Orientación explícita de la actividad

In talking about the cultural elite, it is essential to identify the members who v^ll be analysed in the context o f the 1950s and justify their emergence into the light of day for the purposes of this study. There exist various ways of proceeding. One possibility is to examine the gap between the generations and thus to compare the subsequent cultural and political developments. Another approach, inspired by C. Wright Mills, might be to explore the institutions in which the cultural elite was involved and where they exercised their influence.

An analysis of the cultural elite in terms of generations would necessitate a larger cultural and political frame of reference within the nineteenth and twentieth centuries due to the widely varying ages of the analysed members. Following the

4 definition o f elite 4 4 4

generation division of Timo Soikkanen and Vesa Vares^®"^, this study would be concerned with five different generations, not taking into consideration such members of the governing elite as J.K. Paasikivi or K.J. Stâhlberg. The cultural elite would include, according to the above mentioned distinction, the following categories:

1. Those who were bom in the second half of the nineteenth century (like, for example, V.A. Koskenniemi), and belonged to the so-called Independence War generation, vapaussota sukupolvi. This generation was marked by the Russian oppression of Finland at the turn o f the twentieth century, which prepared them, as Soikkanen claims, to better fight the Soviet Union during the Winter War.

2. Those who were bom at the tum of the twentieth century and as students were active within the Academic Karelia Society are called the AKS-generation, AKS sukupolvi (like, for example, Martti Haavio, and Kustaa Vilkuna). This generation might be considered to be a late-bom generation of the previous Independence War generation with respect to their political ideals and strong Finnish patriotism embodied in the inter-war Academic Karelia Society’s ideology.

3. Those who were bom at the beginning o f the 1920s belonged to the so-called War Generation, sotien sukupolvi (like, for example, Jan-Magnus Jansson). For this generation, the Winter and Continuation Wars were the key events which marked their life. In the 1950s, they were actively involved in the post­ war political development, holding either academic or political positions. 4. Those who were bom in the second half of the 1920s and at the beginning of

the 1930s are known as the Reconstmction Generation, ialleenrakennuksen sukupolvi. This generation, mostly represented within my research (like, for example, Erik Allardt and Jaakko Numminen), was marked by the memory of the home front war, and they actively engaged in the post-war political and economic reconstmction.

5. Those who were bom during WW II and in the 1940s belong to the so-called Great Transition Generation, suuren murroksen sukupolvi (like, for example, Johan von Bonsdorff). The key-experience of this generation was the transition from an agricultural Finland to an industrially developed country

# # # definition o f elite # # #

and Finnish migration to Sweden. Even though Soikkanen and Vares claim that this generation was not marked by any diseases, catastrophes or war experience, and only by post-war development, it might be argued that most of the members of this generation lived the greater part o f their life through the Cold War‘“ .

As we can see from the above, in order to give an adequate account of this typology, it would be essential to analyse the generations already active in the first decade of the twentieth century, in the 1920s and the 1930s, and later in the 1950s. Furthermore, it would be necessary to take into consideration their social backgrounds in greater detail, in order to analyse their recruitment into the elite and the following circulation. Without a doubt, such research would facilitate an excellent comparison of the development of political attitudes within the Finnish cultural elite during the first half of the twentieth century, but it would go far beyond the scope o f my own research o f the 1950s. For this reason, I have divided the cultural elite into only two generations: the older and the younger.

Such a division of the generations will also help to demonstrate, at least to some extent, the cultural and political differences between the generations of the inter-war period and the 1950s. This generational gap might be considered crucial in terms o f a better understanding of the post-war cultural atmosphere o f conformity which prevailed within the analysed elite.

In addition to this division into generations, the members of the cultural elite have been classified according to the institutions in which they were involved. The division into institutions also seems to be the most practical solution for the analysis of the cultural elite in the 1950s, as it provides an account o f the important cultural institutions during the post-war period. Nevertheless, it has to be noted that the influence on the post-war developments of the political attitudes of the members of the cultural elite analysed in this work were not always in accordance with the institution where they worked. For example, it cannot be claimed that the political convictions of Kustaa Vilkuna reflected the opinions of the University o f Helsinki in general.

Soikkanen and Vares make a division into only five generations. Within the last generation, it might be of importance to raise the question of whether a sixth category, a so-called Cold War generation, should be created.

