-Cultural Practice ¨ TZ* NORBERT GO Södertörn University, Sweden ABSTRACT The transdisciplinary coherence of area studies can be enhanced through a crossfertilisation of historical and social sciences with concepts derived from philology and cultural studies. The five Scandinavian power investigations (Norway 1972 – 1982, Sweden 1985 – 1990, Denmark 1997 – 2003, Norway 1997 – 2003, and Finland 2007 – 2010) are here recognised as a unique body of work. Blending politically guided perspectives with collaborative scholarly analysis, these investigations represent events rather than texts. For this reason the concept of genre does not sufficiently capture their essence. Instead, power investigations are seen as comprehensive politicocultural practices identified by 14 characteristics imported from the humanities. The utility of these investigations in suggesting transparency and self-reflection enhances the legitimacy of Scandinavian government. KEY WORDS: power, public inquiry, Scandinavia, political culture, commissioned science Outside of a dog, a book is man’s best friend. Inside of a dog it’s too dark to read. – Groucho Marx The blind confidence that Swedish citizens have in their institutions frequently puzzles foreign observers.1 In his essay ‘Swedish Autumn’, Hans Magnus Enzensberger suggested the historical absence of negative experience with political power as a rationale. In a country like Sweden, the ‘armed hunting-down of human beings’ (Enzensberger 1989, 14) seemed unimaginable. From his German perspective, Enzensberger thought one could only confirm the Swedes in trusting their own system’s humanitarianism. Hence, the functionalist concrete-box architecture of the institutions occupying the centres of Swedish towns stood as ‘a power that is alien yet always benevolent’ (ibid.). This orientation gave moral immunity to the social engineering of society: ‘To limit, supervise, and resist the forces of good can only help the forces of evil’ (ibid.). Such evidence enabled state authority to expand, permeate remote corners of everyday life, and regulate personal affairs to a degree unparalleled in other Western societies. According to Enzensberger, an observer of Sweden was struck by its genuinely impersonal reason—symbolised by the country’s *Email: norbert.gotz@sh.se q 2013 Taylor & Francis Downloaded by [Sodertorns Hogskolebibliotek] at 13:19 06 December 2013 342 N. Götz autonomous public administration office, the ämbetsverk—which, in a manner of enlightened absolutism, dominated all aspects of Swedish life. In view of the subtle diffusion of power in its social structures, power issues have traditionally been little discussed in the public sector and academia in Sweden. As political scientist Bernd Henningsen noticed in the mid-1980s, power was not regarded as a problem in its own right; it was seen as simply ingrained in the concept of administration (1986, 367f). However, at about the same time this observation was published, the Swedish government established a scholarly commission of inquiry called a ‘power investigation’ (maktutredning). Its mission was ‘to analyse the distribution of power and influence within different sectors of Swedish society’ (Maktutredningen 1990, 411). Henningsen was also the organiser of a conference on a Norwegian power investigation that had operated from 1972 to 1982. His conclusion was reminiscent of Enzensberger’s portrait of Sweden in stating that the Norwegian power investigation, with its disregard of personal power and of factors beyond so-called public choice, had ‘fallen for the most perfect form of democratic exercise of power: the disguise of power’ (Henningsen 1988, 80). Thus, he claimed that the investigation had ‘not investigated power at all’, but rather accomplished an ‘empirical screening of Norwegian society for political and social conditions’ (ibid.). Henningsen’s analysis builds on Eric Voegelin’s comment that, under the pressure of democratic symbolism, modern political theory has difficulty distinguishing between rulers and subjects—despite the fact that ‘ruling power is ruling power even in a democracy’ (Voegelin 1952, 38). Nonetheless, Henningsen did acknowledge the discursive reorientation taking place in Scandinavia in the 1970s and 1980s. By including the word ‘power’ in the standard inventory of scholarly and public debate, an interest was raised calling attention to power as one of the ‘old, classical issues of politics’ (1988, 75, 82). For Henningsen, even innocuous positivist data-collection under the heading of ‘power’ activated some of the critical potential inscribed in its conceptual history (see Faber, Ilting, and Meier 1982). The present article unwraps this ambivalence through a generic examination of the characteristics of the Scandinavian power investigations. The historical and social sciences are thereby supplied with concepts derived from philology and cultural studies to suggest ways of integrating the disciplines forming the core of area studies. ‘Power Investigations’ and Their Antecedents Studies on the power of government are at least as old as Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War written in the fifth century BC. On ceremonial occasions the northern European tradition of ‘power investigation’ is traced back to Snorri Sturluson’s Heimskringla, a thirteenth-century collection of kings’ sagas written in Old Norse (Østerud 1999a, 11). The author was an Icelandic subject of the Norwegian crown who was loyal to the king and on very good terms with the dynasty about which he wrote. Commissions of inquiry form another part of the background of power investigations. The institution plays a prominent role in Sweden, but it is also a significant feature of Finnish and Norwegian politics (Pedersen and Lægreid 1994, 253– 7). Such commissions of inquiry have been at the centre of Scandinavian politics since the nineteenth century. Characteristic is their multi-partite parliamentary composition and the general inclusion of representatives of civil society, organisations and academia (Rainio-Niemi 2010). Also Downloaded by [Sodertorns Hogskolebibliotek] at 13:19 06 December 2013 Introspective Performance 343 significant is the pragmatic approach of such commissions to problems of society with a social engineering approach (Marklund 2008). The reports of their inquiry are meticulously documented and a major source on Scandinavian societies. The institution has declined over the past two decades (Nybom 2010; Rainio-Niemi 2010), although the power investigations, with their broad mandate extending over several years without any immediate political utility being demanded of them, continue to resemble the commissions of old. A direct predecessor of the power investigations was the comprehensive Swedish inquiry on emigration to the United States (Emigrationsutredningen), carried out at the beginning of the twentieth century under the leadership of statistician