Introduction

Abstract

This edited volume discusses the emergence and development, and in some cases also the disappearance, of social movements and activism in the Swedish 1980s. The introductory chapter gives the background and aim of the volume and discusses why the Swedish case is interesting from a European perspective. The 1980s have often been described as a decade when the radical social movements of the 1960s and 1970s lost their influence in society and instead, right-wing politics and neoliberalism gained increasingly more impact in many parts of the world. However, this image needs to be problematized, since the decade encompassed a number of social movements that opposed the political development and protested against neoliberal and conservative politics. This introductory chapter discusses the historical background to the development in Sweden and argues that the ideas of a Swedish exceptionalism and development through consensus needs to be problematized. Contentious social movements have had an important role in democratization processes of Scandinavian societies. The chapter describes the right-wing wave that took place during the 1980s but also the many protests and resistance that occurred against it. It also discusses the importance of complex and multidimensional historiographies. This is followed by a section on political development during the 1980s, both internationally and in Sweden, and what new social movements emerged during the decade. After that, we describe key concepts and theories in research on social movements that some or all contributions engage with. Finally, the common thread in the anthology’s contributions and their main content is described.

In this edited volume the authors examine and analyse the emergence and development, and in some cases also the disappearance, of social movements and activism in the Swedish 1980s. The 1980s have often been described as a decade when the radical social movements of the 1960s and 1970s lost their influence in society and instead, right-wing politics and neoliberalism gained increasingly more impact in many parts of the world. However, the description of the 1980s as dominated by right-wing politics and neoliberal ideas needs to be problematized, since the decade encompassed so much more, and a number of social movements that opposed the political development and protested against neoliberal and conservative politics also emerged.¹ The new social movements often used new forms of protest and resistance, and organized themselves in new ways compared to the social movements of the 1960s and 1970s. In recent years, these movements have increasingly become the subject of research. In Europe, research shows that there were several waves of protests during the 1980s against right-wing politics, conservatism, neoliberalism and the state. Protest movements emerged for example in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Denmark and in cities such as Berlin, Zurich and Amsterdam confrontations with the authorities and the police occasionally became both contentious and violent.²

Sweden has, together with other Scandinavian countries, been described as distinct from the rest of Europe. Development in Sweden is often considered the product of consensus between the state and society, and Sweden is seen as a country where few major conflicts took place.³ However, the argument can also be made for a contentious Scandinavian political history, where contentious performances and social movements played an important part in the democratization of Scandinavian societies during the last 150 years.⁴ Looking back on the last four decades there are numerous examples of social movements that have opposed the prevalent political order. Protests have been directed against the state, the welfare society, Social Democrats and against the growing influence of right-wing politics and neoliberalism. There is still a significant lack of research on social movements in Sweden during the 1980s. The research that has been done shows that protests in Sweden seldom became as violent, spectacular or contentious as in some other European cities, and the protests often lacked the most spectacular instances of conflict between militant social movements and the state that could be seen in other parts of Europe. Although the protests in Sweden were rarely as contentious as in some other places, confrontations between activists and national and local authorities could be both contentious and violent, and the confrontations increased during the decade. At the end of the 1980s, confrontations between the police and squatters, for example, became increasingly more contentious.⁵ As Peterson et al. show, most social movements in Sweden have oscillated between two poles in how to engage with the welfare state, to local and national authorities, and to the police force. On the one hand the infrastructure of the welfare state—particularly on a local level—often played a crucial part in enabling organization and activity possible for the movements, and movements were at times met with a benevolent attitude from governmental actors in general and the police in particular. On the other hand, protests were often directed against the welfare state and local authorities.⁶ This complex relationship is discernible in many of this volume’s contributions but perhaps most clearly visible in Fredrik Egefur’s article about the Swedish anarchists at the Winter Palace. Thus, in contrast to the more militant movements in many European cities, the development in Sweden seems to have had a contentious repertoire with relatively more aspects of consensus and negotiation.⁷

