Does biography belong in academic history?
For a long period after World War II, and in sharp contrast to the situation in France and the English speaking countries, the writing of biographies has not been regarded as serious scholarly work by professional historians in Sweden. Although the reasons behind this attitude have not been much debated, the basic idea seems to be that biographical studies as such do not meet the demands expected from history produced within the academy. Various arguments have been presented to support this view. One was put forward by the so-called Weibull school, which long held a strong position in Swedish historical writing. It attached great importance to an extremely strict and systematic source criticism. Normally, the biographer has limited – if any – possibility to look into the mind of the person studied in attempting to identify in an objective fashion the convictions and driving forces behind her or his actions. According to the Weibull school the biographer is instead largely left to present some more or less well-informed narrative guess-work, far from established historical methods. Consequently the results presented by biographies cannot be accepted. Another argument can be found among Marxist scholars or Historical Materialists. Since they are inclined to attach maximum weight to structural and economic features in society, the influence of the individual on historical developments is regarded as extremely limited. Accordingly there is very little scope for important actions by a single person. Biographies are therefore superficial studies compared to the concerns of serious historical analysis. Other views leading to a similar critical attitude to biographies have been put forward based on the thinking of the French ”Annales” school. However during the last 10-15 years the development in Sweden seems to have reversed and a number of biographies with academic aspirations have seen the light of day. Nevertheless, it is too early to regard this as a change of paradigm. For example the number of PhD students writing biographies is still astoundingly small. The article reviews the Swedish discussions over the last fifty years attempting to identify the most important arguments presented for and against biographies. The text concludes with a simple set of criteria to be used when analysing and judging the historical value of life-style biographies.
The dissertation is a biography of the industrialist and statesman Christian Lundeberg, a leading and stongly pronounced conservative actor in Swedish political life during the decades around1900, but nowadays almost forgotten. The purpose is to identify the main forces – convictions as well as external factors – behind his actions. He was very influential within a range of important sectors, i.a. compulsory national service, repeated interventions to keep the iron ore of Norrland under Swedish ownership, establishment of a regular conservative party and the decision on the vote to right (for men) in 1907. His most well-known action was as Swedish Prime Minister and head architect behind the peaceful dissolution in 1905 of the union with Norway.
However for a long time biographies have not been regarded as ”real” scientific work within the concerned academic Swedish circles. For this reason the introductory chapter analyses these discussions and concludes that time now is ready for the genre to come in from the cold , enumerating six criteria regarded to be of paramount importance. These are being observed in the consecutive parts of the study.
The following chapter studies the concept of paternalism as defined within Swedish professional circles, forming a background to the remaining parts of the dissertation. In their turn these present thorough reviews both of Lundeberg’s activities as a paternalistic foundry proprietor in the local family owned community of Forsbacka and of his contributions on the central political level.
The final chapter summarizes the driving forces behind Lundeberg’s activities in stating that he was not an ultraconservative person, a priori opposing all progress. Instead as the years passed he developed a clear readiness for compromise solutions. Three key concepts are said to be central to the understanding of his person: “Fatherland”, ”Responsibility” and “Duty”. Throughout all his life he adhered to many of the paternalistic principles and values he learnt at an early age in Forsbacka. His present anonymity is explained by the fact that he in a retrospective very often is considered as being defeated in a number of political convictions now regarded as important.