This is a sel -a chi ed e sion o an o iginal a icle. This e sion
may di e om he o iginal in pagina ion and ypog aphic de ails.
Au ho (s):
Ti le:
Yea :
Ve sion:
Copy igh :
Righ s:
Righ s u l:
Please ci e he o iginal e sion:
CC BY 4.0
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
In oduc ion : spaces o upse in he No dic egion
© 2022 Linus Salö e al., published by De G uy e .
Published e sion
Salö, Linus; Ka lande , Da id; Leppänen, Si pa; Wes inen, Elina; Spindle Mølle ,
Janus
Salö, L., Ka lande , D., Leppänen, S., Wes inen, E., & Spindle Mølle , J. (2022). In oduc ion :
spaces o upse in he No dic egion. In e na ional Jou nal o he Sociology o Language,
2022(275), 1-19. h ps://doi.o g/10.1515/ijsl-2021-0115
2022
Edi o ial
Linus Salö*, Da id Ka lande , Si pa Leppänen, Elina Wes inen
and Janus Spindle Mølle
In oduc ion: spaces o upse in he No dic
egion
h ps://doi.o g/10.1515/ijsl-2021-0115
Abs ac : This in oduc o y a icle opens he hema ic issue Spaces o Upse in he
No dic Region. I in oduces he con ibu ions o he issue, ou lines he concep s ha
uni e hem, and discusses he sociolinguis ic a ea in which hey a e se : he No dic
egion. Cen e ing on Denma k, Finland and Sweden, he a icle o e s an o e iew o
some o he sociolinguis ic, ideological and poli ical cha ac e is ics o he egion and
he coun ies i comp ises. The No dic egion is widely seen as a pa adigm case o
social s abili y, consensus and cohesion. This ision is, howe e , a mi age. To be su e,
upse o en linge s below he discu si e enee o No dic ha mony, conco d and
ag eemen . B eaking wi h his ou look, his hema ic issue akes a close look a some
o he an ipodes o his sociolinguis ic and ideological condi ion. I s con ibu ions
engage wi h ‘spaces o upse ’, ha is, wi h mani es a ions and expe iences o socio-
linguis ic up u e, uphea al o change, in and h ough which isions o sociolinguis ic
s abili y and cohesion a e dis up ed and challenged. These spaces o upse bea
wi ness o social, ideological and linguis ic ensions and changes, be hey incipien ,
endu ingo su passed.Theyacco dinglyp o ideanew akeon p ocesseso con inui y
and change, poin ing ou he ideological aul lines o he o de s hey dis up , o upse .
Keywo ds: mig a ion; language ideology; language and he wel a e s a e; social
cohesion; spaces o upse ; The No dic egion
*Co esponding au ho : Linus Salö, Cen e o Resea ch on Bilingualism, S ockholm Uni e si y,
106 91, S ockholm, Sweden; and Di ision o His o y o Science, Technology and En i onmen , KTH
Royal Ins i u e o Technology, S ockholm, Sweden, E-mail: [email p o ec ed]. h ps://o cid.
o g/0000-0003-3997-1149
Da id Ka lande , School o English, Uni e si y o Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Si pa Leppänen, Depa men o Language and Communica ion S udies, Uni e si y o Jy äskylä,
Jy äskylä, Finland. h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0002-7167-4649
Elina Wes inen, Depa men o Music, A and Cul u e S udies, Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, Jy äskylä,
Finland. h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0002-1071-8871
Janus Spindle Mølle , Depa men o No dic S udies and Linguis ics, Uni e si y o Copenhagen,
Copenhagen, Denma k. h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0002-6343-6739
IJSL 2022; 275: 1–19
Open Access. © 2022 Linus Salöe al., published by De G uy e . This wo k is licensed unde
he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional License.
1 In oducing spaces o upse
The a icles in his issue a e uni ed by hei ocus on h ee No dic coun ies –
Denma k, Finland and Sweden. Adop ing a sociolinguis ic gaze, hey ake a close
look a ela i ely endu ing o ms o social change –wi h ins an up u es o p o-
longed uphea als ha in some way “upse es ablished o de s”(C esswell 2014: 712;
ou emphasis) in hese na ional spaces. Such o de s may be g asped as no ma i e
no ions o egional and na ional significance, akin o wha Taylo (2004) e ms ‘social
imagina ies’,“ca ied in images, s o ies, and legends”(Taylo 2004: 23). They
conce n, mo e p ecisely, no ions o No dic idylls and u opias en enched in egionally
dis ibu ed na ion-s a e ideologies and, as such, a e implica ed in sus aining he
na ions hey conce n (Helle e al. 2016). F om he an age poin o he concep spaces
o upse ,
1
he con ibu ions in his issue o e an empi ical, analy ical and concep ual
challenge o ecei ed iews o No dic cohesion and consensus –sociolinguis ic and
o he wise. A c i ical in e oga ion o hese dynamics calls in o ques ion s a e-
consec a ed isions as a icula ed (o , a leas p esupposed) in dominan sys ems o
hough .Th oughsixempi icalcon ibu ions, ollowedbyacommen a ybyMonica
Helle , his is wha his hema ic issue seeks o accomplish.