However, one main argument of this volume is that we shouldn’t take this historical narrative as evidence of an all-encompassing Swedish exceptionalism devoid of contentious social movements. As we hope the contributions will show, struggle, resistance and protests played a greater role in political development in the 1980s Sweden than hitherto has been shown. As put forward by Bart van der Steen in the concluding chapter, we would argue that social movement scholars and historians should be wary of a history that focuses on the most spectacular, contentious or militant expressions of social movements, as this runs the risk of shrouding more commonplace instances of negotiation and navigation within existing political structures. Thus, Sweden is an interesting example of how resistance and conflict have been influenced by violent and contentious movements, as well as by a long tradition of consensus and negotiation, something that this edited volume aims to explore and discuss. We therefore argue that the idea of a Swedish exceptionalism of peaceful cooperation (and perhaps co-optation) between social movements and the state, based upon a national or historical Swedish spirit of consensus (samförstånd), needs to be nuanced since it runs the risk of naturalizing a political and social state of phenomena, which should be the focus of research.

The aim of this edited volume is to present new research that analyses social movements and contention in 1980s Sweden in order to challenge and nuance the idea of a conflict-free Scandinavian model where political development has occurred peacefully and in consensus. With the anthology, we want to show social movements with outward and more militant repertoires, as well as movements that were not as contentious. By showing a variety of social movements and their different protest repertoires against the state, the welfare society and right-wing politics, we want to illustrate the diversity within a complex and multifaceted Swedish 1980s, and the different movements and ideas that existed side by side. The questions examined in the volume are: what social movements arose during the decade, what issues did these pursue, and what did the protests look like? Furthermore, the movements’ relations to other social movements in Sweden and the rest of Europe, as well as relations to both earlier and later social movements, are also discussed.

The idea of a Swedish exceptionalism has been increasingly questioned and problematized by scholars. Previous research on social movements and protests in Sweden has shown that popular struggle and collective actions by social movement actors have played an important role in Swedish political history.⁸ Social movements that have been studied include, for example, the squatting movement.⁹ Håkan Thörn has studied squatting in Gothenburg and Copenhagen during the decade in several publications and has also covered the solidarity movement, for example the movement to support the ANC.¹⁰ However, we still see a lack of studies of social movements and political protest specifically focused on the Swedish 1980s, for example different feminist movements, as well as studies with a synthesizing approach or studies of relations to movements in earlier or later periods.

This edited volume intends to fill part of that research gap. We see the social movements of the 1980s as important to the political development during the decade but also as forerunners to the more radical social movements of the 1990s and onwards. Accordingly, the history of the social movements of the 1980s and the issues that these movements fought for, such as the climate issue, the nuclear issue, identity politics, the rights of minorities, and growing social and economic gaps around the world, are highly topical today.

The chapters included in this volume have been selected because they contain current and new research on social movements in the 1980s Sweden. However, the anthology does not claim to be comprehensive or in any way depict all the social movements, protests, resistance and political struggles that took place in the 1980s; instead, we want to highlight and put forward a selection of different social movements, protesting against different issues during the decade. There are thus a number of different social movements that have not been included here.

In the following, we first describe why we think it is important to discuss historical periodization and why periodization runs the risk of homogenizing history. This is followed by a section on political development during the 1980s, both internationally and in Sweden, and what new social movements occurred during the decade. After that, we describe key concepts and theories in research on social movements that some or all contributions engage with. Finally, the common thread in the anthology’s contributions and their main content is described.

Periodization in Historical Analysis

One purpose of this anthology is to discuss historiography and epoch divisions. History is often described in terms such as “waves” (e.g. “the right-wing wave”) or “turns” (e.g. “the linguistic turn”). As described above, we want to nuance and problematize the image of the 1980s right-wing wave by pointing to a number of different social movements that emerged during the decade, partly as protests against the welfare state, right-wing politics and neoliberalism. We do not intend to deny that there was a shift towards right-wing politics in many countries, but we want to highlight that this shift does not mean that there were no simultaneous series of protests and social movements opposing this development.

