Author: Anders Hagfeldt (Page 1 of 4)

A few days ago, Jürgen Habermas passed away. He was one of the major philosophers of our time, and two years ago (2024) he was awarded the Skytte Prize for his outstanding contributions, for having “constantly reminded us, theoretically and empirically, that the very lifeblood of democracy depends on human capacity and willingness to respect others by means of communicative action and on that basis to engage in critical argumentation and discourse”.

One of his insights that I have tried to take to heart is to listen to the argument itself, regardless of who is making it. 

Another concerns the trust between us: the way in which society is based on our ability to agree and to trust one another, and that trust in turn depends on daring and being able to speak honestly. 

Many people bear witness to Habermas’s great significance. I believe that the most important thing we can do to honour his memory is to try to take his message to heart. 

I have asked Li Bennich-Björkman, holder of the Skytte Chair at the Department of Government and chair of the Skytte Prize Committee, to write a guest blog post about Habermas, his influence on the world, politics, philosophical and political discourse, and Uppsala University. 

---

Surrounded by – language and discourse: the legacy of Habermas  

A long time ago, I read The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. The title was not exactly inviting, but the analysis of the emergence of a reading, writing and discussing bourgeoisie in Western Europe from the 18th century onwards made a lasting impression on me. In the discussions that began to take place in bourgeois society as the power of the church and the court waned during the 18th century, people sought to connect with one another and acquaint themselves with each other’s worldviews. The emergence of this type of dialogue is closely linked to the growth of literacy and the ability to engage with texts in the press and literature. Language is the unique human means of communication.

The author, Jürgen Habermas, passed away last week. In 2024, he was awarded the Johan Skytte Prize in Political Science. He was 94 at the time, still active as a writer and, in his native Germany, a giant of a public intellectual – ‘the philosopher’, quite simply. Would he come to Uppsala to receive the award? Would he be up to it? Those of us involved in the award fervently hoped so. Many people contacted us, keen to be there in the Grand Auditorium and listen to him. Habermas was a giant in Sweden too; he had influenced several generations of scholars and intellectuals across a range of disciplines.

Jürgen Habermas was born in 1929. He had a cleft palate and underwent surgery immediately after birth. When he was five, he had another operation. The outcome was better, but he retained a speech impediment all his life. This seems to have led him, from an early age, to reflect on the importance of verbal communication – the way in which people connect with one another and achieve genuine understanding, and sometimes mutual recognition.

As with so many other award winners, there is often a link between personal experience and the research questions a person asks. Many decades later, these experiences found expression in his magnum opus The Theory of Communicative Action. Here, he draws a clear distinction between an instrumental approach to communication – intended to persuade – and communicative action, which aims to understand the other person’s starting point, their questions, criticisms or beliefs.The instrumental approach can be exemplified by Simona Mohamsson’s repeated declaration: “We are taking responsibility for Sweden.” If she had just once added: “And now I’d like to know what you, my members, think,” that would have changed the situation. According to Habermas, this could constitute the beginning of non-hierarchical communication aimed at bringing people closer together.

Habermas’s long life meant that he personally experienced much of Germany’s and Europe’s modern history. Born in 1929, at a time when the Nazis were gaining strength and their leader Adolf Hitler was soon to become Chancellor, he was a child during the period of increasing Nazi brutality. In the post-war period, Germany was a devastated and morally compromised country that only began to come to terms with its own history after many years had passed. The bloody revolt of the 1970s, epitomised by the Baader-Meinhof Group, was directed against the silence of the older generation and demonstrated what a lack of communication could lead to. However, Habermas also witnessed the almost miraculous transformation of German political culture which made the country a leading force in the peace project that is the European Union. It is therefore entirely reasonable to describe Habermas as a European.

He was shaped not only by history, but also by a European intellectual tradition that now almost feels like a distant memory – a tradition in which disciplinary boundaries were not dominant, but in which a more holistic view of knowledge about humanity and its condition prevailed. Remaining faithful to this tradition, which draws on thinkers such as Karl Marx, Émile Durkheim, Max Weber and Norbert Elias, Habermas made decisive contributions to our understanding of both the emergence of the European public sphere and the question of what ultimately makes democracy possible.

Jürgen Habermas never made it to Uppsala. He had bought a ticket, but at the last minute his wife fell ill. When we spoke, his disappointment struck me as genuine. In the Grand Auditorium, it was his granddaughter, Antonie Habermas, who accepted the award on his behalf. She read the speech he had prepared to a moved and solemn audience.

