Anneli Xie
Prof. Quinn Slobodian
HIST 240: Concrete Utopias: The Rise of the Modern European City
2020/10/16
Prof. Quinn Slobodian
HIST 240: Concrete Utopias: The Rise of the Modern European City
2020/10/16
The Dream of a “Modern” Sweden: Social Engineering in the “People’s Home,” 1945–1960
In
contrast to the dire interwar years, the post-war years in Sweden were
optimistic and utopian; during this time, Sweden was one of the fastest growing
economies in the world. (Brunnström 2010, 143) With optimism soaring
high, the vision of the new Sweden took shape under the idea of Folkhemmet and
the formation of a new Swedish identity. Translating to “The People’s
Home,” Folkhemmet was a concept introduced by Per Albin Hansson
– leader of SDP and prime minister of Sweden – in a 1928 speech to the
nation. In hope of creating a more egalitarian nation, Hansson used the home as
a metaphor for a better organized society. Sweden was to be found in the
feeling of togetherness and mutual respect; Hansson claimed that “the good home
[was not to] discriminate against the privileged nor deprived,” and wished for Sweden to
be a society in which “consideration, cooperation, and helpfulness
prevail[ed.]” (Hansson 1928) The idea of Folkhemmet conceptualized in the interwar years and is most
commonly remembered in its execution during the post-war years, during which 900,000
homes were constructed. (Rudberg 1992, 32) Now known as the Folkhemperiod, it is Sweden’s largest public housing project to date; celebrated as
a force of social leveling and a foundation for modern Sweden.
Whereas the idea of Folkhemmet was of empathetic nature – imagining the whole nation of Sweden as a home for its people – it was insufficient in its definition of who these people were. In fact, despite the inclusive tone of Hansson’s speech, a lot of Swedish citizens ended up being excluded from this “people’s home.” These included LGBTQ+, people with physical and mental illness, and immigrants; and for them – unsuitable for the image of the new Swedish identity – the home had no place. (Hirdman 2010, 56) Instead, these social groups were continuously ostracized and suffered tremendous discrimination, demonstrated under the canopy of social engineering. (Kuchenbuch 2015, 23-24) Instead of being taken care of by the utopian vision of the “people’s home,” they were put in madhouses and forced to undergo sterilization. An incredibly dark spot in Sweden’s chronicle, the social engineering of Folkhemmet relate back to a history of eugenics. (Den nya människan, dir. Härö) Shielded by the inclusive tone of social democracy, these ideas can be traced back to the same ideas of modernism that informed the spatial intervention of Swedish post-war cities. Because Folkhemmet was a promise of building a modern Sweden, principles of rationalizing society – in all aspects possible – were put in place. Many times, this meant rationalizing the human body. This paper will argue that the belief in Folkhemmet and its promise of a re-built and modern society established a blind faith in efficiency and science that allowed for discrimination of certain sociopolitical groups. As such, I argue that Folkhemmet is a prime example of top-down planning clouded by ideological hypocrisy, and that this commemorated utopia might have actually had a very dystopian backstory.
The Interwar Years: Entanglements of Social Democracy and Architecture
To understand the context around Folkhemmet, one needs to go back to the Swedish interwar years. Although Sweden was neutral in both World Wars, the interwar period was still a defining time of change. During this time, Sweden had some of the lowest living standards in Europe, with cities being immensely dirty and congested due to the rapid urbanization following industrialization.(Brunnström 2010, 157) Parallel to the housing crisis, the support for SDP was strongly increasing – likely due to their interest in solving the housing situation – and the party formed its first government in 1917, becoming the first ever social democratic party in the world to take control of government through a democratic process. (Socialdemokraterna, 2020) With the birth of the Bauhaus in 1919, it was also during the interwar years that functionalism and modernity was brought to Sweden, introduced in the Stockholm Exhibition of 1930. The simultaneous rise of social democracy and modernist principles are defining in understanding how Folkhemmet took shape.
