Edistys ja yhteinen hyvä vapaudenajan ruotsalaisessa poliittisessa kielessä

This dissertation analyses the notions of progress and common good in Swedish political language during the Age of Liberty (1719 1772). The method used is conceptual analysis, but this study is also a contribution to the history of political ideas and political culture, aiming at a broader understanding of how the bounds of political community were conceptualised and represented in eighteenth-century Sweden. The research is based on the official documents of the regime, such as the fundamental laws and the solemn speeches made at the opening and closing of the Diet, on normative or alternative descriptions of society such as history works and economic literature, and on practical political writings by the Diet and its members. The rhetoric of common good and particular interest is thus examined both in its consensual and theoretical contexts and in practical politics. Central political issues addressed include the extent of economic liberties, the question of freedom to print, the meaning of privilege, the position of particular estates or social groups and the economic interests of particular areas or persons. This research shows that the modern Swedish word for progress (framsteg) was still only rarely used in the eighteenth century, while the notion of progress, growth and success existed in a variety of closely related terms and metaphorical expressions. The more traditional concept of common good (allmänna bästa) was used in several variants, some of which explicitly related to utility and interest. The combination of public utility and private interest in political discourse challenged traditional ideals of political morality, where virtue had been the fundament of common good. The progress of society was also presented as being linked to the progress of liberty, knowledge and wealth in a way that can be described as characteristic of the Age of Enlightenment but which also points at the appearance of early liberal thought.

Gustaf III inför sina undersåtar : Konsten att härska och politikens kulturhistoria

The dissertation analyses the political culture of Sweden during the reign of King Gustav III (1771-1792). This period commonly referred to as the Gustavian era followed the so-called Age of Liberty ending half a century of strong parliamentary rule in Sweden. The question at the heart of this study engages with the practice of monarchical rule under Gustav III, its ideological origins and power-political objectives as well as its symbolic expression. The study thereby addresses the very nature of kingship. In concrete terms, why did Gustav III, his court, and his civil service vigorously pursue projects that contemporaneous political opponents and, in particular, subsequent historiography have variously pictured as irrelevant, superficial, or as products of pure vanity? The answer, the study argues, is to be found in patterns of political practice as developed and exercised by Gustav III and his administration, which formed a significant part of the political culture of Gustavian Sweden. The dissertation is divided into three parts. The first traces the use and development of royal graces chivalric orders, medals, titles, privileges, and other gifts issued by the king. The practice of royal reward is illustrated through two case studies: the 1772 coup d état that established Gustav III s rule, and the birth and baptism of the crown prince, Gustav Adolf, in 1778. The second part deals with the establishment of the Court of Appeal in Vasa in 1776. The formation of the Appeals Court was accompanied by a host of ceremonial, rhetorical, emblematic, and architectural features solidifying its importance as one of Gustav III s most symbolic administrative reform projects and hence portraying the king as an enlightened monarch par excellence. The third and final part of the thesis engages with war as a cultural phenomenon and focuses on the Russo-Swedish War of 1788-1790. In this study, the war against Russia is primarily seen as an arena for the king and other players to stage, create and re-create as well as articulate themselves through scenes and roles adhering to a particular cultural idiom. Its codes and symbolic forms, then, were communicated by means of theatre, literature, art, history, and classical mythology. The dissertation makes use of a host of sources: protocols, speeches, letters, diaries, newspapers, poetry, art, medals, architecture, inscriptions and registers. Traditional political source material and literary and art sources are studied as totalities, not as separate entities. Also it is argued that political and non-fictional sources cannot be understood properly without acknowledging the context of genre, literary conventions, and artistic modes. The study critically views the futile, but nonetheless almost habitual juxtaposition of the reality of images, ideas, and metaphors, and the reality of supposedly factual historical events. Significantly, the thesis presumes the symbolic dimension to be a constitutive element of reality, not its cooked up misrepresentation. This presumption is reflected in a discussion of the concept of role , which should not be anachronistically understood as roles in which the king cast himself at different times and in different situations. Neither Gustav III nor other European sovereigns of this period played the roles as rulers or majesties. Rather, they were monarchs both in their own eyes and in the eyes of their contemporaries as well as in all relations and contexts. Key words: Eighteenth-Century, Gustav III, Cultural History, Monarchs, Royal Graces, the Vasa Court of Appeal, the Russo-Swedish War 1788–1790.

