Keywords

Introduction

Immigrants are part of Swedish society, but their social position is often more vulnerable than that of ethnic Swedes in terms of influence and power over their own living conditions and the development of society. To a degree, this can be explained by the relatively short length of time they have been in the country, their lack of language skills, and their inability to cope with the dominant cultural patterns of meaning-making and communication (UKÄ, 2019; Joyce, 2018; Osman, 2012; Vesterberg, 2015). However, it is unsustainable and unacceptable for immigrants to remain on the margins of social, political and cultural life after several years in the country. Several surveys and government inquiries about structural discrimination confirm this to be the case (e.g., de los Reyes & Kamali, 2005; SOU, 2005:56), though the focus and interpretation of the situation varies, depending on the theoretical, ideological and experiential premises of the interpreter. Nevertheless, it is important to stress that the government is continually developing miscellaneous initiatives to facilitate immigrants’ integration in Sweden. Immigrants are not a homogeneous group, but consist of communities with different social, cultural and political backgrounds and experiences. In other words, they are carriers of ethnically specific mentalities.

In the autumn of 1997, Sweden’s immigration policy changed to focus more on integration (Proposition, 1997/98:16). The change was a reaction to the critic of the Swedish multicultural policy. The parliamentary decision meant that the policy up to that point was designed to preserve ethnic and cultural diversity rather than shaping a cohesive Swedish society. Consequently, special solutions for immigrants would in future only pertain to their initial period in Sweden. Furthermore, the policy shifted from the previous immigration policy, which was based on the central goals of equality, freedom of choice and cooperation in a spirit of tolerance and solidarity between immigrant groups and Swedes (SOU, 1974:69), to labour market integration. In a publication from 2001 titled Integration Policy for the twenty-first Century (Regeringens skrivelse, 2001/02:129), the government stated that the society was characterised by ethnic and cultural diversity, and that the shift in policy would help counteract a trend dividing the population into ‘us’ and ‘them’.

According to the government, the previous policy had increased exclusion in Swedish society because it treated all immigrants as a single group, so a policy focusing on integration was needed in the interests of the whole population. Sweden has been considered one of the most migrant-friendly European Union (EU) member states and one of the most diverse European societies, long known for its relatively generous immigration and refugee policy, with the objective of ensuring sustainable immigration that safeguards the right of asylum and promote a demand-driven labour migration (see Hajighasemi & Oghazi, 2022).

In 2015, more than 160,000 people applied for asylum in Sweden, which was the highest ever total (Abdelhady et al., 2020) due to the ongoing global refugee situation. Because other EU countries were unable to jointly share this responsibility, Sweden eventually had to reform its immigration policy in order to reduce the number of people seeking asylum. The official goals of Sweden’s current integration policy are to ensure equal rights, obligations and opportunities for everyone, regardless of ethnic and cultural background, to facilitate the establishment of newly arrived immigrants into society, and to strengthen equality so that women and men have the same power to shape society and their own lives. The responsibility for the establishment of newly arrived immigrants is divided between several state, municipal and civil society actors.

The objective that Sweden’s parliament set for immigration and asylum was “to ensure a long-term sustainable policy that safeguards the right of asylum and that, within the framework of regulated immigration, facilitates cross-border mobility, promotes needs-based labour immigration, safeguards and takes into account the development effects of migration and deepens European and international cooperation” (Regeringskansliet, 2015).

However, under the influence of the nationalist political party The Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna), the current (2023) conservative minority government has tightened its immigration policy on the grounds that Sweden has received too many immigrants to integrate. An example of the rhetoric and reasoning around this failure of integration is a motion (2021/22:4033) presented in parliament by Ulf Kristersson, the leader of the Moderates (Moderata samlingspartiet), who since autumn 2022 has been the prime minister in the governing coalition:

Swedish politicians have never taken integration problems seriously and therefore have not made the necessary political decisions. The result is a deep sense of alienation among many immigrants. A completely new integration policy is now needed (...).

For a long time, Sweden has failed with integration at the same time as more and more people have been coming here: today, every fifth person is born abroad, and in the last ten years alone, more than 400,000 asylum-related residence permits have been granted. For decades, politicians have been hoping that everything will work out well, but have not been acting as required. The result is a dangerous alienation among many immigrants.

