Governing of the nation: Generation Pep as a biopolitical strategy

ABSTRACT

This article explores how the well-being of the Swedish population has become a joint responsibility in the mission to shape desirable and proper citizens. This is done by studying an organisation called Generation Pep (GEN-PEP), which was established as a measure to foster a well-functioning population both now and in the future. The article draws on a post-structural and discursive theorisation inspired by the work of Michel Foucault and his concept of governmentality, with the specific aims of studying how GEN-PEP functions as a biopolitical strategy aimed at fostering a desirable population and identifying governing techniques mobilised within and through the project. The population is described as having failed to function well and that this should be remedied by creating measures that are indirectly aimed at children as future useful citizens. The measures are legitimised by highlighting the population’s ill-health. As a result of ‘experts’ and national role models telling these truths, the governing reflects the idea that a power similar to sovereign power needs to be re-established, where e.g. philanthropists contribute to and enable the project’s strategies and measures. The measures taken are described as a mutual responsibility, with parents being made especially responsible for correcting faults in accordance with the suggested solutions. GEN-PEP functions as a biopolitical strategy in which corporations, philanthropists and celebrities are encouraged to work together to improve the well-being of the nation.

KEYWORDS:

• Governmentality
• biopolitics
• philanthropy
• health
• education
• parents

Introduction

In recent years, the lifestyle-related health of citizens has been increasingly highlighted, for example by the government, schools, social media, organisations, associations and companies (see e.g. Foth & Holmes, 2018; Jette, Bhagat, & Andrews, 2016; McCuaig & Tinning, 2010; Österlind & Wright, 2014). In Sweden, citizens’ health status is described as important both for the citizens themselves and for the nation. Certain measures are suggested for achieving a healthy and proper population, such as education and good schools and learning how to become good citizens (Ministry of Education and Research, 2015). In the ambition to foster what is regarded as a proper population, measures such as different ‘action programmes’, voluntary organisations and philanthropists, are included in the mission to shape a healthy nation. These programmes and organisations are perceived as problem solvers in the pursuit of a joint responsibility for the nation’s well-being. For example, The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs (2017a) maintains that the responsibility for public health is joint and to that end ‘requires efforts from most sectors of society – from the public, from the private, from the non-profit organisations and from the individuals themselves’ (p. 1). Ideas and statements like these enable the allocation of responsibility for public health and thus create a space for health experts, other people and channels to express themselves on health (see e.g. Åkerblom & Fejes, 2017). In this way, we are all participants in, creators of and contributors to the discourses of self-responsibility and health, which in turn determine which measures should be implemented in the name of the social good (see e.g. Foucault, 1978).

These discussions can be said to take place in a neoliberal setting, where ‘governing through community’ emerges as a governing technology (Rose, 1996). The governing of citizens seems to have changed from a more centralised governing to one that is decentralised and where certain futures, challenges and solutions are described and suggested. A central question is how to intervene to secure the well-being of individuals who are constructed as ‘free’ and autonomous subjects. This can be seen as a dilemma, since the assumption is that citizens are and should be self-regulated, even though certain ways of living, choosing and behaving are foregrounded as suitable. Imagining the population in this way creates both challenges and solutions. Foucault (2007) calls this a problematics of governing.

As part of the discourse on health and how to improve the population, different ‘action programmes’ have been designed in Sweden to remedy what are construed as health problems. These programmes aim in different ways to teach and shape the population in how to maintain health and become even healthier. In this article, the programme called Generation Pep (GEN-PEP) is scrutinised in order to illustrate how the population is governed today in the name of health. The specific aims of the article are thus to study how GEN-PEP functions as a biopolitical strategy aimed at fostering what is regarded as a proper population and to identify the governing techniques mobilised within and through the project.