Thisin oduc ionse es o ameou collec i eendea o .I seeks ocon ex ualize
he social ab ic o No dic egion in pu sui o un a eling he h eads o which i is
made.Indoingso,wed awa en ion oase o banalye ounda ionalconcep s
a ound which collec i e isions and social di isions ha e long been modeled. A he
egional le el, a ocabula y o ‘consensus’,‘s abili y’,‘ha mony’and ‘cohesion’,and,
mo e ecen ly, ‘equali y’,‘sus ainabili y’and ‘well-being’,is o en in oked o define,
and he eby sus ain, a No dic model socie y. A he le el o each na ion-s a e, i
includes an addi ional ange o his o ically oo edwa chwo ds,no o iously ha d o
ansla e, such as Danish hygge (an e e yday philosophy o coziness), Finnish alk-
oohenki (a spi i o communal collabo a ion), and Swedish lagom (‘jus abou ’,
conno ing a balanced and mode a e app oach o li e). Such quo idian sho hand o
con i iali y has a cul u al and poli ical significance ha ex ends beyond he ealm o
mundane linguis ic exchange. As Thompson a gues,
1The wo k p esen ed in his issue eme ged ou o a se ies o in e -No dic wo kshops 2017–2019,
wi h pa icipan s om he uni e si ies o Copenhagen (Denma k), Jy äskylä (Finland) and
S ockholm (Sweden), unded by he No dic esea ch councils in he Humani ies and Social Sci-
ences (NOS-HS; g an 2016-00270/NOS-HS). The e m ‘spaces o upse ’was p oposed by Monica
Helle as he in i ed discussan a he S ockholm semina , Sep embe 2017. Since hen, he e m
has inc easingly come o deno e a phenomenon common o he pa icipan s, whose wo k deal
wi h ideologically cha ged exchanges o e isions o sociolinguis ic no mali y. ‘Upse ’e en ually
became sho hand o he main hemes in his body o wo k. We acco dingly see i as a sui able
keywo d o his special issue, an end esul o he semina se ies.
2Salö e al.
inusinglanguagewea e cons an lyengagedin a c ea i e,imagina y ac i i y.Wea e […] also
in ol ed, knowingly o no , in al e ing, unde mining o ein o cing ou ela ions wi h o he s
and wi h he wo ld (1984: 6).
Language, in sho , p o ides an in oad o No dic na ion-s a e ideologies as well as
o No dic imagina ies upheld ac oss he egion (see also Ande son [1983]; Helle
and McElhinny [2017]).
I goes wi hou saying ha he ecei ed iew o No dic cohesion and
consensus o cou se conceals a mo e complex, agmen ed, and con lic ual eali y.
Li ed sociolinguis ic eali ies, o be su e, a e i e wi h coun e poin s o his social
imagina y. Linguis ic exchange in he No dic coun ies abounds wi h momen a y
and si ua ed dis up ions, all o which poin o exis ing ensions be ween socio-
linguis ic con inui y and change, be ween uni y and agmen a ion, be ween
s asis and mobili y. As p oposed by he con ibu ions in his hema ic issue, hese
dynamics can be cap u ed by an analy ical ocus on he bisemic no ion o ‘upse ’.
As e idenced by his collec ion o a icles, occu ences o upse do no only
cons i u e a b eak wi h no ma i e isions o o de , bu may also se e as an
e ec i e analy ical aming, ap o poin ing ou he ideological aul lines and
expec a ions o he e y o de i dis up s. The no ion o spaces o upse can
acco dingly be used o cap u ing mo e o less momen a y mani es a ions o deep-
sea ed sociolinguis ic ensions as hey un old ac oss a ange o mo e o less
dema ca ed con ex s whe e ques ions o language and communica ion occupy
cen al s age. Explo ing his dynamic, he a icles included in his hema ic issue
should be iewed as a se o coun e examples and con a ian e idence o ecei ed
iews o he No dic coun ies as non-an agonis ic and excep ionally ha monious,
p ospe ous and well- unc ional spaces. The con ibu ing au ho s o e a a ie-
ga ed se o analy ical and empi ical engagemen s wi h he uns able no ion o
No dic s abili y. All cen e on he p opensi y o language and communica ion o
become objec s o a enas o social s uggle, apping in o social change as i
mani es s sociolinguis ically. Be o e in oducing he speci ic con ibu ions, we
shall dwell in some de ail on he spa ial aming o his hema ic issue, he No dic
egion, a e which we will unpack he no el concep o spaces o upse .
2 Se ing he scene: cohesion and consensus in
Denma k, Finland and Sweden
The No dic egion encompasses he so e eign s a es o Denma k, Finland, Iceland,
No way and Sweden. As au onomous o e seas e i o ies unde he Danish c own,
he Fa oe Islands and G eenland also o m pa o he egion, as does he Åland
Edi o ial 3
a chipelago, whichcons i u esanau onomous egion o he Republico Finland. The
indigenous Sámi people ha e a a ying deg ee o subna ional poli ical ep esen a ion
in No way, Sweden and Finland. The his o y o he No dic egion con ains many
oubled in e ela ionships, mani es ed in wa s,poli icalunions,conques s,coloni-
za ion and o he ela ions o dominance and subse ience. The no ion o No dic
simila i y is none heless o a mo e ecen da e. Following he Napoleonic Wa s, which
e ec i ely pu an end o he impe ial aspi a ions o Denma k and Sweden, a Roman ic
idea o a sha ed No dic iden i y began o eme ge. I ushe ed in a ision o he No dic
egion as an excep ional case, uni ed by ase o cul u al andlinguis ic commonali ies,
sha ed poli ical in e es s and some imes e en a common a e (Cza ny 2017). This
ision is s ill angible oday, albei in a sligh ly modified o m.