Clare Hemmings has problematized the use of concepts as epochs, turns and waves. Hemmings believes that events and movements are often fixed to certain decades and historical narratives, and when historical development is described as waves or turns, history runs the risk of being homogenized and simplified, thereby obscuring all the opposite expressions, currents and political ideologies and opinions that exist in parallel. A number of different and significant events, movements and protests thereby run the risk of becoming invisible.¹¹ Kathleen Laughlin et al. believe that the wave metaphor can help to identify the specific issues that were highlighted and received attention at a particular time, and that it can help identify historical changes. At the same time, they believe that the wave metaphor also contributes to simplifications, and that the more everyday activism of social movements is at risk of being made invisible. The use of the wave metaphor also implies that events have a clear beginning and end, and thus overemphasizes change.¹² We should therefore be careful with how we use the wave metaphor. Contradicting ideologies are dependent on each other and right-wing politics would probably not have become so strong during the decade if opposition to it had not also been so strong. In order to avoid simplifying and homogenizing historiographies, we therefore should problematize historical periodization and the use of terms as “turns” and “waves”, and understand history as a series of events that replace each other and examine the dynamics and all the different links and relationships between movements and different time periods, and how they are related to each other.¹³ In this volume the authors try to do precisely that.

In the volume we want to understand history pluralistically, and study the dynamics of different events, movements and times, as well as how they are interrelated. The point of departure in the 1980s is therefore not a way to fix certain movements and events to a specific decade, but rather to show the complexity and variety of the decade. It also means that we examine both links and connections to various contemporary political movements and events, as well as to movements and events both before and after the 1980s. The social movements we describe here are not specific to the 1980s, although the specific political contexts of the 1980s are of course of importance for the movements’ development. Nor do we intend to establish a new hegemonic picture of the 1980s. The purpose is instead to illustrate the 1980s as a multifaceted decade where contradictory political and social movements arose and sometimes clashed. The ambition is to discuss how different political movements and ideologies are constantly evolving through opposition and conflict and in relation to each other. Several chapters in the anthology therefore discuss relations to previous and later movements, and how the movements in the 1980s can be understood as both successors to earlier movements and predecessors to movements in later periods.

1980s Europe

The 1980s can be described in many ways. As already described above, the decade has been characterized by emerging right-wing politics. Another way to describe it is to talk about the long 1980s. The starting point then is the changes that took place in the late 1970s in several countries around the world, for example the many political revolutions and ideological changes that led to the increasing impact of right-wing politics and neoliberalism.¹⁴ From the end of the 1970s, right-wing and neoliberal political values gained increasing influence around the world. Although many neoliberal political reforms were not implemented until the 1990s in Sweden, it was in the 1980s that neoliberal values started to really have an impact. Strong political representatives, such as Ronald Reagan (President of the United States 1981–1989) and Margaret Thatcher (British Prime Minister 1979–1990), and their long tenure of power is often taken as symbolic of the international impact of right-wing politics during the decade. The neoliberal ideas of the 1980s, which gained influence in several different ideological political parties, from Social Democrats to Conservatives, thereby helped to turn the political map far to the right.¹⁵

Although many anti-democratic regimes remained in power during the 1980s, for example in South Korea, South Africa, Poland or East Germany, the 1980s saw a growing movement of opposition and a number of new social movements emerged around the world, fighting for democracy and freedom. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, many dictatorships fell as the result of collective action and social movement struggles; this happened in, for example, South Africa, when Nelson Mandela was released from prison  in 1990 and ANC won the election in 1994. The long 1980s are usually considered to have ended with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. In Poland, the freedom movement Solidarity led to Lech Walesa becoming president in 1990. Perhaps the most symbolic event for the democracy and solidarity movements of the 1980s was the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. With that, the Cold War, which had marked world development for over 50 years, was thought to have ended.¹⁶

