Elite Reproduction and Power in the Neoliberal Era: The Image-Making of King Carl XVI Gustaf as ‘Sweden’s Leader’

Abstract

One group of elites that often escapes attention among sociologists are royals, who seem to be regarded as uninteresting and irrelevant study objects for the analysis of elites’ reproduction and power in contemporary society. Still, as suggested by, for instance, the death of the British Queen Elizabeth II in 2022 and the installation of the Danish King Frederik X in 2024, royals enjoy extraordinary attention among the general public and media, which testifies to their potentially important social, moral and political functions and roles. Based on an extensive examination of the longest reigning monarch in the world today, the Swedish King Carl XVI Gustaf, I suggest how he, through media, has been constructed as ‘Sweden’s leader’; by idealizing such neoliberal virtues as activity, entrepreneurship, positive thinking, self-management and similar expressions of ‘leadership’. A key concept for my analysis of the fabrication of the King is ‘image-making’, which derives from Ervin Goffman’s work on the ‘presentation of self’. Essentially, the King aspires to be seen as a role model in contemporary Sweden, a country that has become all the more market-oriented during the last 50 years, which is critical to understanding his legitimacy, and hence ability to exercise power.

A key problem in the sociology of elites is how individuals and groups of people with extraordinary access to various forms of resources (Gulbrandsen, 2019; Khan, 2011), reproduce themselves through privileged education, closed social clubs, associations, networks, and other exclusive institutions and social liaisons (see e.g. Cousin and Chauvin, 2014; Rivera, 2016; Van Zanten, 2018), thus conserving or even reinforcing their wealth, privileges and status (see e.g. Friedman and Reeves, 2020; Kantola and Kuusela, 2023; Mijs and Savage, 2020). Indeed, it is a well-known observation that elites can be very militant in defending their positions, which adds to their cohesiveness and integration in relation to other groups in society (Baltzell, 1958; Pincon and Pincon-Charlot, 1999; Wiesel, 2018).

But, the study of elites should also be concerned with how elites actively exercise power by aspiring to be seen as leaders, that is, social, moral and aesthetical role-models (Holmqvist, 2017, 2021). Contemporary elites often claim a right to rule and enjoy various privileges through ‘meritocratic legitimacy’, such as being productive, working hard, living healthily, acting entrepreneurially, and so on, which are different variations of ‘leadership’, in other words, an ability to manage oneself, and others (see e.g. Khan and Jerolmack, 2013; Gregg, 2018; Littler, 2018; Maravelias, 2018). Certainly, ‘leaders’ are often considered a power elite in Mills’ (1956) classic definition of the term, describing, a group of people that are able to exert considerable influence based on their control of different command positions. But, as Weber (1946: 262) stressed, the possibility of exerting influence and thereby in practice functioning as a leader is not only based on the social and economic standing that a person might have, by being a manager or a professor for example. Such positions have to be transformed from objective and formal aspects of power into rights that are ‘sanctified’, and only then can they become socially legitimate and influential (see also Bourdieu, 1996; Khan, 2011).

As suggested by the death of Queen Elizabeth II in 2022, the coronation of King Charles III in 2023 in the United Kingdom, the 50-year-jubilee the same year in Sweden of King Carl XVI Gustaf’s ascension to the Swedish throne, and the installation in 2024 of the new King of Denmark, Frederik X, contemporary European monarchs enjoy extraordinary attention by media and the general public, which testifies to their potentially important social, moral and political functions and roles in today’s society (see Jönsson and Lundell, 2009; Omes and Maclaran, 2015). In her study of the British royal family Clancy (2021) stressed that royals deserve to be examined among other elites that can contribute to the understanding of how they create inequalities and reproduce classes (see also Billig, 1992; Hazell and Morris, 2020; Unchanam, 2020): Of course, royals can be seen as any aristocratic elite mainly concerned with upholding their status and positions, for instance through royal children attending exclusive boarding schools where they come to integrate with other elites, sharing their worldview and preferences (see Andreuo et al., 2014; Sandgren, 2017).

However, as I will suggest in this article, royals can also be seen as sanctified leaders through the way they actively and intentionally consecrate certain ideologies, thus becoming extraordinarily powerful and influential figures (see Alvesson, 2011). Indeed, sociologists have suggested that throughout history, kings and queens, and princes and princesses, have exercised power (see Bendix, 1978; Birnbaum, 1955; Elias, 2006; Shils and Young, 1953), perhaps most succinctly portrayed through the historic notion of ‘the royal touch’, whereby royals have claimed divine power to heal the sick and disabled (see Bloch, 1973; Brogan, 2015; cf. Weber, 1978: 1142). Indeed, the consecration by contemporary royals and their formal control of certain positions for both traditional and legal reasons make them a potentially powerful group of elites – leaders – even in modern, neoliberal society, that is, a society marked by the logic of markets, where people are expected to be entrepreneurial, energetic, active, and are held responsible for their current social and economic status, including their health, thus transforming social issues into personal problems (see Maravelias, 2018; Zoller, 2003). Wherever royals appear, they seem to sanctify their environments, be it people or things; essentially, this is their leadership function, which gives them considerable symbolic and real power, but in order to do so, they must also appear as moral and social role-models as stipulated by the social and economic context in which they find themselves.

In this article I examine the making of Sweden’s King Carl XVI Gustaf as ‘Sweden’s leader’ during his 50-year period of reign. Obviously, the Swedish King is not the same worldwide media personality as the British monarch; only once a year, when he hands out the Nobel Prizes in Stockholm, his face can be seen on television screens all around the world, in social media and in newspapers. As a result, his potential impact is primarily limited to Sweden, a small country in the periphery of Northern Europe. Still, it is my belief that the observations suggested in this article are not only relevant for understanding the fabrication of the Swedish King in today’s Swedish society, but of European monarchs in general, and, most importantly, of elites. It can be noted that the Swedish King is presently the longest-serving monarch in the world, thus offering unprecedented data on the fabrication of a reigning monarch, which makes him a relevant study object for any sociologist interested in elites, royals and power.