I will let Jürgen Habermas’s own words bring these reflections to a close. His deep concern that the vibrant and thoughtful public sphere which breathes life into democracy is withering away is evident:

“In such a public sphere, it must be possible for a range of competing yet sufficiently well-founded and carefully considered public opinions to emerge on relevant issues that require political decisions. Today, even the historical forms in which national public spheres have developed are beginning to break down. They are no longer inclusive, but risk disintegrating into fragmented and specialised public spheres that are either torn apart on a global scale or semi-privatised at a local level.

“The deliberative aspect of the democratic decision-making process is currently under threat from another quarter as well. I am referring to the phenomenon of right-wing populism, which still appears to be on the rise in the US and in the core countries of old Europe. But rather than jumping to conclusions, we should acknowledge that we have not yet fully grasped this worrying phenomenon.”

Li Bennich-Björkman

The new year has started and the spring semester will soon be in full swing. Clear evidence that most people are back at work appeared recently when a consultation response from Uppsala University received an unusual amount of attention in the media and social media. It was all about the committee report En kulturkanon för Sverige, betänkande (A cultural canon for Sweden; SOU 2025:92). Behind the formal title lies a consultation response from some of our foremost experts in the area. The work on consultations is important. Every year, many of our committed staff members help the University – and ultimately Sweden – with consultation responses. They all deserve to be noticed. 

Many people are actually unaware that the University responds to well over a hundred consultations every year, primarily from the Swedish Government Offices and other public authorities. Just to illustrate this, on the same occasion that I signed the consultation response mentioned above, I put my name as Vice-Chancellor to five other responses. The reason why we prioritise this activity is closely bound up with the democratic system we have and uphold in Sweden. The consultations are a way of obtaining opinions from relevant bodies on the consequences a proposal could have if it is implemented, besides which they promote broader participation in public debate. The fact that Uppsala University responds to so many consultations has to do with our breadth, our comprehensive research expertise, but also with our importance for the general development of society.

In this context, I would like to draw attention to the current debate concerning the great challenges sometimes posed by the consultation procedure. In some cases, so little time has been allowed for answering complicated questions that authorities have refrained from delivering a statement, not because of a lack of interest but because it is impossible to do the job with the necessary conditions. Here, serious improvements are needed. Otherwise there is a great risk of bad legislation and poorly considered decisions. 

The point is, the existing system is worth defending. Despite high demands and a shortage of time, we see the importance of well-prepared consultation responses at the University and when I read all the consultations and statements before signing as Vice-Chancellor, I often think that we ought to do more to enhance the visibility of this extensive and important activity. That is one of the reasons why I am writing this blog post. With this note, I hope that more people will become aware of our work on consultations and that more people will take the opportunity to thank all those who contribute their expertise to statements on the proposals drawn up by Swedish authorities. Their work, your work, makes our society and our democracy better.  

Today I will be visiting the Ministry of Education and Research in Stockholm on behalf of Uppsala University and the Association of Swedish Higher Education Institutions, to present our reactions to the next Horizon Europe programme (2028–2034) – the proposal put forward by the European Commission for EU investments in research and innovation.

Although the proposal looks good, there is an inevitable need for improvements. Seven of the largest university networks in Brussels are about to present a joint proposal for amendments. There is a strong consensus.

One of the points we raise is that basic research must be given a stronger position. It is important to emphasise that innovation and long-term research investments must grow out of the realisation that it is basic research that will generate the major differences for the future.

The Draghi report was an eye-opener for many. It emphasises that investments in research and education are a key success factor for Europe and our part of the world. 

In its new proposal, the Commission wants to remove the ban on projects with dual-use (civil and military) potential but the proposal does not clearly show how to ensure in practice that restrictions are proportionate and balanced against unwanted side effects. These include the consequences for academic freedom, open science, excellence, international cooperation and how to evaluate researchers’ work when projects are not allowed to publish openly. 

We also see a lack of clarity on how university alliances, such as ENLIGHT, will be financed and strengthened in the long term.

Although much of the proposal is good, a great deal of work remains to be done to strike a good balance in FP10 and we will continue to monitor the issues closely and pursue them through COIMBRA and The Guild.

On Monday we had a seminar on academic freedom that made the news. The media attention was due to the fact that the seminar was interrupted by demonstrators who wanted Swedish universities to condemn Israel and suspend all cooperation with universities and researchers in Israel. A message that started out reasoned, but which gradually escalated, especially outside the room, to become cruder, less nuanced and more hostile towards the state of Israel and its people.