Figures from the Parliamentary Investigation Service produced by the Moderate Party show that 675,000 adult immigrants are not self-sufficient but dependent on benefits for their livelihood. This leads to a life of exclusion, with children who never see their parents go to work and women who never become independent.

The failure of integration affects our entire society in terms of housing segregation, unemployment and benefit dependency. It is also a major cause of poor school results, gang crime, honour-based oppression and radicalisation.

The motion states that successful integration requires immigrants to have employment, to learn and speak the language because “in Sweden one mainly speaks Swedish”, and “to respect Swedish law, to understand values that many Swedes share, as well as the norms of the majority society and to largely adapt to these”.

One year after this motion was presented, during the formation of the current coalition government, an agreement was negotiated on key policy areas that the new government committed to implement. Immigration and integration policy was one of the main areas of the agreement, with concrete policy proposals to be developed to tackle “Sweden’s most important social problems”:

The aim is to:

  • Create a paradigm shift in the approach to reception of asylum seekers, so that the starting point is protection for those fleeing a conflict or crisis and for those fleeing Sweden’s neighbouring area, should be offered temporarily. In no respect should Sweden be more generous in its attitude to asylum than what follows from obligations pursuant to EU law or other legally binding international treaties.

  • That migration policy should otherwise be responsible.

  • To introduce a requirement-based integration policy, whereby those who are in Sweden for a long time must take responsibility for becoming part of Swedish society.

  • Getting to grips with the shadow society.” (Tidöavtalet, 2022, p. 29)

Although the issues of immigration and integration are constantly present in the public debate, it is only in recent years that they are being discussed in predominantly negative terms. The change of discourse on immigration started with the electoral success of the nationalist party The Sweden Democrats. As a result, even more established parties are increasingly describing immigration as a problem. In the following section, immigration is discussed in the light of globalisation, and integration is discussed as a matter of general popular education (folkbildning) for an inclusive society.

Internationalisation, Immigration, Integration and Pedagogy for Inclusion

Pedagogy is the communication of ideas and beliefs about the world and the conditions of human existence in the world. It deals with all those processes that aim to make the individual part of a culture and civilisation, i.e., concrete educative activities and technologies through which human collectives exercise social control over life (Lundgren, 1984; Bernstein & Lundgren, 1983). Pedagogy, in a broader sense, is concerned with the becoming of the human being, with the nurturing of sociality, and with the formation and shaping of identities through more or less deliberate arrangements for learning. Through communication and encounters, people create culture and are able to see themselves and their lives embedded in time, space and culture. Communication constantly renegotiates the social contract that regulates obligations, rights and relationships within the collective. The aesthetics of the social contract are shaped by certain values, ways of thinking, and knowledge (see Gougoulakis, 2016a). Our cultural aesthetics are also the form through which communication, educational processes and the quality of society are moulded and impact on well-being and quality of life.

Beneath these underlying descriptions of society are ideas about what a viable society is or should be. A good society is an integrated and cohesive society, which is understood as well-functioning and healthy, and never as a society in crisis. Even the earliest sociologists, such as Comte and Durkheim, emphasise in their analyses that cohesive societies are made up of individuals who share common beliefs (see Aron, 2017). Nonetheless, this is also true when what is shared in common outweighs what keeps members of a society apart or in conflict with each other. Most likely, though, total cohesion exists as a theoretical ideal construct and one might even wonder whether a society would thrive if all its members believed the same things and agreed on everything.

Moreover, in order for a society to be cohesive (i.e., integrated), certain common values must be shared by a sufficient number of people. But what are these values that can act as the glue that holds society together? Long before the advent of industrial society and the rationalism of the Enlightenment, a theocratic world order provided society with security, stability and cohesion. In times of profound value shifts, such as when the scientific world order began to replace religious beliefs, a state of ‘social anomie’ emerges, which is characterised by moral confusion due to society’s shared values and norms being challenged and rejected (Besnard et al., 2015; Bernburg, 2019). During such periods of transition, historically speaking, it is likely for social stability to be jeopardised. The classical sociologists realised that when a traditional ‘belief’ that binds a community together is emptied of its content, the community needs to replace it with another to maintain its structure and cohesion.