Following Wo ld Wa II, which a ec ed he No dic coun ies in d ama ically
di e en ways, he egion eme ged as a i mly democ a ic space, wi h ew expe-
iences o social uphea al o massi e changes in he poli ical sys em. Ins ead, a
egional s yle o go e nance – he so-called No dic model –which combined
pa liamen a y democ acy, Keynesian capi alism and ex ensi e social wel a e,
became fi mly es ablished ac oss he egion. Yielding no only economic g ow h
bu also a edis ibu ion o weal h, i ga e he so e eign s a es o he egion a
epu a ion as s able ‘consensual democ acies’, se apa by supposedly non-
an agonis ic modes o conflic solu ion and decision-making (Elde e al. 1982;
Pe e sson 1994). The idea o consensus can be unde s ood as a ision o impe -
u bable ag eemen . I is as much imagined as a poli ical cul u e as a ci ic ideal
and a pe sonal i ue. Whe eas di e ences be ween he No dic coun ies exis
(e.g., Kulick and Ryds öm 2015), consensus ea u es as a common ai o No dic
model and i s poli ical mode o communica ion (G øn e al. 2015; Skoge bø e al.
2020). In u n, consensus is conside ed a i al ac o in he collec i e p oduc ion o
‘s abili y’, whe he his s abili y pe ains o poli ical economy, poli ics and cul u e,
o o social o de mo e gene ally. A he his o ical zeni h o his o de , Swedish
poli ical scien is and public in ellec ual He be Tings en (1966: 12) ellingly
dubbed he No dic coun ies “happy democ acies”–uni ed h ough na ional,
linguis ic and eligious cohesion, and supposedly oid o social ensions.
To his day, he egion has an in e na ional epu a ion o s abili y. I is widely
ecognized as a benchma k o he combina ion o economic and social e o m
emblema ic o he mode n wel a e s a e (Kau o e al. 1999). Despi e he onse o a
neolibe al disman ling o public and wel a e ins i u ions, ideas abou egional
s abili y, ha mony and cohesion emain igo ous. The egion is widely seen –and
sees i sel –as a o e unne o high li ing s anda ds, economic g ow h, job secu-
i y, ee educa ion, gende equali y, sus ainabili y and mino i y igh s. Somewha
anecdo ally, all he No dic coun ies a e also held o be among he se en
“happies ”socie ies in he wo ld, as indica ed by high GDP pe capi a, ex ensi e
4Salö e al.

social suppo , long li e expec ancy, subs an ial eedom o make li e choices,
pe sonal gene osi y, us and absence o co up ion (Finland anking fi s ,
Denma k second and Sweden se en h; see Helliwell e al. [2020]). Repo s om
he egional coope a ion o ganiza ion No dic Council o Minis e s –an o ganiza-
ion ha is hea ily in es ed in No dic cohesion and consensus – end o s ess ha
“ he peace ul, democ a ic and inclusi e na u e o ou communi ies helps make ou
socie ies s ong and esilien ”(G un elde e al. 2020: 11). The No dic coun ies
a e o ficially commi ed o becoming he mos sus ainable and in eg a ed egion in
he wo ld by 2030, a goal ha includes “an inclusi e, equal and in e connec ed
egion wi h sha ed alues and s eng hened cul u al exchange and wel a e”
(No dic Council o Minis e s 2020: 2).
I goes wi hou saying ha o e ly shiny images o he No dic coun ies lea e
ou less la e ing ace s o he egion. Visions o a ha monious pas , a happy
p esen and an e e -imp o ing u u e a e necessa ily selec i e. The epu a ion and
sel -unde s anding o he No dic egion as he epi ome o social cohesion and
consensus – he an i hesis o change –has disguised many ensions lu king
benea h he os ensibly s able su aces o hese poli ies. The No dic coun ies
a e ce ainly no spa ed om inequali y, an agonisms and conflic s: inc easing
income gaps, poli ical conflic s, disc imina ion and e e isible xenophobia a e all
cases in poin (He ik 2019; Lo sdó i and Jensen 2012). In Eu opean compa ison,
he gap in he employmen a es be ween o eign-bo n and na i e-bo n esiden s
a e pa icula ly high in Denma k and Sweden (OECD 2020). The adical igh has
seen elec o al success in mos No dic coun ies: a - igh pa ies a e fi mly
es ablished in Sweden, as well as in Denma k and Finland (Wid eld 2018). In
s a k con as o widesp ead ideas o No dic con en men , people su e “in he
shadow o happiness”, as e idenced in disp opo iona ely high suicide a es
(And easson 2018). Ye , he idea o he No dic egion as a space o cohesion and
consensus p e ails. No ions o homogenei y loom la ge, despi e being a odds wi h
social eali y (Keskinen e al. 2019).
