Philosophy in the Nordic Welfare Society. Comparative Studies
The overarching aim of the project is to investigate significant similarities and differences between academic philosophy in the Nordic countries, in the time period ca. 1945 to ca. 2000. The approach is inspired by sociology and intellectual history. In the first place we situate ourselves in the field of study termed sociology of philosophy, which entails looking at philosophy in its societal context, or in our case, in the context of the Nordic-type welfare society in its national development.
Focus will be on three broad topics: 1. The rise of analytic philosophy after 1945 and Anglo-American influences becoming dominant (a Westward turn). 2. The challenge coming from the radical student generation in the late 1960s, involving a massive Marxist influence (a leftward turn). 3. When, how and under what circumstances did women gain entrance into academic philosophy in the Nordic countries?
A perspective common to all three topics is the tension between so called analytic philosophy and continental philosophy. How did this tension come into being in the different Nordic countries: similarities and differences? Did from early on a kind of elective affinity exist between analytic philosophy and the self-understanding of the Nordic welfare societies? In what ways were the dominating philosophy and model of society challenged in the 1960s? How did the early women philosophers relate to the tension between these two orientations?
Focus will be on three broad topics: 1. The rise of analytic philosophy after 1945 and Anglo-American influences becoming dominant (a Westward turn). 2. The challenge coming from the radical student generation in the late 1960s, involving a massive Marxist influence (a leftward turn). 3. When, how and under what circumstances did women gain entrance into academic philosophy in the Nordic countries?
A perspective common to all three topics is the tension between so called analytic philosophy and continental philosophy. How did this tension come into being in the different Nordic countries: similarities and differences? Did from early on a kind of elective affinity exist between analytic philosophy and the self-understanding of the Nordic welfare societies? In what ways were the dominating philosophy and model of society challenged in the 1960s? How did the early women philosophers relate to the tension between these two orientations?
Final report
The overarching aim of the project has been to investigate significant similarities and differences between academic philosophy in the Nordic countries from ca. 1945 and about three decades ahead. This has been done through an approach inspired by sociology and intellectual history. Focus has been on three broad topics: 1. The rise of analytic philosophy after 1945 and Anglo-American influences becoming dominant (a Westward turn). 2. The challenge coming from the radical student generation in the late 1960s and into the 1970s (a leftward turn). 3. When, where and how did it happen that women gained entrance into academic philosophy in the Nordic countries? A perspective common to all three topics has been the tension between so called analytic philosophy and continental philosophy. Did from early on a kind of elective affinity exist between analytic philosophy and the self-understanding of the Nordic welfare states? In what way did the leftward turn in the 1960s involve a challenge coming from continental philosophy to existing disciplinary hegemonies? How did the early women philosophers relate to the tension between the two overarching philosophical orientations?
The project has on the whole been carried out according to plan. Research done on topic 1 has covered main parts of the intended field of research; some pieces are however still missing. Topic 2 has been conducted according to plan. Topic 3 has, unfortunately, not yet generated the results and publications that was intended. Generally more focus has been devoted to the analysis of primary texts, rather than conducting interviews with persons who were active during the time period under study (however a number of more informal e-mail contacts has been established). Thus we took the decision to prioritize what relevant persons did write and chose to publish, rather than their rememberances of what took place several decades later. This sequence we consider to be the most reasonable one. The route taken implies a slight deviation from the original research plan.
An important finding is that a particular kind of philosophy had a place and a function to fill within the developing Nordic welfare states. The representatives of so called scientific (analytic) philosophy came to play the role of cultural hygienists persuing a prophylactic politics of philosophy. So called unscientific philosophy, on the other hand, was in the shadow of the Second World War associated with confused thinking and dangerous politics. Criticizing the latter kind of philosophy was seen as an effective barrier against philosophical currents that may pave the way for and support undemocratic politics. Scientific (analytic) philosophy was seen as a pillar for a rational, urbanized, progressive and democratic society. In this sense there was an elective affinity between this kind of philosophy and the welfare state. Important contributions to the latter were given not only by social engineers coming from the social sciences but also by cultural hygienists coming from philosophy.
Regarding topic 2 – ”1968” in Nordic philosophy – we prefer to highlight the forthcoming monograph by Heidegren (to be published in 2021), rather than more specific research results. The monograph gives for the first time an overview of what happened in Nordic philosophy in the years ca. 1965–1979, insofar as it had a connection to the radicalism of the symbolic year ”1968”. Furthermore, the reception of three important philosophers (Louis Althusser, Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida) – in terms of translations and secondary literature – has been investigated. The comparison shows significant differences between the Nordic countries. Another rather surprising research result is that the German philosopher Karl-Otto Apel played an important role during ”1968”, especially within Norwegan and Finnish philosophy, less so in Swedish and Danish philosophy, as a mediator between analytic and continental philosophy.
Woman philosophers with permanent positions was very rare until the 1980s. The early woman philosophers had to pursue careers on terms laid down by men. Feministic philosophy only began to develop in the 1970s. A pioneering work was Nina Karin Monsen, Det kvinnelige mennesket. Feministisk filosofi from 1975. Within Anglo-American philosophy a niche and a career opportunity was opened up for woman by existential philosophy (Hazel E. Barnes, Marjorie Grene, Iris Murdoch, Mary Warnock among others). Nothing similar, however, occured within Nordic philosophy.
