Nordic Exceptionalism revisited: Explaining the paradox of a Janus-faced penal regime

Abstract

Nordic penal regimes are Janus-faced: one side relatively mild and benign; the other intrusive, disciplining and oppressive. This paradox has not been fully grasped or explained by the Nordic Exceptionalism thesis which overstates the degree to which Nordic penal order is based on humaneness and social solidarity, an antidote to mass incarceration. This essay examines the split in the foundation of the Swedish welfare state: it simultaneously promotes individual well-being in the social sphere but enables intrusive deprivations of liberty and in some cases, violates the principles of human rights. The backbone of the welfare state, Folkhemmet, the People's Home, is at once demos, democratic and egalitarian and ethnos, a people by blood, exclusionary and essentialist. The lack of individual rights and an ethno-cultural conception of citizenship make certain categories of people such as criminal offenders, criminal aliens, drug offenders and perceived 'others', particularly foreign nationals, vulnerable to deprivation and exclusion.

Inside the Belly of the Penal Beast: Understanding the Experience of Imprisonment

“…The inclusionary concept of the Nordic welfare state as a 'people's home', with a place for everyone, might in fact rely on (and mask) practices and processes which are in many ways, and for certain people, decidedly exclusionary (see Ugelvik 2012). Nordic penality, then, appears more 'Janus-faced' (Barker 2012) and paradoxical than orthodox accounts have claimed. Any penal system should be interrogated for such contradictions, especially where their impact might be felt differentially by different sub-groups and populations.…”

“…As Barker's (2012) analysis also suggests, these softer forms of penal power are not necessarily experienced as more humane than harder forms. Tightness represents the invasiveness of penal power, the breadth and reach of its demands, and the degree to which it is enveloping, allencompassing, navigable and negotiable.…”

“…The first is reflected in the scepticism that has been expressed about 'Nordic exceptionalism', primarily by Nordic scholars themselves (see Ugelvik and Dullum 2012). Most notably, Barker (2012) highlights a range of practices, including the use of pre-trial detention (often involving solitary confinement), 2 and the compulsory treatment of drug addicts and alcoholics, which represent highly intrusive and oppressive forms of penal power. Notably too, such interventions are disproportionally used against certain categories of people -particularly those perceived as 'outsiders' -in the name of the 'public good'.…”

Why Judicial Review?

“…It is not clear that existing mechanisms of protection are always sufficient. The second is that the picture of Nordic success on civil and social rights must be nuanced in light of various and significant rights violations, particularly with regard to the treatment of Roma, 200 Sami, 201 institutionalised children, 202 prisoners, 203 and suspected communists. 204 The Nordic countries do not possess a clean slate before the European Court of Human Rights and many judgments reveal violations that may not be systemic and grave as elsewhere but certainly worthy of condemnation.…”

The state’s mishandling of immigration to Sweden – how bodies controlling the state frame the problem

“…Within the field, the institutional environment creates a habitus, a Bsense of the game^ [13, p. 11], which can be understood as an acceptable and Bnatural^way of thinking and acting within the specific context [8,54]. Connected to habitus is the term doxa, which for Bourdieu stands for the schemes of thought and perception of the social world that appear to be natural and self-evident [11].…”