The countries of Europe were, of course, strongly influenced by the conservative and neoliberal ideas of the 1980s, but also by the movements for freedom and the movements that led to the fall of the Iron Curtain in the early 1990s. The social movements that emerged in 1980s Europe took on the new issues that had become topical. New radical social movements protested against conservative politics and neoliberalism, against housing and youth politics and against the growing economic divisions that increased in several countries. Resistance against nuclear weapons, nuclear power and environmental pollution were other current issues that were brought to attention. In several large cities around Europe, waves of violent riots and confrontations between different political factions arose, and here squatting and protests against prevailing housing policies were central issues that created conflict and contradiction.¹⁷

Other social movements continued their earlier struggles but often in new arenas and forms, such as the new women’s liberation movement. Older movements, such as anarchism, got a boost during the decade and with the punk wave came a new “anti-establishment attitude that became widespread.¹⁸ Markus Lundström’s chapter “When anarchism met Punk in this volume discusses how the meeting between anarchism and punk revitalized the anarchist movement and contributed to new forms of protest and resistance.

The movements that emerged in Europe were largely transnational and activists in different countries exchanged contacts and travelled between different protest events. At the same time, Bart van der Steen and Knut Andresen stress that the protest movements that emerged in Europe during the 1980s should not be seen as homogeneous. The movements differed in the content of ideas, in who was active, in what political repertoires were used, and in their relation to the state and authorities.¹⁹ The contributions in this volume, which deal with social movements in Sweden, highlight the movements’ relationship to and influence from various other social movements in Europe but also show that the diversity of the social movements that arose in Sweden, just as in Europe, was vast.

The Swedish Model and Social Democratic Hegemony

Swedish social democracy shaped Swedish society from the end of the Second World War to the fall of the Berlin wall. During these decades, the Social Democrats typically polled around 45% of votes in general elections, and in 1968 even got more than 50% of votes. Further, the unions saw high rates of membership, often exceeding 80% of the workforce as a whole, and in practice enacted closed shops in some central export-oriented industries such as the auto industry. This was in part closely connected to the historical compromise between labour and capital, where the state left most of the workings of the labour market to be regulated through collective bargaining on the national level. Within this so-called Swedish model, the state took on responsibilities for the reproductive sector and secured social levelling and social security through a growing welfare state.²⁰

In many ways, the 1980s can be said to have been the pinnacle of the social democratic economic and welfare regime. In 1980, economic equality was at an all-time high. Further, the labour market saw low unemployment rates. For instance, the highpoint of 3.5% in 1983 was described as a sure sign of economic recession and mass unemployment. This was paired with a large public sector, a large welfare state, and generous systems of transference, such as unemployment benefits and social security.²¹

One way of showcasing the hegemonic position of social democracy is to point towards the fact that some of the perhaps most emblematic welfare reforms, such as a widespread expansion of universally available municipal child care and a significant expansion of the amount of paid maternal/paternal leave (in practice this turned out to be mostly maternal) was enacted by centre-right parties that governed from 1976 to 1982. Another way of illustrating social democratic hegemony can be the absence of a militant or street oriented new left post-1968—such as the spontis in Germany—in Sweden. Instead, the leading tendency within the new left, the Maoist Swedish Communist Party SKP (formerly KFML), stressed respectability and work within the traditionally social democratic “old” social movements, such as the unions and the tenants’ movement.²²

Peterson, Thörn and Wahlström argue that the so-called Swedish model was firmly rooted in the political culture of the old social movements (folkrörelserna), and that the social democratic government had close ties to and employed an inclusive strategy towards social movements throughout the post-war decades up to the 1990s. From the 1950s onwards, the Swedish welfare state also took an increasing interest in supporting organizations within civil society. As the traditional social movements, that is the labour movement, the agrarian movement and the free churches, saw falling levels of membership and engagement, the spectre of youth lacking membership in an association (so-called föreningslös ungdom) was put forward as a worrying sign of increasing alienation in a modern society. During the post-war decades, state public inquiries pointed out that membership of any kind of civil society association or social movement correlated with higher levels of political engagement and even better health.²³