Theoretical Framework

Even though Swedish society is different from the other European monarchies through its unique history and culture, there are also strong points of resemblance through the way their economies are presently managed and organized: my analysis is set against a specific economic-political background, namely global neoliberalism, that is to say, the favouring of market-based solutions, deregulations and privatizations of economies (see Aaberge et al., 2018; Harvey, 2005; Holmqvist and Wiesel, 2023; Piketty, 2020). After decades of Social-democratic rule, with Keynesian-inspired regulations of the economy to uphold economic and social equality, favouring a ‘third way’, between socialism and market economy, gradually Sweden (and many other European countries) have become the subject of a strong ‘market-turn’. Following mainly the examples of Britain and the USA, in Sweden this has accelerated since the early 1970s, even propelled by social-democratic governments. Deregulations and privatizations have marked Swedish politics, and there has been a gradual idealization of the ‘employable self’ by promoting people’s entrepreneurship, self-management, responsibility, activity, positive thinking and healthy lifestyle (see Cremin, 2003; Holmqvist et al., 2013; Garsten and Jacobsson, 2004; Offer and Söderberg, 2016).

Indeed, during the King’s more than 50 years of reign up to today, Sweden has undergone a dramatic ideological turn, to which the King and the monarchy, in order to remain socially and politically legitimate, has gradually adapted, much in the same way as other monarchies have done (see Clancy, 2021; Unchanam, 2020). As Billig (1992: 116) noted in his study of the British monarchy: ‘The economic moralism, which demands value for money and which Mrs Thatcher herself so prominently advocated during her premiership, does not halt at the palace walls in a posture of blind admiration.’ A clear historic example of the influence of markets and neoliberalism on the Swedish monarchy was the appointment by the King, just when he had ascended to the throne in 1973, of a number of senior Swedish corporate executives or people with experience from the business world as the King’s closest officials and advisors, which was something radically new in the long history of the Swedish monarchy (see Holmqvist, 2023). In order to reinvent the monarchy and make it relevant to the new era of neoliberalism in Sweden (cf. Cannadine, 2013; Hobsbawm, 2013), they would help him and the court both organizationally and rhetorically. For instance, the adoption of the King’s motto, to act ‘For Sweden – With the Times’ reflected an ambition to portray the new King as an action-oriented and entrepreneurial head of state, rather than an aristocratic and majestic one with a deep interest in culture and history, as was the image of his predecessor (see Whitling, 2023).

In addition, the Scandinavian monarchies, presumably well aware of their countries’ appearance of egalitarianism, Protestant work-ethic and meritocracy (see Hazell and Morris, 2020; Schramm-Nielsen et al., 2004; Vike, 2017), even among the elites (see Gulbrandsen, 2019), have typically not nurtured an image of mystery and enchantment, in contrast to the British monarchy (see Billig, 1992; Nairn, 2011). Instead, an image of ‘down-to-earth’ and ‘ordinariness’ has prevailed, which fits well with the downplaying of class and heritage in the neoliberal version of meritocracy (cf. Friedman and Reeves, 2020). An example of this was the installation of King Frederik of Denmark in 2024: he was not crowned in a lavish religious ceremony, anointed by holy oil, as was the case of the coronation in 2023 of King Charles of the UK, but simply appointed by the government during an extra cabinet meeting and presented as King by the Prime Minister on the balcony of the Danish Parliament, in front of a large and cheering crowd. Hence, the well-known dilemma faced by contemporary monarchies in fostering an aura of mystery that has been so vital for their historic legitimacy, while at the same time adapting to a world characterized by the brute culture and real-politik of markets and business (see Billig, 1992; Clancy, 2021; Unchanam, 2020), appears less obvious in Sweden and the rest of Scandinavia. That being said, royals in Scandinavia enjoy a peculiar status among the public and media, but to associate them with the kind of mystery that is the sign-mark of the British monarchy, appears not to be accurate.

As the case of King Carl XVI Gustaf suggests, their royal touch is less about expressing divinity and holiness, and more about expressing how they have adapted to their respective societies, including the triumph of global neoliberalism. Thus, whereas traditionally the royal touch has been intimately linked with religion and the holiness of royalty, which maybe still is the case for some monarchies, such as the British (see Nairn, 2011: 71–73), in the Swedish case, the royal touch rather reflects the Swedish King’s ambition of acting ‘with the times’, consecrating and sanctifying those values and those groups in society that are best aligned with neoliberalism. Rather than grounding his (royal) authority in the traditional idea of royal power through an eternal God, it’s about grounding his authority in what capitalism believes is sacred, basically, what is demanded from a market’s point-of-view.

As I will try to show in this article, it is against a certain historic background and contemporary context that the Swedish King’s image as head of state has steadily been formed, where people’s ‘leadership’ and their abilities to act according to a market-economy’s values and norms of ‘employability’, by presenting themselves as active, entrepreneurial, positive, energetic and self-managing, are key ideas. My interest is in understanding royal power in the neoliberal era through the way kings and queens and other royals present themselves socially, communicatively and aesthetically, aspiring to be seen as role-models, or rather, leaders. Hence, the King’s royal touch (see Bloch, 1973; Brogan, 2015) is about the consecration of a certain ideology, namely neoliberalism, expressed through people’s ‘leadership’ (see e.g. Dean, 1995; Holmqvist et al., 2013; Maravelias, 2020); this being an essential strategy of royals’ reproduction and their power as modern elites.