I have asked Professor Linda Wedlin, Director of the Democracy and Higher Education Research Programme, who was one of the organisers of the seminar, to give her views on Monday’s events.

* * * * *

Our thematic week on academic freedom is the envy of colleagues at other universities, both in Sweden and abroad. The opportunity to engage with an important but difficult issue, and to discuss in depth and reflect together is indeed enviable. This year, we have chosen to focus on international perspectives on academic freedom, and we have heard about experiences from Africa, the United States, Hungary, India and Turkey, and reflected on how Sweden compares with our European neighbours.

On Monday afternoon, it was time for vice-chancellors and a former minister of education to take the floor in the Humanities Theatre for a discussion on how Swedish higher education institutions exercise their academic freedom in practice. It was this conversation that was interrupted by loud, but in part eloquent, protesters. The statement read out, and respectfully listened to by our audience, was largely articulate, thoughtful, and very clearly important. Unfortunately, however, the message was drowned out by the chaos that filled the theatre and later the corridor outside.

The protesters wanted to express their opinion. That is quite understandable. It is important to feel that people are listening to you. However, certain conditions have to be met. One is to be prepared to listen to other people’s arguments and points of view, not just to state your own. Another is to respect that it is possible to differ. Regardless of the position we take individually or as a group on a particular issue, we can all learn something from discussing, arguing and reflecting together.

The importance of a nuanced and respectful debate is perhaps especially vital to remember when discussing difficult and emotive issues. Just a few days earlier, a party leader in the Swedish Parliament had announced her resignation, citing threats and hatred related to her role in the public debate. Perhaps this accentuated the discomfort many of us experienced inside and outside the theatre this day.

The disruption inside and outside the theatre made it impossible for a while to go through with the conversation as planned. The theatre was evacuated. During the evacuation, a colleague asked me discreetly whether any of the vice-chancellors might be willing to talk to the protesters? I went so far as to reply that everyone on the panel was prepared to talk as well as listen. But who were they to talk to? The moderator’s invitation to dialogue while we were still in the theatre was immediately waved aside; later attempts by others to engage outside the theatre were similarly futile. How can we engage in dialogue with people who do not want dialogue?

Providing a space for open conversations on difficult issues is one of the ambitions of the research programme, and one of the democratic missions of universities. Such conversations require good conditions: wise and well-prepared panellists, an engaged and knowledgeable moderator ready to ask critical and incisive questions, an interested audience. In that respect, we were ready. The stage was set. The issue of the responsibility and voice of universities in public debate, including on Israel and Palestine, was on the agenda. It was a shame it did not work out as planned. It is even more of a shame that the group that disrupted us was unable to perceive the opportunities that were actually offered in that room at that time – the opportunities for dialogue, new insights and perspectives, and perhaps also a chance for greater mutual understanding. The conversation we eventually managed to have was good and important. With academic freedom comes great responsibility, including the responsibility to stand up for values and principles that are important to us and to society. When, where and how to do this is not obvious. These are things we need to discuss, a lot, often and with many people. One of my own conclusions from the week is that we need to do a better job of engaging colleagues, students and the public on issues of academic freedom. And we need to continue providing spaces for open conversations on difficult issues. The challenge, of course, is to do this if the spaces we offer no longer feel safe.

Uppsala University was founded 548 years ago. We are celebrating that today and in two years it will be time for a more major celebration. Anniversaries are special days. We gather to recognise important milestones, personal and collective, we pause and reflect. Then we move on. Traditions can sometimes be perceived as backward-looking and conservative, but to my mind, it’s a matter of remembering where we come from, honouring the past and looking to the future. Perhaps not carrying straight on from history, but certainly moving forward towards new insights. 

When the celebrations are over, I will go home and pack my bag. The last blog was about a trip to the United States. That trip has already resulted in meetings between some of our spin-off companies and representatives of the US Chamber of Commerce, and discussions are under way on deeper collaborations alongside those we already have in law and other areas. It’s looking promising. 

This time, I will be travelling to China where we will make study visits to several different universities to see how China works on research and innovation in areas such as artificial intelligence, quantum technology and renewable energy.

Chinese researchers have close links with many Swedish researchers these days. China is Sweden’s fourth largest partner in terms of scholarly co-publications and if Sweden and Europe are to stand a chance in global competition, we should see if there are areas where we could open the way to more cooperation, for example in sustainability technology and the green transition. This is something we wrote about in a joint opinion piece in Svenska Dagbladet this summer under the heading: “Academia should collaborate more with China.”