Thus, civil society as a whole was given increasingly generous support from governmental agencies as well as local municipalities. In 1985, membership in youth organizations peaked. In the same year, the state and municipalities supported civil society organizations with substantial sums of money (about 3 billion SEK from the state, and an additional 600 million SEK from the municipalities). Furthermore, social movements could often count on generous—often rent-free—arrangements when an association wanted to use municipal locales, as well as support from the local municipal bureaucracy with how to apply for financial support and in general how to run an association in accordance with older Swedish social movement tradition, that is with formal membership, statutes and representative democracy.²⁴

This state support potentially included radical new social movements, at least as long as they adhered to formal democratic internal structures that mirrored established forms of movement, as shown by Fredrik Egefur in this volume. Indeed, the argument can be made that, by international comparison, the generous and inclusive Swedish system also functioned as a form of repressive tolerance or regulatory technique that accepted and incorporated contentious issues and movements—thus leading to a lesser prevalence of street-based militancy or direct confrontations between social movements and the state.²⁵

The Swedish 1980s

During the 1980s, neoliberal and right-wing ideas also began to gain ground in Sweden. The neoliberal and right-wing political currents had taken hold in society, and throughout the 1980s a series of discursive political changes took place that led politics to the right.²⁶ In Sweden, the Social Democrats’ 40-years in government was broken in 1976 when the three centre-right parties won the election and formed an alliance government. The Social Democratic party did, however, regain power in 1982 and continued to rule until 1991. There was also a shift to the right within the Social Democrats. The welfare system was increasingly examined and criticized in the public debate. Kjell Östberg and Jenny Anderson conclude that parties from “the right to the left”²⁷ came to accept many of the neoliberal demands made during the period and by the end of the 1980s both “the Swedish model” and the welfare society had “been thoroughly questioned and criticized”.²⁸

Neoliberal politics that became more influential during the 1980s, was the belief in greater economic and individual freedom, the belief that the state would make as little intervention as possible in the lives of individuals, and the praising of the free market.²⁹ At the same time, the welfare state was criticized and challenged to an increasing degree, often from the right as shown by Katrin Uba and Jenny Jansson in this volume.³⁰ In 1978, the right-wing influential think tank and book publisher Timbro was created, which became a strong channel for the Swedish Employers’ Association (SAF) and its neoliberal message during the 1980s. Another symbolic event that marked the turn towards right-wing politics and neoliberalism was the demonstration against wage earners funds in October 1983, which gathered 75,000 demonstrators, one of the largest demonstrations in Sweden ever.³¹

However, it is important to note that most institutional and policy changes that we can describe as neoliberal were enacted later in Sweden. For instance, the cutbacks and austerity measures enacted towards unemployment benefits, the privatization of telecommunications and the construction of a voucher system and a pseudo-market in primary education all were enacted during the 1990s. Further, disciplinary and regulatory biopolitical regimes towards welfare recipients and the shifting of primary care responsibilities towards civil society and/or families belong primarily to the 2000s. Even though the 1980s saw a change in political discourse and deregulations of the financial market, as a whole Swedish society still remained a social democratic welfare regime with comparatively generous systems and a high degree of decommodification.³² This is especially clear in contrast to the early wave of neoliberal politics in the Anglo-American world, as well as in comparison to austerity politics in other western European countries.

When the 1970s turned into the 1980s, many of the previously influential radical left movements in Sweden had disappeared, changed or lost their influence in society and as described above, neoliberal and conservative currents were progressing. This development took place in a number of different western countries. Despite, or perhaps because of, the impact of neoliberalism and right-wing politics, opposition and resistance did not subside and opposition to neoliberalism and right-wing politics remained strong during the decade, although it was often performed in new forms and new arenas, as many of the chapters in this volume show. For instance, the 1980s saw a growth and entrenchment of the prominent peace movement and environmental movement, with a national organizational framework that reached most municipalities. The national referendum on nuclear power, and its somewhat inconclusive result, made these issues highly topical during the decade. As Anton Öhman shows in his contribution, the question of peace and disarmament was closely intertwined with nuclear weapons and civilian nuclear power. Monica Quirico discusses in her chapter how parts of the environmental movement were radicalized during the decade, while other parts were institutionalized.

