We should always be suspicious when states try to define a national culture – especially when the arts are in crisis
S
weden is often associated with a large and efficient bureaucratic apparatus. It is also often associated with minimalist interiors furnished by simple pale woods such as birch and pine. It was therefore fitting that, after two years of preparation, the Swedish cultural canon committee presented – in an anatomical theatre from the 17th century – its list of 100 works, ideas and brands that define Swedishness. In direct contrast to the anonymous grey conference rooms usually favoured by Swedish government officials, this unusual list was unveiled in a rather un-Swedish fashion. The contradiction is striking. It says something about how we think about culture, nationhood and identity today – not just in Sweden, but across the west. It also tells us why this canon is doomed to fail and yet for its creators, unfortunately, it has already succeeded.
Originally a pet project of the far-right Sweden Democrats, the canon was commissioned by the sitting rightwing coalition, a minority government dependent on the Sweden Democrats’ parliamentary support. Since the canon committee’s creation in 2023, the tone in Swedish media has been critical. Some have voiced a worry that the project is authoritarian in nature, some have questioned the legitimacy and purpose of the list and others have bickered over the contents of the list itself.