Gustav Sundbärg and published in 21 volumes. It identified the discontent of ordinary people who felt ‘discomforting powerlessness’ before the upper class and their country’s strong bureaucracy as a factor driving many Swedes to emigrate (Sundbärg 1913, 840, see also 836). The first modern power investigation goes back to the programme announced by the Norwegian Labour Party for their first 100 days in office after winning the election of 1969 (Diskussionsbeiträge 1988, 91; statement by G. Hernes). The initiative is ascribed to a labour programme committee that was called ‘the think tank’ (tænkeloftet). Its initial interest was primarily the issue of economic power.2 It can be seen as a reaction to the western protest movements of 1968. Despite winning the elections, it took the Labour Party a long time to implement their programme: the projected 100 days turned into 1,000 days (Diskussionsbeiträge 1988, 91; statement by G. Hernes). In the end, the power investigation became the last decision of the Labour government before a referendum on membership in the European Communities (which demonstrated the power of the people) triggered the resignation of the government in September 1972 (Hernes 1988, 58). Sociologist Gudmund Hernes, one of the three leaders of the power investigation, later referred to it as a ‘kamikaze mission’, for which it was difficult to recruit members and whose feasibility was widely doubted in academia (Diskussionsbeiträge 1988, 91— statement by G. Hernes). The investigation was also led by Johan P. Olsen, a political scientist, and Håvard Alstadheim, an economist, who played a minor role. The government had stated that it was ‘of fundamental importance that the actual power relations are unveiled and disclosed for public debate and critical analysis’, so the commission was tasked with bringing about ‘the best possible knowledge of the real power relations in Norwegian society’ (Maktutredningen 1982, 1). The commission submitted its final report in 1982. Altogether, 20 books and approximately 100 working papers were published in its name. The commission saw its mission as that of an empirical inquiry along the lines of the dominant US political science paradigm of quantification. Thus, its leader boasted of having collected approximately 1 million ‘single findings’ (Hernes 1988, 58). Consider that the inquiry cost 7 million NOK, each finding cost an average of 7 NOK. In addition to the three team leaders, a total of 20 scholars worked on the inquiry for a minimum of half a year, and 12 scholars were given additional research assignments (Maktutredningen 1982, 263f). Despite its modest funding and the objections that might be raised against its positivist orientation, the Norwegian power investigation of the 1970s set a remarkable academic benchmark, demonstrating a higher standard of theory development and research organisation than that of preceding Scandinavian research programmes (Micheletti 1984, 341). Downloaded by [Sodertorns Hogskolebibliotek] at 13:19 06 December 2013 344 N. Götz The Swedish power investigation ran from 1985 to 1990 under the leadership of political scientist Olof Petersson, its chairman, along with historian Yvonne Hirdman, and economist Inga Persson. Johan P. Olsen was included in the team as expert member based on his experience with the Norwegian predecessor inquiry. However, Petersson has stated that the Norwegian model’s concepts such as the ‘iron triangle’, ‘media-twisted society’ or ‘segmented state’ had greater appeal than its actual empirical research findings. He observed that a research project of its own would be required to determine why a Swedish power investigation was established in the first place. The perceived need of developing a timely self-understanding for a rapidly changing society was probably crucial (Petersson 1988, 146). The official mandate of the commission was to analyse the distribution of power and influence in different sectors of Swedish society, particularly with regard to the constitutive factors of democracy. The Swedish commission published about as much as the Norwegian one, but its budget of 33 million SEK was considerably greater and its number of participants (142 in all) was significantly larger, including a board with James G. March, Fritz W. Scharpf, Theda Skocpol, Sidney Verba and other internationally known academics (Maktutredningen 1990, 411, 421, 437 – 44). There have been a number of related commissions of inquiry following the power investigation. Apart from the broadly based ‘democracy investigation’ (Demokratiutredning in Jungar’s contribution to this theme issue this investigation is included in a Scandinavian comparison of power investigations of the late 1990s; Jungar 2013) inquiries on narrower topics have examined women and men in power positions in Swedish society, the power, integration and structural discrimination, and the distribution of economic power and resources between women and men. Once positioned in political discourse, the topic of power became almost omnipresent. In Denmark, a power investigation was first suggested in 1988 by a socialist member of parliament. However, the proposal did not gain support until 1994, when it was hoped that an investigation would uncover the prevailing disparity of financial resources of interest organisations, on the one hand, and political parties, on the other (Frandsen 2004). Aiming at a greater allocation of public funds to the latter, the Danish parliament established an ad hoc committee for the analysis of democracy and power. In Spring 1997, this committee passed the initiative on to a scholarly commission that in the coming years can more systematically explore the essence of discussions and dilemmas of democracy in a modern welfare society as it approaches the threshold of a new century, and also lay bare the channels of power and influence that exist in a society in close contact with global and technological reality.3 In May of that year, the government appointed a political scientist, Lise Togeby, as chairwoman. By November, three more political scientists (Jørgen Goul Andersen, Peter Munk Christiansen and Torben Beck Jørgensen), as well as public health scholar Signild Vallgårda, were added to the team. Following the investigation, there was criticism of the commission’s lopsided disciplinary composition, particularly the specialisation of its political scientists in the fields of participation and administration, and its alleged systematic disregard of issues related to economic power. The investigation had a budget of 50 million DKK and produced approximately 50 books and 35 other publications until its mandate expired in 2003 (Frandsen 2004).4 Downloaded by [Sodertorns Hogskolebibliotek] at 13:19 06 December 2013 Introspective Performance 345 Almost parallel to the Danish inquiry, a Norwegian ‘Power and Democracy Investigation’ (Makt- og demokratiutredning) was appointed. Its name reflected