FREEDOM

 

1. Sweden vs. France: Diverse Expectations of a Citizen in a Free Society
2. Resolution of apparent dilemma and paradox regarding how egalitarianism, freedom, and submission to state or collective power manifest in France and Sweden

 

 

1. Sweden vs. France: Diverse Expectations of a Citizen in a Free Society
www.econaut.se/coll_swe_egality/index.html

Here's a detailed comparison between the expectations of citizens living in a free society in France and Sweden, focusing on submission to state power, the power of the collective, and the Swedish acceptance of restricted freedom in areas like Systembolaget (the state-owned alcohol monopoly). This analysis includes historical, cultural, and psychological factors that explain Sweden’s unique relationship with authority and collective norms.

Sweden vs. France: Diverse Expectations of a Citizen in a Free Society

1. The French Tradition of Individual Freedom and Defiance of Authority

In France, there is a long-standing cultural tradition of questioning authority. This stems from the country's history of revolutions, Enlightenment philosophy, and the belief that citizens have the right to resist unjust rulers. The French Revolution of 1789 established the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity, and freedom of speech and thought became core values of French identity.

In practice, this has led to:

  • A high tolerance for dissent and satire, particularly against the state and political figures.
  • An expectation that the state should serve the citizen, not the other way around.
  • A strong emphasis on personal autonomy and individual rights.
  • Frequent protests and strikes as expressions of civic engagement and resistance to perceived state overreach.

In a French citizen’s mindset, a free society means freedom from state interference in personal life, and submission to collective norms is limited.

2. The Swedish Tradition of Collective Responsibility and Submission to State Power

In contrast, Sweden has a deeply ingrained culture of trust in institutions and collective decision-making. Historically, Sweden avoided violent revolutions and instead achieved gradual reforms through compromise and consensus-building. The Swedish model of governance emphasizes egalitarianism, collective well-being, and social cohesion.

In Sweden, the state is seen as a neutral, benevolent force that exists to protect citizens from harm and ensure fairness. This has created a high level of submission to state authority and acceptance of restrictions on personal freedoms, as long as they are perceived to serve the greater good.

Examples of this include:

  • Systembolaget (the state-owned liquor monopoly):
    Swedes accept restricted access to alcohol because it is framed as a public health measure to reduce harm. The idea is that personal freedom can be limited for the sake of collective well-being.

  • Jantelagen (the Law of Jante):
    This unwritten social code emphasizes conformity, humility, and the suppression of individual ambition. It reinforces the idea that the collective is more important than the individual, and anyone who challenges the social order risks being ostracized.

  • Public trust in institutions:
    Swedes tend to trust the state and believe that rules and regulations are designed to promote fairness and equality. Unlike in France, there is less resistance to state intervention in everyday life.

3. Key Historical and Cultural Factors Behind These Differences

A. The Role of Religion: Catholicism vs. Lutheranism

The religious histories of France and Sweden have played a major role in shaping attitudes toward freedom, authority, and individual responsibility.

  • France:
    As a traditionally Catholic country, France developed a culture of centralized power in the Church, but this power was often challenged by intellectual movements like the Enlightenment and by secularism. The result is a society that values critical thinking, personal conscience, and resistance to authority.

  • Sweden:
    Sweden’s religious heritage is Lutheran, which emphasizes obedience to authority, moral discipline, and the collective good. Lutheranism teaches that the state is an instrument of God’s will and that citizens have a duty to follow the law. This has contributed to Sweden’s high levels of trust in government and social conformity.

B. Historical Governance: Absolutism vs. Consensus-Building

  • France experienced absolutism under monarchs like Louis XIV, leading to violent uprisings and revolutions that reinforced the importance of limiting state power.

  • Sweden developed a tradition of consensus-based governance, where reforms were negotiated rather than imposed by force. This has created a political culture of compromise and respect for institutions.

C. Geographic and Demographic Factors

  • France has historically been more densely populated, with urban centers that served as hubs of political and cultural activity. This has contributed to a culture of political engagement, debate, and activism.