Broadly conceived studies involving all or nearly all of the Nordic countries is today very rare. Studies conducted on a specific discipline or a group of disciplines mostly has a national perspective, sometimes with an additional glance at the other Nordic countries. Our project shows that it is possible to successfully conduct broad Nordic comparisons, although we didn’t reach quite as far as we intended. We hope that the publications from this project will stimulate simliar and related investigations. This relay batton we will be glad to pass on. We also believe to have shown the fruitfulness of writing a sociologically oriented history of philosophy, an approach that emphasize philosophy being a social activity taking place within scientific communities as well as in society at large.
A research question close at hand is to ask about the long-term consequences of ”1968” in Nordic philosophy into the 21th century. Just as was the case in the mid-60s analytic philosophy today dominates the scene in the Nordic countries. But analytic philosophy has undergone several and important changes and developments since then. It has for example expanded its agenda in significant ways (cp. analytic metaphysics). The question may also be raised if the distinction between analytic and continental philosophy is relevant and make sense today in the way it did during the first two-three decades of the post-war period.
Research results have been disseminated in the form of several contributions – popular texts and reviews – in journals such as Respons and Axess. In addition to that also by participation in Radions P1, Filosofiska rummet.
The project has on the whole been carried out according to plan. Research done on topic 1 has covered main parts of the intended field of research; some pieces are however still missing. Topic 2 has been conducted according to plan. Topic 3 has, unfortunately, not yet generated the results and publications that was intended. Generally more focus has been devoted to the analysis of primary texts, rather than conducting interviews with persons who were active during the time period under study (however a number of more informal e-mail contacts has been established). Thus we took the decision to prioritize what relevant persons did write and chose to publish, rather than their rememberances of what took place several decades later. This sequence we consider to be the most reasonable one. The route taken implies a slight deviation from the original research plan.
An important finding is that a particular kind of philosophy had a place and a function to fill within the developing Nordic welfare states. The representatives of so called scientific (analytic) philosophy came to play the role of cultural hygienists persuing a prophylactic politics of philosophy. So called unscientific philosophy, on the other hand, was in the shadow of the Second World War associated with confused thinking and dangerous politics. Criticizing the latter kind of philosophy was seen as an effective barrier against philosophical currents that may pave the way for and support undemocratic politics. Scientific (analytic) philosophy was seen as a pillar for a rational, urbanized, progressive and democratic society. In this sense there was an elective affinity between this kind of philosophy and the welfare state. Important contributions to the latter were given not only by social engineers coming from the social sciences but also by cultural hygienists coming from philosophy.
Regarding topic 2 – ”1968” in Nordic philosophy – we prefer to highlight the forthcoming monograph by Heidegren (to be published in 2021), rather than more specific research results. The monograph gives for the first time an overview of what happened in Nordic philosophy in the years ca. 1965–1979, insofar as it had a connection to the radicalism of the symbolic year ”1968”. Furthermore, the reception of three important philosophers (Louis Althusser, Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida) – in terms of translations and secondary literature – has been investigated. The comparison shows significant differences between the Nordic countries. Another rather surprising research result is that the German philosopher Karl-Otto Apel played an important role during ”1968”, especially within Norwegan and Finnish philosophy, less so in Swedish and Danish philosophy, as a mediator between analytic and continental philosophy.
Woman philosophers with permanent positions was very rare until the 1980s. The early woman philosophers had to pursue careers on terms laid down by men. Feministic philosophy only began to develop in the 1970s. A pioneering work was Nina Karin Monsen, Det kvinnelige mennesket. Feministisk filosofi from 1975. Within Anglo-American philosophy a niche and a career opportunity was opened up for woman by existential philosophy (Hazel E. Barnes, Marjorie Grene, Iris Murdoch, Mary Warnock among others). Nothing similar, however, occured within Nordic philosophy.
Broadly conceived studies involving all or nearly all of the Nordic countries is today very rare. Studies conducted on a specific discipline or a group of disciplines mostly has a national perspective, sometimes with an additional glance at the other Nordic countries. Our project shows that it is possible to successfully conduct broad Nordic comparisons, although we didn’t reach quite as far as we intended. We hope that the publications from this project will stimulate simliar and related investigations. This relay batton we will be glad to pass on. We also believe to have shown the fruitfulness of writing a sociologically oriented history of philosophy, an approach that emphasize philosophy being a social activity taking place within scientific communities as well as in society at large.
A research question close at hand is to ask about the long-term consequences of ”1968” in Nordic philosophy into the 21th century. Just as was the case in the mid-60s analytic philosophy today dominates the scene in the Nordic countries. But analytic philosophy has undergone several and important changes and developments since then. It has for example expanded its agenda in significant ways (cp. analytic metaphysics). The question may also be raised if the distinction between analytic and continental philosophy is relevant and make sense today in the way it did during the first two-three decades of the post-war period.
Research results have been disseminated in the form of several contributions – popular texts and reviews – in journals such as Respons and Axess. In addition to that also by participation in Radions P1, Filosofiska rummet.