By he same oken, despi e a emp s o add nuance and complexi y, ing ained
ideologies o a No dic way each deep in o he ealm o sociolinguis ic a ai s (see
He ik 2019; Hu on 2017; S ang 2016). The No dic coun ies a e hough o as
linguis ically unified poli ies. Despi e widesp ead mul ilingualism, he linguis ic
ma ke o each coun y is domina ed by a na ional s anda d language, which
pe mea es all ie s o socie y (see Vikø 1993; K is iansen and Sandøy 2010; K is-
iansen and Coupland 2011). Wi h espec o egional linguis ic cohesion, he
con inen al Scandina ian na ional s anda d languages –Danish, Swedish and
No wegian –a e mu ually in elligible. While he ansna ional in elligibili y does
no ex end o Finnish and Icelandic, no o Fa oese and G eenlandic, Swedish is
one o he wo na ional languages o Finland, and Danish is augh in Iceland, as
Edi o ial 5
well as in he Fa oe Islands and G eenland. As language, ideological ep esen a-
ions, consensus and uni y a e simila ly emblema ized in linguis ic conflic
a oidance, enuncia i e mode a ion, ac ulness, s a egic silence, hedging and
e en non-engagemen (Kulick 2014; Øs e gaa d 2002; see also No dic Voices 1984).
In ac , e en i he e exis s no consensus, a semblance o ag eemen and ha mony
may s ill be discu si ely pe o med (e.g., Jenkins 2016). Such pe o mances may,
oo, be concei ed o as consensus and hus a e implica ed in he cons uc ion o
No dic idyll. The idea o No dic noi has sociological –and indeed sociolinguis ic –
ele ance.
Again, i mus be emembe ed ha appa en la ge-scale commonali ies a ely
co espond o he si ua ed eali ies o sociolinguis ic li e. Nei he a e hey uni-
o mly s uc u ed no e enly dis ibu ed ac oss egions and s a es. The disc ep-
ancies and di e ences be ween he No dic coun ies do indeed equi e some
u he con ex ualiza ion. We ou line hese below, o e ing some ele an poin e s
on he his o ical, poli ical and, no leas , sociolinguis ic con ou s o each coun y
co e ed he e, adding necessa y backg ound o he a icles included in his issue.
2.1 Denma k
In medie al imes, Denma k was a majo powe o subs an ial size con olling he
a ea a ound he Bal ic Sea. Howe e , a numbe o wa s los in 1600–1900 signi -
ican ly educed he coun y’s size. In his way, Denma k is an old mona chy wi h a
ela i ely new s a us as a peace ul pocke s a e ha needs o adjus o s onge
powe s. Remaining neu al in Wo ld Wa I and adhe ing o a so-called “policy o
collabo a ion”when occupied by Ge many in Wo ld Wa II, Denma k came ela-
i ely unha med ou o bo h. An inc easingly s ong Danish esis ance mo emen
owa ds he end o Wo ld Wa II sa ed Denma k’s epu a ion in he eyes o he
ic o ious side. On a na ional le el, he s o ies abou hese “ eedom igh e s”ha e
become a my h (see S enius e al. [2011] o a compa ison on No dic na a i es).
In he 1950s, he cons uc ion o uni ied Danish people aking ca e o each
o he was s eng hened by he inc eased poli ical ocus on public wel a e,whe e,
o example, ax- unded heal h se ices and social secu i y benefi s we e consid-
e ed ci il igh s. The economic boom in he 1960s made i possible o ca y ou
many o hese isions o a wel a e s a e. Today he idea o public wel a e has been
na u alized ac oss he ange o poli ical pa ies om le o igh . Gene ally, Danes
conside hei wel a e sys em unique compa ed o coun ies ou side Scandina ia,
and i is some imes e e ed o as he Danish model (Øs e gaa d 2002). In his way,
he wel a e sys em has become synonymous wi h Danishness in he eyes o many
Danish ci izens (e.g., Jenkins 2016). Poli ically, he wel a e p og am was connec ed
6Salö e al.
o he a i al o a wa e o mig an s in he la e 1960s and 1970s. Men om Tu key,
Pakis an and he o me Yugosla ia we e welcomed in o he labo o ce in o de o
enhance he economic boom. The poli ical expec a ion was ha hey would lea e
when he wo k possibili ies we e exhaus ed, bu many o he mig an s chose o se le
in Denma k wi h hei amilies. Consequen ly, he go e nmen in oduced s ic e
ules on immig a ion, bu s ill accep ed e ugees, eunifica ion o amilies, and
wo ke s u ilizing he ee mo emen o labo wi hin he EU. Today 14% o he popu-
la ion in Denma k consis s o immig an s and hei descendan s. Since he a i al o
he fi s wa e o mig an s, Danish poli icians ha e deba ed o wha deg ee and how
his g oup should ha e access o wel a e benefi s (Pado an-Özdemi and Molden-
hawe 2016). Language has been a cen al componen in many o hese deba es. To
wha deg ee should, o example, he public school sys em in eg a e mino i y lan-
guages (K is jánsdó i 2018; Leh onen and Mølle his issue)? And how does he legal
sys em handle (and finance) in e p e ing in cases whe e he accused does no speak
Danish (Ka ebæk and Ki ilo a his issue)? Ano he cha ac e is ic o he cons uc ion
o Danishness is he no ion o hygge – he abili y and esponsibili y o c ea e coziness
and social well-being. Recen ly, social media and especially mobile phones ha e been
cons uc ed in public discou se as a h ea o hygge in, e.g., amilies and ela ionships.
Madsen ( his issue) in es iga es how an eminen oice in his public deba e cons uc s
digi alcommunica ionasa badhabi ha no onlycons i u esa isk osocial ela ions,
bu also o heheal ho heindi idual.