The Modernist Legacy: The Myrdals, HFI, and the Rational Society
The Stockholm Exhibition of 1930 materialized a new vision of modernity and was envisioned to be a forum of social change. (Murphy 2015, 177) Seeking inspiration from modernist icons such as Walter Gropius and Le Corbusier, Swedish architects and thinkers aimed to further the vision of modernity that was already well-established in other parts of Europe. (Sandqvist and Garner 1998, 42) The exhibition focused on showcasing a new, modern Sweden and, responding to the housing crisis, designs for the home laid in the spotlight. For Gunnar and Alva Myrdal, two of Sweden’s most influential thinkers during the time – and heavily invested in solving the housing crisis – one of the main take-aways from the modernists was their focus on rationality, efficiency, and science. In 1934, the Myrdals discussed the living conditions in Sweden in their book Kris i Befolkningsfrågan. According to the Myrdals, Sweden’s low natality at the time could be attributed to the horrid living conditions; having children was not sustainable because of the “low interest for sanitation and a general practice of bad housing customs.” (Myrdal 1934, 162) To combat this, the Myrdals advocated for “a rationalization of social policies,” and proposed subsidies and standardization of housing to combat the low living conditions. Along with other social democratic reforms, such as “free public health care, […and] free public education,” the Myrdals were adamant about these reforms not being characterized by the “derogatory nature of poverty,” (Myrdal 1934, 330, 242) but claimed that all housing and services should be of equally high standard, regardless of each individual’s financial situation – something that was echoed in the social democratic reforms that eventually came together in the physical manifestation of Folkhemmet. (Rudberg 1992, 34)
The Post-War Years: Sweden’s Economic Boom and the build of Folkhemmet
Sweden’s steady economic growth, under the lead of the SDP, enabled a social revolution that turned into a haven for social mobility. The idea of the modern Swedish society was founded upon collective successes and the vision of a new Swedish identity; with the emergence of the social welfare system followed a sense of national pride. (Rudberg 1992, 71-72) The SDP, ruling Sweden almost completely uninterruptedly from 1917-1976, worked hard not just to create material security, but also to enable emotional stability and a feeling of belonging amongst the Swedish population. (Kuchenbuch 2015, 23-24) Indeed, several of the Myrdals’ proposals were also realized during this time. For example, the ideal of standardized housing was picked up by Bostadsstyrelsen,a state committee active between 1935–1947, that was responsible for establishing new housing principles through scientific research and consumer surveys. (Rudberg 1992, 37) Bostadsstyrelsen’s findings drew on spatial determinism, were very influential in the design of the Folkhem homes, and were publicized in the norm collection God bostad (1954). God Bostad standardized every part of the home, regulating measurements for architects and interior designers, and thus managed to rationalize housing much like the Myrdals had wished.
Folkhemmet’s Architecture
With clear influences from the Myrdals, the build of Folkhemmet progressed between 1945–1960; and it is in the Folkhem architecture that the functionalist influences from the 1930 Stockholm Exhibition started being appropriated and re-imagined. Seeking to improve the congested living conditions that Myrdal and the social democrats had promised to solve, the new housing focused on providing lofty and light spaces for its inhabitants. Based on the research that followed the modernist thinking of God bostad, the new units were regulated to be big enough to not host more than two people in the same room; a family of four, for example, would have to live in a tenement of two-rooms and a kitchen to not classify as living in a cramped manner. As such, living conditions improved drastically. However, in contrast to the modernist buildings that had been shown at the Stockholm Exhibition, the architecture of Folkhemmet was more playful. Rather than flat roofs and white exteriors, the houses of Folkhemmet saw a regression in terms of style, with elements from the era of national romanticism once again being emphasized. The new buildings saw the return of the traditional gable roof and were, despite the survival of the functionalist non-ornamental exterior, more expressive and often painted in earthy tones of red, yellow, and green. (Rudberg 1992, 37) The regression in style can be attributed to the certain degree of nationalism allotted to the build of Folkhemmet; along with Hansson’s wishes for a more egalitarian society lay the utopian vision of a new and modern Sweden.