A key theoretical notion for my analysis of how the King of Sweden is made ‘Sweden’s leader’ is ‘image-making’ (see Holmqvist, 2023), which primarily derives from Goffman’s (1959) work on the ‘presentation of self’. It’s about how, in dramaturgical terms, individuals act as if they are on stage, performing a play, typically written by others. By presenting themselves in a certain way, orally as well as bodily, an image is created and reproduced that is laden with social, moral and political connotations (cf. Mead, 1967; Scott, 1969). According to Goffman, the representation of actors is critical to their influence through the kind of impression they make; there’s also a ‘back-stage’ where they can be more true to their ‘authentic’ personalities. A person’s image is an expression of the constant social interaction that takes place between him or her and the environment. An image can be both formal and informal, and these do not always coincide. How people behave and contribute to presenting themselves depends to a large extent on the context; a person’s authority is always contextual and is contingent on how he or she is perceived by others (see Berger and Luckmann, 1966; March, 1994).

Of course, image-making and the metaphor of theatre comes naturally to mind when thinking about royals historically (see Bendix, 1978; Elias, 2006). In relation to other elites, royals have always acted on stage through much of their official engagements; the French court in particular has been seen as a theatre where plays were performed according to strict rules, routines and ceremonies (see Burke, 1992). However, through the ever-presence of media, today royal courts can even more obviously be seen as theatres; it’s a constant performance where the general public is the audience, 24/7 (Jönsson and Lundell, 2009; Omes and Maclaran, 2015). Potentially, this makes royals’ image-making a much more important issue than for other elites; how they appear, how they present themselves and what kinds of value are attached to them.

Empirically, my study has a parentage in the examinations made by historians of the construction of images of kings and queens and the way they have been portrayed during their reign (see Corns, 1999; Montrose, 2006; Sharpe, 2009). For instance, Burke (1992), who too was influenced by Goffman, examined the ‘fabrication’ of Louis XIV through paintings, sculptures, music and poems during Louis’s life between 1638 and 1715. The concept of ‘representation’ is central to such an analysis; that is, how different symbols and ceremonies represent something – for example, as Burke notes, Louis was commonly described as Hercules, which symbolizes strength. In the case of the Swedish king, he rather appears as Hermes, the god of the merchants and businessmen (and thieves; see Brown, 1947). Paraphrasing Burke and his colleagues in history, my concern in this article is with ‘the selling of Sweden’s king’ as the nation’s head of state, with the packaging of him, with ideology, communication and the manipulation of public opinion. Indeed, many elites today, particularly political and business and financial elites, rely heavily on PR-consultants, ‘spin doctors’, communication experts and other ‘image experts’ for their influence and power (Garsten and Sörbom, 2018; Svallfors, 2016); this includes royals as well (see Greyser et al., 2006).

The phenomenon can be understood against a background of the neoliberal society, where people’s social, communicative and aesthetic abilities are seen as critical for their ‘employability’, rather than what they know intellectually and analytically (Dean, 1995; Maravelias, 2020; Smith, 2010). In such a context ‘image’ becomes more important than ‘content’ for people’s advancement and the reproduction of social hierarchies (see Jackall, 1988; Schleef, 2006). Thus, in a society characterized by the logic of markets and corporations, the ‘selling’ of people’s appearances and images is critical (du Gay, 1996; Vallas and Cummins, 2015). To be seen as a ‘leader’ today requires excellent social, communicative and aesthetic competences and skills (Alvesson and Willmott, 2002; Hearn, 2008). For instance, Khurana (2003) describes how, in a world of global investor capitalism, senior corporate managers need to be ‘charismatic’ in order to remain powerful and legitimate; this is also what often makes today’s students attractive for elite employers (see Ho, 2009; Rivera, 2016), and what ultimately makes people in general ‘employable’ (Holmqvist, 2009; Smith, 2010). To this extent, it may be the case that the historically unique way royal elites have maintained their power and influence – through strategic image-making procedures – has become a norm for all elites today. By learning about the image-making of royals in today’s society, we may learn something new about contemporary elites’ power in general.

Methods

In examining the image-making of the Swedish King, I have concentrated on what kinds of virtues and values the King expresses in interviews in media. Media is a critical actor in disseminating a certain image of royals and their perspectives and standpoints on various issues (see Clancy, 2023; Jönsson and Lundell, 2009). Certainly, a person’s image is the result of his or her actions: what we do in terms of participating in different events, and whom we meet (see Goffman, 1959; Hearn, 2008). But a person’s image is also the result of what he or she says through various statements of a moral character, such as ‘it’s important that children read books’, or ‘if working at a bank, you shouldn’t wear jeans’, reflecting some underlying values and ideologies (see Mead, 1967; Scott, 1969).

Essentially, when examining the making of Sweden’s King as the country’s head of state, I’m concerned with the way he is portrayed and presented, rather than who he is as an individual and person, which is the standard focus among journalists and writers of royal biographies (see Holmqvist, 2023). Whether or not the King is a likeable, smart, interesting, creative, or intelligent character and individual is not of any interest to me. It’s the social construction of his image that is my focus of attention, a process in which he, together with other players, takes an active part. Of course, however, this construction may very well entail the presentation of the King as a likeable, smart, interesting, creative and intelligent person. Hence, by focusing on the King’s image, I do not aspire to make any conclusions about his personality and character as a human being; however, it should be noted that an individual’s image is often grounded in a person’s self and identity (James, 1981; Janis and Mann, 1977).

A criticism of my approach may be that it doesn’t take into consideration how the King is actually perceived by others, primarily by the general public, thus making the analysis incomplete in terms of understanding his actual impact in today’s society. As the famous story of the naked emperor implies, seeing is believing (Weick, 1979); authority is always granted to someone, it never resides within a person as such (Simon, 1997). But my analysis is not primarily concerned with how the King actually affects his environment, but with what kind of image he aims to create of himself (cf. Burke, 1992), seen as a critical practice of elite reproduction and power (cf. Cousin and Chauvin, 2014; Wiesel, 2018).