Generation Pep

The programme in focus in this article is organised by the non-profit organisation GEN-PEP, which was initiated by the Swedish Crown Princess Couple in July 2016 as an answer to the nation’s described health problems. In its 2017 Annual Report, GEN-PEP gives an example of today’s problem and why the organisation was formed:

Making healthy choices is not always that easy – much in our everyday lives is designed to prevent us from being active and unhealthy food choices are often easily accessible. This puts a lot of pressure on parents. However, this challenge is far too big and complex to expect parents or any other individual actor to solve the problem on their own. We must all join forces and work together.

(https://generationpep.se/media/1305/generation_pep_verksamhetsberattelse_2017.pdf)

GEN-PEP describes health and healthy choices as being about physical activity and nutrition, both of which are important for how the organisation plans its work and activities. GEN-PEP links experts and ‘successful’ people or role models to their activities, e.g. an Olympic gold medallist and researchers from the Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences. Further, the project is represented by the Crown Princess Couple, which provides legitimacy for the organisation and its activities. Initiative partners (e.g. IKEA and H&M) and supporting-, founding – and knowledge partners (e.g. The Stenbeck Foundation, the Marcus and Amalia Wallenberg Foundation, Karolinska Institutet and The Public Health Agency of Sweden) (https://generationpep.se/sv/vilka-vi-arbetar-med/supporting-partner/) are also connected to GEN-PEP, which further supports and legitimises its activities. The Crown Princess Couple, H&M and other supporting partners are symbols for Sweden as a nation and Stenbeck and Wallenberg are patrons with the financial means to sponsor Swedish public health.

How to shape the population

The necessity to intervene and foster people into becoming healthier emanates from problems that the nation is required to address. These problems can relate to different issues, e.g. health problems, the risk of being excluded from society and so on. Issues like this have been dealt with before by scholars inspired by Foucault’s work. For example, research has focused on how responsibility for shaping the population is related to practices other than those of the state, and especially through the work of philanthropists (Ball & Olmedo, 2011; see also Olmedo, 2014). Philanthropy can be said to be about various forms of support, e.g. donating money or funding charities, in an attempt to create proper solutions for public health (see e.g. Powell, 2018). Such support and governing have been critically scrutinised by Villadsen (2009, 2011), who argues that by highlighting moral improvement and inventing techniques for the fostering of responsibilities, a ‘domain for regulation that by far superseded a strictly liberal constitutional form of state’ (Villadsen, 2011, p. 1071) has opened up. He further argues that, conversely, philanthropic knowledge displays certain characteristics, such as the morality of the recipient, individual will-power and self-development, as essential for improvement. From a global perspective, Moran and Stevenson (2013) examine how private philanthropists influence the governance of global health. They argue that foundations ‘have used their endowments to structure relations between a broad range of state and non-state actors’ (p. 137) and that they can be seen as active governors in the effort to improve the public’s health.

Further, schools and educational programmes are often presented as sites for solving the population’s health problems (Powell, 2014). For example, research using a critical approach describes how philanthropy operates within education programmes in schools (Powell, 2014, 2018, 2019). Powell (2019) examines how corporate philanthropy is used as a way to fund, shape and implement school-based, healthy lifestyle programmes and argues that the government’s responsibility for health and education is transferred to corporations and charities that, by extension, contribute to the shaping of self-governing citizens. Powell (2019) argues that the notion of philanthropy has also contributed to the image of ‘giving’ organisations as being socially responsible and as a ‘win-win’ situation for everybody involved in the philanthropic programmes (see also Ball, 2008).

Solutions to health problems are often connected to a neoliberal governance in which everyone is regarded as an active partner in the ambition to shape proper and responsible citizens. Thus, the establishment of programmes purports to create self-responsible citizens who should learn to become healthy. For example, Jette et al. (2016) have examined Let’s move, an anti-obesity programme initiated by the former First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama. They argue that the programme functions as a biopolitical strategy that aims to solve the problem of childhood obesity within a generation. The programme’s mission is: ‘to empower every citizen to be an “active partner” in the fight against childhood obesity, so as to optimize the health of the next generation and allow them, in the words of Michelle Obama, to “pursue their dreams”’ (p. 1).

