Umeå universitets logga

This study explores the aesthetical and political connections between Ellen Key (1849–1926) and C.J.L. Almqvist (1793–1866). It also analyzes the standing of romanticism in Sweden around the year 1900. While Key’s interest in Almqvist is well documented, notably in the lecture where she dubs him Sweden’s most modern author, their deeper affinities and differences have not been fully appreciated. A common thread in their works is the desire to blur the lines between art and life, which serves as a starting point for analysis. Both Almqvist and Key seek to create an art of living that revitalizes individuals through aesthetic means, proposing various techniques to infuse everyday life with beauty and sacredness. For both, the concept of a ‘beautiful’ life is likewise a measure of humanity. The study also highlights the contentious aspects of Key’s relationship with Almqvist. Key believed that the idealistic worldview of the early 19th century had been realized through new scientific discoveries, allowing her to rhetorically maneuver beyond the horizon of romanticism in search of a modernity more modern than Almqvist’s.

Swedish feminist and aesthetic thinker Ellen Key (1849–1926) continually returned to questions of freedom and determinism, a tension actualized with special poignancy in her discussions on climate. While Key adheres to a time-honored tradition of climatological determinism, she also theorizes the need to transcend the given conditions of life through art. Importantly, she sees the spiritual evolution of mankind as dependent on the aesthetic improvement – and manipulation – of our surrounding environments. In the context of modernity and urbanization, art is also considered a necessary supplement to nature. As I suggest, Key’s reflections on climate and environmental aesthetics provide the conceptual impetus for her more famous work on the beautification of everyday life. By exploring these connections, Key’s aesthetic theories gain new meaning and relevance.

The cultural policies of the Nordic welfare states from the 1930s onwards mark a paradigmatic shift in the conditions under which the arts operate. This volume explores the historical and discursive ramifications of this process, and its impact on the place of art and literature in the Nordic ideal of modernity. As the contributors testify, cultural policy and the arts were integral to the conception and configuration of the welfare state apparatus, rather than merely serving an ornamental function within it. The thirteen articles, representing a wide range of disciplines and approaches, provide a multifaceted exposition of the relation between artistic practices and politics in above all the Swedish welfare state. By surpassing the traditional scope of literary and visual studies, cultural policy studies, and sociology, as well as urban and environmental studies, this anthology provides a stepping stone for future research.

Ska man undervisa om Strindberg trots hans förlegade kvinnosyn? Hur hanterar man utbildningssystemets krav på förutsägbara resultat när man tror på en oförutsägbar litteraturundervisning? Går det att skapa trygghet och samtidigt öppna för risk och osäkerhet i klassrummet?

Att undervisa i litteraturvetenskap är att vara intrasslad i olika obekväma och motstridiga positioner, roller och spänningsfält som rör etik, politik och synen på kunskap i vårt samhälle. Den här boken argumenterar för att det är viktigt att litteraturlärare försöker stå emot impulsen att genast lösa de dilemman som genomkorsar det litteraturvetenskapliga klassrummet. Aporierna, de olösbara motsägelserna, kan i själva verket förstås som litteraturundervisningens förutsättning och särskilda kunskapsbidrag.

Genom fyra prövande essäer med utgångspunkt i lärares vardag pläderar denna bok för något man kunde kalla en aporetisk litteraturundervisning, där både omsorg och ironi är viktiga komponenter. Omsorg om vårt ämne, studenterna och litteraturen; ironi som ett sätt att navigera i, men inte ut ur, motsägelserna.