Conrad Summenhart's theory of individual rights and its medieval background

This study focuses on the theory of individual rights that the German theologian Conrad Summenhart (1455-1502) explicated in his massive work Opus septipartitum de contractibus pro foro conscientiae et theologico. The central question to be studied is: How does Summenhart understand the concept of an individual right and its immediate implications? The basic premiss of this study is that in Opus septipartitum Summenhart composed a comprehensive theory of individual rights as a contribution to the on-going medieval discourse on rights. With this rationale, the first part of the study concentrates on earlier discussions on rights as the background for Summenhart s theory. Special attention is paid to language in which right was defined in terms of power . In the fourteenth century writers like Hervaeus Natalis and William Ockham maintained that right signifies power by which the right-holder can to use material things licitly. It will also be shown how the attempts to describe what is meant by the term right became more specified and cultivated. Gerson followed the implications that the term power had in natural philosophy and attributed rights to animals and other creatures. To secure right as a normative concept, Gerson utilized the ancient ius suum cuique-principle of justice and introduced a definition in which right was seen as derived from justice. The latter part of this study makes effort to reconstructing Summenhart s theory of individual rights in three sections. The first section clarifies Summenhart s discussion of the right of the individual or the concept of an individual right. Summenhart specified Gerson s description of right as power, taking further use of the language of natural philosophy. In this respect, Summenhart s theory managed to bring an end to a particular continuity of thought that was centered upon a view in which right was understood to signify power to licit action. Perhaps the most significant feature of Summenhart s discussion was the way he explicated the implication of liberty that was present in Gerson s language of rights. Summenhart assimilated libertas with the self-mastery or dominion that in the economic context of discussion took the form of (a moderate) self-ownership. Summenhart discussion also introduced two apparent extensions to Gerson s terminology. First, Summenhart classified right as relation, and second, he equated right with dominion. It is distinctive of Summenhart s view that he took action as the primary determinant of right: Everyone has as much rights or dominion in regard to a thing, as much actions it is licit for him to exercise in regard to the thing. The second section elaborates Summenhart s discussion of the species dominion, which delivered an answer to the question of what kind of rights exist, and clarified thereby the implications of the concept of an individual right. The central feature in Summenhart s discussion was his conscious effort to systematize Gerson s language by combining classifications of dominion into a coherent whole. In this respect, his treatement of the natural dominion is emblematic. Summenhart constructed the concept of natural dominion by making use of the concepts of foundation (founded on a natural gift) and law (according to the natural law). In defining natural dominion as dominion founded on a natural gift, Summenhart attributed natural dominion to animals and even to heavenly bodies. In discussing man s natural dominion, Summenhart pointed out that the natural dominion is not sufficiently identified by its foundation, but requires further specification, which Summenhart finds in the idea that natural dominion is appropriate to the subject according to the natural law. This characterization lead him to treat God s dominion as natural dominion. Partly, this was due to Summenhart s specific understanding of the natural law, which made reasonableness as the primary criterion for the natural dominion at the expense of any metaphysical considerations. The third section clarifies Summenhart s discussion of the property rights defined by the positive human law. By delivering an account on juridical property rights Summenhart connected his philosophical and theological theory on rights to the juridical language of his times, and demonstrated that his own language of rights was compatible with current juridical terminology. Summenhart prepared his discussion of property rights with an account of the justification for private property, which gave private property a direct and strong natural law-based justification. Summenhart s discussion of the four property rights usus, usufructus, proprietas, and possession aimed at delivering a detailed report of the usage of these concepts in juridical discourse. His discussion was characterized by extensive use of the juridical source texts, which was more direct and verbal the more his discussion became entangled with the details of juridical doctrine. At the same time he promoted his own language on rights, especially by applying the idea of right as relation. He also showed recognizable effort towards systematizing juridical language related to property rights.