the explicit focus on the condition and future of the democratic exercise of power that had been established by the Swedish inquiry. The decision to establish a new power investigation was unanimously approved by parliament in October 1996. In December of the following year, its mandate was stated as inquiring into the way ‘representative democracy and its prerequisites are challenged and affected’ by factors that had not been relevant in the previous investigation. These factors were later specified as marketisation, internationalisation, new technologies, opinion making, environmental challenges, multiculturalism and the knowledge society, in addition to tendencies of decentralisation, citizen participation in government and changing role of voluntary associations. The sum appropriated for this purpose was 49 million NOK (Mandat 1999, 144, 146, 162 –3). The group was led by three political scientists—Øyvind Østerud (chairman), Per Selle and Hege Skjeie—sociologist Fredrik Engelstad, and art historian Siri Meyer. Its disciplinary range was not only wider than that of its Danish counterpart, but the Norwegian political scientists also represented a broader spread of interests than their Danish colleagues. The second Norwegian power investigation produced 52 books, 76 working papers and numerous articles. However, a consensus report by the leadership group was not among its accomplishments. Only the three male members of the group agreed to a joint résumé (Østerud, Engelstad, and Selle 2003). An official final report was also published, to which Skjeie and Meyer contributed dissenting statements. Skjeie criticised the disregard of gender imbalances as well as thinking in the category of the nation-state, saying it turned the external world into a threat rather than an opportunity. Meyer’s objection was directed at what she perceived as her colleagues’ formalistic, inhuman and instrumental concept of power; she proposed an alternative, culturalist understanding of the political (Makt- og demokratiutredningen 2003). By the time the final report appeared, she had already resigned from the commission and published her own unofficial conclusions under the title The Empire Calls (Imperiet kaller; Meyer 2003). The divergent tendency of the two investigations that were active in the years 1997 – 2003 is striking. Despite disagreements within the Norwegian steering committee, its members generally had a pessimistic and critical perspective on the condition of their country’s democratic system. According to the majority opinion, Norway’s institutions were in a state of gradual decline. By contrast, the Danish commission concluded, ‘It has actually gone astonishingly well. There is still democratic vigour in the Danish population and considerable democratic robustness in its political institutions. Above all, the Danish population seems both resourceful and capable of action’ (Togeby et al. 2003, 402). There has not been a state-run power investigation in Finland. However, in the 1970s there was a research programme dealing with equality and democracy called TANDEM (Tasa-arvon ja demokratian tutkimus) that worked on similar issues from a Marxist point of view and is today considered a reference programme (Tasa-arvon ja demokratiantutkimus 1977). In 2004 the Westermarck Society, a Finnish sociological association, requested that the Academy of Finland initiate a research programme on the country’s power system. Despite the fact that the Academy’s call for proposals quoted the sociologists’ memorandum word for word in parts, only two sociology projects received research grants. The main emphasis among the 24 projects receiving funding for the period 2007 – 2010 (sharing a total budget of 6.5 million Euros) was on political science, economics and social psychology.The sociologists had pointed to the Scandinavian power Downloaded by [Sodertorns Hogskolebibliotek] at 13:19 06 December 2013 Norway Denmark Heimskringla TANDEM: Demokratian rajat ja rakenteet Maktutredningen: Sluttrapport 1990 2003 2005 2010 Iceland/Scandinavia Emigrationsutredningen: Betänkande i utvandringsfrågan 1977 1982 Finland Demokrati och makt i Sverige: Maktutredningens huvudrapport Makt og demokrati: Sluttrapport fra Maktog demokratiutredningen Togeby et al.: Magt og demokrati i Danmark. Hovedresultater fra Magtudredningen. Demokrati i Norden Petteri Pietikäinen (ed.): Valta Suomessa Other classic studies of power Arendt, H. 1970. On Violence. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Castells, M. 2009. Communication Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Enquete-Kommission ‘Aufarbeitung von Geschichte und Folgen der SED-Diktatur in Deutschland’ 1995. Materialien. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Foucault, M. 1961. Folie et Déraison. Paris: Union Générale d’E´ ditions. Gramsci, A. 1948– 1951. Quaderni dal Carcere. Turin: Einaudi. Machiavelli, N. 1532. Il Principe. Florence: Giunta. de Montesquieu, Ch. 1748. De L’esprit des Loix. Geneva: Barrillot. Rhodes, R. A. W. 2000. Transforming British Government, vols 1– 2 [the so-called Whitehall Programme]. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Thucydides. 1900 [5th century bc]. History of the Peloponnesian War. Oxford: Clarendon. de Tocqueville, A. 1835 – 1840. La Démocratie en Amérique, vols 1 – 2 Paris: Gosselin. N. Götz ca. 1225 1913 Sweden 346 Table 1. Overview over power investigations Downloaded by [Sodertorns Hogskolebibliotek] at 13:19 06 December 2013 Introspective Performance 347 investigations as models for a Finnish programme, underlining their pragmatic approach based in organisation theory and their interest in issues concerning democracy and administration.5 In referring extensively to the Scandinavian power investigations in their call for proposals, the Finnish Academy made it clear that they intended their research programme as the functional equivalent. In studying the complex processes of the allocation of power, the Academy claimed, Finland would join (liittää) the ‘Nordic studies on power, but it also produces new knowledge on the specific characteristics and historical differences of Finnish power structures as compared to those of the other Nordic countries’ (Suomen Akatemia 2005, 53, see also 8, 51 – 2).6 Iceland is the only Scandinavian country that has not yet had a comprehensive research programme on power. However, in 2004 the Icelandic government initiated a study on the state of democracy within the framework of Nordic cooperation that was in particular based on the Danish and the second Norwegian power investigations. Fredrik Engelstad, a former leader of the Norwegian research group was one of the co-authors of this study (Demokratiudvalget 2005). Table 1 provides an overview of power studies in Scandinavia and includes other classic studies of power. The emboldened areas indicate those ‘power investigations’ that are the focus of this article. The ‘Power