In the ambition to reach as many citizens as possible, governing is also made possible through and by families, where adults and parents are governed to learn how to live and behave and, in that sense, become the elongated arm of power (see e.g. Dagkas & Burrows, 2016; Olmedo & Wilkins, 2017; Powell & Gard, 2015) for shaping good citizens. This fostering is described as having two purposes. One is that parents themselves are encouraged to correct their behaviour so that they can govern and mediate the ‘correct’ knowledge and induce others to do the same. Further, research on the governing of and through parents has also focused on how this is done in different media settings, e.g. how parents are represented and governed to learn how to become ‘good’ parents through television shows, books and magazines (see e.g. Aarsand, 2014; Assarsson Aarsand, 2011; Dahlstedt, 2009; Dahlstedt & Fejes, 2014).

This article connects with research on how initiated programmes or projects function as biopolitical strategies and become part of the solution to shape a well-functioning population. A central idea is that governing should, with support, be conducted by the citizens themselves. By critically scrutinising one such programme, this article contributes to knowledge about the effects of the current discourses on health expressed from positions of power and how these discourses enable the governing of citizens in certain predetermined ways.

Analytical tools

The idea of shaping good citizens in the name of health and improvement is not new. In discussions about what is best for Sweden in terms of competitiveness and well-being, the notion of health has become an important political tool. In neoliberal discussions such as these, the health of the population is used both as an argument and as a possible ‘contact area’ between governance and population, which in turn helps to create a legitimacy that enables different techniques and practices to intervene in people’s lives (Gastaldo, 1997). However, the ways in which this is achieved have changed since the eighteenth century (see e.g. Rose, 2007; Rose & Miller, 2010). Political power is no longer mainly exercised by sovereign power, i.e. the methods and procedures for governing individuals do not need to be regulated by law. Instead, the governing is conducted by fostering normative expectations connected to the life and well-being of the population (Foucault, 1991; cf. Jette et al., 2016), i.e. shaping the conduct of the population by working through people’s desires, aspirations and beliefs (see e.g. Dean, 1999; Foucault, 2008).

As the exercise of power has become liberalised, it can be said that freedom has become the focus of governance, which, based on knowledge, organises and regulates society with the well-being of the population as a goal. In addition, different ways of governing emerge, e.g. through philanthropic governance (Ball & Olmedo, 2011; Olmedo, 2014) that ‘[…] focuses on the structure and practices of a set of new philanthropic individuals and organisations and analyses their discourses, connections, ideological influences and agendas for change’ (Olmedo, 2014, p. 576). According to Olmedo, philanthropic governance is now an increasingly important political dimension and can be seen as a way of explaining the recent changes and new initiatives in political agendas.

In order to understand how the knowledge and measures produced within the organisation affect parents, it is appropriate to turn to Foucault’s analysis of biopolitics. Foucault introduced biopolitics and biopower in relation to his idea of governmentality (Foucault, 1972, 1980, 2007) and they are central notions in questions about how to govern the population. According to Foucault (2004), biopower is about the power to arrange life and contains two types of power technologies that are complementary: discipline, which acts against the body of the individual, and regulation, which acts against the population. Thus, biopolitics is about the mechanisms used to manage the population and discipline the individual (Foucault, 2004).

According to Foucault (2014), biopolitics emerged in the 1700s in the wake of perceived problems in the population, e.g. diseases and population growth, both of which needed to be explored and, above all, corrected. Thus, constructed knowledge about the population and measures such as educative campaigns were initiated with the intention of regulating and fostering the population into well-functioning citizens. Thus, biopolitics became determined and governed by life, using different techniques and power exercises that were intended to regulate, control and support the population.