I am looking forward to the trip, but I am also aware that there are those who are critical of the Chinese state. My fundamental reason for visiting China is that I am convinced that education and research transcend borders and are based on the exchange of ideas, knowledge and research results. It would be unfortunate to exclude countries with great expertise in key areas. In accordance with our mission, we have chosen to be involved to strengthen our respective research areas and Swedish competitiveness. This applies to China, the US and all other countries. We collaborate with individuals and that is what has enabled us to create a university that, after 548 years, is still vigorous and bubbling with energy – in my opinion, the best in the world. 

In the middle of September, I will be travelling with a few select companions to the United States. We are a delegation from the University, the municipality and the county administrative board who are visiting Minnesota and New York. 

The first stop is Minneapolis, Minnesota, where we will visit the University of Minnesota, with which our Faculty of Law has enjoyed an important partnership for forty years. Some members of the University delegation are travelling specifically to meet their legal colleagues and to celebrate the long-sustained academic exchange with a new book. The areas of cooperation have expanded over time and we will meet researchers in a range of fields, such as migration, energy and urban planning. Sustainable development stands out as a common theme and several areas align with the University’s initiatives within UUniFI. As the trip is a joint venture, the programme has also been designed to suit Uppsala Municipality and the county administrative board. Minneapolis is of course the municipality’s twin town.

In connection with the visit, we will organise a meeting with alumni and have the opportunity to discuss further cooperation, and there will doubtless be discussions on developments affecting American universities, governance and recruitment. 

After a few busy days in Minneapolis, we will travel to New York. As many people know, it became clear several days ago that Uppsala University is a strong candidate to be entrusted with a new police education programme. Needless to say, this is also a matter of relevance to the municipality and the county administrative board, and during our visit we will meet the New York Police Department, which will talk about its work in ‘hot spot’ areas, and other matters. Another planned visit is to Cornell Tech, which is recognised as a leading university in AI, where we at Uppsala University are well to the fore but are keen to gain further ground. We hope to discuss closer cooperation. In New York, major initiatives in urban planning are addressing the need for green spaces and for managing new conditions caused by climate change. We look forward to exciting guided tours with experts involved in turning old railway embankments into parks and developing the artificial Little Island. Alongside this, together with the Consulate, we have organised a dinner to which we have invited alumni and friends of the University who are interested in keeping in touch and contributing to our activities in various ways. For them, we will present the plans for our 550th anniversary, as well as highlighting the Swedish Institute for North American Studies (SINAS) and our interdisciplinary focus within UUniFI, which has already been met with great interest. 

These are a few examples of what we will be doing. 

During my travels of this kind, I am often struck by how important it is to meet. Uppsala University is well known and has a good reputation, but we also need to show that we want to be part of global academia. I am convinced that this journey is an important and good investment for the University and for Uppsala.

The summer is nearing its end and a new academic year will soon be under way. As usual, the semester is getting off to an early start with new students arriving, curious and eager, in our Uppsala. It bodes well for the future to see them already discovering the city. They will have plenty to do, as will we all. Sitting with my calendar, I can already see the last gaps filling up. There are conferences, meetings, the inauguration of professors, anniversary celebrations, Nobel Week, travels and still more meetings. It’s going to be fun and interesting, but hard work as well, of course – finding time for everything that needs to be done during the semester and everything that needs to be discussed and decided for the University to run even better than it does today. 

Over the summer, I hope that those of you reading this have had time to reflect on what has gone well and what remains to be done. (Perhaps you’ve had some stroke of genius.) I at least have reflected and a little distance from all the activities has given me more of a perspective on all the good and important things we did last semester at our fantastic University. As I reflected, I felt growing pride and joy at being part of Uppsala University. I hope you feel the same way. 

I would now like to wish you a warm welcome to what I hope will be the best autumn the University has ever experienced. 

Almedalen is in full swing. Meeting upon meeting, seminar upon seminar. This week is a wonderful opportunity to make contacts and to tell people about everything we are doing at Uppsala University, as well as to be inspired by others and engage in debate. 

Ever since Uppsala University, Campus Gotland was created, being in Almedalen has become a matter of course for many of our staff – as indeed it has for me since becoming Vice-Chancellor. Having access to our own premises gives our University a unique opportunity to create meetings that no other higher education institution can. As a result, together we have organised no fewer than 73 seminars across a wide range of the University’s fields of research – many of them jointly with other stakeholders. So far, all the seminars I have attended have attracted large audiences, and the discussions have been interesting in themselves and well tuned to the curious public. 