Investigation’ as a Politico-Cultural Practice Power investigations are a form of collective action enacted in a ritual manner particular to the Scandinavian type of ‘open society’ (see Petersson 1989). They are cathartic performances of self-enlightenment and self-assurance. Thus, the power investigations are part of the problem they purport to analyse. A humanistic framework of analysis makes visible the hidden agenda of the power investigations and identifies them in their larger societal context. The criteria for this study were derived inductively in the course of the analysis of power investigations. A comment by the chairman of the second Norwegian inquiry, Øyvind Østerud, who characterised power investigations as a genre that had specific qualities and shortcomings, provided a good starting point: There is a limitation with regard to the power investigation as a genre. It provides a research topic; it can describe the development of power structures as a historical ‘education novel’ [dannelsesfortelling ], or it can chart the aspects and mechanisms of power as a contemporary ‘digression novel’ [digresjonsroman ]. But it does not have the revealing intention of the detective story or investigation. With regard to individual matters and the concrete decision making process, a more generalising power investigation will not be able to name particular power holders and power structures. Here, research takes a different vantage point than both an investigation and investigative journalism. This limits the concrete respect in which a research programme can say something new and unexpected, since the programme aims at the more general traits in the transformation of power and the conditions of popular government. (Østerud 1999a, 16) In considering the limitations of ‘power investigation’ as a genre, approaches advocating genres as social action point in the right direction (Miller 1984). But the Downloaded by [Sodertorns Hogskolebibliotek] at 13:19 06 December 2013 348 N. Götz various generic typologies of different disciplines are insufficient if we attempt to apply them to an analysis of Scandinavian power investigations. At the end of the eighteenth century, Wilhelm von Humboldt (1963, 153) expressed the conviction that there was no field of human activity in which it was possible to achieve utmost perfection outside the boundaries of that genre. A few years later it became the goal of Romanticism to transcend the limits of genres. In the complex world of today, the challenge is to transcend the limits of the text-centred notion of genre by engaging in transdisciplinary research. The process-oriented and holistic concept of ‘politico-cultural practice’ employed in the present analysis builds on existing taxonomic approaches, but applies a broader perspective. In particular it uses ideas imported from speech act theory, communication-oriented text linguistics, sociological poetics and reader-response criticism (Bakhtin 1981a; Brinker et al. 2000; Jauss 1982; Searle 1969; Tompkins 1980). It combines elements of the above in attempting a comprehensive study of power investigations. Not only are those investigations taken as producers of societal analyses— they are understood as social events in their own right. This concurs with topical research that prefers multilevel models to characterise text types and genres. These are thought of as historically variable and culturally conditioned entities that are constantly challenged and modified by new works (Heinemann and Heinemann 2002). The analytical tool of politico-cultural practice establishes a plausible level of abstraction for complex phenomena such as power investigations, while still exhibiting parallels to familiar concepts. The following 14-point overview moves from textual variables to contextual ones. It presents preliminary findings and hypotheses, based on a reading of the final reports of the various inquiries and other documents, and assesses the degree to which the investigations correspond to the ideal type of the power investigation as a politicocultural practice.7 The intention here goes beyond the empirical analysis, to suggesting an analytical framework derived from philology and cultural studies for historical and social science purposes in a regional context. The goal is to consolidate area studies by means of a transdisciplinary integration of theory and methodology using a concrete Scandinavian example. The characteristics and their properties considered representative for the politicocultural practice ‘power investigation’ are as follows. 1. Power investigations are characterised by the discourse in which they partake. By their designation and raison d’être, all programmes locate themselves firmly in the discourse about power. 2. Intertextuality, the reference to or self-declaration as a power-investigation, is a second characteristic. Evidently, this criterion cannot be meaningfully applied to the Norwegian power investigation that invented the politico-cultural practice. All other power investigations place themselves in the tradition thereby established—usually by their naming, but otherwise also by reference to the previous inquiries in programmatic documents. 3. The chronotope, the space – time matrix inherent in human thought, is a concept from physics which has been introduced to literary studies by Mikhail M. Bakhtin (1981b). The chronotope characteristic of the power investigations is the ‘grand narrative’ of an a-historical nation state with welfare state quality. The tendency of the last inquiries, postulating a more or less successful Introspective Performance 4. Downloaded by [Sodertorns Hogskolebibliotek] at 13:19 06 December 2013 5. 6. 7. 8. resistance to historically contingent impositions of globalisation and postmodernisation, pronounces this frame of reference particularly. In regard to the characteristic register or language code of the power investigations, the Swedish term ‘inquiry prose’ (utredningsprosa) is helpful. It signifies a hybrid diction consisting of bureaucratic formulae, legal hedging, scholarly abstraction, and political correctness. The point made here would benefit from detailed comparative studies on the use of language. As to the Finnish programme, a more scholarly style can be assumed because of the more clear-cut academic background of this inquiry. However, by definition there is a considerable overlap of ‘inquiry prose’ and mainstream scholarly writing. An initiator is significant for any politico-cultural practice. In the case of the last power investigation, this was the Academy of Finland, a semi-governmental research funding agency. However, power investigations have typically been appointed by governments or parliaments. The fact that the first two power investigations were convened by governments, while the two that followed were called by parliaments might be a result of the increasingly perceived ‘democracy deficit’ of modern