Other social movements that arose or developed from previous movements were the solidarity movement where, for example, support for the ANC in South Africa was strong throughout the decade, and the squatting movement. The relationship between squatters and the police was initially relatively good, but developed over the decade to become increasingly confrontational. Other social movements that continued their activities but in other forms included the women’s movement. On the one hand, many activists continued within the women’s shelter movement and on the other hand, many women got involved in universities and worked to create new spaces such as forums for women’s research.³³ As mentioned, research on these movements is still lacking but this anthology examines, highlights and discusses some of these movements.

Historical Social Movement Studies

What is, and isn’t, to be counted as a social movement, and exactly where the boundaries should be drawn is a recurring discussion within social movement studies. A minimal definition that is often used, could be that a social movement has some degree of organization, some degree of continuity over time and some use of extra-institutional forms of action.³⁴ Snow, Soule and Kriesi state that:

…social movements can be thought of as collectivities acting with some degree of organization and continuity outside of institutional or organizational channels for the purpose of challenging or defending extant authority, whether it is institutionally or culturally based, in the group, organization, society, culture or world order, of which they are part.³⁵

One central intersection in social movements theories is the relationships between “old” and “new” social movements. The established grand narrative in social movement studies typically makes a distinction between social movements that were formed in the late nineteenth century, in Sweden characterized by the triad of the so-called people’s movements of the (social democratic) labour movement, the free churches and the temperance movement, and the new social movements that erupted post-1968. Whereas the old movements are often described as hierarchical, with formal decision structures and an engagement with the parliamentary political system, the new movements are often described as horizontal, direct democratic and extra-parliamentary. A characterization of old movements as class-based and new as post-material identity-driven can be added to this overarching narrative.³⁶

However, once we read this grand narrative in a specific geographical and historical context, such as the Swedish 1980s, and in relation to specific movements, the boundaries become blurred. Alberto Melucci, who was one of those who introduced the theory of new social movements (NSM), has in retrospect played down the distinction between new and old movements and believes that the qualitative difference isn’t so significant.³⁷ As the authors of the individual chapters in this edited volume clearly demonstrate, the interconnectedness of old and new social movements is clear.

Further, social movements have mainly been associated with various forms of organized and outward-looking, often contentious, forms of protest and resistance.³⁸ The field of Contentious Politics Studies (CPS) is one influential way of analysing social movements. Studies within CPS are often centred on relations between social movement organizations (SMOs) and the state, that either is the direct recipient of claims or a mediator between different collective actors in conflict.³⁹ The contributions of this edited volume engage with one or more of the analytical concepts from this tradition, such as repertoires of contention, political opportunity structures and collective action. Tilly points towards claim-making performances as a central part of contentious politics, i.e. when people come together in collective actions in order to make a claim directed at an opposing entity (most often the state, but employers or other social movements can also be targets for the claim). These claim-making performances can, on aggregate, be understood as part of a repertoire of contention. The idea here is that contentious performances are defined not only through what people do when in conflict but also through a shared cultural and collective knowledge of what to do in certain conflicts, as well as what is expected of other actors. On a purely descriptive level, there is a historical importance to map out and describe the evolution of repertoires of contention, especially as contention hasn’t been part of a historical narrative on the Swedish 1980s. By identifying performances and by tracing the contours of repertoires of contention it is also possible to connect to the two overarching problem complexes of this volume: if (and if so, how) repertoires of contention evolved in Sweden can be compared to a broader European context. The contribution by Katrin Uba and Jenny Jansson identifies some of the most prevalent forms of contention in relation to the welfare state and makes it possible to discern how the welfare state impacted and shaped repertoires of contention in Sweden during the 1980s.