2.2 Finland
Unlike Denma k and Sweden, Finland lacks a his o y as a o me empi e. I gained
independence ela i ely ecen ly (1917), ollowing cen u ies o impe ial “ o eign
ule”, i s as a pa o Sweden and la e as pa o he Russian empi e. A sho bu
b u al ci il wa b oke ou in ea ly 1918, di iding he na ion in o conse a i e
“whi es”(suppo ed, in pa , by he Ge mans) and he socialis “ eds”, associa ed
wi h he labo mo emen . Reconcilia ion and euni ica ion a e he wa was a
p olonged p ocess. A na ionally “uni ed on ”, an iconic example o he Finnish
spi i o communal collabo a ion, eme ged, o ins ance, in he Win e Wa agains
he So ie Union (1939–1940) (Tepo a and Roselius 2014), as well as in he na ional
consensusin hecons uc iono he wel a e s a e, he eacho which encompassed
all public ins i u ions. In he decades a e Wo ld Wa II, in he spi i o na ional
consensus, Finland managed o e ol e in o a coun y cha ac e ized by social
secu i y, equali y and democ a ic go e nance. In e na ionally, Finland is nowa-
days well known o he high le el o i s echnological know-how and public
educa ion. Fo ins ance, i has been anked as one o he op coun ies o yea s
Edi o ial 7
bo h in The In e na ional Digi al Economy and Socie y Index (Foley e al. 2021) and
in he U21 anking o na ional highe educa ion sys ems (William and Leahy 2020).
In con as o o he No dic coun ies, and la gely due o i s s ic immig a ion
policies, Finland was long a coun y o emig a ion, a he han o immig a ion. Thus, i
also emained e hnically, cul u ally and linguis ically a he homogeneous, a leas on
he su ace. Benea h, he di e si y concealed a ious long- e m linguis ic and e hnic
mino i y g oups including he Sámi, Roma, Russian-o igin mino i ies and Swedish-
speaking Finns. F om he 1990s onwa ds, and, in pa icula , a e he enla gemen o
he Eu opean Union in 2004 (Rapo 2011) and he Eu opean “ e ugee ecep ion c isis”in
2015, his pic u e o s a ic homogenei y s a ed o change: a his poin , a la ge -scale
immig a ion o Finland p ope ly began. Cu en ly, people wi h a “ o eign backg ound”
cons i u e some 7% o all people inhabi ing Finland, wi h oughly hal li ing in he
Helsinki me opoli an a ea. Cu en ly, he la ges e hnic g oups esiding in Finland a e
people om he o me So ie Union o Russia, Es onians, I aqis and Somalis. Besides
fi s -gene a ion immig an s, he e a e some70,000secondgene a ionpeoplewi ha
“ o eign backg ound”, i.e., people bo n in Finland, which means ha e e y six h
pe son wi h a “ o eign backg ound”was bo n in Finland. Despi e his di e sifica ion o
he socie y, as well as i s long- e m e hnic and cul u al mino i ies, whi e, Finnish-
speaking e hnic Finnishness is s ill seen by many as he no m (Keskinen e al. 2019;
Ras as 2012). Recen ly, he my h o homogenei y has, howe e , clashed wi h he
e ol ing mul icul u ali y and mul ie hnici y o Finnish socie y, igge ing upse s ha
ange om deba es o poli ical, social and educa ional e o m o public p o es s,
xenophobic and acis p ac ices and discou ses, and conflic ual and dispa aging social
media eac ions. Such ensions a e a he cen e in bo h he analysis o class oom
in e ac ions in es iga ed by Leh onen and Mølle ( his issue) and he social media
pe o mances ocusedoninLeppänen’sandWes inen’s analysis ( his issue).
Sociolinguis ically speaking, since 1922, Finland has o icially been bilingual,
wi h wo na ional languages, Finnish and Swedish. Cu en ly, ou o he 5.5 million
ci izens, 87.3% s a e ha Finnish is hei i s language; o 5.2% i is Swedish.
Swedish is o e ed as an obliga o y second language o Finnish-speaking s uden s
and ice e sa. The language igh s o he o icial mino i ies a e p o ec ed by he
Finnish cons i u ion; i ensu es ha he h ee Sámi languages, as well as Roma,
Ka elian and Finnish Sign Language, a e o be main ained and de eloped. Many
membe s o mino i ized linguis ic communi ies a e bilingual o mul ilingual,
ha ing ei he Finnish o Swedish as hei fi s language. Wi h he ecen
demog aphic di e sifica ion, he numbe o languages spoken in he coun y
has inc eased conside ably: in 2019, he e we e app oxima ely 400,000 “ o eign
language speake s”in Finland, compa ed o oughly 25,000 in 1990 and abou
200,000 in 2009. The op fi e o eign languages spoken in Finland include
Russian, Es onian, A abic, English and Somali.
8Salö e al.
socie ies mo e gene ally. Madsen’s analysis shows how eluc ance and skep icism
a e ea icula ed by a medical au ho i y, and how his in e en ion becomes a
powe ul means o en o cing communica i e no ms, in oking no ions o dis u -
bance o no mali y and lack o con ol. This mode o panic e ec i ely aps in o
people’s p i a e conce ns –in pa icula o hei amilies’well-being and sa e y.
Mo e b oadly, Madsen demons a es how he no ion o upse can se e as a con-
cep ual ame o cases and opics lying beyond he poli ics o di e ence.