As already suggested, what people say about themselves, and others, is important for how they appear. This is the reason why elites seem so concerned with how they express themselves, and how they present themselves, in terms of the clothes they wear, where they live, what kind of cars they have, and so on (see Baltzell, 1958; Le Wita, 1994; Pincon and Pincon-Charlot, 1999). In focusing on what the King says, I also pay attention to the institutional frames around which his image is created in terms of significant actors and organizations, particularly the royal court and media (cf. Goffman, 1974; Weick, 1995). That is, the King’s image-making is largely an organizational affair, the result of certain interests and perspectives that are managed both formally and informally.

My study of the King’s interviews stretches from 1973, when the King ascended to the Swedish throne, through to today (2022). The total audiovisual material (television and radio) that I have examined where the King is interviewed alone, or as part of a programme, is 32 hours, spread over 20.5 hours of television; 6 hours of radio and podcast; and 5.5 hours of film. ¹ As for interviews on television, the Swedish public service channel Sveriges Television completely dominates during the current survey period with 17 hours over the private channel TV4’s 3 hours. Sveriges Television annually broadcasts the hour-long ‘The Year with the Royal Family’, and throughout the years has also done several longer individual interviews with the King. As for radio, the public service broadcaster Sveriges Radio dominates almost completely. It should be noted that the interest of the public is usually great for these programmes, which is why they are obviously important for how the King is portrayed and presented as head of state.

In addition to interviews on radio and television, I have also examined a large number of interviews with the King in newspapers and magazines, such as the leading Dagens Nyheter, Svenska Dagbladet and Göteborgs-Posten, also included is the leading business paper Dagens Industri. Overall, among the Swedish dailies that have interviewed him, most major newspapers appear, usually in connection with an anniversary, for example when he turned 60 in 2006. Among magazines that have interviewed the King and that I have studied, there are several that reflect the areas that the King usually pays attention to, such as leadership, hunting, tourism and the environment; see for example the magazines Chef (‘Manager’), Turist (‘Tourist’), Svensk Jakt (‘Swedish Hunting’) and Svensk Idrott (‘Swedish Sports’). The choice of newspaper/magazine in which the King is interviewed can be at least as important as what he says, in order to understand which issues he wants to highlight as important, for example nature and the environment, and which thus contribute to his image-making.

All in all, the interviews that the King gives, which are usually a result of his and the royal court’s selection of who gets to interview him, are essential expressions of how he is fabricated as head of state, from an image-making perspective, and thus constructed as a central actor in Swedish society. That the royal court is deeply involved in the interviews the King gives is therefore not surprising. The request for an interview is usually made via the court’s communications department, which assesses whether the interview can be seen as ‘relevant’ or not, based on the overall goals the royal court has with its communication (see Holmqvist, 2023).

In analysing the various documents that I have collected as sources for understanding the King’s image-making through media, irrespective if they concern politics, private matters, environment and nature, military, covid-19, hospital care, science or any subject that the King has addressed, I have tried to understand how they reflect the King’s official motto, to act ‘For Sweden – With the Times’, which I see as the basic foundation of how the King wants to be profiled and presented to the public. Thus, the royal motto has been my guiding star in making sense of his many statements and opinions on various matters. My approach has been qualitative, focusing on what kind of human behaviour the King idealizes, basically: what are the virtues he suggests that Swedes should abide by? To understand this, I have noted recurrent themes, such as the request to be active and to act responsibly, to be energetic and entrepreneurial, and to convey a positive approach to life, even in times of darkness and austerity, and similar expressions of ‘leadership’ that well reflect the King’s motto. Although I have done no quantitative analysis of the frequency of ‘leadership words’, I conclude that such contrasting themes as reflection, problematization, deliberation and critical thinking are relatively rare in the interviews. As I will argue, rather than being associated with the traditional royal virtues of tradition, honour, duty and majesty (see Bendix, 1978; Elias, 2006), which still seem important to the British monarchy (Billig, 1992; Nairn, 2011), the Swedish King wants to be seen as a (corporate) leader, someone who is working hard, appears useful, expresses enthusiasm, is full of energy and vitality, and who conveys optimism and a belief in the future, in other words, a ‘meritocratic king’.

Findings

Before addressing how the King portrays himself through media, it must be stressed that his image-making doesn’t occur in a social and organizational vacuum, as already suggested: The daily management of the King’s image is the responsibility of the Royal Court, particularly its ‘Communications Department.’ A person’s image is largely the result of what he or she does, and what he or she says: The court and its senior advisers formally control the King’s agenda, and are active in other ways of how the King presents himself, for instance, what interviews with media he accepts.

When the King ascended to the throne in 1973, there was no communications department whatsoever; today it has some 15 professionals who work full-time in managing a certain image of the King and the Royal Family. This well mirrors the general importance in contemporary society of communication and the presentation of self for elites (see Khurana, 2003; Svallfors, 2016), including that of royals (Greyser et al., 2006). Moreover, the department is led by a person with long experience from PR and communications in the business world (the food and hotel industries); this was also the case of her predecessors (they had extensive experience from airlines and telecommunications), illustrating in a very straightforward way the ideological influence by business and the corporate elites of the Swedish Royal Court.

Overall, the King and the court are very dependent on media in the making of the King; media can be seen as the court’s ‘extended communication’s department’, which is the reason why interviews with the King are an important source for understanding how he has been made, from an image-making point of view. When journalists report about the King, they typically echo the messages from the Royal Court: that the King is an ‘active’, ‘energetic’ and ‘entrepreneurial’ person, who acts ‘responsibly’ for the country, simply put, a ‘leader’. As, for instance was reported in Swedish public service TV in 2016:

By the age of 70, most people have retired. But King Carl XVI Gustaf has no plans to stop working. It is just after eight when he parks his car in the inner courtyard of The Royal Palace, and steps into the office for another day at work.