interdependent statehood. As the foremost representatives of the power of the sovereign people, legislators might feel that their influence has been waning in the past decades. Post-structural literary theory has proclaimed the death of the author, meaning that the monopoly of interpretation from an author’s perspective is obsolete (Barthes 1967). Similarly, from a linguistic point of view, the emitter of a message has lost authority. In the framework of politico-cultural practice, the corresponding concept would be that of the performer. Power investigations are much more than occasions for producing documents: they are rituals of societal self-absorption and a search for meaning. A common trait of the performers of power investigations, whether living or dead, is that they all come from academia. The generation of the power investigation analyses is done by multiple scholarly voices and numerous publications. In the case of the Finnish programme, the final anthology speaks of ‘a polyphonic collage, not in lockstep, but different variations on a basic theme: power in Finland’ (Pietikäinen 2010b, 10). The other investigations were also based on multiple perspectives. To what degree such polyphony is orchestrated and characterised by consonance or dissonance is a question that has no simple answer. The politico-cultural practice of ‘power investigation’ features a sequentialhierarchic staging dramaturgy whose final report is the authoritative pooling of a small steering group, usually consisting of three to five scholars. Even the second Norwegian commission followed this pattern, despite the fact that no synthesis was achieved because of irreconcilable differences within the leadership circle. The Finnish programme, which consisted of 24 autonomous projects that did not rely on an overall academic leadership, nevertheless culminated in a final publication in which approximately half of the projects presented themselves individually. The Finnish volume also contains an introductory and concluding essay by programme manager Petteri Pietikäinen, who was employed by the Academy of Finland. The selection of the projects to be included was made by the publisher together with the programme manager and based on how well the contributions fitted one of three main topics: history, 349 350 Downloaded by [Sodertorns Hogskolebibliotek] at 13:19 06 December 2013 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. N. Götz legitimacy and people’s power (Pietikäinen 2010a). In addition, the Finnish programme produced a final internal report, in which all projects summarised their findings individually (Pietikäinen 2010c), held a final seminar in September 2011, and an evaluation seminar in April 2012. With regard to the function of the power investigations, Eckard Rolf’s taxonomy of functional text types is helpful, although for the present context these have to be thought of in a broader sense as politico-cultural practices (Rolf 1993). Analogous to Rolf’s classification, the societal introspection of power investigations can be classed as ‘assertive-descriptive’ (assertiv-registrierend), that is, as ‘noting facts’. For example, the mandate of the first Norwegian commission cautioned members that they should by no means succumb to the temptation of submitting suggestions for a change of power relations (Maktutredningen 1982, 1). This cautious approach was internalised by successor inquiries. The validity claim of the investigations discussed here is that of a synthesised truth (see Klein 2000). This suggests an entanglement of the truth claim of classical science with the procedural sequence of the power investigations. However, in two cases this can only be applied with reservation. The second Norwegian inquiry aspired to find out the truth, but was subverted by the dissenting opinions of two members in the leadership group. The Finnish final anthology is a collection of individual contributions and that leaves the synopsis to the reader, despite the pre-selection of contributions, and the introductory and concluding essays. Nonetheless, even the Finnish programme aimed for ‘a comprehensive interpretation’ (Suomen Akatemia 2005, 54, see also 55), although on the basis of a variety of individual perspectives. The addressee of power investigations is always the citizenry of the nation. Even in Finland this point was strongly emphasised in the conversation with the programme manager. In the Finnish project anthology, scholars immediately used the rhetoric figure of a national ‘we’ (Haapala 2010, 23, 24, 26, 32, 33). At the same time, Finnish background documents raise a different claim and give priority to intra-academic goals. From this perspective, the major aims were research excellence and the creation of scholarly networks, especially international ones. There seems to be a discrepancy between how a research funding institution articulates its objectives, on the one hand, and how the people involved think and write, on the other. Power investigations are characterised by their intermediality: they are longterm multimedia events. The book form was favoured by all the inquiries, but accompanied by different workshops, discussion meetings, exhibitions, websites, newsletters and films. The plan to organise a rock concert on the topic of ‘power and youth’ in the framework of the Finnish programme never was realised. The Norwegian final report of 2003 carefully records the press coverage of different phases of the project. The different media refer to one another. The content-related implication of the media change would need to be extracted in detail for a deeper discussion of this point. The dimension of intermediality can be supplemented by asking for the dominant medium, that is, the core medium as an independent characteristic. The institution of the power investigation as such can be regarded as such a Downloaded by [Sodertorns Hogskolebibliotek] at 13:19 06 December 2013 Table 2. Conformity with the politico-cultural practice ‘power investigation’ Property Discourse Intertextuality Chronotope Register Initiator Performer Generation Staging Function Validity claim Addressee Intermediality Dominant media Meta-function Power Explicit reference to the system Modern welfare state ‘Inquiry prose’ (utredningsprosa) State Scholars Polyphone Sequential-hierarchic Assertive-descriptive Synthesised truth National public Multimedia long-term event Institution Legitimisation Norway 1982 Sweden 1990 Denmark 2003 Norway 2003 Finland 2010 þ N/A þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ , þ þ þ þ þ þ þ , , þ þ þ þ , þ þ , þ Introspective Performance Characteristic 351 Downloaded by [Sodertorns Hogskolebibliotek] at 13:19 06 December 2013 352 N. Götz medium. Ultimately, the technicist and essentialist understanding of media which is also common in cultural studies obscures insight in alternative ways of sustainable societal communications—as, for example, through performative acts such as the temporary institutionalisation of a power investigation. This perspective concurs with Niklas Luhmann’s functionalist concept of media, according to which everything that is used and brought into form as a medium necessarily becomes a medium (Khurana 2004). Hence, media are highly variable semaphore. The installation of a power investigation sends a strong signal that the officials commissioning it regard themselves as possessing legitimate power. The Finnish programme is again somewhat different, as it lacks the institutional core of a group of leading scholars that has characterised the inquiries of its Scandinavian neighbours. 