In this study, texts relating to GEN-PEP and its work have been analysed. The data selection departs from the organisation’s website (https://generationpep.se/sv/) and The Swedish Crown Princess Couple’s Foundation website about GEN-PEP (http://www.kronprinsessparetsstiftelse.se/projekt/generation-pep.html). On GEN-PEP’s website, I searched the links describing who the organisation works with, e.g.  (https://generationpep.se/sv/vilka-vi-arbetar-med/initiativpartner/), how to be engaged in the organisation (https://generationpep.se/sv/verktygslador/privatperson/) and facts and advice put forward as guidelines (http://www.kronprinsessparetsstiftelse.se/projekt/generation-pep.html). Starting with the aim of the organisation, I searched for and identified statements connected to learning about how to live and behave. This starting point relates to my ambition to problematise how GEN-PEP uses such statements to foster the population. The texts were read several times with a focus on the central concepts that emerged, how the discourses were constructed, what the discourses did and what their effects were (Fejes & Thornberg, 2019). The statements were divided into themes, which were then described and presented under different headings in the analysis. Accordingly, in the following, descriptions of how GEN-PEP functions as a biopolitical strategy and the governing techniques mobilised within and through the project are presented.

A gloomy portrayal of the nation’s well-being

Knowledge about the population’s health status is necessary in order to intervene in people’s lives. This is an example of how the Swedish population is described in the project

Sweden is now one of Europe’s most sedentary countries and the proportion of children undertaking the recommended amount of physical activity, one hour a day, is small. […] In order to succeed, our goal is to involve the whole community in the work – from local enthusiasts to politicians and policymakers (http://www.kronprinsessparetsstiftelse.se/projekt/generation-pep.html)

The above quote indicates that Sweden has failed to give children opportunities to reach the recommended physical activity level per day (cf. Powell & Fitzpatrick, 2015). As GEN-PEP sees it as its mission to correct this, it is positioned as part of the solution. However, it needs to involve society as a whole if it is to succeed. Through discourse, GEN-PEP is positioned as having power and as being allowed to take responsibility for getting everyone in society to work together by encouraging authorities and other actors to become partners (see Powell, 2019). Further, by problematising children as not being as physically active as is recommended, the organisation gives itself the legitimacy to get involved in people’s lives (Foucault, 1991; Gastaldo, 1997). As Lindley and Youdell (2016, p 15) argue, the idea that physical activity is causally related to all kinds of well-being is firmly established in policy and practice and that: ‘the causal connection is so widely accepted by policy-makers, professionals and the public that it can be said to have passed into common sense’ (p. 15).

By presenting the nation as inactive and sedentary, the population’s behaviour is constructed as a problem and something that needs to be remedied. The argument to involve local enthusiasts and others makes us understand that we all need to take responsibility for finding a solution and rectifying the problem (Powell, 2014). Accordingly, GEN-PEP ‘uses’ the norm of daily activity as a biopolitical argument and a disciplinary tool that characterises, classifies and specialises the population (Foucault, 2009). By that, GEN-PEP defines both the ‘problem’ and the ‘solution’ as part of governing the population to a healthier living (cf. Foucault, 2007). The statements in the texts are consistently negative and accusatory and display an alarming image of the public’s health.

We exercise too little and eat badly. […] Our living habits are literally killing us and it is time to take the problem seriously.

(http://www.kronprinsessparetsstiftelse.se/projekt/generation-pep.html)

In the quote, we can see that the population’s living habits are deadly and that people are not living up to expectations on how to live. The argument arises from a risk perspective, as the quote states that in order to become healthy and avoid premature death, we should all exercise more and eat healthier food. The argument is based on a pathogenic perspective,¹ in that it locates and starts out from what is bad for Sweden and its population. In this logic, which Petersson (1999, p 437) describes as: ‘“relapse” into the biomedical mastery of the body’), individuals are described as insufficient or unsuitable and as failing to take responsibility for their health. In other words, the individual is constructed as a problem, or risk, that needs to be educated and fostered to improve. Gard and Wright (2001) describe this from a risk society perspective and argue that ‘experts’ have an important role to play in managing the uncertainties when it comes to health. Here, GEN-PEP and its experts can be said to have a power position through their claim to knowledge about both the problem and the solution.

