Response to interpellation 2024/25:171 on the work with a Swedish cultural canon
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 M considers that a Swedish cultural canon should be a living tool for education, community, and inclusion that makes Swedish culture accessible to more people 1. 1 2 M emphasizes that the work should be carried out at an arm's length from politics through independent expert groups 1 2. 3 M argues that it is responsible to follow up that the directives are being followed 3. 4 M considers that education should be a universal right and that the purpose is for more people to gain access to values such as knowledge and language 4. 4 M argues that it is important that education does not depend on luck or fate 4. S argues that the project risks becoming too narrow and excluding minority groups. 5 S considers that the government basis is unclear and that a canon without development contributions becomes a cheap symbolic issue 5. 5 S argues that cultural policy should instead promote education and self-understanding 5. 6 S considers that the work with a cultural canon implies the exclusion of minorities and that one cannot expect a lack of criticism 6. 6 S argues that they, during their period in government, structurally and long-term strengthened the cultural policy budget, saved the cultural sector during a pandemic, and deliver a better budget than the Minister for Culture 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Madam Speaker! She has asked me what the purpose is of introducing a Swedish cultural canon. She has also asked whether the Swedish national minority perspectives will be included in the process regarding the creation of a Swedish canon. Furthermore, Lawen Redar has asked how I view the withdrawals as well as the statement that the government's directives were deviated from in the investigation work, and whether I intend to take any actions based on my standpoint. Finally, I have been asked how I will ensure that ideology is not placed before culture's own power in the work.
A Swedish cultural canon should be a living and useful tool for education, community, and inclusion. The purpose is to make Swedish culture accessible to more people. The committee tasked with developing a Swedish cultural canon conducts its work independently, based on the directives that the government has decided. The directives include creating an open and inclusive process in the development of a Swedish cultural canon.
It is explicitly stated in the directives that the committee shall have a dialogue with the indigenous people, the Sámi, and the organizations of the other national minorities. I assume that the committee is working in accordance with the directives decided by the government.
The history and culture of the national minorities are an obvious part of our common cultural heritage. Influence and participation are central to minority policy, and I see an opportunity to also discuss the issue at the consultations I have with the minorities now during the autumn.
All members of the committee are appointed on the basis of their different experiences and competences. It is therefore a regrettable announcement that Marlen Eskander chooses to leave her seat in the committee. Marlen Eskander has already contributed much to the committee's work, and I want to thank her for her efforts in the work of developing a Swedish cultural canon.
In the development of a cultural canon, it has been central for the government that the work is carried out in a way that guarantees an arm's length distance from politics. Therefore, the work of selecting the works to be included in a Swedish cultural canon will be conducted within independent expert groups, whose participants shall be appointed based on expertise within the art and culture areas that the committee designates. This is stated in the government's directive, which the committee is to follow.
Lawen Redar (S)
Madam Speaker! The Tidö parties' cultural policy initiative to introduce a cultural canon for Sweden has, to say the least, sparked reactions.
At the press conference a few years ago, the Minister for Culture thought it was strange that the tone towards a cultural canon was so high. The reason, Madam Speaker, why cultural canon projects are usually criticized is that they risk becoming too narrow and excluding a range of voices and experiences, especially from minority groups and underrepresented groups.
To purify Swedishness as a project developed by the authorities, the politics, naturally entails anxiety and uncertainty about what it shall contain and how it shall function, not least if it then reflects the groups that have traditionally had power and influence and thereby produces a one-sided picture of a country's broad cultural history.
The criticism is also not entirely unjustified when the initiative comes, among other things, from a fundamentally ethnonationalist party.
To forestall all criticism and concern, the Minister for Culture did not only promise an arm's length distance but a double arm's length distance. Nevertheless, the Ministry for Culture has in recent days, as the Minister for Culture expresses here today, needed to contact the state public investigator, hold a meeting to ensure that the committee continues to work according to the directives that the government has set up and clarify that there must be consensus somewhere regarding what the directives mean. On what basis? Yes, because the investigator has expressed that a dialogue with Sweden's national minorities is not relevant and that they shall not have influence in the process or be included in the investigation's expert groups.
Against this background, my first question is whether the Minister for Culture actually understands all critics' fears regarding exclusion in the development of a national canon.
Madam Speaker! The Minority Act states with all clarity that the national minorities shall have the opportunity for influence in matters concerning them. A Swedish cultural canon obviously has an impact on all five national minorities. The description of the national minorities' language and cultural history as a part of Sweden's history, but not only that but also its present and future, is absolutely crucial for the narrative of and the continued commitment to the culture in our country.
But the national investigator is not interested. He believes that the minority policy "should be abolished" and that everything should be shut down. This is stated in an interview in Dagens Nyheter. According to the investigator, national minorities should not have any recognized national status.