14. Finally, the meta-function of power investigations is simply the legitimisation of prevailing domestic conditions. Not only is a ‘power investigation’ its own dominant medium, it also functions as its own essential message (see McLuhan 1964, 7). An article written by the chairman of the last Norwegian inquiry, Øyvind Østerud, in the country’s leading newspaper may serve as an example. Østerud mused that it would be difficult to imagine Italian politicians commissioning a power investigation, communicating that—in contrast to certain other governments—the Scandinavian powers need not shun the penetrating light of scholarly inquiry (Østerud 1999b). Self-investigation makes them a priori appear as good or already reformed. For Scandinavians, power investigations represent an openness and readiness for immanent critique that highlights moral superiority over the rest of the world (see Kettunen 1997, 162 ff.). In this respect, it will be interesting to compare the results of the more conventionally academic Finnish power programme in greater detail. Whereas the Finnish programme description—maybe owing to such a description’s function of listing references rather than criticising them—uncritically referred to the Scandinavian power studies, the programme manager and one of the project leaders claimed in personal conversations that at least some of the Finnish researchers were eager to demonstrate to their Scandinavian neighbours what more critical power studies can accomplish. Had this been the overall approach, it would have widened the scope of the politico-cultural practice ‘power investigation’, if not transformed it. Yet, Finnish academia is traditionally close to the state, and the final project anthology gives little evidence of a more critical attitude as compared to the Scandinavian predecessors (the concluding essay en passant addresses the problem of commissioned research and lack of power of individual researchers to determine their own research topics, though; Pietikäinen 2010d). The proposition of one of the Finnish power researchers, ‘Looking through the eyes of nineteenth-century man we now live in the country that utopian socialists dreamed of, though it is capitalist’, entails an uplifting empowerment hypothesis. While not representative of the Finnish programme as a whole, it provides a good indication of the general direction (Haapala 2010, 23). Table 2 summarises the preceding discussion, listing the characteristics and properties of the politico-cultural practice of ‘power investigation’ as established in the Scandinavian Introspective Performance 353 countries. The table also presents preliminary findings on the various cases, based on published final reports and ancillary materials. The degree to which the different investigations correspond to the ideal type of the politico-cultural practice ‘power investigation’ is indicated by the following symbols: þ stands for the criteria having been fully met, and , for partial conformity. Downloaded by [Sodertorns Hogskolebibliotek] at 13:19 06 December 2013 Outlook Society and politics are not only crude spheres of interest maximisation; they can also be seen as symbolic systems and culturally determined patterns for action. The concept ‘politico-cultural practice’ suggests such a perspective. Its usefulness has been demonstrated by discussing 14 characteristic dimensions of the power investigations that have operated in the Scandinavian countries since the 1970s. At the same time, the analytical framework used here provides an example of how the transdisciplinary coherence of area studies can be enhanced through a cross-fertilisation of historical and social sciences with concepts derived from philology and cultural studies. Power investigations are examples of the amalgamation of different societal functions and the political instrumentalisation of scholars in the Scandinavian countries. They resemble the practice of auditors being beholden to the companies they are supposed to monitor. The question of how much openness and independence is actually realised in the power investigations could be decisive for the continuation of this politico-cultural practice (Petersson 2003). The recent Finnish experiences might be of particular significance in this respect. Calls for the next power investigation are already being raised in Sweden (Bjereld 2010). The second Norwegian investigation suggests that a combination of different insights might lead to perspectives for meaningful action. In one paper, the classicist and philosopher Amund Børdahl characterised non-fiction and trivial literature as belonging to the same genre, namely ‘power prose’ (Børdahl 2003, 48).8 By contrast he consigns belleslettres and collections of essays to the sphere of ‘impotent prose’. The same author has also suggested a radically formalised power theory along the lines of hardcore US political science, which he derived from the frame of reference of Gudmund Hernes and the first Norwegian power investigation. In its most condensed form, the theory appears as follows: PP mp ips kps Mp ¼ s p This is a nonsense-formula claiming that the power of an author is a function of the interest paid to him or her by other authors (Børdahl 2003, 52)! Combining the power perspective on the type of prose with that on the author, the challenge of making society a place with a more equitable distribution of power is raising the stakes for those writing ‘impotent prose’ to such high a level that ‘power prose’ has to yield. Whether the alternatives really are that clearly demarcated is debatable. The notion that those qualified to act as a corrective to the abuse of power are powerless is distressing. A lack of entanglement in the power structure of a particular country or region might suffice to ensure the critical perspectives demanded; scholarly autonomy is easier developed at a distance than in whatever kind of dependence. The Scandinavian countries, which gave the term ‘ombudsman’, deserve spokespersons who are not embroiled in their 354 N. Götz own nation’s power structures. Like for any society, such voices are to be found abroad. This is why we need area studies and interaction with foreign observers. Even in the democratic polities of today, societal analysis is too precious to be left to the ‘prince’ and his domestic scholarly henchmen. Notes 1 Downloaded by [Sodertorns Hogskolebibliotek] at 13:19 06 December 2013 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 This article is part of the project ‘Nordic Openness: Opportunities and Limits of a Consensual Political Culture’, funded by the Network for European Studies at the University of Helsinki and the Kone Foundation. I am indebted to Ainur Elmgren for her help with Finnish source material. An earlier version has been published in German as Götz (2010). http://webarkiv.ft.dk/?