Umeå University's logo

This paper problematises ideological assumptions about journalism’s epistemic authority among Swedish media professionals in relation to notions of post-truth. The study is based on qualitative interviews with journalists who are active in the Swedish news industry. The concept of discursive logics is applied to showcase how journalism is understood and experienced by journalists themselves during an alleged truth crisis. This paper analyses how journalistic practices and ideals are perceived to be disrupted by an ongoing truth crisis and how such practices are envisioned in the future. This paper identifies two major discursive logics in which these disruptions are manifested. The journalists conceived of new techno-political infrastructures in the media as a horrific fantasy threatening their work practices. The second logic is the beatific fantasy of truth-seeking journalism in current times. Post-truth represents a threat against journalism in a double-edged way: first by creating mistrust in established media, and second because, when attempting to counteract fake news through fact checking, the journalist is instead positioned as an activist or a debater.

Through interviews with 16 social workers, drawing on the concept of “willful subjects”, the aim of this paper is to analyze how social workers working in Swedish municipal social services make sense of, adapt, and/or challenge routine questions about intimate partner violence, and how such routines affect their professional role and agency. We found that participants renegotiated standardized ways of asking by stressing the need to use such questionnaires with care, and stating that the individual judgement and agency of the social worker is paramount. The participants also renegotiated the purpose of asking; while their routine questions about IPV seldom led to a disclosure of ongoing exposure to violence, social workers considered it important to ask because it “opens the door” and signals the possibility of receiving help in the future. We argue that social workers are not necessarily stripped of agency when following standardized protocols and routines, despite increasing efforts to include controlling mechanisms in their everyday practice. However, our results also show that social workers’ legal obligation to report to child protection services, if there are children in the household, limits their room for discretion and how the routine questions about violence are asked and perceived by clients.

This paper examines the complexities surrounding feminist articulations diverg-ing from the established gender equality policies in Sweden, particularly concern-ing the valorization of wage labor as the cornerstone of women’s emancipation. Drawing on feminist-Marxist theories of social reproduction, it analyzes instances of women’s resistance to the hegemonic discourse of full-time wage labor, focus-ing on three empirical examples: the Haro organization advocating for the recogni-tion of unpaid domestic labor, the 2005 daycare debate ignited by Nina Björk, and the discourse of ‘mama-influencers’ typified by UnderbaraClara. Through the lens of boundary struggles and emotional labor, this study challenges the binary divi-sion between productive and reproductive work, making visible alternative femi-nist agendas centered on reducing wage labor and revaluing reproductive work. By reinterpreting women’s narratives within a feminist social reproduction theory framework, this paper aims to show how a feminist-Marxist analysis can broaden the scope of mainstream gender equality discourse. 

The last decades have witnessed a widespread rise in populist, right-wing, anti-gender movements targeting gender-equality politics and gender studies throughout Europe. While the situation for Swedish gender studies remains relatively stable, with institutionalized gender departments, this paper focuses on how Swedish gender studies scholars conceive of their situation and the status of gender studies in the current era. Through an interview study drawing on the concept of “affective atmosphere”, the article explores how the anti-gender discourse induces a precarious situation that produces a sense of apocalypse and a crisis of hope for gender studies. As such, the anti-gender discourse calls upon scholars to react and engage. In the interviews, the future of gender studies was discussed as being at risk, while at the same time the interviewees described gender studies as an academic success story. However, to avoid falling into the trap of being either too optimistic or too pessimistic about the current state of the art, the authors argue that the knowledge production of gender studies as such can be reconfigured as a site for resistance, for detecting openings and creating possible pathways into the future that extend beyond the hegemonic neoliberal, authoritarian one.

This article critically analyses the assumptions and effects of the ‘daring to ask approach’ to gender based violence (GBV), as expressed in the policies that govern social services’ work in Sweden. We show how GBV is constituted as a sensitive issue connected with shame and as something that will not be brought up spontaneously; GBV is something that women who had experienced it carry with them as an ‘untouched truth’ waiting to be discovered by social workers while women’s worries about the consequences of telling are not made intelligible. The very speaking as such is seen as emancipatory, and the social worker is understood as a facilitator. With this approach follows standardised questions, aiming for neutrality and equity. However, these are so wide and unspecific, that the risk is that no one thinks the questions are directed to her. By making the assumptions and effects of a seemingly self-evident strategy visible, we demonstrate areas in need of further research and policy development, such as barriers to help-seeking (beyond stigmatisation) and effects of standardisation. This is an important undertaking since without critical scrutiny of the policies there is a risk that stakeholders assume that merely asking will resolve the problem of GBV.

In this paper, we engage with five Swedish universities’ discursive articulation of, and responses to, an alleged post-truth crisis in communication, aimed at the public. Taking discourse theory as our point of departure, the aim is to analyse how universities are trying to maintain or restore trustworthiness against a backdrop of problems with fact resistance, fake news, and mistrust in academic institutions. The dilemma for universities is how to counteract post-truth without falling into the trap of returning to a realist paradigm, with its strict notions of truth and objectivity. The paper shows how public events are characterised by a crisis rhetoric, a dislocation, together with imaginaries of both external and internal threats of disorder, which convey a narrow and simplified understanding of scientific knowledge as objective and neutral. ‘Defenders of truth’ seem to foreclose any discussion by deeming knowledge relativism an irrational and dangerous position that fuels arguments claiming a truth crisis. A conclusion is that universities risk increasing polarisation, rather than trying to tackle problems of trustworthiness. The authors argue that, instead, universities need to be attentive to matters of democracy, power, and privilege, as well as a plurality of epistemological ideals, when discussing the so-called post-truth crisis.

Drawing on recent parliamentary debates and policy proposals, this article illustrates how penal policies and punitive agendas to combat gendered violence are on the rise in Sweden. While right-wing parties have long deployed a rhetoric of crime and punishment, today the Social Democrats and Left Party (labelling themselves feminist), as well as parts of the women's shelter movement, are deploying a similar discourse. This article shows how men's violence against women suddenly became a highly prioritised political issue within a discursive framework of ‘crime and punishment’, thereby asking whether carceral feminism is emerging in Sweden. Firstly, we analyse the logic of this approach, after which we discuss associated risks, such as how carceral feminism (re)shapes the understanding of gendered violence, that it is neither effective nor demanded by victims and has stratifying and stigmatising effects on racialised communities. Furthermore, it silences material welfare solutions and ultimately legitimates the expansion of penal policies, thereby providing a foundation for a carceral state in which repression becomes the standard response to social problems.

This article discusses how the relationship between gender and violence can be articulated, both in policy and theory, in order to unsettle the feminist orthodoxy that equates gender-based violence with violence against (heterosexual, white) women. Through an interview study with Swedish policymakers in public-sector healthcare, the author discusses the work done by different conceptualisations, in particular the new and seemingly neutral category of 'violence within close relationships', and shows that there is a need to open up a discussion about the ambiguities involved in trying to find the right language to talk about the relationship between gender and violence. While uncertainty and anxiety are often regarded as negative feelings, as something to be overcome, this article argues that holding onto doubts about the possibility of fixing meaning helps to avoid reduced understandings. Thus, the attempt to lay down one correct version should be dismissed, and instead the author emphasises the need for a politics of uncertainty – both in policy and theory.