Such an image is even more stressed by showing the King wandering in nature with a heavy back-pack, and fishing, or skiing in the winter, or participating in a large number of meetings during state visits; in all, offering a picture of a vigorous person, a role-model, someone to look up to, and to be inspired by. His well-trimmed body and healthy lifestyle is also often portrayed. Media relations are created to ‘trustworthy journalists’: One of the longest-serving Communication Managers of the Royal Court said the following in a radio interview in 2016:

I soon learned that there are different journalists. Serious and less serious, that is. I decided to build up a contact network with one or a couple of credible people at each relevant newsroom. I found journalists I could trust. Journalists it was possible to talk to. To be able to count on in difficult situations. We developed a mutual trust, which both parties benefited from.

In the following, I will report my main observations of how King Carl XVI Gustaf is fabricated through media interviews in contemporary Sweden.

Idealizing an Active and Healthy Lifestyle

In the examined interviews, the King makes the case, firstly, that it is important to live an active life, both physically and socially. As for the former, this is expressed early on, in one of his first television interviews in 1973. The programme begins with the King being seen jogging, and saying: ‘sometimes a week you can manage to run 5 kilometres, then you can get quite far on that’. Some years later, in an interview in 1981, he emphasizes that sport is not only health-promoting, but also fosters ‘care, discipline, loyalty, camaraderie and team spirit’ – all important factors for realizing an active and productive lifestyle; it is also made clear in the programme that the King himself is a role model on that point. In an interview even later, in 2006, the reporter believes that many people like to ‘sink down on the sofa’ with a beer and chips and ‘watch a good soccer match’ – but this is not anything the King wants to be associated with: ‘No,’ he says explicitly, when asked if this is something that attracts him, ‘no’ several times as well. That is, the King clearly dissociates himself from such seemingly unhealthy and passive behaviour; an active life in motion, is what he sees as exemplary, hence, not only consecrating the ‘employable subject’ in contemporary neoliberal society (see Korp, 2007; Maravelias, 2018), but also a lifestyle associated with the upper classes (see Baltzell, 1958; Le Wita, 1994). And in an interview in 2021, the King initially says that he is busy and constantly encounters new situations, new tasks, new areas and new people – as head of state, he wants to embody the active, committed and enterprising person; thus implying he deserves his elevated position based on hard work rather than class and inheritance (cf. Littler, 2018; Mijs and Savage, 2020).

Being an active and engaged person brings to mind people who are described as leaders, that is, people who are able to control, organize and discipline themselves, and their surroundings – an ability which, as I have already pointed out, has gained increasing prominence in a society that increasingly idealizes people’s presentation abilities and their social, communicative and aesthetic competences as part of their economic and social ‘success’ on various markets (see Holmqvist, 2017; Khurana, 2003).

Several times in the interviews that I have studied, the King also conveys how much he has managed to do during his life, which becomes an expression of a well-organized and active life (certainly perhaps not always thanks to his own abilities). An example is an interview from 1998, where he states that he has lived an active and content-rich life, and says that ‘you have had time to accomplish a lot’, implying he is a successful leader of himself, and of others. And the active life is something he intends to continue with, even as an older person. In an interview from 2013, when he was 67 years old, he said the following:

I will not be a pensioner, alas, alas [. . .] I wasn’t planning on quitting now, I look to the future with confidence, it’s going to be exciting, I’m simply insanely curious to see what happens.

Of course, emphasizing health and activity are about remaining productive and thereby useful to society 24/7, which resonates well with the relation of capital as human resources and labour in neoliberalism, where borders between the private and professional spheres are blurred (see Gregg, 2018; Holmqvist et al., 2013; Jarrett, 2022; Maravelias, 2018). ‘Merits’ in this world are less about professional, intellectual and analytical qualifications, and more about social, communicative and aesthetic competencies (see Khan and Jerolmack, 2013; Littler, 2018).

In another interview, the King is asked if he is afraid of dying – and says that he is, but still wants to emphasize the importance of being active, saying that ‘you don’t have time to die, there’s a lot left to give’. It is therefore important, says the King, to take advantage of ‘the good opportunities in life that exist, and to have a good life, in general.’ Hence, according to the King, it is up to you as a person whether you get a good life or not; leading an active rather than a ‘passive’ life is seen as commendable. This individual-based philosophy, where it is about ‘always doing your best’ as a person and ‘taking advantage of the opportunities that are given’, is obviously demanding and presupposes that there are abilities, and societal structures (which often is the case among economically and socially privileged groups), that make this possible – but it is well compatible with a market-oriented society’s demands on human responsibility, as well as the ability to choose and the will to act (see Dean, 1995; Smith, 2010).

The only time in the examined interviews I noticed that the King expressed something that could be called laziness, or passivity, is when reading books came up as a topic – books and literature, incidentally, hardly appear at all in the interviews. In interviews with Swedish Radio in 2010, the King says: ‘I have a feeling that you read less now than you did before, now you fall asleep! You don’t have time during the day and so on [. . .] I’m not the one to sit down and read a book, it’s hardly happened in a day, preferably at night and so on, but now you fall asleep instead.’ The King says that in his library he always finds something interesting to read, but that he ‘can’t bear to do it [. . .] I’m a bit lazy and a bit lethargic.’ Hence, reading books is not anything encouraged by the King. This is also an approach well in accordance with the dominant values of today’s society, where intellectual analysis, reflection, problematization, critical thinking and the like are seldom promoted as critical virtues of ‘employability’ (cf. Rivera, 2016; Schleef, 2006). Indeed, while reading is commonly not associated with traditional working-class culture (see Bourdieu, 1984; Whyte, 1943; Willis, 1977), neither are contemporary wealthy elites – the main proponents of and beneficiaries of neoliberalism – described as intellectuals with a sincere interest in literature (see Holmqvist, 2017; Pincon and Pincon-Charlot, 1999; Wiesel, 2018); what the King says about (the lack of importance of) literature should be seen in the light of his version of the royal touch, which is to act ‘with the times’.