In he inal a icle, Leppänen and Wes inen explo e how he ipple e ec s o
socie al deba es on in eg a ion and belonging seep in o g ass oo social media
p ac ices, whe e upse in he o m o ha e speech can be exp essed and deba ed in
mo e di ec ways han in mo e adi ional media. In hei case, howe e , social
media is shown o unc ion as an a ena o in e oga ing and coun e ing such
upse . He e, language- ela ed upse is in es iga ed specifically in wo social media
ideos by pe o me s o colo . Thei fi s case ocuses on a job applican whose
supposedly unin elligible he e ogeneous language is ansla ed using an app.
Thei second case deals wi h a logge who in es iga es and c i iques acis
ema ks, and, in pa icula , hei poo linguis ic o m. In bo h cases, upse is
c ucially ela ed o he en anglemen o language(s) in e wined wi h he (im)
possibili y o belonging o e hnic and/o acial mino i ies. The a icle shows how
pe o me s o colo ake cen e s age in social media o hei ca ni alis ye c i ical
pe o mances ha challenge he supposed no ma i e o de o whi e Finnishness
and he language o which i claims o ha e sole owne ship.
The issue closes wi h a commen a y by Monica Helle , who o e s a h ee-
dimensional, dialogic eading o he con ibu ions, con ex ualizing he No dic
cases in ela ion o globally pe asi e hemes: he legacy o empi e, he du abili y
o acial doc ines, he ad en o pos /neocolonialism, and he No h as on ie .
These op ics –we ag ee wi h Helle –place he No dic cases in a mo e expansi e
social and his o ical ame. As gues edi o s, we sha e he hope ha hey –jus like
he cases, amewo ks and analyses p esen ed in he a icles –“e en ually allow
o he ex ension o he p oblema ics poin ed o in his issue o he ob ious nex
places o examine”(Helle his issue). As an analy ical no ion, hen, spaces o
upse may se e well o de ec and g asp dis up ions o du able sociolinguis ic
o de s –in he No dic egion and beyond.
Resea ch unding: This wo k is suppo ed by he Join Commi ee o No dic
Resea ch Councils o he Humani ies and he Social Sciences (NOS-HS) unded by
2016-00270/NOS-HS.
Edi o ial 15

Re e ences
Ahmed, Sa a. 2004. The cul u al poli ics o emo ion. Edinbu gh: Edinbu gh Uni e si y P ess.
Ande son, Benedic . 1983. Imagined communi ies: Reflec ions on he o igin and sp ead o
na ionalism. London: Ve so.
Ande sson, Jenny. 2009. No dic nos algia and No dic ligh . The Swedish model as U opia
1930–2007. Scandina ian Jou nal o His o y 34(3). 229–245.
And easson, Ul . 2018. In he shadow o happiness. Copenhagen: No dic Council o Minis e s.
Blommae , Jan, Si pa Leppänen, Päi i Pah a & Tiina Räisänen (eds.). 2012. Dange ous
mul ilingualism. No he n pe spec i es on o de , pu i y and no mali y. Basings oke:
Palg a e Macmillan.
Bo e i, Ka in. 2012. Sweden: The flagship o mul icul u alism. In G e e B ochmann &
Anniken Hagelund (eds.), Immig a ion policy and he Scandina ian wel a e s a e 1945–2010,
25–96. New Yo k: Palg a e.
Bou dieu, Pie e. 1992. The logic o p ac ice. S an o d: S an o d Uni e si y P ess.
B ochmann, G e e & Anniken Hagelund (eds.). 2012. Immig a ion policy and he Scandina ian
wel a e s a e 1945–2010. New Yo k: Palg a e.
Bys öm, Mikael & Pä F ohne (eds.). 2013. Reaching a s a e o hope. Re ugees, immig an s and
he Swedish wel a e s a e, 1930–2000. Lund: No dic Academic P ess.
Childs, Ma quis W. 1936. Sweden: The middle way. London: Fabe & Fabe .
C esswell, Tim. 2003. Landscape and he obli e a ion o p ac ice. In Kay Ande son, Mona Domosh,
Pile S e e & Nigel Th i (eds.), Handbook o cul u al geog aphy, 269–282. London: Sage.
C esswell, Tim. 2014. Mobili ies III: Mo ing on. P og ess in Human Geog aphy 38(5). 712–721.
C esswell, Tim. 2019. Maxwell S ee : W i ing and hinking place. Chicago: Uni e si y o Chicago
P ess.
C esswell, Tim & C aig Ma in. 2012. On u bulence: En anglemen o diso de and o de on a
De on beach. Tijdk i o Economische en Sociale Geog afie103(5). 516–529.
Cza ny, Rysza d M. 2017. A mode n No dic saga: Poli ics, economy and socie y. Cham: Sp inge .
Duchêne, Alexand e & Monica Helle (eds.). 2012. Language in la e capi alism: P ide and p ofi .
New Yo k: Rou ledge.
Eye man, Ron. 1985. Ra ionalizing in ellec uals. Sweden in he 1930s and 1940s. Theo y and
Socie y 14(6). 777–807.
Elde , Neil, Alis ai H. Thomas & Da id A e . 1982. The consensual democ acies? Go e nmen and
poli ics o he Scandina ian s a es. Ox o d: Ma in Robe son.