/Samling/19951/udvbilag/UDM/Almdel_bilag10.htm, http://webarkiv.ft.dk/?/ Samling/19951/udvbilag/UDM/Almdel_bilag11.htm. Beretning afgivet af Udvalget vedrørende analyse af demokrati og magt i Danmark den 19. marts 1997 [Report of the committee on the analysis of democracy and power in Denmark, 19 March 1997], available at: http://webarkiv.ft.dk/?/Samling/19961/udvbilag/UDM/Almdel_bilag23.htm. The final report is in Togeby et al. (2003). Suomalainen valtajärjestelmä. Muistio 30.4.2004 [The Finnish power system: Memorandum, 30 April 2004]. (This is the memorandum by the Westermarck Society, private copy.) This statement can be seen in a general context of Nordic/Scandinavian tradition and orientation in Finland (Erkkilä 2010). For the Finnish power investigation, a programme anthology (Pietikäinen 2010a, 2010b) was used, in addition to a call for proposals from 2005 and two interviews with the programme coordinator, Petteri Pietikäinen (January 2008 and January 2010). Perspectives for future power research may especially be found in studies about power over language and concepts, such as Kananen and Kantola (2009). References Arendt, H. 1970. On Violence. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Bakhtin, M. M. 1981a. The Dialogic Imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M. M. 1981b. “Forms of Time and of the Chronotope in the Novel.” In The Dialogic Imagination, 84– 258. Austin: University of Texas Press. Barthes, R. 1967. “The Death of the Author.” Aspen (5– 6): n.p. Bjereld, U. 2010. “Makten att skapa makt.” [The power to mould power] Dagens Nyheter (20 January). Børdahl, A. 2003. “Maktprosa.” [Power prose]. In Maktens Tekster [Texts of Power], edited by K. L. Berge, S. Meyer, and T. A. Trippestad, 42 – 61. Oslo: Gyldendal. Brinker, K., G. Antos, W. Heinemann, and S. F. Sager, eds. 2000. Linguistics of Text and Conversation: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, et al. Berlin: de Gruyter. Castells, M. 2009. Communication Power. Oxford: University Press. Demokratiudvalget. 2005. Demokrati i Norden [Democracy in Scandinavia]. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. Diskussionsbeiträge. 1988. Norwegische Politikaspekte: Ein Seminarbericht zu außen- und innenpolitischen Fragen in den Achtzigern [Aspects of Norwegian politics: A seminar report on foreign policy and domestic issues in the eighties], edited by B. Henningsen, 83 –93. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Enquete-Kommission ‘Aufarbeitung von Geschichte und Folgen der SED-Diktatur in Deutschland’. 1995. Materialien. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Enzensberger, H. M. 1989. “Swedish Autumn.” In Europe, Europe: Forays into a Continent, 3 –35. London: Hutchinson Radius. Erkkilä, T. 2010. Reinventing Nordic Openness: Transparency and State Information in Finland. Helsinki: University. Faber, K.-G., K.-H. Ilting, and C. Meier. 1982. “Macht, Gewalt.” [Power, Violence] In Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland, Vol. 3: H–Me Downloaded by [Sodertorns Hogskolebibliotek] at 13:19 06 December 2013 Introspective Performance 355 [Historical key concepts: Historical encyclopedia on the political and social terminology in Germany], edited by O. Brunner, W. Conze, and R. Koselleck, 817– 935. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Foucault, M. 1961. Folie et Déraison [Madness and Civilization]. Paris: Union Générale d’E´ ditions. Frandsen, A. 2004. “Magtudredningens tilblivelse 1994 – 1997.” [The emergence of the power investigation 1994 – 1997] In Magt.dk: Kritik af Magtudredningen [Power.dk: A critique of the power investigation], edited by J. Øllgaard, and M. O. Madsen, 11 – 18. Copenhagen: Frydenlund. Götz, N. 2010. ““Machtuntersuchung” als Selbstaufklärung: Merkmale einer Kulturpraktik.” [Power investigation as self-enlightenment: Characteristics of a cultural practice] In Vom alten Norden zum neuen Europa: Politische Kultur in der Ostseeregion [From old Norden to the new Europe: Political Culture in the Baltic Sea Region], edited by N. Götz, J. Hecker-Stampehl, and S. M. Schröder, 131 –150. Berlin: Wissenschafts-Verlag. Gramsci, A. 1948 – 1951. Quaderni dal Carcere [Prison Notebooks]. Turin: Einaudi. Haapala, P. 2010. “Vallan rakenteet ja yteiskunnan muutos: Mielikuvaharjoitus 1800 – 2000-lukujen Suomesta.” [Structures of power and societal change: An exercise in images from 19th and 20th century Finland] In Valta Suomessa [Power in Finland], edited by P. Pietikäinen, 21 –33. Helsinki: Gaudeamus. Heinemann, M., and W. Heinemann. 2002. Grundlagen der Textlinguistik: Interaktion – Text – Diskurs [Foundations of the linguistics of text: Interaction – text – discourse]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Henningsen, B. 1986. Der Wohlfahrtsstaat Schweden [The Swedish welfare state]. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Henningsen, B. 1988. “‘Macht’ zwischen Wissenschaft und Politik: Kommentar zu Gudmund Hernes.” [‘Power’ between science and politics: Comment on Gudmund Hernes] In Norwegische Politikaspekte: Ein Seminarbericht zu außen- und innenpolitischen Fragen in den Achtzigern [Aspects of Norwegian politics: A seminar report on foreign policy and domestic issues in the eighties], edited by B. Henningsen, 73 – 82. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Hernes, G. 1988. “Wer regiert die Regierenden? Die norwegische “Machtuntersuchung.” [Who governs the governing? The Norwegian ‘power investigation’] In Norwegische Politikaspekte: Ein Seminarbericht zu außen- und innenpolitischen Fragen in den Achtzigern [Aspects of Norwegian politics: A seminar report on foreign policy and domestic issues in the eighties], edited by B. Henningsen, 57 –72. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Humboldt, W. von. 1963. “Ueber Göthes Herrmann und Dorothea.” [About Herrmann and Dorothea by Goethe] In Werke in fünf Bänden [Works in five volumes]. Vol. 2, 125– 356. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Jauss, H. R. 1982. Toward an Aesthetic of Reception. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Jungar, Ann-Cathrine. 2013. “Three Nordic Power Investigations on the Repercussions of the European Union on Sovereignty and Democracy.” Journal of Contemporary European Studies 21 (3): 373– 382. Kananen, J., and A. Kantola. 