Promoting Self-Management and Discipline

In several newspaper interviews during my study period of 1973–2002, the King further conveys the importance of being able to lead and control oneself, to be ‘master of one’s emotions’, that is, to practise a form of self-control or self-management, which too can be seen as a call to remain ‘productive’ (see Gregg, 2018; Maravelias, 2020). In an interview from 2017, the reporter asks him about an ongoing state visit in a foreign country: ‘What is it like to work in such a very humid and hot country?’ The King replies that he thinks that ‘the others are much warmer than I am and so I just sit calmly and still, and let the temperature drop, take it easy, simply’. It is always important, the King says in several interviews, to manage and control oneself – that is, to be aware of how one behaves, and how one is seen by others. Overall, these are central messages from the King in his role as Sweden’s head of state to all Swedes, where he, as king, by embodying these ideals, wants to appear as an example, simply as a leader. A similar approach on the theme of self-discipline and self-governance is inculcated by the King in a 1999 interview about food, after the reporter praised him for his good physique, despite all the good meals he often devours. The King states that he is lucky with a ‘swift burning of calories, otherwise it would have been a disaster’, but that he also has to think about being careful of how much and what kind of food he eats. That is to say, food cannot just be enjoyed – a good physique is something that is deserved, a result of self-discipline – especially when so many delicacies are presented to him wherever he goes. In another interview, from 2006, he says the following: ‘If there is a big dinner in the evening, I skip lunch. And never any small things in the afternoon. I think that is the worst.’ Obviously, this is a very different approach to that of someone sitting in a sofa, enjoying some beer and chips watching TV, perhaps after a hard day of manual labour, but it resonates well with neoliberalism’s aesthetic ideals, where the human body becomes part of an individual’s merits (see Holmqvist and Maravelias, 2011; Korp, 2007; Maravelias, 2018).

The ability to exercise self-control applies to large and small things: For example, in an interview in 2013, the King describes his ascending the throne in 1973 as a great mental tension. When the reporter asks if it wasn’t also very emotional, the King says emphatically:

Well. . . it’s not possible to be emotional when you have to act like that, you just have to disconnect, it’s like with a lot of things you do with challenging things, you have to disconnect, concentrate 100 percent, look straight ahead and have the horizon in your view, it’s not possible to add a lot of emotions, it’s not possible.

Even illness must be ‘managed’, according to him. In an interview from 2013, the reporter states that as Sweden’s head of state one must be healthy at all times, to which the King says: ‘Yes, one must. But that’s not always the case. You can be very ill, but there’s nothing you can do about it, you just have to show up anyway.’ That is, even the ‘mastery’ of illness can be seen as an expression of ‘leadership’, in order to remain productive and committed.

Indeed, the King, in his role as Sweden’s head of state, conveys the idea that one should always remain active and engaged, even if one is actually ill. The whole thing is thus not ultimately a matter of objective conditions, but of one’s inner driving forces and, above all, will. ‘We can always do more than we think’, the King seems to want to say, which adds fundamentally to his image in contemporary, neoliberal Sweden, where an individual is held responsible for his or her social and economic status, and where any ‘failure’ is attributed to the individual’s lack of energy, wisdom, effort, and so on, rather than to any external structures (Holmqvist et al., 2013; Maravelias, 2018).

Consecrating the Ideology of Positive Thinking

The idea of the active, committed and self-governing and self-regulating person that the King describes as exemplary in several of the interviews during the 50 years I have studied, and that he embodies by being presented as just that by the media, is basically also the image of a positive and optimistic person, despite the fact that reality does not always appear so positive or bright. In, for example, a television programme from 1980, he is asked about the environment of the future, and he points out that a major problem is the increase of the population on earth, which will lead to a great strain on the earth’s resources. But, as he also stresses, ‘You mustn’t be pessimistic either, instead you must try to find the problems and attack them’, even though, as he says, it will be ‘very difficult.’ As has been the case for other royals as well, not least King Charles III (see Charles Prince of Wales et al., 2010), nature and the environment are certainly recurring themes in the interviews with the Swedish King, and most often he sets a positive tone when environmental problems come up, which further contributes to his image as a positive-thinking person, who, like an entrepreneur, always looks for solutions rather than problems. In an interview from 2005, there is a feature about the King’s project ‘Royal Colloquium’ and the issue of climate change in the Arctic. He believes that there is a need for discussions and action between states to reverse a negative development. But, he says, it must not become ‘some doomsday story, because then you become a little paralysed, then it will be the wrong message.’

Environmental and climate issues have recently come to be presented in today’s society in a rather critical framework, primarily by researchers and other representatives of the academic world, but also by individual authors and social debaters, for instance Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg – not least by pointing at the complicated relationship between capitalism – with its insistence on ever expanding industrial production and consumption – and an environmentally sustainable lifestyle, by regulating markets and corporate activity. The King, on the other hand, wants to convey optimism and faith in the future. For him, it is therefore about interpreting environmental and climate issues positively and presenting them as opportunities – not least the commercial ones. For instance. when he is asked in an interview in 2021 about the climate crisis, he says that it is an ‘extremely difficult question’ that he and others have ‘struggled with’ for a long time: ‘Now we have to do something, at the eleventh hour.’ He emphasizes the fact that countries have now begun to cooperate more, and that they realize the seriousness of climate change. There is thus a positive development, says the King, and specifically mentions the car industry as taking ‘responsibility’ in this context. ‘There are opportunities,’ he says. The King also mentions another industry, namely the forest industry, which he believes can breathe fresh air, both literally and figuratively, in the form of environmentally renewable and sustainable products – an industry that he otherwise seems well versed in by speaking quite verbosely about various innovations and products. Hence, in choosing between environmental concerns and corporate concerns, the King essentially replicates the ‘corporate social responsibility’ rhetoric of businesses, but also of the entrepreneur, who constantly sees ‘new opportunities’.