Foley, Paul, Da id Su on, Richa d Po e , Selina Pa el & Alexand a Gemmell. 2021. 2020
In e na ional Digi al Economy and Socie y Index –SMART 2019/0087. Luxembou g:
Publica ions O fice o he Eu opean Union.
G øn, Ca oline Howa d, Pe e Nede gaa d & Ande s Wi el (eds.). 2015. The No dic coun ies and
he Eu opean Union: S ill he o he Eu opean communi y? New Yo k: Rou ledge.
G un elde , Julien, Gus a No lén, Linda Randall & No a Sánchez Gassen (eds.). 2020. S a e o he
No dic egion. Copenhagen: The No dic Council o Minis e s.
Helle , Monica. 2008. Language and he na ion-s a e: Challenges o sociolinguis ic heo y and
p ac ice. Jou nal o Sociolinguis ics 12(4). 504–524.
Helle , Monica. 2011. Pa hs o pos -na ionalism. A c i ical e hnog aphy o language and iden i y.
Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
16 Salö e al.
Helle , Monica, Lindsey A. Bell, Michelle Da eluy, Mi iam McLaughlin & Noël Hube . 2016.
Sus aining he na ion: The making and mo ing o language and na ion. Ox o d: Ox o d
Uni e si y P ess.
Helle , Monica & Bonnie McElhinny. 2017. Language, capi alism, colonialism. To on o: To on o
Uni e si y P ess.
Helliwell, John F., Richa d Laya d, Je ey D. Sachs & Jan-Emmanuel De Ne e (eds.). 2020. Wo ld
Happiness Repo 2020. New Yo k: Sus ainable De elopmen Solu ions Ne wo k.
He ik, Pe e (ed.). 2019. Racializa ion, acism, and an i- acism in he No dic coun ies. New Yo k:
Palg a e Macmillan.
Hi dman, Y onne. 2010. The happy 30s: A sho s o y o social enginee ing and gende o de in
Sweden. In Helena Ma sson & S en-Olo Wallens ein (eds.), Swedish mode nism:
A chi ec u e, consump ion and he wel a e s a e,66–71. London: Black Dog.
Husse l, Edmund. 1970 [1936]. The c isis o Eu opean sciences and anscenden al
phenomenology. E ans on: No hwes e n Uni e si y P ess.
Hu on, Ch is ophe . 2017. Racial ideology as eli e discou se: No dicism and he isual in an age o
mass cul u e. Social Semio ics 27(3). 335–347.
Jenkins, Richa d. 2016. Being Danish. Pa adoxes o iden i y in e e yday li e. Copenhagen: Museum
Tusculanum P ess.
Ka lande , Da id. 2021. Ci ies o sociolinguis ics. Social Semio ics 31(1). 177–193.
Kau o, Mikko, Ma i Heikkila, Bjö n H inden, S a an Ma klund & Niels Ploug (eds.). 1999. No dic
social policy: Changing wel a e s a es. New Yo k: Rou ledge.
Keskinen, Su i, Unnu Dís Skap adó i & Ma i Toi anen (eds.). 2019. Undoing homogenei y in he
No dic egion. Mig a ion, di e ence, and he poli ics o solida i y. New Yo k: Rou ledge.
Ki is o, Pe e & Ös en Wahlbeck (eds.). 2013. Deba ing mul icul u alism in he No dic wel a e
s a es. New Yo k: Palg a e.
K is iansen, To e & Nikolas Coupland (eds.). 2011. S anda d languages and language s anda ds
in a changing Eu ope. Oslo: No us P ess.
K is iansen, To e & Helge Sandøy, (eds.). 2010. The linguis ic consequences o globaliza ion: The
No dic coun ies. In e na ional Jou nal o he Sociology o Language 204. 1–172.
K is jánsdó i , Be g ho a. 2018. Uddannelsespoli ik i na ionalismens egn [Educa ional policy in
he ligh o na ionalism]. Aa hus: Aa hus Uni e si e s o lag.
Kulick, Don. 2014. Danes call people wi h down synd ome ‘mongol’: Poli ically inco ec language
and e hical engagemen . In Ma ie B u ik Heinskou & Mo en Emme ik Wøldike (eds.), Byen
og blikke s lys : es sk i il Henning Bech,85–105. Copenhagen: Cen um o
Seksuali e s o skning.
Kulick, Don & Jens Ryds öm. 2015. Loneliness and i s opposi e. Sex, disabili y, and he e hics o
engagemen . Du ham: Duke Uni e si y P ess.
Lewin, Lei . 1998. Majo i a ian and consensus democ acy: The Swedish expe ience. Scandina ian
Poli ical S udies 21(3). 195–206.
Lo sdó i , K is ín & La s Jensen (eds.). 2012. Whi eness and pos colonialism in he No dic egion.
Excep ionalism, mig an o he s and na ional iden i ies. New Yo k: Rou ledge.
Madsen, Lian Malai, Ma ha Si Ka ebæk & Janus Spindle Mølle (eds.). 2015. E e yday
languaging. Collabo a i e esea ch on he language use o child en and you h. Be lin &
New Yo k: Mou on de G uy e .
Massey, Do een. 2005. Fo space. London: Sage.
Milani, Tommaso M. 2020. No-go zones in Sweden. The in ec ious communicabili y o e il.
Language, Cul u e and Socie y 2(1). 7–36.
Edi o ial 17
Milani, Tommaso M. & John E. Richa dson, (eds.). 2021. Discou se and a ec . Social Semio ics
31(5). 671–804.