  • Sweden, on the other hand, has historically been a sparsely populated country with isolated rural communities. This has fostered a culture of self-reliance and trust in local leaders, including the priest-tax collector-policeman figure.

4. The Psychology of Freedom: Individualism vs. Collectivism

From a psychological perspective, France values individualism, while Sweden values collectivism.

  • In France:
    Citizens tend to see themselves as independent individuals with personal rights that must be protected from state interference.

  • In Sweden:
    Citizens see themselves as part of a collective, with a shared responsibility to maintain social order and well-being. Freedom is seen as a privilege that comes with responsibilities, rather than an absolute right.

This psychological difference explains why Swedes accept restrictions on personal freedom, such as Systembolaget or high taxes, as long as they are framed as serving the common good.

5. Systembolaget as a Case Study in Swedish Acceptance of Restricted Freedom

Systembolaget is a perfect example of how Swedish society accepts restrictions on freedom that would be unthinkable in France.

  • In France, liquor is freely available, and wine is a central part of the culture. Any attempt to impose a state monopoly on alcohol would be met with outrage and protest.

  • In Sweden, Systembolaget is widely accepted because it is justified as a public health measure to reduce alcohol-related harm. The idea that the state knows best when it comes to regulating potentially harmful behaviors is deeply ingrained in Swedish society.

6. The Limits of Freedom in Sweden: Why Swedes Accept Restricted Freedom

  1. Trust in Institutions:
    Swedes believe that state institutions are fair and impartial, which makes them more willing to accept restrictions.

  2. The Power of the Collective:
    The collective well-being takes precedence over individual desires. Swedes are taught that freedom comes with responsibility.

  3. Fear of Social Judgment (Jantelagen):
    There is a cultural pressure to conform and not stand out. Criticizing state policies can lead to social ostracism.

  4. Historical Legacy of the Welfare State:
    The Swedish welfare state is based on the idea that citizens must contribute to the collective good in exchange for security and equality. This fosters a mindset that accepts state intervention in personal choices.

7. Summary: Core Differences Between France and Sweden

Aspect France Sweden
View of the State The state is a potential oppressor The state is a benevolent protector
Freedom A right that must be defended A privilege that comes with responsibilities
Dissent Seen as a form of civic engagement Seen as disruptive to social harmony
Alcohol Regulation Free market, personal choice State monopoly (Systembolaget)
Power of the Collective Weaker influence Strong influence

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Resolution of apparent dilemma and paradox regarding how egalitarianism, freedom, and submission to state or collective power manifest in France and Sweden
 

An important dilemma and paradox regarding how egalitarianism, freedom, and submission to state or collective power manifest in France and Sweden. Let's reframe the comparison using different categories or dimensions to address these contradictions, making the analysis more logically consistent.

We can resolve these apparent contradictions by examining three key dimensions:

  1. Political vs. Social Egalitarianism
  2. Individualism vs. Collectivism
  3. Freedom from State vs. Freedom within the State

These dimensions clarify how France and Sweden can both claim egalitarianism, yet have opposing expectations of freedom and submission to authority.

Dimension 1: Political vs. Social Egalitarianism

France: Political Egalitarianism (Freedom from the State)

The French model of egalitarianism focuses on political equality — that is, the belief that all citizens are equal before the law and in their political rights. This emphasis comes from the French Revolution and is reflected in the state's motto: Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité.

  • Political Egalitarianism in Practice:
    In France, no one is above the law, and citizens expect freedom to criticize authority, especially when it comes to challenging elites and institutions.
    → This fosters a culture of protest, dissent, and satire.

  • Paradox in France:
    Despite its emphasis on political equality, social hierarchies remain strong in France, particularly in class and education systems. The elitist culture of institutions like the École Normale Supérieure or Sciences Po contrasts with the rhetoric of equality. Social mobility is limited, and class distinctions persist.