Hence, when the King talks about the climate crisis in various interviews, he typically chooses to emphasize the positive things that are happening in the form of international political agreements, and possible economic developments, which becomes an important contribution to his image as a King well adapted to his time according to his royal motto, where a positive and action-oriented thinking is rewarded and consecrated. There is thus hope for the climate, and the earth – for example through innovative forest products, where business is presented as part of the solution and not the problem. In this way, the climate crisis enables the King to show commitment to current issues, and to consecrate business. All in all, therefore, the environment and nature in the interviews that the King gives become platforms for expressing a certain ideology, and of himself, namely a future-oriented and optimistic attitude – in stark contrast to the more dystopian and critical messages of researchers and others, and for all intents and purposes the more problematizing approach to what solutions are available, not least the role of business in the context.

A positive attitude, which is a cornerstone of the neoliberal discourse (see Binkley, 2011; Ehrenreich, 2009) is thus at least as important as ‘hard facts’, according to the King – the individual character that he consecrates is a person who believes in the future and who wants to act in a way that makes opportunities possible, in other words, a person who acts completely in accordance with contemporary society’s idealization of people as action-oriented rather than reflective, and positive-thinking rather than critical thinking (see Fleming and Sturdy, 2009; Holmqvist, 2017; Maravelias, 2003). That is, even if there are objective problems, such as the climate crisis, the King associates himself with the idea that ultimately everything is about everyone’s commitment and motivation; it’s about ‘seeing the possibilities’, and not getting stuck in any negative, hopeless thinking. This is an important part of a message that contributes to fabricating the King as an active, committed and enterprising head of state, and well expresses how his royal touch has adapted to a market-based context dominated by the ethos of the entrepreneur and ‘self-made man’ (cf. Cremin, 2003; Lilley and Lightfoot, 2014).

Consecrating the Business Elites

Overall, the business and economic elites, which are traditionally strong proponents of such virtues as activity, entrepreneurship, positive thinking and other expressions of ‘leadership’ (see Holmqvist, 2021; Jackall, 1988; Vallas and Cummins, 2015), are important reference groups when the King is interviewed as Sweden’s head of state. For instance, in a podcast from 2021, he speaks extensively about company visits and how he appreciates learning about ‘what that company does, what they have managed to achieve [. . .] it’s exciting to hear how people have succeeded with things’. In an interview in 1982, the King also states that his relations with business and its managers have developed well since he became King: ‘I enjoy being together with the business leaders as much as they enjoy being together with me.’ One of the newspaper’s reporters asks if there has been any change in terms of relations with the business world since the King took office in 1973, and he answers the following, with his predecessor Gustaf VI Adolf, who was branded a ‘culture king’ in mind: ‘Oh, yes. There was nothing before’, illustrating the fundamental reorientation of the Swedish monarchy from an aristocratic institution to a neoliberal one during his reign, well in tune with the market-turn of Swedish society since the 1970s (see Offer and Söderberg, 2016). In yet another interview, from 1990, he says the following:

Visiting companies is important for many reasons. It gives some proof of how well we are doing in Sweden, what potential there is for the future and what basis society has to build on. If we don’t have a well-functioning industry, then we have problems for the future.

Hence, industry and its leaders are seen as exemplary and are given a peculiar standing in the image-making of the King.

Indeed, the business community and its leaders, unlike the political world, the world of research and academia, and the world of culture, stands for the clear action-orientation that the King’s leadership philosophy is all about (see Jackall, 1988; Khurana, 2003). In his statements in the media, business simply appears as a role model for other spheres of society. For instance, in 2013 he was asked by Swedish public radio what impressions he had of Sweden after 40 years on the throne, he therefore unsurprisingly chose to highlight corporations’ industrial and technological advancements:

We are a small economy in the northern hemisphere here in Scandinavia and I think we have a lot of exciting developments, innovations and technology. I think you should try to look up to this and try to lift it up, you should be proud and take good care of it.

Further, in several interviews he has referred to corporate leaders when trying to explain what a modern king does. As he said in an interview on the radio in 2016:

You are always at the centre and need to present yourself [. . .] It’s very difficult to explain this, I think there are many people with me, who are corporate executives or CEO’s or government ministers and the equivalent. . . to always be a front figure, to have the answers at hand in all contexts, so to speak, it’s hard.

But even if it appears that in all essentials the King consecrates the ideology of neoliberalism by promoting ‘leadership’, there are also examples of him conveying values that are typically not associated with it. This suggests that his image-making as head of state, is not unambiguous or without complexity. For example, he sometimes talks insightfully and reflectively about himself and his life, his relations with his children, and the need for people to show compassion and love for one another, which also, of course, contributes to how he is perceived and understood. In an article in a magazine in 1996, he even expresses how strange he thought it was, that his father’s death, when he was still a baby, was never discussed during his childhood – that his mother never commented on this with a single word: ‘My mother never said a word about it, told nothing for me. Very strange. It was not mentioned at all in the family.’

At the same time, he argues one should not delve into the past: ‘In our position, one cannot sit down and cry. It’s not possible. One must continue to perform. Nothing else works.’ At a press conference in 2010, which was broadcast by Swedish public TV, the King was confronted by journalists with claims in a recently published book that he’d been unfaithful to his wife. Responding to this, he said that he talked to his family about the ‘newspaper headlines’ that were in connection with the book, but that now, ‘we turn a page [. . .] and look forward instead!’ Hence, even though the King’s image as a (business) leader is not without its ambiguities, in general he consecrates those lifestyle ideals that are different variations on the theme of (corporate) leadership, where such things as the ability for activity, action, commitment, discipline and control, as well as a solution- and forward-oriented attitude to life based on positive thinking are promoted and idealized. In his image-making, ‘merits’ are not intellectual, artistic, analytical or even scientific capabilities that require a capacity for problematization and critical thinking. Instead, the King promotes a peculiar set of merits that are associated with entrepreneurship and executive behaviour that fit well with the meritocratic ideology. This is not surprising, however, but should be seen as an expression of an ambition to adapt to some fundamental values in contemporary Sweden, while also legitimizing them. To this extent, the King has successfully modernized the Swedish monarchy, from having been heavily criticized for being reactionary and archaic when he ascended to the throne in the early 1970s, to becoming an institution appreciated by most people, including the elite of the Social Democratic party.