2009. “Kilpailukyky ja tuottavuus: Kuinka uudet käsitteet saavuttivat hallitsevan aseman hyvinvointivaltion muutoksessa.” [Competitivity and productivity: How new concepts gained a dominant position in the changing welfare state] In Ajatuksen voima: Ideat hyvinvointivaltion uudistamisessa [The power of thought: ideas in the renewal of the welfare state], edited by J. Kananen, and J. Saari, 119 – 151. Jyväskylä: Sophi/Minerva. Kettunen, P. 1997. “The Society of Virtuous Circles.” In Models, Modernity and the Myrdals, edited by P. Kettunen, and H. Eskola, 153 – 173. Helsinki: University. Khurana, T. 2004. “Niklas Luhmann: Die Form des Mediums.” [Niklas Luhmann: The form of the medium] In Medientheorien: Eine Philosophische Einführung [Media theories: A philosophical introduction], edited by A. Lagaay, and D. Lauer, 97– 125. Frankfurt am Main: Campus. Klein, J. 2000. “Intertextualität, Geltungsmodus, Texthandlungsmuster: Drei vernachlässigte Kategorien der Textsortenforschung – exemplifiziert an politischen und medialen Textsorten.” [Intertextuality, validity modus, text plot patterns: Three neglected categories of research on textual classes – exemplified with political and media texts] In Textsorten: Reflexionen und Analysen [Text classes: Reflections and analyses], edited by K. Adamzik, 31 –44. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Machiavelli, N. 1532. Il Principe [The prince]. Florence: Giunta. Makt- og demokratiutredningen. 2003. Makt og demokrati: Sluttrapport fra Makt- og demokratiutredningen [Democracy and power in Sweden: Final report of the power investigation]. Oslo: Statens Forvaltningstjeneste. Maktutredningen. 1982. Maktutredningen: Sluttrapport. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Maktutredningen. 1990. Demokrati och makt i Sverige: Maktutredningens huvudrapport. Stockholm: Allmänna. Mandat for en utredning om makt og demokrati [Mandate for an investigation on power and democracy]. 1999. Mot en ny maktutredning [Towards a new power investigation], edited by Ø. Østerud, et al., 144 – 164. Oslo: Gyldendal. Downloaded by [Sodertorns Hogskolebibliotek] at 13:19 06 December 2013 356 N. Götz Marklund, C. 2008. Bridging Politics and Science: The Concept of Social Engineering in Sweden and the USA, Circa 1890 – 1950. Florence: European University Institute. McLuhan, M. 1964. Understanding media: The Extensions of Man. New York: McGraw-Hill. Meyer, S. 2003. Imperiet kaller: Et essay om maktens anatom [The empire calls: An essay on the anatomy of power]. Oslo: Spartacus. Micheletti, M., J. P. Olsen, H. Saetren, G. Hernes, W. Martinussen, E. Damgaard, J. Westerstahl, and F. Johansson. 1984. “Democracy and Political Power in Denmark, Norway and Sweden: A Review-essay.” Western Political Quarterly 37 (2): 324– 342. Miller, C. R. 1984. “Genre as Social Action.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 70 (2): 151– 167. Montesquieu, Ch. de. 1748. De L’esprit des Loix [The spirit of the laws]. Geneva: Barrillot. Nybom, T. 2010. “Politik, Wissen, Macht und Gesellschaft: Sehr persönliche Überlegungen zu einem weberianischen Thema [Politics, knowledge, power, and society: Personal reflections on a Weberian theme].” In Vom alten Norden zum neuen Europa: Politische Kultur in der Ostseeregion, edited by N. Götz, J. Hecker-Stampehl, and S. M. Schröder, 391 – 408. Berlin: Wissenschafts-Verlag. Østerud, Ø. 1999a. “Folkets veje i dansk politik.” [The people’s path into Danish politics] In Mot en ny maktutredning [Towards a new power investigation], edited by Ø. Østerud, et al., 11 –18. Oslo: Gyldendal. Østerud, Ø. 1999b. “Makt og avmakt.” [Power and powerlessness] Aftenposten (8 November). Østerud, Ø., F. Engelstad, and P. Selle. 2003. [Power and democracy: A final book from the investigation on power and democracy]. Oslo: Gyldendal. Pedersen, O. K., and P. Lægreid. 1994. “Maktutredningen slutrapport (nou 1982: 3).” [The final report of the power investigation (nou 1982: 3)] In Forvaltningspolitik i Norden [Administration policy in Scandinavia], edited by P. Lægreid, and O. K. Pedersen, 249 – 281. Copenhagen: Jurist- og økonomforbundet. Petersson, O. 1988. “The Study of Power and Democracy in Sweden.” Scandinavian Political Studies 11 (2): 145 – 158. Petersson, O. 1989. Makt i det öppna samhället [Power in the open society]. Stockholm: Carlsson. Petersson, O. 2003. “Den sista maktutredningen?” Nytt Norsk Tidsskrift [The last power investigation?] (20):351 – 362. Pietikäinen, P., ed. 2010a. Valta Suomessa [Power in Finland]. Helsinki: Gaudeamus. Pietikäinen, P. 2010b. “Johdanto: Epäilyttävä, houkutteleva valta.” [Introduction: Suspicious, enticing power]. In Valta Suomessa, 7– 18. Helsinki: Gaudeamus. Pietikäinen, P., ed. 2010c. Valta-ohjelmanhankkeiden tulokset [Results of the projects of the Valta programme]. Helsinki: Academy of Finland. Pietikäinen, P. 2010d. “Lopuksi: Kansalaiset valtaa vahtimassa.” [Conclusion: Citizens monitoring power]. In Valta Suomessa, edited by P. Pietikäinen, 251 –259. Helsinki: Gaudeamus. Rainio-Niemi, J. 2010. “State Committees in Finland in Historical Comparative Perspective.” In Nordic associations in a European perspective, edited by R. Alapuro, and Henrik Stenius, 241–268. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Rhodes, R. A. W. 2000. Transforming British Government. Vols 1–2. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Rolf, E. 1993. Die Funktionen der Gebrauchstextsorten [The functions of utility text types]. Berlin: de Gruyter. Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech Acts: An essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: University Press. Sundbärg, G. 1913. Emigrationsutredningen: Betänkande i utvandringsfrågan och därmed sammanhängande spörsmål [The emigration inquiry: Report on the emigration issue and related questions]. Stockholm: Norstedt. Suomen Akatemia. 2005. Valta Suomessa (VALTA) 2007 – 2010 -tutkimusohjelma: Ohjelmamuistio [Research programme on power in Finland (VALTA) 2007 – 2010: Programme memorandum]. Helsinki: Suomen Akatemia. Tasa-arvon ja demokratiantutkimus, ed. 1977. Demokratian rajat ja rakenteet: Tutkimus suomalaisesta hallitsemistavasta ja sen taloudellisesta perustasta [Limits and structures of democracy: An investigation in the Finnish method of governance and its economic foundation]. Porvoo: Söderström. Thucydides. 1900. History of the Peloponnesian War. Oxford: Clarendon. Tocqueville, A. de. 1835 – 1840. La Démocratie en Amérique [Democracy in America]. Vols 1 – 2. Paris: Gosselin. Togeby, L., J. G. Andersen, P. M. Christiansen, T. B. Jørgensen, and S. Vallgårda 2003. Magt og demokrati i Danmark: Hovedresultater fra Magtudredningen [Power and democracy in Denmark: Main results of the power investigation]. Aarhus: Universitetsforlag. Tompkins, J. P., ed. 1980. Reader-response Criticism: From Formalism to Post-structuralism. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Voegelin, E. 1952. The New Science of Politics: An Introduction. Chicago: University Press.