Sweden: Social Egalitarianism (Freedom within the State)

The Swedish model of egalitarianism emphasizes social equality — that is, the belief that everyone should have equal access to welfare, healthcare, and education, and that no one should think they are better than others (the Jantelagen mindset).

  • Social Egalitarianism in Practice:
    In Sweden, the state plays a central role in leveling social differences through progressive taxation, social welfare programs, and public services.
    → Swedes accept state intervention in personal freedoms as a necessary trade-off for social equality and collective well-being.

  • Paradox in Sweden:
    Despite its egalitarian ideals, Sweden retains the monarchy, which symbolizes a traditional hierarchy. Furthermore, informal social pressures (e.g., Jantelagen) often suppress individual expression and discourage ambition, creating a culture of conformity rather than true freedom.

Resolution of the Paradox

The French model of egalitarianism is about freedom from the state — citizens are expected to be politically equal and free to challenge authority.

The Swedish model of egalitarianism is about freedom within the state — citizens accept social equality and submit to state intervention for the sake of collective welfare.

The monarchy in Sweden is not seen as contradictory because it is ceremonial and rooted in national identity, whereas political equality is enforced through public institutions.

Dimension 2: Individualism vs. Collectivism

France: Individualism

France is a highly individualistic society. The citizen’s role is to assert their rights and personal autonomy, even if it means defying the collective.

  • Individualism in Practice:

    • Satire and protest are accepted ways of challenging authority.
    • Citizens expect freedom of expression without state interference.
    • The state is seen as a potential oppressor, and citizens are quick to organize against state overreach.

  • Cultural Example:
    The Yellow Vests (Gilets Jaunes) movement was a grassroots protest against rising fuel taxes and perceived inequality. It demonstrated the French tendency to resist state control.

Sweden: Collectivism

Sweden is a highly collectivist society. The citizen’s role is to contribute to the collective good and trust the state to manage society fairly.

  • Collectivism in Practice:

    • Citizens accept high taxes in exchange for universal welfare and social safety nets.
    • There is less tolerance for dissent that disrupts social harmony.
    • Social pressure enforces conformity, particularly through Jantelagen.

  • Cultural Example:
    Systembolaget (the state alcohol monopoly) is widely accepted in Sweden because it reflects the collective concern for public health, even though it restricts personal freedom.

Resolution of the Paradox

In France, individual rights take precedence over collective norms, which explains the higher tolerance for dissent and satire.

In Sweden, collective responsibility is prioritized over individual autonomy, which explains the acceptance of state interventions like Systembolaget.

Dimension 3: Freedom from State vs. Freedom within the State

France: Freedom from the State

The French concept of freedom is freedom from state interference. Citizens expect minimal restrictions on personal liberties and the right to criticize the government.

  • Example:
    The Charlie Hebdo case demonstrates France’s strong commitment to freedom of speech, even when it offends religious or political authorities.

Sweden: Freedom within the State

The Swedish concept of freedom is freedom within the framework of the state. Citizens expect personal freedoms to be balanced with social responsibilities, and they trust the state to regulate behavior for the greater good.

  • Example:
    Systembolaget limits personal freedom to buy alcohol, but it is justified by public health concerns and is widely accepted as a responsible measure.

Resolution of the Paradox

In France, freedom means resisting the state’s power, whereas in Sweden, freedom means trusting the state to manage society.

Summary of Key Differences

Dimension France Sweden
Egalitarianism Political equality (freedom from the state) Social equality (freedom within the state)
Individualism vs. Collectivism Individualism (assert personal autonomy) Collectivism (conform to collective norms)
Freedom Freedom from state interference Freedom within state regulations
Approach to Authority Defiance of authority Trust in authority

Conclusion: The Swedish Paradox

The Swedish paradox lies in the acceptance of restricted personal freedoms in exchange for social equality and collective welfare. Swedes see freedom as a privilege that comes with responsibilities toward the collective.

In contrast, the French paradox lies in valuing political equality while maintaining strong social hierarchies. The French see freedom as a right that must be protected from state interference.