Between seminars, there have also been exciting discussions with representatives of all kinds of organisations and groups. For many, the conflicts in the world around us are high on the agenda. In the wake of developments in the United States, certain issues seem to attract audiences interested in education policy: academic freedom and the relationship between the universities and the state. The debate in this context also ranges over the role of the higher education sector in democracy and how to ensure the dissemination of knowledge.

I find the days constructive, interesting and important – wide-ranging and rich in meetings. I would like to thank everyone whose efforts to prepare the week have enabled Uppsala University to contribute in a tangible and well-defined way to strengthening our position in society for the sake of democracy. At the same time, let me take this opportunity to wish you all a happy summer.

What is happening in Gaza is a humanitarian disaster, causing immense human suffering. What is going on must be stopped. We therefore welcome the Swedish government’s condemnation of Israel’s actions and invite representatives of our government to a conversation with the University’s researchers to find ways for constructive action on Sweden’s part.

In recent days, Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu has publicly announced plans to displace the population of Gaza. These statements have led to widespread condemnation. Experts have almost unanimously concluded that implementing the plans would constitute a “crime against humanity”. (The same type of action was called “ethnic cleansing” during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.) The Swedish government has also been clear in its condemnation. The Board of Uppsala University (Konsistoriet) has issued a written call to the government to take forceful action through all available channels.

It has already been established at an earlier point that both Israel and Hamas have committed war crimes, probably including crimes against humanity. Of the tens of thousands of civilians who have fallen victim to the war, the vast majority are Palestinian civilians, women and children affected by Israel’s acts of war. Israel has justified the military action by its determination to free hostages still held by Hamas since 7 October 2023 and to ensure that Hamas can no longer pose a threat to Israel. They attribute the high number of civilian casualties to Hamas’s practice of integrating its bases into civilian infrastructure and staying in close proximity to civilians, as well as Hamas’s use of human shields – which is also a war crime. Israel certainly has the right to defend itself, but this right does not give the Israeli armed forces a green light to commit war crimes or to prevent the delivery of necessary supplies, food and water to the civilian population. On the contrary, Israel has an obligation to act in accordance with the Geneva Convention principles of distinguishing between civilians and soldiers, maintaining proportionality between ends and means, and endeavouring not to cause unnecessary suffering. Based on what is known, we can conclude that Israel is not fulfilling the requirements of the Geneva Convention and that the scale of the killings indicates that a number of violations of international law have been committed. With all this in mind, the Swedish government needs to act decisively in this urgent situation.

Academic staff and students at universities in Sweden – including here at Uppsala University – have demanded a boycott of collaborations with Israeli universities. The University takes a different view. The reason for this is that universities have a key role in a democratic state governed by law – not least as a critical voice. This requires international support for critically thinking academics, not isolation.

For it is not the task of a university, as an organisation, to take a position on foreign policy issues. The mission of universities is to teach, research, transmit knowledge and promote critical thinking. Universities must offer a safe environment for discussion and dialogue, where no one is exposed to discrimination or threats. At our University, everyone must be free to criticise and comment on developments in the world based on their expertise.

In Sweden, this view of academia has become an integral part of our self-image and, in the spirit of Dag Hammarskjöld, many have worked to build trust in Sweden as a role model in the protection of human rights and the prosecution of breaches of international law. We have embraced the path of diplomacy and in Uppsala, through research in public international law, political science, and peace and conflict, and by establishing centres such as the Uppsala Centre for Holocaust and Genocide Studies and the Alva Myrdal Centre for Nuclear Disarmament, to name but a few, we have placed ourselves on the international map among those who believe in the power of diplomacy. Historically, we have also achieved successes here that have strengthened us in our convictions.

We now welcome the Swedish government’s explicit condemnation of Israel’s actions and at the same time invite representatives of our government to a broad-ranging conversation with our researchers to find ways for constructive action on Sweden’s part.

So spring comes around again. Once more, Uppsala has shown itself at its best today as a joyful community. The hill was packed with people at three o’clock, there was a great atmosphere at the running of the falls and at Uppsala Konsert och Kongress (UKK) we enjoyed a good herring lunch in the company of like-minded spring celebrators.

It is a sign of strength that despite yesterday’s tragic events, Uppsala chooses to keep up our tradition of celebrating spring together. While our thoughts go to those affected, as Erik Pelling made clear during his speech at the lunch at UKK, we must choose to come together as a joyful community – this is the best way to maintain our Uppsala. 

Here are some pictures from my day. Look after yourselves. Happy spring!