Throughout history, societies have invented and used different value systems to guarantee the cohesion of the collective. Shared stories, myths, traditions and ceremonies have always generated feelings of belonging, community and identity. Ethnicity, nation and state are examples of identity-building beliefs that take concrete mental and material forms. But, above all, these beliefs give rise to social practices through which individuals (agents) exercise agency. According to structuration theory, these practices shape society and consolidate its structures, which in turn shape individuals (Giddens, 1991a, b; Hardcastle et al., 2005). While individuals act with intention and can understand and explain the basis of their behaviour thanks to their capacity for reflection, they also act under conditions they do not understand and therefore may face unintended consequences. But at the heart of structuration theory is the notion that the practice of the acting individual takes place in a context, and that the action is fundamentally motivated and therefore more or less rational. In the framework of structure, agents’ meaning-making is coded into the practice of language and discourse, and is legitimised in specific contexts consisting of certain power relations and normative perspectives embedded as societal norms and values.

Societies are held together by their ‘collective consciousness’, i.e., the collective beliefs and feelings shared by the majority of their members. In societies with a low degree of specialisation, the collective consciousness dominates individual existences, which are subject to its power. In highly differentiated societies, on the other hand, the strength of the collective consciousness is negotiable and subject to ‘contracts’ between individuals. Peaceful coexistence is thus based on rationally dictated interaction.

However, the precondition for a differentiated collective of individuals to coexist in any kind of harmony is to socialise and communicate with each other. The better the communication in a society, i.e., the degree of ‘moral density’ in Durkheim’s terminology (Aron, 2017), the greater the degree of organic incorporation into community life and commitment to shared values and rules. When social rules are established in a democratic manner, from which no member is excluded, favourable conditions are created for a just, equal and inclusive society. On such a basis, common values and beliefs can be built so that a viable society can develop; otherwise, social life is threatened with disintegration.

Globalisation and Migration

Western societies today are challenged by two largely intertwined processes, i.e., globalisation and immigration, which are shaking the foundations of the nation state.

Undoubtedly, globalisation is the most distinctive movement of our ‘post-national’ era. It is redrawing the geopolitical map and creating new winners and losers. It is also transforming the grammar and aesthetics of resistance, engendering feelings of resignation and uncertainty, as well as new hope that a new world is possible. The relationship between the individual and the collective, between private and public, and between the local and the global is being reconsidered and assigned new meaning. It is increasingly being recognised that a few resource-rich countries are benefitting at the expense of the most economically weak countries. The same can be said even at the national level; while some groups and individuals benefit, others are ‘left behind’ (Held & McGrew, 2007; Steger et al., 2014).

Globalization has many implications: it is reflected in popular culture and language, in the physical environment, in the economy, in politics and in aesthetics – it affects everything and everyone. New global information and communication technologies are one manifestation of this process, new patterns of economic activity are another, and the diminishing importance of physical national borders are a third. The ‘Polish plumber’ is not a fictional story but a challenging reality whose ultimate consequence will be reconsideration and adaptation. (cf Meardi, 2007; James 2016).

Globalisation is also associated with large migration flows of people. While migration has always taken place, the scale and intensity of this is new, with the accompanying strains on economic, political, social and cultural structures in societies that until recently were relatively homogeneous. The current debate on integration, refugee and labour immigration, not only in Sweden, is an expression of this.

Structural Discrimination

Immigration affects the ethnic and cultural composition of countries. Each country’s ability to deal with the unfamiliar is reflected in its immigration and/or integration policy, which is also an expression of a country’s ambitions, self-image and level of education.

Many immigrants describe their first encounter with Sweden in positive terms and are overwhelmed by the planning, efficiency and hospitality of the authorities. After a while, however, a different narrative emerges of the limited opportunities for foreigners to manage on their own, of not being able to show what they can do, and of feeling invisible when their knowledge, experience and uniqueness are not recognised.