Democratic Legitimacy and the Politics of Rights : A comparative analysis of the conceptual relationship between democracy and rights in contemporary political theories

Democratic Legitimacy and the Politics of Rights is a research in normative political theory, based on comparative analysis of contemporary democratic theories, classified roughly as conventional liberal, deliberative democratic and radical democratic. Its focus is on the conceptual relationship between alternative sources of democratic legitimacy: democratic inclusion and liberal rights. The relationship between rights and democracy is studied through the following questions: are rights to be seen as external constraints to democracy or as objects of democratic decision making processes? Are individual rights threatened by public participation in politics; do constitutionally protected rights limit the inclusiveness of democratic processes? Are liberal values such as individuality, autonomy and liberty; and democratic values such as equality, inclusion and popular sovereignty mutually conflictual or supportive? Analyzing feminist critique of liberal discourse, the dissertation also raises the question about Enlightenment ideals in current political debates: are the universal norms of liberal democracy inherently dependent on the rationalist grand narratives of modernity and incompatible with the ideal of diversity? Part I of the thesis introduces the sources of democratic legitimacy as presented in the alternative democratic models. Part II analyses how the relationship between rights and democracy is theorized in them. Part III contains arguments by feminists and radical democrats against the tenets of universalist liberal democratic models and responds to that critique by partly endorsing, partly rejecting it. The central argument promoted in the thesis is that while the deconstruction of modern rationalism indicates that rights are political constructions as opposed to externally given moral constraints to politics, this insight does not delegitimize the politics of universal rights as an inherent part of democratic institutions. The research indicates that democracy and universal individual rights are mutually interdependent rather than oppositional; and that democracy is more dependent on an unconditional protection of universal individual rights when it is conceived as inclusive, participatory and plural; as opposed to robust majoritarian rule. The central concepts are: liberalism, democracy, legitimacy, deliberation, inclusion, equality, diversity, conflict, public sphere, rights, individualism, universalism and contextuality. The authors discussed are e.g. John Rawls, Jürgen Habermas, Seyla Benhabib, Iris Young, Chantal Mouffe and Stephen Holmes. The research focuses on contemporary political theory, but the more classical work of John S. Mill, Benjamin Constant, Isaiah Berlin and Hannah Arendt is also included.

Variation i kvinnors namnfraser i officiella dokument i Helsingfors 1780-1930 : Socioonomastiska synvinklar på makt och identitet

This dissertation is an onomastic study of variation in women s name phrases in official documents in Finland during the period 1780−1930. The aim is to discuss from a socio-onomastic perspective both the changeover from patronymics to inherited family names and the use of surnames after marriage (i.e. whether women adopted their husbands family names or retained their maiden names), before new laws in this area entered into force in Finland in the early 20th century. In 1920, a law on family names that required fixed names put an end to the use of the patronymic as a person s only surname. After 1929, it was no longer possible for a married woman to retain her maiden name. Methodologically, to explain this development from a socio-onomastic perspective, I have based my study on a syntactic-semantic analysis of the actual name phrases. To be able to demonstrate the extensive material, I have elaborated a scheme to divide the 115 different types of name phrases into 13 main categories. The analysis of the material for Helsinki is based on frequency calculations of the different types of name phrases every thirtieth year, as well as on describing variation in the structure and semantic content of the name phrases, e.g. social variation in the use of titles and epithets. In addition to this, by applying a biographic-genealogical method, I have conducted two case studies of the usage of women s name phrases in the two chosen families. The study is based on parish registers from the period 1780−1929, estate inventory documents from the period 1780−1928, registration forms for liberty of trade from the period 1880−1908, family announcements on newspapers from the period 1829−1888, gravestones from the period 1796−1929 and diaries from the periods 1799−1801 and 1818−1820 providing a corpus of 5 950 name phrases. The syntactic-semantic analysis has revealed the overall picture of various ways of denoting women in official documents. In Helsinki, towards the end of the 19th century, the use of inherited family names seems to be almost fully developed in official contexts. At the late 19th century, a patronymic still appears as the only surname of some working-class women whereas in the early 20th century patronymics were only entered in the parish register as a kind of middle name. In the beginning of the 19th century, most married women were still registered under their maiden names, with a few exceptions among the bourgeoisie and upper class. The comparative analysis of name phrases in diaries, however, indicates that the use of the husband s family name by married women was a much earlier phenomenon in private contexts than in official documents. Keywords: socio-onomastics, syntactic-semantic analysis, name phrase, patronymic, maiden name, husband s family name