Another cornerstone of Tilly’s original concept of the social movement is that social movements tend to mold collective performances to signal worthiness, unity, commitment and numbers (WUNC).⁴⁰ The ideal of worthiness seems to correspond to the social democratic ideal of respectability (skötsamhet) that formed a central ideal within the Swedish labour movement.⁴¹ As shown by most contributions in this volume, worthiness played an important part in social movements of 1980s Sweden and this seems to have included self-styled radicals who in other contexts perhaps would have been less predisposed to manifest respectability in the social democratic tradition. This can partly be understood in relation to the political opportunity structure.⁴² Social movements could count on quite substantial support on both a national and municipal level as long as they acted within the rules of the political system. Lastly, some participating authors engage with the concept of frames and framing in relation to social movements. Framing allows the study of how meaning is ascribed to certain events, as well as the study of how social movements engage in a discursive conflict around how the movement should be understood.⁴³

While the CPS field is clearly productive in the historical study of collective performances and repertoires, we would argue that cultural or social history with a focus on moral cosmologies adds an important aspect to the historical study of social movements. Social movements should not be reduced to contentious performances and visible protests, and we strive to also bring forward emphasized collective identification, relationships and the processes that lead to the movement’s growth. It should be noted that the late Tilly argued for a processual approach in which the cultural aspects of repertoires of contention are brought to the forefront.⁴⁴ Other scholars have pinpointed that social movements contain a series of different and varying forms of protest and resistance, and that outwarded protests and activities are only part of the movement. Social movements consist of different groups, networks and their relations and daily practices, and are described as “actions of collective actors” aiming at social change.⁴⁵ Melucci believes that this forms the basis of social movements and therefore it is important to study the many everyday practices and actions that are performed and how they are part of different networks.⁴⁶ As Della Porta and Diani have pointed out, collective identification and feelings of community and belonging are important for social movements’ ability to attract members and create action.⁴⁷

In this edited volume we adhere to a broad understanding of social movement where organizations can be part of, but never solely consist of, social movements. In practice the formal organization—especially in a political context dominated by the Social Democrats gives an obvious inroad to the study of social movements. Many of the cases in this volume have a clear social movement organization as a focus for the study, and most of the cases consist of collective actors posing claims, often aimed at the state, and would thus fall into the definition of contentious politics posed by Tilly.⁴⁸ However, some of the cases studied don’t sit as clearly in these categories, and study groups and networks without a formal organizations or common outward claims, but which at the same time are obviously part of a larger social movement context. For example, the self-styled anarchists studied by Fredrik Egefur primarily forged a shared collective identity through cultural politics. At the same time, they worked in close cooperation with the municipality and formed a formal association with spotless bureaucratic acumen in the forms of statutes and protocols.⁴⁹ On the other hand, the tenants’ association, with roots in the old labour movement and part of a broad family of social movements associated with the Social Democrats, was revitalized by the new left during the 1970s and revived forms of collective contentious action from the inter-war period, such as the rent strike. As shown by Hannes Rolf in his chapter, the decline of the rent strike as performance can be understood within a wider decline of the new left during the 1980s.

Furthermore, as van der Steen stresses in his concluding chapter, it is important to not equate the collective actions of social movement with militant or violent forms of action or contention. Indeed, one of our ambitions with this edited volume is to do away with a dichotomy of radical and co-opted social movements. Instead, we aim to situate the studied social movements in a historical context in order to show how they employed a variety of forms of collective actions in navigating their relations to a strong welfare state.

Participating Chapters

The contributors in this volume discuss social movements from different perspectives and the chapters deal with and discuss relations with the state, the welfare society, right-wing politics and neoliberalism, as well as temporal aspects of the movements. Questions about continuity and change, relations to previous movements (for example the 68 left or the labour movement) and the significance of the movement for later movements are also discussed. The chapters presented here also have in common that they discuss the movements’ relations to movements in other European countries, problematize and relate to the specific time frame (1980s), and discuss the movements in relation to earlier and later movements. Some of the movements discussed have long historical roots while others arose during the 1980s. While some movements can be understood as predecessors to later more outward-looking and contentious movements, others evolved in an opposite direction and more or less disappeared, or were taken over by new, more radical forms of protest during the decade. Common to all chapters is a wish to highlight some of the different social movements and protests that existed during the decade but that so far have been more or less unexplored, and discuss them in the light of social and political movements in both Sweden and Europe.