Thus, the euphoric feeling of the introductory period changes when they later are confronted with the housing market, working life, education, trade unions and politics. Unfortunately, too little ‘integration’ and too much ‘politics’ result from the very costly integration policies that have been implemented. Numerous reports provide evidence of an action mentality that disempowers immigrants (e.g., de los Reyes & Kamali, 2005; SOU, 2005:56). They appear as passive objects rather than as active subjects with their own responsibilities, specific needs and valuable experiences. They have no voice, limited representation and are therefore denied influence over their own lives (cf. Amin et al., 2002). This may seem paradoxical if we consider Sweden’s long tradition of popular education and democratisation and the changes in values in society as a result of increasingly intense internationalisation. The legacy of a vibrant, liberating Enlightenment tradition comes to the fore, which sees “man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity” (Kant, 1784/1992) as its essence.

If the concept of integration is to be meaningful, it may require a progressive social policy process that invites people into the Swedish community and transforms it.

The Problematic Ethnicity

Trying to define the concept of ethnicity is a very complex, value-laden and therefore extremely controversial endeavour. The lack of a universally accepted definition is due to the different approaches researchers take to the concept. Ethnicity can be studied as a political ideology, as a theory with philosophical principles, as a discourse reflected in a range of collective or individual activities (such as art, politics, sport and religion), as a mentality characterising the dispositions and orientation of a national group, or as a movement and from different theoretical perspectives. These different perspectives can be alternatives to each other or complement each other. For this reason, and in view of the profound changes taking place both globally and locally, it is meaningful to understand ethnicity as a relational concept, which is changeable and situational, and that ethnicity involves categorisation, inclusion and exclusion.it would be better to refer to different ethnicities rather than one (Deniz, 1999; Wikström, 2009).

The issue is further complicated when ethnicity is related to another concept, namely nationalism. As a category, nationalism is closely associated with other conceptualisations such as ethnos, patris, ethnic identity, national interest, etc. At the same time, new categories have emerged that characterise a new historical condition, such as multiculturalism, globalisation, post-ethnic society, etc.

While ethnicity is a constitutive element of modernity’s social and state formation, it seems to be very much alive in the so-called postmodern era. When treated as a political ideology, ethnicity highlights and maintains principles of inclusivity and exclusivity in the creation of collective state organisations. Tradition, language and religion are criteria for belonging to a collective and enjoying certain privileges. Equality before the law and entitlement to welfare in a society organised on the basis of a dominant ethnic principle is reserved for individuals belonging to that ethnic group. Ethnicity is then used as the legitimising principle on which the nation state asserts a universal national interest. Citizenship is then attached to a particular ethnicity.

On a symbolic level, ethnicity is ascribed meaning through a process of partly selective and partly fabricated narratives that correct, construct and reconstruct previous identities, experiences, memories and actual events for the purpose of meaning-making. Ethnicity may thus be said to be a construction of an imaginary social entity that is morally binding. In an institutionalised political form, it also constitutes a material/factual ‘history-generating’ and identity-creating force.

Social science’s interest in ethnicity is indisputably linked to changes in society and in traditional/established/prevailing social and ethnic relations. Globalisation, the changing role of the state, immigration with its impact on the cultural character of society, and the awakening of repressed collective identities are forces that characterise a new phase of social transformation. These changes necessitate the search for new concepts and the redefinition of old ones in order to make social reality comprehensible by critically examining and exposing the ethnocentric and nationalist underpinnings of established theories (see e.g., Deniz, 1999; Ålund, 2002; Wikström, 2009).

A constitutional democracy, according to Habermas as quoted by Gutman (1994), presupposes laws that apply to all citizens. However, the viability of such a democracy depends on whether citizens perceive themselves as the founders/the creators of these laws, which are intended to bind citizens together. Common rights and obligations in a constitutional democracy tend to ‘turn a blind eye’ to different living conditions or cultural differences that exist in a society:

What counts as equal rights for women or for ethnic and cultural minorities cannot even be fully understood until the members of these groups ‘articulate and provide the basis for what constitutes equal treatment in typical cases through public discussion in advance’. Through democratic discussion, citizens can also clarify ‘what traditions they want to carry on or break, how they want to deal with their historical destiny, how they want to treat nature, etc’. (op. cit., 1994, p. 9).