# f # definition o f elite # # #

The Older Generation

The older generation includes those who were bom around 1900, and were active in the 1920s and 1930s, usually in the Academic Karelia Society at the University of Helsinki. The key events of Finnish history, such as the involvement in the Jager troops, the Civil War, and the Winter and Continuation Wars, influenced their political and cultural engagements and their perceptions of the inter-war and post-war situation in Finland^^^.

Looking briefly at their educational background, the older generation had usually graduated during the period when Finland still belonged to the Russian Empire or just after the Finnish Civil War. They usually had international experience as a result of having attended German universities, with which the University o f Helsinki had organised an exchange programme.

In the 1950s, this generation was already well established within the cultural elite and many also had political experience fi*om the previous decades. According to the generation division, this group would include the Independence War generation (1.) and the AKS-generation (2).

Members of this group were primarily involved in two institutions: a) the old Academv of Finland. Suomen Akatemia

b) the University of Helsinki, Helsingin Yliopisto

The following members of the Academy o f Finland have been considered for the purposes of this study: V.A. Koskenniemi (1885-1962), Rolf Nevanlinna (1895-1980), Paavo Ravila (1902-1974)^^^, and A.I. Virtanen (1895-1974). In the second group, I have included Martti Haavio (1899-1973), Edwin Linkomies (1898-1963), L.A. Puntila (1907-1988), and Kustaa Vilkuna (1902-1980).

The Younger Generation

The younger generation includes those who were bom in the late 1920s and 1930s. Most of them did not participate in the Winter and Continuation Wars, so first­ hand war experience was lacking in some o f them.

Soikkanen 1998:43. In addition, Soikkanen includes the Great Strike o f 1905, the suurlakko, as a key event, which is usually neglected.

Ravila became a member o f the Academy o f Finland in 1954. Until then, he was a Rector of the University of Helsinki.

# # f definition o f elite # # #

During the 1950s, they studied or already taught at the University o f Helsinki; thus, they could fully enjoy the new post-war educational opportunities, such as travelling abroad to English-speaking countries. Most of the younger generation was active in the student corporations and to a great degree they contributed to the Ylioppilaslehti. which, together with the Finnish Cultural Fund {Suomen Kulttuurirahasto) and the Paasikivi Society (Paasikivi Seura), happened to be the most important platforms from where recruitment into the elite occurred.

To follow the division of the generations undertaken by Soikkanen and Vares, this generation would comprise a smaller part of the War generation (3); the Reconstruction generation (4) is mainly presented; and partly the Great Transition generation (5). The younger generation includes the following people: Erik Allardt (b.l925), Yqo Blomstedt (1924-1994), Pauli Burman (b.l933), Lars Dufholm (b.l920), Jaakko Iloniemi (b.l932), Jan-Magnus Jansson (b.l922), Antero Jyranki (b.l933), Jaakko Numminen (b.l928)^®*.

For the younger generation, student corporations and the Ylioppilaslehti, the student newspaper, was the ‘elevator’ to the top^®^, of course not neglecting family background, as in the case of Johan von Bonsdorff. Many young men coming from the countryside to Helsinki took the chance given by the political changes in the 1950s and most of them even joined the governing elite later on, for example Jan-Magnus Jansson or Jaakko Iloniemi. The 1950s offered many opportunities, but also closed many ‘doors’ for people who had difficulties adapting to the post-war situation.

Post-war elite recruitment was not only important for the younger generation in Finland. The older generation had already established its position within the cultural elite (e.g. A.I. Virtanen), and some of them even attained status within the governing elite (e.g. Edvrin Linkomies); thus, post-war political developments affected them, too. The careers of Paavo Ravila and Kustaa Vilkuna are excellent examples of the so-called elevator for aspirant males the herrahissi in operation amongst the older generation. One could even argue that Vilkuna became the ‘shadow’ o f the ‘history maker’ due to his close involvement in politics.

The group analysed is small in number. It might clearly be larger as many other important figures emerged during the post-war period.

*°^Kolbe 1993:106-107.

4 4 4 definition o f elite 4 4 4

Applying Giddens typology of adaptability to the elites being studied here, one has to argue that most members of the cultural and industrial elites took the attitude of pragmatic acceptance, along with a modicum o f sustained optimism, as was the case with Edwin Linkomies. Nevertheless, such personalities as A.I. Virtanen expressed some kind of opposition, although not radical. Accordingly to M erton^tl^ conformity was dominant.

# # # definition o f elite # # #