In order to solve the problem and avoid the risks (which the population itself is responsible for) and an untimely death, someone needs to act. Accordingly, the threat of ill-health requires measures to be introduced. The description of what ill-health can lead to continues:

It may not sound very dangerous, but in actual fact the combination (inactivity and bad diet) is now one of our biggest health concerns with consequences such as depression, type 2 diabetes, sleep disorders, strokes and heart attacks, dementia and osteoporosis.

(http://www.kronprinsessparetsstiftelse.se/projekt/generation-pep.html)

This quote helps us to see that the population’s problems of ill-health should be taken seriously. The argument that ill-health has to be addressed and attended to is expressed along with fears and threats about what to expect if the necessary steps are not taken. Thus, as indicated above, the purposes and reasons for needing GEN-PEP are framed within a discourse on illness, rather than health. Although GEN-PEP claims to be directed at young people, the diseases and problems that are described (e.g. strokes and heart attacks) are not usually associated with youth. Accordingly, GEN-PEP is an organisation that via children and young people wants to create a healthy and improved population. The worry description continues with a focus on young people’s nutritional intake:

75 per cent of Swedish children eat less than the WHO’s recommended intake of 400 grams of fruit and vegetables/day and Swedish children’s nutrition intake amounts to 22 per cent of different kinds of sugar, more than twice as much as the 10 per cent recommended by WHO.

(http://www.kronprinsessparetsstiftelse.se/projekt/generation-pep.html)

The focus on the pathogenic perspective remains, with descriptions of all the mistakes that are made regarding Swedish children’s diet. In this reasoning, it is the parents who are addressed and governed. Here, WHO’s statistics are referred to as ‘proof’ of how badly Swedish children are faring. By emphasising statistics and research, an image of the (un)healthy child is created. Thus, in the quote we can see how health discourses become visible and portray what is constructed as good or bad health. However, the production of discourses is not random and arbitrary, but is instead guided by interests and values that maintain, organise and monitor the discursive boundaries whilst conducting internal discursive self-control (Foucault, 1993). The discourses thus show what can be talked about, who can speak, when and in which situations. In other words, the activities and suggested measures are not created in a void, but are an expression of current discourses about what is regarded as a health problem amongst the Swedish population. Through our participation, we all thus become co-creators of the discourse.

The texts refer to nutrition and the importance of teaching children to become healthy citizens as early as possible, i.e. notions of health are implicitly directed at parents or other adults working with children.

Future health habits are formed during childhood. By adopting healthy habits early on in life, 80 per cent of heart disease and strokes can be prevented. An active lifestyle does not only have a positive effect on health. A study also shows that twice as many Swedish year 5 pupils reached the national goals in Swedish, English and mathematics when physical education was increased by two lessons/week.

(http://www.kronprinsessparetsstiftelse.se/projekt/generation-pep.html)

As indicated, it is argued that health education should start early in life in order to become a healthy well-functioning adult, i.e. that teaching children good health habits is an investment and that the responsibility for this falls heavily on parents. The message is that if you do not learn good health habits at a young age, the risk of suffering from illness in the future is high. Here, the need for measures is created and argued for in a discourse of investment, where the idea is that by managing the population the nation will benefit in the future, both when it comes to avoiding illness and by having a well-educated population (cf. Villadsen & Wahlberg, 2015). Describing the presumed connection between health and education like this also includes them in the investment discourse.

In reasoning like this, parents are disciplined and made accountable when talking about childhood and health habits, as it is usually parents who are charged with children’s health education. By mobilising the entire population like this, Petersson (1999) argues that one of the purposes of health promotion programmes is an appeal to a self-activating health change (cf. Foucault, 1991).

