Finnish Political Theory

Political theory is thriving in Finland, thanks in part to a propitious intellectual climate, engendered by diverse historical encounters. As is noted in the introduction to this first Finnish Yearbook of Political Thought, “Finland appears as a plural and historical entity...an arena in which opposed currents of thought and practices of several Empires have confronted and de- and recomposed with each other.” And for those who lack a context in which to locate political thought in Finland, the introduction also provides a brief historical overview of how Finland has emerged as a nation-state from a successful process of decolonization.

Thereafter the various contributions treat diverse aspects of contemporary political thought. The initial essay by Reinhart Koselleck on the “Temporalisation of Concepts,” articulates the essence of the Geschichliche Grund-begriffe approach to concepts and reflects the considerable influence of this German intellectual tradition on Finnish thought. The essay is followed by critical reflections on “the Begriffsgeschichte program” by Melvin Richter, Kari Palonen, and Sisko Haikala. While Richter’s contribution (already published elsewhere) operates within a quaint, empiricist frame (e.g. he suggests that a critical approach to the tradition requires a “further analysis of its findings”), Palonen’s reflections amount to a focused and comprehensive consideration of the philosophical viability and the practical implications of the approach for political knowledge, and Haikala evokes a set of rich historical examples to contest Koselleck’s view of the enlightenment.

Palonen’s essay is particularly stimulating. Taking up what is central to Koselleck’s thesis—a “paradigm shift from topological concepts to concepts of movement”—he raises questions about the “politicization of time” and more specifically about the politics of a now-time (to invoke Benjamin’s formulation) in which “the experience of contingency appears as so radical that there are hardly any definite expectations for the future.”

Exemplifying the impressive range of interests of Finnish political theorists, the volume also contains an essay by Tuija Pulkkinen on postmodernist political theory and a reflection on the rationalist tradition in approaches to the philosophy of democracy by Eerik Lagerspetz. While Lagerspetz’s emphasis on the issue of voting procedures will doubtless interest few of our readers, Pulkinnen’s brief but provocative treatment of the politics of postmodernist thought—drawn from her recently completed PhD thesis on “The Postmodern and Political Agency”—will be read as an important intervention by many of us. It eloquently summarizes the moral and political implications of constituting the political as an agonistic and non-closural space of encounter.

In sum, this contribution from Finland should both expand the domain of the terra cognitia of political thought and encourage more of the encounters that have helped make Finland such a vibrant intellectual milieu. Take a good look. They have been observing us (among others) with noteworthy discernment for some time.