The first two chapters after this chapter Introduction, provide an overarching, long-term perspective of protests and squatting during the 1980s. In Chapter 2, Katrin Uba and Jenny Jansson take as their starting point the 1980s protests against the welfare state. They have mapped various protest events, examining the actors behind them and these actors’ relationships to social movements, describing patterns in significant actors and examining whether these patterns changed during the decade. The results show, among other things, that actors were more diverse than supposed by previous research. In the third chapter, Dominika Polanska shows that the 1980s saw a peak of squatting events, and that the character of squatting at the same time partly changed, which has so far only been studied fragmentarily. Squatting in Sweden is based on a tradition of respectability, but, according to Polanska, by the end of the 1980s, squatting events became more confrontative and violent. How can we understand the conflicting ideals of respectability and violence?

Chapters 4 and 5 consist of case studies of movements influenced by punk, anarchism and the emerging and increasingly contentious squatting movement described above. The results of these studies also indicate that these events were important for the formation of later movements, such as militant anti-fascism and the autonomous left. In Chapter 4, Markus Lundström discusses anarchism and how it was revitalized during the decade, partly with influences from the new and emerging punk scene. Lundström shows that anarchism in the 1980s, in its encounter with punk, developed new forms of protest, but also that the legacy from the long history of anarchism was very much alive and shaped the anarchist struggle of the 1980s. In Chapter 5, the anarchist theme is followed up in Fredrik Egefur’s study of the alternative environment in Malmö. Egefur discusses activities at the social centre “the Winter Palace” in relation to radical social movements and the squatting movement. The anarchists in the Winter Palace were inspired by European squatters but rented their own house from the city. Egefur finds that the activists he studies both identified with a contentious ideal of European anarchists and squatters, but also with a Swedish historical tradition of conscientiousness.

Chapters 6 and 7 consider two radical social movements; the environmental movement and the anti-nuclear peace movement are examined, both of which had a peak of activity during the 1980s. Monica Quirico’s chapter examines how the environmental movement in Sweden, formed during the 1970s, and then developed and changed during the 1980s. The chapter shows how environmental issues were incorporated early on by the Social Democratic Party, and how the referendum against nuclear power in 1980 renewed commitment to various environmental movements. During the 1980s, environmental movements vacillated between trying to gain parliamentary influence and waging a more radical extra-parliamentary struggle. In Chapter 7, Öhman revisits the early 1980s uproar of popular peace and anti-nuclear resistance, in light of how the peace movement collective actions were framed in concurrence with mainstream media. Drawing on material from daily newspapers the mediated conceptions and debates of the movement and events are analysed. Hereby, conceptions of the movements’ tactics in relation to international and popular framing in “reproductions of peace-movement identity”, internally and externally, are problematized.

The subsequent Chapter 8 takes a slightly different approach to social movements, instead discussing how the legacy of previous social movements was managed during the 1980s. In this chapter, Hannes Rolf shows how the 1980s seems to have ended a long tradition of rent strikes in Sweden, and he discusses various explanations for this. One partial explanation is that the tenants’ association was radicalized in the early 1980s, and that many of the more radical rent strikes turned instead into squatting events. In the final concluding Chapter 9, Bart van der Steen reflects on the Swedish development in a broader European context. van der Steen believes that it is important not to overemphasize differences between Sweden and the rest of Europe, since such a view can easily lead to distortions and a downplaying of Swedish radicalism, and an over-emphasis on militancy in the rest of Europe. A balanced discussion of similarities and differences creates a better understanding of developments in Sweden, as well as those in the rest of Europe.