No dic Council o Minis e s. 2020. The No dic egion –Towa ds being he mos sus ainable and
in eg a ed egion in he wo ld. Ac ion Plan o 2021 o 2024. Copenhagen: The No dic Council
o Minis e s.
No dic Voices. 1984. Special Issue o Daedalus 113(2), 1–277. Camb idge: The MIT P ess and
Ame ican Academy o A s & Sciences.
OECD. 2020. In e na ional mig a ion ou look 2020. Pa is: OECD Publishing.
Øs e gaa d, U e. 2002. Dansk iden i e – olk, s a , na ion, sp og og ki ke. [Danish iden i y -
people, s a e, na ion, language and chu ch]. In Anne e Le che T olle, Me e e Ipsen,
Michael S een Hansen & Jens Tho hauge (eds.), He a min e den gå . Dansk iden i e i
o id, nu id og em id,21–30. Vejle: Sammenslu ningen a Lokala ki e .
Pado an-Özdemi , Ma a & Bole e Moldenhawe . 2016. Making p eca ious mig an amilies and
wea ing he well- a e na ion-s a e ab ic 1970–2010. Race, E hnici y and Educa ion 20(6).
723–736.
Pe e sson, Olo . 1994. The go e nmen and poli ics o he No dic coun ies. S ockholm: F i z.
Rapo, Ma kus. 2011. Kuka on maahanmuu aja [Who is an immig an ]. Tie o ja T endi 1. Helsinki:
S a is ics Finland.
Ras as, Anna. 2012. Reading his o y h ough Finnish excep ionalism. In K is ín Lo sdó i &
La s Jensen (eds.), Whi eness and pos colonialism in he No dic egion: Excep ionalism,
mig an o he s and na ional iden i ies,89–103. New Yo k: Rou ledge.
Riksdagen. 1965. Riksdagens p o okoll 13 ö s a kamma en [Minu es fi s chambe 13]. S ockholm:
S e iges Riksdag. Ma ch 23–24.
Ru h, A ne. 1984. The second new na ion: The my hology o mode n Sweden. Daedalus 113(2).
53–96.
Salö, Linus, Na alia Ganuza, Ch is ina Hedman & Ma ha Si Ka ebæk. 2018. Mo he ongue
ins uc ion in Sweden and Denma k. Language policy, c oss-field e ec s, and linguis ic
exchange a es. Language Policy 17(4). 591–610.
Salö, Linus & Da id Ka lande . 2018. Semilingualism: The li e and a e li e o a sociolinguis ic
idea. U ban Language & Li e acies 247. 1–14.
Skoge bø, Eli, Øy ind Ihlen, Ne e Nø gaa d K is ensen & La s No d (eds.). 2020. Powe ,
communica ion, and poli ics in he No dic coun ies. Go henbu g: No dicom.
Spi ak, Gaya i C. 1999. A c i ique o pos colonial eason: Towa d a his o y o he anishing
p esen . Camb idge: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess.
S enius, Hen ik, Mi ja Ös e be g & Johan Ös ling (eds.). 2011. No dic na a i es o he Second
Wo ld Wa : Na ional his o iog aphies e isi ed. Lund: No dic Academic P ess.
S ang, Johan. 2016. No dic coope a ion: A Eu opean egion in ansi ion. New Yo k: Rou ledge.
S oud, Ch is ophe . 2016. Tu bulen linguis ic landscapes and he semio ics o ci izenship. In
Robe Blackwood, Elizabe h Lanza & Hi u Woldema iam (eds.), Nego ia ing and con es ing
iden i ies in linguis ic landscapes. London: Bloomsbu y.
Taylo , Cha les. 2004. Mode n social imagina ies. Du ham: Duke Uni e si y P ess.
Tepo a, Tuomas & Aapo Roselius (eds.). 2014. Finnish ci il wa 1918. His o y, memo y, legacy.
Bos on: B ill.
Thompson, John B. 1984. S udies in he heo y o ideology. Be keley: Uni e si y o Cali o nia P ess.
Th i , Nigel. 2004. In ensi ies o eeling: Towa ds a spa ial poli ics o a ec . Geog afiska Annale .
Se ies B, Human Geog aphy 86(1). 57–78.
18 Salö e al.
Tings en, He be . 1955. S abili y and i ali y in Swedish democ acy. The Poli ical Qua e ly 26(2).
140–151.
Tings en, He be . 1966. F ån idée ill idyll. Den lyckliga demok a ien [F om ideas o idyll: The
happy democ acy]. S ockholm: No s ed s.
Vikø , La s S. 1993. The No dic languages. Thei s a us and in e ela ions. Oslo: No us P ess.
Wee, Lionel & Robbie Goh. 2020. Language, space and cul u al play: Theo ising a ec in he
semio ic landscape. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Wid eld , Ande s. 2018. The adical igh in he No dic coun ies. In Jens Rydg en (ed.), The Ox o d
handbook o he adical igh . Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
Wilce, James M. 2009. C ying shame me acul u e. Mode ni y, and he exagge a ed dea h o
lamen . Ox o d: Blackwell.
William, Ross & Anne Leahy. 2020. U21 anking o na ional highe educa ion Sys ems 2020.
Melbou ne: Uni e si y o Melbou ne.
Ze e be g, Hans L. 1984. The a ional humani a ians. Daedalus 113(1). 75–92.
Edi o ial 19