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.