Habermas distinguishes between culture that does not need to be shared by everyone and political culture that should be common and characterised by mutual respect for each other’s rights as citizens of the same state. Equal rights to coexistence, according to this view, can never be collective but individual, because if they are collective then it means the state has taken a stand for the survival of a certain culture:

The political project of preserving cultures as if they were endangered species robs cultures of their vitality and individuals of their freedom to reevaluate and even reject their inherited cultural identities. (op. cit., p. 10)

Immigrants and Integration

The discourse about Sweden’s failed integration policy has been used for purely political purposes by some groups. And in no way is it about pursuing a more effective policy by targeting the causes of the structural exclusion that many immigrants face (Camauër & Nohrstedt, 2006). Among the proposals to address the consequences of failed integration, drastically reduced immigration and support for voluntary return dominate. That said, Sweden will remain a recipient country of immigrants, not least because the Swedish labour market needs imported skills. It is, therefore, a serious societal problem if integration does not work. Exclusion in the long run risks undermining Swedish welfare.

Some immigrants to Sweden may find themselves defending their own identity, which can be subject to suspicion, devaluation and questioning, while also having to master the codes to understand the rituals and symbols through which values are given meaning in the new society (cf. Phinney et al., 2002). The establishment of immigrants in the new society begins with the acquisition of the native language through interaction with others in different social contexts. In encounters across ethnic, social and cultural boundaries, one is confronted with foreign and often incomprehensible customs that challenge one’s thinking and give rise to either better self-awareness or new conflicts, which ultimately constitute an educational challenge.

Integration as a goal permeates the entire state apparatus, all public institutions, and large parts of civil society. One of these is folkbildning (Popular Adult Education), which is regulated by ordinances that identify immigrants as a priority group (Proposition, 1997/97:115). The strong expectation is that folkbildning will contribute to integration by offering meeting places for people from different backgrounds, but who have similar interests.

Folkbildning, the Study Circles and Sweden

The forms of public discourse in different arenas have a major impact on the ideas that can be expressed in them. The ideas that are most easily expressed tend to constitute the culture’s most central content. Based on this hypothesis, it is possible to understand a society’s culture by studying the means of communication it uses. Different arenas of public dialogue promote certain social activities and exclude others, as well as shape particular hierarchies of social, cultural and intellectual interests. The study circles of Swedish folkbildning constitute such public arenas with their democratic and free environment, dialogue and meetings. ‘Media’ are metaphors that reinforce people’s ideas about themselves and the world. Media thus create content and meaning in our culture and shape our mentality. Olof Palme used the study circle as a metaphor to describe Swedish democracy:

Sweden is, basically, a study circle democracy. By means of study circles, generations have exercised themselves to make critical analyses to achieve reasonable decisions by working together without giving up their ideals in that process. It is often in study circles where proposals for changes in society have been formed.Footnote 1

Swedish folkbildning emerged in a time of national (re)awakening. It was an era of revolutionary changes in production and cultural life that completely redrew the country’s social and political landscape. Swedishness, class, temperance and the free church were collective social identifications linked to the nation state. The modern nation state of Sweden was as much a political as a popular education project based on the principles of democracy and social justice (Gougoulakis, 2001, 2016b, 2022). Dialogue, openness and compromise were inherent parts of the Swedish model of democracy, whose purpose was to create a functioning society for all. The political culture of this model had certain traits, including a respect for the other party’s arguments and needs, a strong willingness to negotiate, and a high regard for unity and social peace (see Aronsson, 2000). This political (bargaining) culture materialised in a range of institutionalised activities and traditions, such as strong local self-government, social movements, decision-making based on investigation and consultation, and a unique participatory democratic approach with corporatist features that began in the early twentieth century:

It is based on a relatively homogeneous social structure and a uniform culture, a desire for “peace” that has proved economically and socially successful in stable circumstances. The conditions for this culture of negotiation change over time and are different in different places. Options for action can become unclear when conflicts and explicit disagreements are avoided, which should lead to difficulties in rapid changes. It should be difficult for new groups to enter a complicated and hidden bargaining game, exposing it to the tensions of integrating globalisation, increased mobility and immigrants. How will the integration task be solved in the future? (op.cit., p. 6)

Study circles are a typically Swedish cultural expression. They were initially formed to help social movements educate and gain political power. Study circles have become a culturally accepted meeting place for socialising and studying, and participation in them is part of the lifestyle of many Swedes. Study circles are based on the ethos that every person is the bearer of valuable knowledge, that they are capable of learning when they are given the opportunity to put information into context, and that learning happens when meeting others with the same interests and sharing each other’s experiences.