In the texts it seems important to prepare the population for a future that needs a generation of long-lived, healthy and active citizens. A mutual investment for the nation is equipping the population with the necessary skills to strengthen the human capital (Foucault, 1991, 2014). The following quote is an example of this:

However, you don’t need to run a business to understand how important it is to invest in the future, and to invest wisely. And when it comes to the investments we make together as a society, I can’t actually think of anything wiser or more important than to equip the next generation for a long, healthy and active life. (https://www.kungahuset.se/royalcourt/latestnews/2017/2017/thecrownprincesscoupleattendpepforum.5.14840bc815ec78cc99738ad.html)

This quotation makes reference to the business world and explains that as an entrepreneur it is important to make wise investments. In this case, it seems as though the investment refers to younger people. However, the educative project is not directly aimed at younger people, but instead targets parents and other adults in society.

In short, the state of health in Sweden is described as unsatisfactory and the population is portrayed as not being healthy enough in relation to the expected health norms. The emphasis on ill-health, statistics and research mediates truths that are intended to promote ideas about what the population needs to do to improve. The suggested measures for creating a proper population are thus shaped in an overall discourse on a need for improvement, where health and education seem to be included in a national biopolitical argument. Arguments like this enable GEN-PEP to justify its own existence and become a legitimate ‘tool’ for creating a practice that is designed to solve the problems of an unhealthy population. In the next section this practice is presented and analysed.

Ways to govern the population

GEN-PEP is described as an organisation working for children and children’s health. However, in order to reach children, certain collaborators are pointed out as important, such as the municipality, schools, non-profit organisations and private individuals (https://generationpep.se/sv/verktygslador/). In order to attract and involve collaborators and thereby make a difference for children and young people, GEN-PEP has created so-called toolboxes to support and inspire parents and others working with children. For example, one of the toolboxes is named ‘be a role model’, where parents are encouraged to take part in teaching their children and act as role models. The website (https://generationpep.se/sv/verktygslador/privatperson/) has plenty of suggestions for how parents can influence their children to adopt better habits. Here are some examples:

Use the time you usually spend on your mobile phone or tablet to instead socialise with your child in a way that activates the body, such as play or a walk.

An easy way to eat more fruit and vegetables is to make them easily accessible when people are hungry, for example by placing a bowl of vegetable sticks on the dining table before dinner.

By replacing sweets on Friday evening or at children’s parties with naturally sweet snacks you can make a big difference to your child and his or her friends.

By cooking the food you eat at home together, your child will see what’s in it. This, in combination with good raw materials, creates greater prerequisites for your child to have healthy eating habits later in life.

All families have different circumstances. By donating sports equipment, toys and clothes that you no longer need you can help others to create better conditions for healthier activities and eating habits.

All workplaces do not cater directly for children and young people, but that does not matter. Regardless of what your workplace works for, it can make a difference. By organising activities in the workplace that encourage movement, you create the conditions for good habits in the home. Also by showing that you are behind our vision makes a difference, because it’s only when society as a whole takes its share of responsibility that we reach our goal.

In these quotes, parents are given considerable responsibility and are expected to be role models. It seems as though this responsibility is lifelong and extends from leisure time to the workplace. It also stretches over several family situations, from how to behave at a children’s party to parents donating sports equipment and thereby contributing to a better way of living. All this advice also governs parents by showing them what they should do and how to be and behave in order to be regarded as proper parents (Foucault, 1991, 2004). Further, this also shows what is presumed to be good health and good healthy choices (Gard & Wright, 2001), which all parents should model. As if this was not enough, doing all this shows that you support and contribute to GEN-PEP’s vision – you become one of the team. As can be seen in the following quote, GEN-PEP describes its mission as educative and to: ‘[…] disseminate knowledge about and create commitment to children’s and young people’s health. […] reach our goal that all children and young people in Sweden will have the opportunity and will to live an active and healthy life’ (http://www.kronprinsessparetsstiftelse.se/projekt/generation-pep.html).