Therefore, I wonder how the Minister for Culture views the national public investigator's opinion on the matter. It is good that it is stated here today that it does not align with the government's. But despite all the fears, that is nevertheless where we have ended up.
Finally, I ask if the Minister for Culture considers that she has lived up to the double arm's length distance that she promised during the press conference, when the department has demanded a meeting with the investigator regarding the content of the investigation work and political views.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Madam Speaker! I can observe that there seems to be a living interest within the opposition regarding how the work of producing a Swedish cultural canon is organized. This is also confirmed by this interpellation. I welcome that interest. It has been a high priority from the very beginning to create a process that guarantees not just a single, but a double arm's length of distance from politics. That is why we have the model we have, with a committee that is independent and shall work based on the government's directives, but where it is then the committee that in turn appoints the expert groups that shall work on which works should be included in a canon – i.e., a double arm's length of distance from politics.
What I can, however, miss is perhaps a slightly greater interest in the idea behind a canon: to make Swedish culture accessible to more people. A cultural canon, Madam Speaker, is not the entire answer to how we are to address children's lack of reading. Nor will it solve the integration debt that has built up over many years. A canon cannot conjure community in a society that has been allowed to become segregated. But it can be a step along the way, one of several tools one can use to build community, education, and inclusion.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I think it is relevant for politics to try – to have the courage to still dare to test. It can be a key in building social cohesion. On the other hand, I have from the very beginning been very clear that this is not something where politics should be involved and direct the content. Just as in cultural policy in general, politics and the government can set the framework, but the content should be handled by professional people who bring good qualities and experience and can do the work required to produce a masterpiece.
That is also why the work of selecting the works to be included shall be carried out in independent expert groups, and it is the expert groups that shall independently decide which works shall be included. The general public also has the opportunity to submit proposals. It is therefore a matter of openness and inclusion and ensuring that this becomes something that enables culture for more people.
Regarding the member's question about the chairman and the criticism that has emerged in the meetings with the minority organizations, I can only state that it is unfortunate that the minorities did not feel taken care of and that the views and insights they had did not come to the fore at the meeting. When the minorities perceived it in that way, it is quite obvious that the chairman has spoken inappropriately. I can only regret that.
When a member chooses to step down and directs criticism at the investigation for not carrying out the work according to the directives, it is also entirely reasonable and appropriate for the government to make contact. My state secretary has done so, to ensure that the investigation also continues to work according to the directives. The picture I have now is that there is a consensus with the investigation to do so.
Lawen Redar (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the report, Minister for Culture! That is exactly how things stand, and it is extremely important that the perspectives of minorities will be taken into account in this work.
The Minister for Culture asked about and was curious about the interest in a cultural canon from a social democratic perspective, which perhaps has not been expressed before. That is quite true. We do not stand behind the creation of a cultural canon. But we believe that cultural policy should promote education and self-understanding and have no objections to work being done to strengthen the cultural reference frames in Sweden.
I believe the problem lies with the government base. One doesn't really know for oneself what one wants with this canon. At the press conference, it was quite obvious that the Sweden Democrats want to see an exclusionary canon that corresponds with the spiritual view of the nation that the party advocates, a form of blood and soil that is to create belonging to a nation. The Liberals have long championed this issue. But then it has been about listing a lot of reading lists. What they seem to be interested in is artistic merit.
The Minister for Culture also expresses here today and also said at the press conference that this should be a contributing factor to integration. She also explicitly said that it can serve as a basis for citizenship. It is a different view on how one can use culture and education, perhaps not to strengthen cultural reference frames but to provide some kind of view on citizenship itself.
To strengthen common frames of reference and make Swedish culture accessible to more people, however, some form of insight is required into what leads to such self-understanding and cohesion. I do not believe that general lists drive development forward, not when work is simultaneously being done to forcefully reduce culture's resources.
A broad and independent public service can constitute some form of informative common reference frame or campfire for the Swedish people. One can lower the thresholds to an accessible cultural heritage, for example through free admission to state museums. It could be state grants to strengthen the public libraries or the culture school's outreach work to reach more children and young people.
There could be specific measures to address the lack of meeting places. It could be to renovate sports facilities or to strengthen folkbildningen (popular education), which many times constitutes the only meeting place in certain municipalities and communities. It could be to support study associations and civil society's ability to organize people and thereby allow people to gather and meet.
Without development grants and operating grants and an active cultural policy, a cannon becomes merely a cheap symbolic issue. If one is to make it a reality to create cohesion, it is about more than what is written on paper. Something must happen in reality.