In Swedish study circles, citizens who define themselves as ‘Swedish’ are educated in the values that hold society together and common values are consolidated. Participation in associations, studies and cultural activities arranged by folkbildning provides access to a community of values. The more people share the same experiences and norms, the more homogenous and integrated a society will become. It is tempting to conclude that, if new members of Swedish society were to join ‘Swedish’ study circles, the integration problem would be solved. However, participation in them is not a natural integration strategy for individuals shaped by other social, political and cultural contexts. In other words, one needs to understand the mentality and mindset that govern the behaviour of individuals and groups, as well as the entire social system.

Mentalities are understood as mental and emotional structures, shaped by the ideas, habits and practices of previous generations (which are hardly anchored to their original functions), by latent unarticulated collective moods (feelings and intuitions), and by schemes of thought that fabricate intentions and orchestrate actions. At both the individual and collective levels, the operative forces of mentalities are ‘crystallised’ in what Bourdieu describes as habitusFootnote 2:

(A) system of enduring and transferable attitudes (dispositions), which, while integrating all the individual’s past experiences, at any given moment serves as a matrix for the individual’s way of perceiving, evaluating and acting. (Berner et al., 1977, p. 53)

Bourdieu and Passeron locate this ‘system of dispositions’ in primary socialisation, without excluding the role of later experiences in shaping the habitus:

The relationship is rather to be understood in the sense that these later experiences are constantly experienced, interpreted and incorporated into the individual’s imagination according to certain principles incorporated in early childhood. (op.cit. p. 54)

Mentalities are culturally shaped but also shape culture. They operate in communication, are refined in communication and are manifested in both individual and collective patterns of behaviour, in actions, in decisions, and in ways of thinking. The essence of communication is to make an impact (Ödman, 1995).

Since communication between people plays a fundamental role in shaping mentalities and society, it is essential for individuals to be familiar with the means of public communication if they are to have any chance of being heard. This is what distinguishes a political culture based on participation, meetings, dialogue and consensus from other more conflict-oriented political cultures.

This influence is distinguished by a specific view of knowledge and educational aesthetics that is connected to what is perceived as important and meaningful learning. The difference is that there are different conceptions of knowledge and thus different aesthetic forms of expression based on different educational traditions and projects that are often in competition with each other. What is at stake is the right to define oneself and the other in evaluative terms. The claim is clear: one’s own education and aesthetics are almost always presented as better and more noble than that of ‘the other’. When the transmission of cultural heritage is organised by “narrow-minded” educational institutions, cultural simplicity thrives. The opposite is a culture with a greater openness, curiosity and willingness to broaden the horizon of understanding and educational experience – a culture that enriches, includes, does not separate, wants to understand, and does not fear communication across ‘borders’. The Swedish study circle can be such a cross-border communication arena for mutual influence. Its pedagogical aesthetics and democratic interaction have great potential to be integrative and inclusive.

However, integration is not a simple matter of giving people from different countries the chance to meet in a study circle (see Eriksson & Osman, 2003). At the same time, it should be stressed that integration is partly about the opportunity to meet, socialise and learn from each other in a forum characterised by democratic openness, curiosity and mutual respect.

Between the Particular and the Universal, or on Bildung and the Art of Being Human with Other Humans

The principle of the equal value of all human beings, for example, transcends differences in living conditions and lifestyles, which belong to the realm of the peculiar and the particular. The assertion of universal principles has its appeal for many people, but only when these principles are confronted with the relentless tangibility of reality that compels the recognition of the dominant particular. This brings to mind today’s refugee and migration flows and how they challenge worldviews and identity, i.e., personally, collectively and nationally. What does ‘belonging’ mean and who is excluded from a collective context? Do people have the right to choose a life? Why do people choose to stay in a place that others flee? And how should people relate to those who seek their protection, appeal to their solidarity, and claim their welfare? These and many other questions are addressed through pedagogical actions, knowledge, and the ability to think, express, reflect, and rethink. Is this all a matter of education? If so, in what way? And does education belong to the domain of the particular or the universal?

