Search results

Strindberg's strategies of commitment, disengagement and new commitment across the border between literature and politics represent an intriguing intellectual adventure we can follow throughout his life as a writer. My article focuses on Strindberg's dilemma as it took form in the first half of the 1880s, and observes it through his fundamental and controversial relationship with the Swedish journalist, literary critic and Social-democratic political leader Hjalmar Branting, with the Danish playwright, literary critic, journalist and radical liberal politician Edvard Brandes, and with the Norwegian writer, politically engaged intellectual and nasjonalskald Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson. For a period they all experienced, along with Strindberg, the ambivalence of working in a social field where art and politics were intertwined, and were to a certain extent involved in the same project, each with his own interpretation. For Strindberg the writer, defending his autonomy from the political field in the end became crucial. What did his colleagues expect from his work? How did Strindberg react to their expectations? What is his legacy today with respect to stances such as intellectual autonomy from power, democratic rule, pacifism and critique of civilization, but also anti-feminism and anti-Semitism? Strindberg's unruly genius illustrates that it is at times difficult to draw the dividing line between radicalism and reaction, and that the great modernists were often also great anti-modernists.

In the extensive media coverage of the general election in 2010, one feature made a particularly lasting impression. Swedish Radio invited seven prominent members of parliament, each prompted to read and reflect upon modernist Gunnar Ekelof's 1941 poem "En varld ar varje manniska" In an attempt to examine a key aspect of the mutual relation between literature and politics, this article analyses the show and its reception in media, identifying the dichotomization of politics and literature as a central characteristic. Literature -- both from a consumer's and a producer's perspective -- is depicted as independent from, and in every way contrasting, everyday political life. I will thus argue that while Ekelof isn't appropriated ideologically in a traditional manner, e.g. using his poems to support a political argument, he (and literature in general) becomes a means to step out of an official position, instead assuming the role of a fellow man. This should in turn be understood as a claim for political legitimacy stemming from the 1800th century European reinterpretation of public relations in intimate terms. Adapted from the source document.