ULF P. LUNDGREN

4. EDUCATION AND THE WELFARE SOCIETY

The Swedish Case

Education and the welfare society is, in Sweden’s case, a story about the 20th century. Indeed, it is symbolic that in 1900, Swedish educationalist and author Ellen Key published her famous book, The Century of Childhood. It earmarked our entry into a new era and the beginnings of a new mentality – modernity; a Copernican turn. The centre moved. From the classical curriculum to a pragmatic curriculum of knowledge as a tool in a new world, the child was placed in the centre. Whether or not the century became one of childhood can be questioned; however, we can agree that it became a century of schooling.

THE FORMING OF MODERN EDUCATION – A PARADIGM SHIFT Outside the main University building in Uppsala, there stands a statue of Erik Gustaf Geijer (1783–1847). He was Chair of the History Department from 1817, and from 1824, he was also member of the Swedish Academy (founded as an independent institute in 1786 in order to promote the Swedish language and Swedish literature. Since 1901, the Academy has awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature). At the start of the century, Geijer had an important position in influencing Sweden’s academic and intellectual life. In 1825, a committee was given the task of forming a structure for the educational system. Its official name was “The Teaching Committee of 1825”, yet its popular name was “The Genius Committee”, as it consisted of the most prominent and well-known intellectuals, among whom were the chemist Berzelius and the above-mentioned Geijer. The Crown Prince, later King Oscar I, was the Chairman, which indicates the status and importance of the committee. By the mid-19th century, two perspectives dominated discussions on what constitutes “Bildung”, or genuine formation. One claimed the importance of a classical formation. Within this perspective, learning Latin was central to the curriculum as were fostering and sharpening the intellect. The other perspective argued for modernising the curriculum by embracing the natural sciences and modern languages. For Geijer, a classical education was essential: “It is,” he wrote, “not important what he (the young man) learns, as long as he learns, as long as his mind is sharpened and fostered in the school of academia” (Aquilonius, 1942, p. 26, own translation). Society, he argued, was divided into two classes. The educated class

L. Wikander, C. Gustafsson and U. Riis (Eds.), Enlightenment, Creativity and Education: Polities, Politics, Performances, 61–76. © 2012 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved. U. P. LUNDGREN cherished society’s basic duties took care of laws and morals, academic sciences and art. For members of this class, higher education was important. The other class included the non-educated folk working in production; farming, crafting and working in the business sectors. For members of this class, practical-oriented education combined with Christian teachings given by the Church were considered sufficient. Geijer also argued how important it was that society’s higher class not force any more education than that which would be necessary and useful to the lower class – this could be dangerous, “an unblessed reform- and teacher-disease” (Ibid., p. 27, own translation). The committee did not reach any clear conclusions regarding the debate. The gap in opinions was too large. On October 21, 1837, the new Archbishop Johan Olof Wallin (1779–1839) inaugurated the Cathedral School in Uppsala. Wallin had been one of the opponents of public school reform. King Carl XIV Johan and Crown Prince Oscar were among the inaugural crowd. Geijer had later reviewed the speech in the journal Litteratur-Bladet (February, 1838). In his review, Geijer had taken a liberal standpoint, having now turned from a conservative view on education to a liberal one. He wrote: It is over twenty years since I have started to think and write about these questions. After careful consideration, have I condensed my stock of arguments on this matter into a single nail – the difference between one so- called public class and an industrial class – and from this, deduced the difference between public education, which should be the duty of the state, and private education, that should continue as a private duty. The nail, I suspect, seems to have hit a superfluous wall (Geijer, 1838, own translation). He argued for an education for all. His defection to liberalism was sensational. The medical authority at Uppsala University claimed that he was insane due to a softened brain. Nevertheless, Geijer’s defection marked a shift towards the modern Swedish society (Landquist, 1924) and a modern view on education and curricula. On June 18, 1842, the decision was taken that “In each city parish and in each country parish there should be at least one, preferably permanent, school with duly approved teachers” (Act on Public Schooling, 1842, §1 Mom. 1 own translation). With that decision, a public school system was established. Public education had earlier been the sole task of the Church. Yet in the 16th century, Sweden had shifted from Catholicism to Lutheranism. In the 1527 Parliament, Sweden’s King was granted power over the Church’s property and he became responsible for the approval of all Church appointments. The clergy had to follow civil laws and the “pure word of God” was to be preached in Swedish churches and taught in schools. The Church Law of 1686 regulated that the minister of a parish had to take notes on his parish’s religious progress. Hence, protocols revealed how well members of particular parishes could read and understand Luther’s catechism. The law also regulated the duties of sextons who had teaching responsibilities for the children of the parish. In 1723, literacy demands were strengthened by regulations

62