Since antiquity, the question of education has been closely linked to notions of evolving human nature beyond its animal state (cf. Paideia). The ideal was to mould the good, beautiful and virtuous citizen (a πολίτης/politis, citizen) who actively participated in the affairs of the city, as opposed to the opposite type (ιδιώτης/[idiot]is) who was only concerned with his own interest. Since then, various ideas about the formability of human disposition have underpinned educational programmes within well-defined and ethnically and culturally homogeneous spaces.

Statements such as ‘We live in a multicultural country’ and ‘Living in a multicultural society is a privilege’ are common in public discourse and especially in official political texts. But what exactly do those statements mean and for whom is the multicultural society an asset?

The multicultural element in Swedish society is blatant and tangible. Positive descriptions and normative statements appear in texts from governmental and societal institutions, but the core of the issue is rarely discussed. The actual meaning of multiculturalism remains obscure and is left to the addressee to make “politically correct” interpretations. In addition, the issue of multiculturalism has become controversial in recent years and, from a nationalist perspective, is perceived as an anomaly.

Nevertheless, the multicultural composition of society is a fact that challenges the functioning of traditional institutions and obliges them to rethink and reorient themselves. In particular, the role of the education sector in promoting integration and cohesion needs to be highlighted and problematised in light of the profound changes in demographics, the economy, politics, and the labour market. What is required is a new concept of education that develops our (co)humanity and cohesion.

Communities are defined and labelled in slightly different ways. Even in ancient times, people struggled to figure out their own belonging and identity. A classic example is Isocrates’Footnote 3 attempt to determine who was a Hellen (Greek) and what made one a Hellen. For the record, it should be noted that the city-states of Ancient Greece were deeply ‘racist’ societies judged by today’s standards. In Athens, immigrants (metoikoi) could not acquire the rights of an Athenian citizen no matter how many years they lived in Athens, while also paying heavy taxes. The term ‘barbarian’, which was often used by the Greeks, was in itself ‘racist’ as it denoted a political separation between Greeks and other ethnicities.

The search for identity is an issue for every society, as individuals are in need of a common basis for belonging and security. National or ethnic identity can be that solid foundation, but the former is a political identity and the latter a cultural one. These two identities are usually closely intertwined and one becomes the prerequisite for the other, but only in cases where an ethnic identity is allowed to flourish within a nation state. Then, an identity is created that is both cultural and national, state-based and political at the same time. Such an identity gives rise to the modernist sentiment and quest for territorial supremacy. As a concept, identity refers to something stable, intimate, home-like and familiar. With globalisation and ever-increasing social acceleration and mobility (Rosa, 2015), the foundations of this identity are being shaken. The reasonably stable national identity belonged to modernity and went along with a certain economic order and lifestyle. In this postmodern era, there is a challenge and imperative to rethink and redefine everything that was previously taken for granted. The world is being forced into a journey, which can be positive, but this journey also entails unpleasant rootlessness and identity confusion. The way out is a constant restructuring of identity in relation to that of the past. This identity creation is expressed in a variety of ways by different individuals and groups. Nationalists struggle in vain to recreate something that may never have existed in an attempt to cope with the grief of a lost security through emotional reactions, projections and sometimes physical violence. For all others, the search for identity assumes the character of awareness-raising through knowledge and insight into the dynamics of change, as well as an ontological adaptation to an evolving reality.

But let us return to Isocrates’ panegyric speech, which he delivered at the 100th Olympiad in 380 B.C., where he emphasised education [παιδεία – paideia] and democracy (δημοκρατία – Athenian democracy) as two necessary conditions for someone to be called ellinas politis (a Greek citizen):

So far has Athens left the rest of mankind behind in thought and expression that her pupils have become the teachers of the world, and she has made the name of Hellas distinctive no longer of race but of intellect, and Greeks are therefore called all those who take part in our education [paideia] and not those who have the same origin.Footnote 4