Does the Minister for Culture mean that it is primarily listed aesthetic works that should be our common reference frames? Or is a cultural policy effort required to reach more people and unite the population?
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Madam Speaker! I have nothing against being given the opportunity to debate this canon. I stand firm in my belief that culture needs to become accessible to more people and that a canon could be a tool in such a process.
But it is difficult to debate when it is so unclear what the interpellator and the Social Democrats actually think. On one hand, Lawen criticizes the Redar inquiry because, according to her, it does not take into account the broad history of minorities. On the other hand, the member criticizes the government because we control the content of the inquiry's work, since my State Secretary has had a meeting with the chairman to follow up that the directives are being followed. It is therefore about the directives where the government has clarified both the ambition to create a canon and the direction regarding minorities' right to dialogue.
We are, therefore, in agreement on the importance of our national minorities' opportunity to have a dialogue. We are in agreement on the need for something that can bind society together and that culture can be a part of that. We are also in agreement that an arm's length distance shall prevail and that it is precisely for that reason that the government's only means of control are the directives.
Madam Speaker! I think it is responsible to follow up on whether the directives are being followed. But this is also a clear example of why the Social Democrats did not get anything done in government during the previous terms. One can simply never decide what one thinks and wants. It is easier to just be problem-oriented and criticize everything. Then one does not have to take responsibility. But that is not how I and this government work.
I believe it takes courage for more people to gain access to and feel ownership over our common cultural and educational heritage. If a canon can be a way to get more people to feel that they have that access, I think it is worth being optimistic and daring to try, instead of just being problem-oriented and actually never having any ideas of one's own on how. If the Social Democrats had [done it], the S-government would still have done it during those eight years they did, after all, hold the power of government.
Lawen Redar (S)
Madam Speaker! My role in the opposition is both to make visible what the Minister for Culture does and to challenge the thoughts and the policy that are presented. One consideration is, of course, about which inquiries are appointed and how that work proceeds. My role is to make visible all parts of the Minister for Culture's work, regardless of whether I agree with the direction or not. This also applies to the forms of inquiry, how they are followed up, and what promises are made to the Swedish people.
That is what I am standing here and doing. That is why I also described that it is, to begin with, very strange to appoint an investigation into a canon and not expect that there will be criticism. When the work with a canon involves the exclusion of minorities, as the investigator himself implies, one has promised that one will assure the Swedish people of double arm's lengths of distance; it could not be maintained. It is a strange way to conduct politics. That is what I am making visible in this debate.
But the Minister for Culture is very eager to highlight what the Social Democrats did during our time in government. It is extremely strange that one has forgotten what those eight years looked like. For eight years, we succeeded in strengthening the budget of Swedish cultural policy structurally and in the long term.
For two years, we fought in this chamber to save the entire cultural sector during a pandemic, through initiatives to cultural and creative industries, to individual art and culture creators, to study associations and to meeting places. We worked incredibly hard in here to keep, among other things, all the operations that the Minister for Culture oversees today above water. It is something I am proud of that we did.
After that, we appointed a government official inquiry on a restart, which signaled that it requires almost five to six years of budget work to promote and develop the cultural policy work in Sweden. We received one year with a restart budget. Since then, there have only been cuts in the culture budget.
If you want to know what we Social Democrats want, you can read our shadow budget. We deliver 1.7 billion better than the Minister for Culture, who has chosen tax cuts in his budget. I can therefore definitely offer the Swedish people a cultural policy alternative.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Madam Speaker! As Minister for Culture and a Moderate, I believe that education should be a universal right. I note that those who criticize the canon and say it is not needed remarkably often themselves come from educated and well-read environments. They already have the foundation, the language, and the keys. But I want more people to have it – this is the purpose of a Swedish cultural canon.
There are, Madam Speaker, values that are worth conquering. Education is such a value, as are knowledge and language. To possess education, knowledge, and language gives you opportunities and power. This the early labor movement knew. And let there be no doubt whatsoever that the children and young people who today grow up without conquering these values also know it, painfully enough. This I believe we would need to talk more about, not just when we talk about canon.
"In my most unpleasant days, I can use my knowledge to push down those who push me down. In my best days, I share my love for Torgny Lindgren and his Hummelhonung with everyone who is willing to listen." These are not my words, even though I can sign every single one of them. They come from an article about the cultural canon published on Aftonbladet's culture page. The writer Segen Meles writes: "The canon already exists for those who are aware of it. And in Sweden, it means that one must have the right prerequisites to gain access to it." Segen describes her educational journey in Tensta. I have made the same journey myself, albeit in Vallentuna. She concludes with these words: "In other words, it has been a matter of luck, or fate if you will. And if education is to depend on luck, I believe at least that we are in a bad spot."
I agree with her. That is why this work is important.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.