Rationalized Mind, Rationalized Body
A modern society required modern citizens, and with more than a wish to rationalize housing, the Myrdals also wanted to rationalize the rest of society. In 1934, at the time of their publication, Sweden already had a sterilization law in place, much as a consequence of the eugenics movement that had circulated in Europe in the early 20th century. (Hirdman 2010, 67) However, preoccupied with a strong belief in science and its ability to solve societal problems through social engineering, Kris was a plead for a stricter law of compulsory sterilization. The Myrdals propagated that through compulsory sterilization, “one would like to eradicate all kinds of physical and mental inferiority within the population, both mental and physical illnesses and poor character traits” and suggested that “the direct task of prophylactic social policy is to create better human material.” Explicitly influenced by eugenics, the Myrdals advocated for safeguarding the Swedish Folkhem and its corresponding values, but justified it by saying that no child deserved to “be born of and grow up among two feebleminded parents.” With the entanglement of Myrdals’ ideas in Folkhemmet, they managed to shelter their views behind the empathetic nature of social democracy and children’s advocacy; all the while deeming a good chunk of the Swedish population “not worthy” of partaking in this new people’s home. (Myrdal 1934, 258)
In 1941, Myrdal’s influence reached the Swedish congress and on July 1st, the law was tightened; people could now be sterilized on the basis of “mental illness, insanity, or other disturbance of mental activity, or because of an antisocial lifestyle.” The new law also made it possible to force sterilization upon women experiencing “illness or weakness.” (Lag om sterilisering 1941)During the law of compulsory sterilization, lasting from 1935–1975, over 63,000 people were sterilized. Over 50% of these sterilizations were forced, and over 93% were on women. (SOU 2000)
Remembering Folkhemmet
A modern society requires modern citizens, and in the Swedish Folkhem, many were excluded. Because of trust in modernist principles, the architecture of Folkhemmetmay have been a well-functioning solution to the housing crisis, providing cheap and functional housing to fight congestion and overcrowding. However, the same trust also helped propel the rationalization of humans. To foster humans into modern citizens was crucial in the success of the rationalized society; there was simply no space for those who deviated from the norm. Compulsory sterilization and discrimination of certain sociopolitical groups came as a natural step to finish the modernist top-down project of Folkhemmet; and in the end, the modern Sweden was home only to those who fit its engineered frame.
Brunnström, Lasse. Svensk Designhistoria. Stockholm: Raster förlag, 2010.
Hansson, Per Albin. “Folkhemstalet.” Speech, Stockholm, January 18, 1928.
Hirdman, Yvonne. Att lägga livet till rätta: studer i svensk folkhemspolitik. Stockholm: Carlsson, 2010.
Härö, Klaus, dir.: Den Nya Människan. Stockholm: Filmlance International, 2007.
Kuchenbuch, David. “Architecture and Urban Planning as Social Engineering: Selective Transfers between Germany and Sweden in the 1930s and 1940s. Journal of Contemporary History 51, no. 1 (2015): 22–39.
Lag om sterilisering, 1941:13, §1. https://lagen.nu/prop/1941:13.
Myrdal, Gunnar and Alva. Kris i befolkningsfrågan. Stockholm: Albert Bonniers förlag, 1934.
Rudberg, Eva. Folkhemmets byggande. Stockholm: Svenska turistföreningen, 1992.
Sandqvist, Gertrud and Michael Garner. “Art and Social Democracy.” Afterall: A Journal of Art, Context, and Enquiry 0 (1998/99): 40–49.
Statens Offentliga Utredningar, Steriliseringsfrågan i Sverige 1935 – 1975, SOU 2000:20, https://data.riksdagen.se/fil/522D167C-1AA3-41A7-950E-53B7607EE247.
Whereas the idea of Folkhemmet was of empathetic nature – imagining the whole nation of Sweden as a home for its people – it was insufficient in its definition of who these people were. In fact, despite the inclusive tone of Hansson’s speech, a lot of Swedish citizens ended up being excluded from this “people’s home.” These included LGBTQ+, people with physical and mental illness, and immigrants; and for them – unsuitable for the image of the new Swedish identity – the home had no place. (Hirdman 2010, 56) Instead, these social groups were continuously ostracized and suffered tremendous discrimination, demonstrated under the canopy of social engineering. (Kuchenbuch 2015, 23-24) Instead of being taken care of by the utopian vision of the “people’s home,” they were put in madhouses and forced to undergo sterilization. An incredibly dark spot in Sweden’s chronicle, the social engineering of Folkhemmet relate back to a history of eugenics. (Den nya människan, dir. Härö) Shielded by the inclusive tone of social democracy, these ideas can be traced back to the same ideas of modernism that informed the spatial intervention of Swedish post-war cities. Because Folkhemmet was a promise of building a modern Sweden, principles of rationalizing society – in all aspects possible – were put in place. Many times, this meant rationalizing the human body. This paper will argue that the belief in Folkhemmet and its promise of a re-built and modern society established a blind faith in efficiency and science that allowed for discrimination of certain sociopolitical groups. As such, I argue that Folkhemmet is a prime example of top-down planning clouded by ideological hypocrisy, and that this commemorated utopia might have actually had a very dystopian backstory.
