| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Hessérus, Mattias, 1977-
(författare)
-
Rätten till privatlivet : och moralen bakom omoralen i svensk press 1920 – 1980
- 2016
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This thesis examines the development of the notion of the right to privacy in Sweden between 1920 and 1980. The formation of the notion of the right to privacy is studied through the debate concerning exposure of the aspect of privacy that can be considered the most sensitive: the individual’s sex life and intimate relations.The theoretical framework is based on the sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies’ concepts of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft (community and association). The thesis pays particular attention to privacy in relation to the development of the “media society” during the 20th century.Three significant shifts in the Swedish history of privacy during the 20th century are identified and examined: The boycott of the muck-raking paper Fäderneslandet (“The Fatherland”) in 1927, the introduction of “the sanctity of private life” in the rules of the Swedish Publicists’ Association in 1953 and the appointment of the Integrity Protection Committee in 1966.Key findings are: The notion of right to privacy in Sweden evolves in four phases: The first phase (1920 – 1953) is characterized by a paradoxical relationship to privacy following the division between “decent” and “indecent”. “Decent people” had the right to a private sphere while “indecent people” were deprived of privacy. After a viscous hunt of homosexuals in the press, in the late 1940’s, the second phase (1953 – 1964) is defined by liberalisation of the decency concept and a more restrictive press policy as regards exposure of private details relating to sexuality.A modern-day notion of right to privacy is, however, not visible in Sweden until the third phase (1964 – 1975). Yet, the fourth phase (1975 – 1980) is characterised by a backlash. Under the slogan of “the private is political” young radicals and second-wave feminists questioned the privacy concept and saw the right to privacy as a threat to community and equality. Attempts to create privacy legislation in Sweden failed due to unwillingness by the government to recognize the rights of the individual over the rights of the community.Conflicting notions of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft within society partly explains the shifting status of the right to privacy in Sweden 1920 – 1980.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Kvist Geverts, Karin, 1974-
(författare)
-
Ett främmande element i nationen : Svensk flyktingpolitik och de judiska flyktingarna 1938−1944
- 2008
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The aim is to increase our understanding of the mechanisms of social categorization and discrimination, as well as the connection between them. This has been accomplished by examining Swedish refugee policy towards Jewish refugees during the Second World War and the Holocaust, as conducted by The Foreigner’s Bureau of the National Board of Health and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs during 1938−1944. The study also compares the Swedish refugee policy with that of Denmark, Switzerland, Great Britain and the United States. The investigation is guided by such concepts as social categorization, discrimination, antisemitism, organizational culture and established practice. The primary sources are documents, minutes and personal dossiers; Svensk författningssamling (legislation) and articles in Sociala Meddelanden (the National Board’s official journal).The main conclusions are that Sweden was not perceived as a country of immigration, based partly of the widespread fear that too many Jewish refugees would create a “Jewish Question”. Swedish authorities discriminated against Jewish refugees on grounds of “race” through a process of categorization. This process began already in the 1920’s, and gradually transformed the definition of “Jew” from a religious to a “racial” definition, based on the Nuremberg Laws. The differentiation of Jewish refugees in official statistics ceased in September 1943, yet it continued secretly until February 1944, encompassing the Norwegian and Danish Jews as well. One important result shows that the shift in policy – from discrimination to large scale reception – was a slow process where this differentiating practice and antisemitic perceptions remained operative. What is defined as an antisemitic background bustle is used to explain how moderate antisemitic expressions were perceived as “unbiased” and “normal” within the Swedish society. Though Sweden’s refugee policy seems similar to that of other countries surveyed, the shift in policy stands out as unique in comparison.
|
|
