Small State Cultures of Consensus : State Traditions and Consensus-Seeking in the Neo-Corporatist and Neutrality Policies in Post-1945 Austria and Finland

Austria and Finland are persistently referred to as the “success stories” of post-1945 European history. Notwithstanding their different points of departure, in the course of the Cold War both countries portrayed themselves as small and neutral border-states in the world dictated by superpower politics. By the 1970s, both countries frequently ranked at the top end in various international classifications regarding economic development and well-being in society. This trend continues today. The study takes under scrutiny the concept of consensus which figures centrally in the two national narratives of post-1945 success. Given that the two domestic contexts as such only share few direct links with one another and are more obviously different than similar in terms of their geographical location, historical experiences and politico-cultural traditions, the analogies and variations in the anatomies of the post-1945 “cultures of consensus” provide an interesting topic for a historical comparative and cross-national examination. The main research question concerns the identification and analysis of the conceptual and procedural convergence points of the concepts of the state and consensus. The thesis is divided into six main chapters. After the introduction, the second chapter presents the theoretical framework in more detail by focusing on the key concepts of the study – the state and consensus. Chapter two also introduces the comparative historical and cross-national research angles. Chapter three grounds the key concepts of the state and consensus in the historical contexts of Austria and Finland by discussing the state, the nation and democracy in a longer term comparative perspective. The fourth and fifth chapter present case studies on the two policy fields, the “pillars”, upon which the post-1945 Austrian and Finnish cultures of consensus are argued to have rested. Chapter four deals with neo-corporatist features in the economic policy making and chapter five discusses the building up of domestic consensus regarding the key concepts of neutrality policies in the 1950s and 1960s. The study concludes that it was not consensus as such but the strikingly intense preoccupation with the theme of domestic consensus that cross-cut, in a curiously analogous manner, the policy-making processes studied. The main challenge for the post-1945 architects of Austrian and Finnish cultures of consensus was to find strategies and concepts for consensus-building which would be compatible with the principles of democracy. Discussed at the level of procedures, the most important finding of the study concerns the triangular mechanism of coordination, consultation and cooperation that set into motion and facilitated a new type of search for consensus in both post-war societies. In this triangle, the agency of the state was central, though in varying ways. The new conceptions concerning a small state’s position in the Cold War world also prompted cross-nationally perceivable willingness to reconsider inherited concepts and procedures of the state and the nation. At the same time, the ways of understanding the role of the state and its relation to society remained profoundly different in Austria and Finland and this basic difference was in many ways reflected in the concepts and procedures deployed in the search for consensus and management of domestic conflicts. For more detailed information, please consult the author.

Rhetoric and public speech in English republicanism, 1642-1681

The study analyses the ambivalent relationship republicanism, as a form of self-government free from domination, had with the ideal of participatory oratory and non-dominated speech on the one hand, and with the danger of unhindered demagogy and its possibly fatal consequences to that form of government on the other. Although previous scholarship has delved deeply into republicanism as well as into rhetoric and public speech, the interplay between those aspects has only gathered scattered interest, and there has been no systematic study considering the variety of republican approaches to rhetoric and public speech in 17th-century England. The rare attempts to do so have been studies in English literature, and they have not analysed the political philosophy of republicanism, as the focus has been on republicanism as a literary culture. This study connects the fields of political theory, political history as well as literature in order to make a multidisciplinary contribution to intellectual history. The study shows that, within the tradition of classical republicanism, individual authors could make different choices when addressing the problematic topics of public speech and rhetoric, and the variety of their conclusions often set the authors against each other, resulting in the development of their theories through internal debates within the republican tradition. The authors under study were chosen to reflect this variety and the connections between them: the similarities between James Harrington and John Streater, and between John Milton and John Hall of Durham are shown, as well the controversies between Harrington and Milton, and Streater and Hall, respectively. In addition, by analysing the writings of Marchamont Nedham the study will show that the choices were not limited to more, or less, democratic brands of republicanism. Most significantly, the study provides a thorough analysis of the political philosophies behind the various brands of republicanism, in addition to describing them. By means of this analysis, the study shows that previous attempts to assess the role of free speech and public debate, through the lenses of modern, rights-based liberal political theory have resulted in an inappropriate framework for understanding early modern English republicanism. By approaching the topics through concepts used by the republicans legitimate authority, leadership by oratory, and republican freedom and through the frames of reference available and familiar to them roles of education and institutions the study presents a thorough and systematic analysis of the role and function of rhetoric and public speech in English republicanism. The findings of this analysis have significant consequences to our current understanding of the history and development of republican political theory, and, more generally, of the connections between democratic theory and free speech.

Pragmatismi poliittisena filosofiana. Yksilö ja yhteisö John Deweyn ajttelussa

John Dewey (1859-1952) oli yhdysvaltalainen filosofi, pedagogi ja julkinen keskustelija, jonka ajattelu on merkittävästi vaikuttanut pragmatismina tunnetun filosofisen suuntauksen kehittymiseen. Tässä Pro gradu -tutkielmassa tarkastellaan Devveyn poliittista filosofiaa ja ajattelua. Tarkoituksena on selvitellä, millaista on Devveyn poliittinen filosofia ja voiko hänen pragmatistinen poliittinen filosofiansa tarjota jotain mielenkiintoista myös tämän päivän poliittisen filosofian kentälle. Tutkielmassa tarkastellaan Devveyn esittämää kritiikkiä klassista liberalismia ja individualismia kohtaan, Devveyn omaa poliittisen filosofian projektia sekä sen kohtaama kritiikkiä ja arvioidaan Devveyn poliittista filosofiaa yleisesti. Tarkastelun kohteena ovat muun muassa Devveyn käsitykset yksilöstä, valtiosta, demokratiasta, vallasta ja tiedosta. Ensisijaisena lähteenä tutkielmassa on Devveyn koottujen teosten sarja vuosilta 1882-1953, ennen kaikkea 1920-30-lukujen tuotanto. Lisäksi lähteenä on useita tuoreita artikkeleita sekä kommentaareja. Keskeisin löytö tutkielmassa on, että Devveyn poliittisen filosofian oleellinen piirre on "anti-essentialismi", eli huomion siirtäminen pois jostain oletetuista yksilöiden ja ryhmien olemuksista tai sisäisestä luonnosta niiden välisiin suhteisiin ja näiden ilmauksiin. Tähän liittyen Devveyn poliittisen filosofian keskeiseksi lähtökohdaksi osoittautuu perinteisen yksilö-yhteisö jaottelun kyseenalaistaminen. Tutkielma tarjoaa laajan katsauksen Devveyn poliittiseen ajatteluun sekä pragmatistiseen poliittiseen filosofiaan.