Introduction

As the introduction to this volume explains, an example can be a single instance representing something more than itself, or a model for action. Examples of the former kind are mobilized to concretize, substantiate, or persuade; examples of the latter kind are presented to teach and inspire. In both cases, the examples are intended to be taken seriously; they are shared in the hope that the audience will receive them according to the intention of their producers.

In the essays in this volume, the question of reception has been addressed primarily by focusing on the examples themselves. Through close reading and various analytical approaches, the authors have tried to lay bare the construction and quality of successful examples, following, implicitly, the logic that the power of persuasion is dependent on a cleverly crafted example. The question of the actual outcome of the communication––what happens next, when the examples reach their audiences—was not part of their agenda for obvious reasons; answering that question would require data of another kind.

Naturally, neither can I empirically explore “what happened next” in the cases presented. Instead, I will address the questions of authority and reception from a more general angle. First, I will comment on the channels of communication in which the examples were presented and, as regards the cases of exemplary conduct, on the supportive systems necessary for producing the examples. The latter reflections are inspired primarily by Evans’ discussion of the social work required for an example to be established and recognized (2023). Next, aided both by Evans and by Noyes´ contrasting of dominant and emergent exemplarity (2016), I will reflect on the uptake or acceptance of examples from a historical perspective.

Ethnology of the present: Revisiting a debate in 1967

According to a popular understanding among Swedish Ethnologists (not least in Stockholm), its practitioners turned to studies of contemporary society and culture in the 1960’s, with a young generation taking the lead. This paper examines how a little group of their elders, in the same decade, envisioned and assessed the prospect of ethnological studies of modern life. Based primarily on contributions to a symposium on the theme, the following key components of their vision are identified: an understanding of “the contemporary” as a period of considerable length; the adherence to a particular concept of tradition; and a dedication to the ideal of a broad coverage of modern life and collections of data large enough to secure that results would be representative, or typical. In combination, these components rendered the task of studying modern life overwhelming and in practice impossible to realize, for lack of personnel and resources. In the concluding remarks, various aspects of the transition to an Ethnology of the present are illuminated by comparing the paradigmatic work of Åke Daun (1969) to the vision presented by the elders and to some other publications issued at the same time.