Apart from praising Greek/Athenian education – according to Thucydides, Athens was the “Hellas of Hellas”, the centre of Greek civilisation – Isocrates’ speech attempted to elevate Greek paideia, for the first time in history, as a common reference point for Greeks of all cities. Another issue he sought to address was whether the children of non-Athenian Greek citizens (e.g., Persians) born in Athens were Greek citizens or whether they had the right to call themselves Greeks. Isocrates’ statement has given rise to different interpretations. Most contested by nationalists has been the downplaying of ethnic Greek origin in the characterisation of who is Greek. However, all agree on the importance of education for belonging to a cultural community. This reasoning also applies in a Swedish context when the question of who is a Swede comes up. Based on the premises set out by Isocrates, the answer is simple: it is not primarily biological or geographical origin that determines whether someone is Swedish, but rather participation in and adoption of a Swedish education/culture. In other words, a foreigner who has received a Swedish education and is educated (bildad) deserves to be called a Swede more than an ethnic Swede who has not. Moreover, in cases where ethnic origin and education do not coincide, the individual should be free to decide what identity she/he wants to have, regardless of what the country’s regulations prescribe. Who has the right to question the self-determination of one’s identity? Laws are human constructions and expressions of the current level of cultural development. While culture can be halted, it can never stop developing, unlike nature, which follows its own laws as long as human culture does not disrupt them. And how is it possible for a culture to evolve if it narrows its horizons and disregards outside influences?

Epilogue: “Do You Want to Go Forward? Then Go in a Circle!”

“Do you want to go forward? Then go in a circle!” This was a marketing slogan used by a popular Swedish adult education organisation. To understand the message, the recipient must be familiar with the Swedish cultural phenomenon of the study circle and the communicative/pedagogical approach associated with it. Recognition of it implies an acquired ability to decode and orientate in the sociocultural reality in which the study circle operates. Study circles are culturally conditioned public spaces for communication and learning, and are characterised by a certain view of man and knowledge. They are an accessible environment for self-directed learning with the freedom to make choices and exert influence on learning content and working methods. However, study circles are not only places for study but also for socialising. They represent an outstanding combination of free and meaningful learning with others. Participation in a study circle allows individuals to expand their social contacts and social capital. It also provides an opportunity for personal development and improved skills for an increasingly specialised, knowledge-intensive and rapidly changing labour market. From a sociopsychological point of view, participation in a study circle can help to reduce many of the risks that everyone may face, such as unemployment, alienation and isolation.

As stated earlier, the pedagogy of the study circle is based on the assumption that each individual is the bearer of valuable knowledge and that everyone is capable of learning and developing. This is facilitated when participants are given the opportunity to contextualise the information they receive with others who have the same interest, sharing each other’s experiences. Knowledge for popular adult education is not exclusively defined and transmitted by a specialist, but can be created when people with different experiences and abilities interact with each other. This means that each individual has something of value to contribute to the study group. The basic prerequisite for this to work is that people trust each other, which in turn strengthens trust in society at large.

In the democratic dialogue environment of the study circle, all participants’ voices are equal and heard. They are encouraged to believe in their own ability to take responsibility for their life choices without depending on any authority, and to develop skills to meet the demands that a deliberative democratic society places upon them. A mutual respect for the opinions of others makes people more inclined to compromise when dealing with common concerns. This propensity is witnessed as a mentality trait that contributes to the emergence of a specifically Swedish political culture.

But if Swedish popular education (folkbildning) is a uniquely Swedish cultural expression, how do people with other backgrounds relate to it? Unfortunately, there is a lack of systematic knowledge about the relationship of non-Swedes (new immigrants) to Swedish popular adult education. There is also a lack of research on other ethnic groups’ culture-specific ‘folkbildning traditions’, which undoubtedly exist. However, immigrants are prioritised by popular education institutions (Studieförbund and Folkhögskolor), which run extensive activities that are tailored to them. The importance of popular education for integration work is undisputed, especially in times of increasing geopolitical and economic uncertainty, and migrant flows. This new condition of society also presents new challenges for Swedish popular education, its content, organisation and working methods. For it to continue to positively impact the country’s political culture and social development, it needs more than ever to develop an integration strategy. The story of folkbildning needs to be narrated by several voices and not only by those who talk about the education and integration of ‘others’. Above all, there is a need for a new narrative about the ‘new Sweden’ that builds on the country’s valuable political and cultural heritage, and continues ensuring conditions for citizens to keep active and equipped to influence their own and others’ living conditions.

Self-actualisation and political empowerment will emerge as self-evident civic virtues and will therefore be at the heart of people’s education – an education that will characterise the integrated society based on the idea that a new enlightenment and humanity is possible, with compassion, creativity and peaceful coexistence.