As is also presented in the above section, another problem seems to be people who do not have the knowledge or the will to be and behave in accordance with what is asked for, namely to be physically active and eat healthy food, and that this is why corrective measures need to be introduced (cf. Powell, 2014, 2018). Accordingly, it is assumed that GEN-PEP has the power and possibility to encourage and instil a will in people to live healthy lives (cf. Dean, 1999; Foucault, 2008).

As part of this, in order to engage people and the community in younger people’s health, three types of initiatives aimed at adults are described as essential:

PERSONAL INVESTMENT

Own activities and campaigns initiated by Generation Pep with the purpose of increasing the public’s knowledge and contributing to healthier living habits.

PARTNERSHIPS

Projects and activities in collaboration with selected partners who directly or indirectly are able to raise awareness, change and influence people’s living habits.

SUPPORTERS

Support and encourage existing organisations and associations working on the same core issue as Generation Pep. (http://www.kronprinsessparetsstiftelse.se/projekt/generation-pep.html)

The assumption is that by carrying out their own activities and the educative campaigns generated by GEN-PEP and its partners, people should subsequently choose healthier living habits. The purpose is to make people invest in themselves. The investment in becoming a healthier citizen should be based on the knowledge gained from research, successful role models and philanthropists who are connected to GEN-PEP. As such, these role models and philanthropists become powerful when they engage in finding and funding solutions to the displayed problems (see e.g. Gard & Wright, 2001; Olmedo, 2014).

As we can see in the quotes, GEN-PEP appears to focus on involving important people, celebrities, researchers and others of importance in the fostering of the younger generation. Here, celebrities and philanthropists can be seen as benevolent governors of well-being (cf. Nickel, 2012); an idea that in turn shapes philanthropists as problem solvers with a ‘will to give’ (Powell, 2019). The suggested activities and measures are primarily aimed at teaching the population how to live a healthy life in accordance with GEN-PEP’s vision (cf. Moran & Stevenson, 2013). In order to endorse and reinforce the message, a third step is taken and presented as ‘Supporters’. Supporters are expected to encourage and support those working with the same core issues as GEN-PEP. By increasing (a certain) knowledge amongst the public, the fostering of healthy younger people will be both facilitated and feasible. Further, in the ambition to facilitate and encourage the fostering of health, the organisation offers rewards (e.g. Supporter of the Year) to those (people, organisations or other initiatives) who: ‘in an inclusive and accessible way have succeeded in making children and young people in Sweden active’ (https://generationpep.se/sv/om-oss/egna-satsningar/arets-peppare/).

In addition, an educational measure that is directly aimed at spreading good examples for teaching parents and other adults about health is a book developed in collaboration with an author, a publisher and researchers, with the ambition to:

… increase knowledge about children’s physical health of, which in turn is expected to make parents and their children more active. The book should also make it easier for parents to talk about physical activity with their children, as well as gain inspiration for how to easily implement this in everyday life based on their own prerequisites.

(https://generationpep.se/sv/vilka-vi-arbetar-med/initiativpartner/)

This statement is not only about fostering healthy children, but is also about encouraging and educating parents to be active, in a kind of synergy, by increasing their own knowledge. Here, parents are portrayed as not being fully able to ensure children’s health and that a book is therefore needed to make sure that the right knowledge is provided to create the kind of citizen ‘we’ want. In this way, citizens are regulated, disciplined and controlled by GEN-PEP and its partners to become what is requested (Foucault, 2004, 2014).

Discussion

In recent years in Sweden, discussions about the lifestyle-related health of citizens have increasingly been on the agendas of the government, social media, organisations, associations and companies. The health status of citizens is described as important for the citizens themselves, and especially so for the nation. As we can see from the above, although the state of health of the population in Sweden is described as a failure, it can be remedied if certain measures are adopted. Based on these threatening images of ill-health, through discourse GEN-PEP is allowed and able to operate a biopolitical strategy that contributes to healthy behaviour and lifestyles, thereby creating hope for a better and refined Sweden.

