If sport's the solution then what's the problem? The social significance of sport in the moral governing of ‘good’ and ‘healthy’ citizens in Sweden, 1922–1998

Abstract

All over the westernised world, sport has been promoted as a 'solution' to many of the social 'problems' and challenges that face modern societies. This study draw on Foucault's concept of governmentality to examine the ways in which Swedish Government Official Reports on sport, from 1922 to 1998, define social problems and legitimate governing, and sport as a solution, in the name of benefiting Swedish society. The analysis shows that citizens' 'good' and 'healthy' behaviour and bodies are in focus of problematisation throughout the studied period. In relation to this, sport is seen as an important tool and solution. Parallel with increased critique of sport in contemporary times, a neo-liberal governmentality is embraced which in turn affect how 'problems' and 'solutions' are thought of in individualistic and rational ways. The analysis show that citizens' 'good' and 'healthy' behaviour and bodies are in focus of problematization throughout the studied period. In relation to this, sport is seen as an important tool and solution. Parallel with increased critique of sport in contemporary times, a neo-liberal governmentality is embraced which in turn affect how 'problems'and 'solutions' are thought of in individualistic and rational ways.

Sport policy in Sweden

“…A product of the ongoing implementation of the welfare project, Sport for All made visible the government's farreaching ambition to enable citizen's access to recreation and meaningful leisure, and the intention of doing so using organised sport (Bergsgard and Norberg 2010). In the sense that arguments of sport's ability to cost-effectively increase productivity and decrease healthcare costs, rural emigration, youth delinquency and drinking, were used to legitimise increased state support, Sport for All also marked the beginning of a more instrumental and explicitly formulated government sport policy (Österlind and Wright 2014). However, while instrumental in terms of the wider aims of the support, the governance mode following Sport for All was characterised by few explicit goals and little control, thus reflecting the state's intention to support organised sport in its capacity as a voluntary, autonomous popular movement (Norberg 2011).…”

“…The contemporary change of mind-set was, however, reflected in the next public inquiry Sport and Exercise for Life (SOU 1998:76), and the subsequent government bill A Sports Policy for the 21st CenturyPublic Health, Popular Movement and Entertainment (Prop. 1998/99:107) which called for savings in governmental expenditure, more efficient administrative routines and above all -monitoring and evaluation (Österlind and Wright 2014). This government bill was longer, more detailed and contained specific goals (Norberg 2002).…”

“…However, despite a changed mode of governing, the government continued to emphasise the ambition to support sport in its capacity as a membership-based, voluntary and democratically governed popular movement. Thus, one of the arguments for state support was that it safeguarded organised sport from processes of professionalisation and commercialisation during its pursuit of international sporting success (Österlind and Wright 2014).…”

“…Three public inquiries on sport were appointed during this period, all with the task of accounting for the state's financial support to sport (Österlind and Wright 2014). The third, Sport for All (SOU 1969:29), and its subsequent government bill (Prop.…”

Resisting self-regulation: an analysis of sport policy programme making and implementation in Sweden

“…Norberg (2011) points to recent societal reformations as explanations for this renegotiation, such as EU membership, economic recession, non-social democratic governments, and increasing liberalisation in the state administration focusing on target-setting, audits, and evaluations in both its own administrative units and external organisations. For sport, the increase in government control has taken forms of reformulated policy goals focusing on inclusion and integration during the late 1980s, a national sports commission suggested closer control of the funding to sport in the 1990s, and another sports commission in the 2000s suggested an annual external audit of the government support for sport (Österlind and Wright 2012).…”