The Interwar Years: Entanglements of Social Democracy and Architecture
To understand the context around Folkhemmet, one needs to go back to the Swedish interwar years. Although Sweden was neutral in both World Wars, the interwar period was still a defining time of change. During this time, Sweden had some of the lowest living standards in Europe, with cities being immensely dirty and congested due to the rapid urbanization following industrialization.(Brunnström 2010, 157) Parallel to the housing crisis, the support for SDP was strongly increasing – likely due to their interest in solving the housing situation – and the party formed its first government in 1917, becoming the first ever social democratic party in the world to take control of government through a democratic process. (Socialdemokraterna, 2020) With the birth of the Bauhaus in 1919, it was also during the interwar years that functionalism and modernity was brought to Sweden, introduced in the Stockholm Exhibition of 1930. The simultaneous rise of social democracy and modernist principles are defining in understanding how Folkhemmet took shape.
The Modernist Legacy: The Myrdals, HFI, and the Rational Society
The Stockholm Exhibition of 1930 materialized a new vision of modernity and was envisioned to be a forum of social change. (Murphy 2015, 177) Seeking inspiration from modernist icons such as Walter Gropius and Le Corbusier, Swedish architects and thinkers aimed to further the vision of modernity that was already well-established in other parts of Europe. (Sandqvist and Garner 1998, 42) The exhibition focused on showcasing a new, modern Sweden and, responding to the housing crisis, designs for the home laid in the spotlight. For Gunnar and Alva Myrdal, two of Sweden’s most influential thinkers during the time – and heavily invested in solving the housing crisis – one of the main take-aways from the modernists was their focus on rationality, efficiency, and science. In 1934, the Myrdals discussed the living conditions in Sweden in their book Kris i Befolkningsfrågan. According to the Myrdals, Sweden’s low natality at the time could be attributed to the horrid living conditions; having children was not sustainable because of the “low interest for sanitation and a general practice of bad housing customs.” (Myrdal 1934, 162) To combat this, the Myrdals advocated for “a rationalization of social policies,” and proposed subsidies and standardization of housing to combat the low living conditions. Along with other social democratic reforms, such as “free public health care, […and] free public education,” the Myrdals were adamant about these reforms not being characterized by the “derogatory nature of poverty,” (Myrdal 1934, 330, 242) but claimed that all housing and services should be of equally high standard, regardless of each individual’s financial situation – something that was echoed in the social democratic reforms that eventually came together in the physical manifestation of Folkhemmet. (Rudberg 1992, 34)
The Post-War Years: Sweden’s Economic Boom and the build of Folkhemmet
Sweden’s steady economic growth, under the lead of the SDP, enabled a social revolution that turned into a haven for social mobility. The idea of the modern Swedish society was founded upon collective successes and the vision of a new Swedish identity; with the emergence of the social welfare system followed a sense of national pride. (Rudberg 1992, 71-72) The SDP, ruling Sweden almost completely uninterruptedly from 1917-1976, worked hard not just to create material security, but also to enable emotional stability and a feeling of belonging amongst the Swedish population. (Kuchenbuch 2015, 23-24) Indeed, several of the Myrdals’ proposals were also realized during this time. For example, the ideal of standardized housing was picked up by Bostadsstyrelsen,a state committee active between 1935–1947, that was responsible for establishing new housing principles through scientific research and consumer surveys. (Rudberg 1992, 37) Bostadsstyrelsen’s findings drew on spatial determinism, were very influential in the design of the Folkhem homes, and were publicized in the norm collection God bostad (1954). God Bostad standardized every part of the home, regulating measurements for architects and interior designers, and thus managed to rationalize housing much like the Myrdals had wished.