The suggested measures for creating healthy citizens are described as needing to be implemented as soon as possible if the nation is to be successful both now and in the future. As Rose (1999) argues, children and childhood have become the most regulated areas in society, where a variety of measures for families are launched in an attempt to ensure that the state will have well-behaved and healthy citizens who can contribute to its production and welfare. The arguments that are used by the organisation turn the health discourses that already exist and are created in the project into legitimate tools for creating a practice that is designed to solve the problems of an unhealthy population. In that practice, citizens are disciplined by means of surveillance (participating in predetermined activities), controls (measurements and ‘examinations’) and in the name of freedom (responsibility for being active) (Foucault, 2004, 2014).

In this article, GEN-PEP is illustrated as a biopolitical apparatus (cf. Bundy, 2012) that monitors and intervenes in the formation and regulation of the population (Foucault, 2004). In that regulation, GEN-PEP’s vision is that society as a whole should be involved in educating children about healthy lifestyles. That is, health and education have become a matter for voluntary organisations. As we can see, GEN-PEP makes the entire population responsible for ensuring that such improvements take place. However, this cannot be done entirely by the citizens themselves, but should rather be done in accordance with GEN-PEP’s directions as displayed in the published books and by following the directions and information displayed on its website. GEN-PEP becomes an active governor with a ‘will to give’, but only in accordance with its own interests (Moran & Stevenson, 2013; Powell, 2019). Thus, GEN-PEP becomes a biopolitical power strategy that aims to maximise the human capital that already exists (Foucault, 2004).

As the organisation describes its vision of a healthy nation, it becomes clear that one of the components for achieving this is adults – and preferably parents. GEN-PEP forms and creates relationships with the population in the name of health in order to categorise it and make it malleable for change (cf. Powell, 2018). By engaging parents and making them understand and learn about risks and ill-health, they become GEN-PEP’s elongated arm in the regulation and education of children, but also of themselves. When GEN-PEP makes statements about the health status of the population and how to deal with its problems, it contributes to the (re)creation of the prevailing health discourse. GEN-PEP thus becomes an important discourse bearer and reinforcer and can be seen as an authority both through its position as an organisation and through its spokespersons. Speaking with authority means having the necessary qualifications, a specific role or a certain position. Here, experts and representatives of the organisation are able to define the framework for a discussion or the way in which a problem is understood and how it should be solved (Moran & Stevenson, 2013). They can thus be seen as gatekeepers for what kind of knowledge is included and excluded in society (Foucault, 1972).

Power can here been seen as taking new steps in the way organisations govern. As exemplified in this article, people who are positioned as those with power (e.g. royalty, see Jette et al., 2016) are, through discourse, allowed to intervene and demonstrate responsibility. Thus, they become actors who fill a certain function in society. Further, these actors express opinions about health, structure the debate and create what are regarded as necessary measures in the mission to build a prosperous nation (Foucault, 2014; see also Moran & Stevenson, 2013; Villadsen, 2009, 2011). Together with initiative partners, role models such as an Olympic gold medallist and successful business leaders like Stenbeck and Wallenberg, the image of a responsible and successful citizen is created that also contributes to the interventions in the nation’s well-being. In this logic, philanthropy has an educational role in the sense of educating and regulating people in certain desirable directions. The suggested measures and solutions are interconnected with a neoliberal mentality, philanthropy and an endeavour to shape and foster self-responsible, ‘giving’ and desirable citizens (Powell, 2014, 2019; cf. Ball, 2008). Lastly, the arguments that GEN-PEP puts forward can be said to include investment and human capital. In that logic, members of the population can be seen as components for investing in the nation’s well-being.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 The pathogenic perspective focuses on factors related to illness and ill-health (Psykologiguiden. www.psykologiguiden.se/psykologilexikon/?Lookup=salutogen).