Folkhemmet’s Architecture
With clear influences from the Myrdals, the build of Folkhemmet progressed between 1945–1960; and it is in the Folkhem architecture that the functionalist influences from the 1930 Stockholm Exhibition started being appropriated and re-imagined. Seeking to improve the congested living conditions that Myrdal and the social democrats had promised to solve, the new housing focused on providing lofty and light spaces for its inhabitants. Based on the research that followed the modernist thinking of God bostad, the new units were regulated to be big enough to not host more than two people in the same room; a family of four, for example, would have to live in a tenement of two-rooms and a kitchen to not classify as living in a cramped manner. As such, living conditions improved drastically. However, in contrast to the modernist buildings that had been shown at the Stockholm Exhibition, the architecture of Folkhemmet was more playful. Rather than flat roofs and white exteriors, the houses of Folkhemmet saw a regression in terms of style, with elements from the era of national romanticism once again being emphasized. The new buildings saw the return of the traditional gable roof and were, despite the survival of the functionalist non-ornamental exterior, more expressive and often painted in earthy tones of red, yellow, and green. (Rudberg 1992, 37) The regression in style can be attributed to the certain degree of nationalism allotted to the build of Folkhemmet; along with Hansson’s wishes for a more egalitarian society lay the utopian vision of a new and modern Sweden.
Rationalized Mind, Rationalized Body
A modern society required modern citizens, and with more than a wish to rationalize housing, the Myrdals also wanted to rationalize the rest of society. In 1934, at the time of their publication, Sweden already had a sterilization law in place, much as a consequence of the eugenics movement that had circulated in Europe in the early 20th century. (Hirdman 2010, 67) However, preoccupied with a strong belief in science and its ability to solve societal problems through social engineering, Kris was a plead for a stricter law of compulsory sterilization. The Myrdals propagated that through compulsory sterilization, “one would like to eradicate all kinds of physical and mental inferiority within the population, both mental and physical illnesses and poor character traits” and suggested that “the direct task of prophylactic social policy is to create better human material.” Explicitly influenced by eugenics, the Myrdals advocated for safeguarding the Swedish Folkhem and its corresponding values, but justified it by saying that no child deserved to “be born of and grow up among two feebleminded parents.” With the entanglement of Myrdals’ ideas in Folkhemmet, they managed to shelter their views behind the empathetic nature of social democracy and children’s advocacy; all the while deeming a good chunk of the Swedish population “not worthy” of partaking in this new people’s home. (Myrdal 1934, 258)
In 1941, Myrdal’s influence reached the Swedish congress and on July 1st, the law was tightened; people could now be sterilized on the basis of “mental illness, insanity, or other disturbance of mental activity, or because of an antisocial lifestyle.” The new law also made it possible to force sterilization upon women experiencing “illness or weakness.” (Lag om sterilisering 1941)During the law of compulsory sterilization, lasting from 1935–1975, over 63,000 people were sterilized. Over 50% of these sterilizations were forced, and over 93% were on women. (SOU 2000)
Remembering Folkhemmet
A modern society requires modern citizens, and in the Swedish Folkhem, many were excluded. Because of trust in modernist principles, the architecture of Folkhemmetmay have been a well-functioning solution to the housing crisis, providing cheap and functional housing to fight congestion and overcrowding. However, the same trust also helped propel the rationalization of humans. To foster humans into modern citizens was crucial in the success of the rationalized society; there was simply no space for those who deviated from the norm. Compulsory sterilization and discrimination of certain sociopolitical groups came as a natural step to finish the modernist top-down project of Folkhemmet; and in the end, the modern Sweden was home only to those who fit its engineered frame.
References
Brunnström, Lasse. Svensk Designhistoria. Stockholm: Raster förlag, 2010.
Hansson, Per Albin. “Folkhemstalet.” Speech, Stockholm, January 18, 1928.
Hirdman, Yvonne. Att lägga livet till rätta: studer i svensk folkhemspolitik. Stockholm: Carlsson, 2010.
Härö, Klaus, dir.: Den Nya Människan. Stockholm: Filmlance International, 2007.
Kuchenbuch, David. “Architecture and Urban Planning as Social Engineering: Selective Transfers between Germany and Sweden in the 1930s and 1940s. Journal of Contemporary History 51, no. 1 (2015): 22–39.
Lag om sterilisering, 1941:13, §1. https://lagen.nu/prop/1941:13.
Myrdal, Gunnar and Alva. Kris i befolkningsfrågan. Stockholm: Albert Bonniers förlag, 1934.
Rudberg, Eva. Folkhemmets byggande. Stockholm: Svenska turistföreningen, 1992.
Sandqvist, Gertrud and Michael Garner. “Art and Social Democracy.” Afterall: A Journal of Art, Context, and Enquiry 0 (1998/99): 40–49.
Statens Offentliga Utredningar, Steriliseringsfrågan i Sverige 1935 – 1975, SOU 2000:20, https://data.riksdagen.se/fil/522D167C-1AA3-41A7-950E-53B7607EE247.