Discussion

By designating the King as ‘Sweden’s leader’, based on my examination of his image-making through interviews in Swedish media, I do not mean that he necessarily is a leader in a concrete and practical sense, in that he can exercise real influence over people’s lives and choices by virtue of his personality and character or the formal position he holds as head of state (cf. Mills, 1956; Weber, 1978); but that he has been fabricated as such for almost 50 years. The ability for elites to present themselves in a certain social and aesthetic fashion, has become increasingly important in a society dominated by neoliberalism’s idealization of people’s social, communicative and aesthetic competences, where their social advancement, ‘employability’, power and influence increasingly depend on their image and profile, rather than what they know in an intellectual, professional and analytical sense (see Khurana, 2003; Rivera, 2016). For royals, image-making has been a long concern, perhaps much more so than for other elites, thus making them relevant study objects when analysing elites and power in contemporary society (cf. Corns, 1999; Montrose, 2006; Sharpe, 2009); obviously the Swedish King’s image has been adapted to the social, political and economic context of its environment, although it’s not without some ambiguities.

The consecration that characterizes various elite institutions, for example privileged neighbourhoods, elite universities, royal courts and monarchies, creates the appropriate social, communicative and aesthetic dispositions for people to be seen as leaders in our time (see Schleef, 2006; Holmqvist, 2017; Wiesel, 2018). The King, as Sweden’s head of state, is no exception – through his royal touch, he socially and morally legitimizes certain values in society, which contributes to their authority; but these values also contribute to his legitimacy and elevation. Consecration is always an exclusive history, limited to certain environments and institutions; the result is necessarily the maintenance of classes and status, and thus the conservation of power and influence for certain groups (see Bourdieu, 1996; Friedman and Reeves, 2020). By idealizing ‘leadership’, and by consecrating the economic and financial elites as part of his image-making, the King contributes to maintaining the neoliberal ideology and thus certain interests and perspectives in society.

People’s ‘leadership’ is something that has come to be emphasized more and more in step with society’s gradual neoliberalization since the end of the 1970s, and the increasing power and influence of the economic elites (see Harvey, 2005; Holmqvist and Wiesel, 2023; Maravelias, 2020); a development that the King, in his capacity as Sweden’s head of state, intentionally or not, has tried to match by following his motto, ‘For Sweden – With The Times’. Today people in general are expected to be engaged as active citizens, who take responsibility for themselves and others, and who are capable of self-organization, self-management and self-discipline (see Ho, 2009; Schleef, 2006). Hence, much of what we consider ‘merits’ in today’s society is based on these leadership abilities, which, for example, is captured in the concept of ‘employability’ that implies a person’s own responsibility for their attractiveness on the labour market (see Holmqvist et al., 2013; Dean, 1995).

It is difficult to criticize and resist ‘leadership’, in the same way that it is difficult to criticize, for example, ‘health’ – both are fundamentally positive terms and may appear unproblematic. As a type of moral virtue, ‘leadership’ in the form of individual responsibility, commitment, entrepreneurship and activity is, of course, not necessarily bad in itself. But just as a ‘healthy life’ and ‘leadership’ may have many positive consequences, by emphasizing people’s responsibility for their social and economic situation, and their well-being, they can in an exaggerated form be transformed from a societal virtue into a societal vice. The problem, then, is not necessarily the idea of leadership itself, but how it is applied in practice. In addition, it’s an expression of a certain hegemony, namely the market economy’s demands on the individual’s ability to control, organize and discipline him- or herself, 24/7 in order to remain productive and useful (see Fleming and Sturdy, 2009; Maravelias, 2003), creating inequalities and injustices, in the sense that simply not all people have the same abilities to practise what the leadership discourse expects from them (see Garsten and Jacobsson, 2004; Korp, 2007).

Such ideologies are thus both creative and discriminatory: ‘leadership’ both embraces and excludes people (cf. Alvesson and Willmott, 2002; Jackall, 1988). The King’s image as ‘Sweden’s leader’ is probably not meant to exclude anyone; but is nevertheless a call to live life in a certain way, which indirectly benefits certain groups in society, and disadvantages others. Through his image-making, the King has become, contrary to his official intentions, a sorting and segregating actor in Swedish society, that is, someone who has contributed to society’s diversification and stratification, grounded in a neoliberal ideology. As the King is formally head of state, it is ultimately the Swedish state that is responsible for this; that is, the state through the King, contributes to maintaining the power and influence of certain groups, based on an idea of ‘leadership’.

Conclusions

A central issue in the sociological literature on elites is how they are reproduced, and thus remain powerful and influential (see e.g. Gulbrandsen, 2019; Khan, 2012). In previous studies, sociologists have described and analysed how people in different exclusive and privileged environments, for example residential areas, clubs and associations and schools and universities are both socialized and reproduced as elites (e.g. Holmqvist, 2017; Schleef, 2006). In this study of the Swedish King as head of state, I further develop the analysis by including the concept of image, as a central mechanism of elites’ self-presentation, and thus how they are perceived by those around them. This has significance for understanding authority and power in neoliberal society, which emphasizes people’s social, communicative and aesthetic abilities, over their analytical and intellectual competences (seen Holmqvist, 2021; Khan, 2011; Khurana, 2003).

Image-making and consecration are intimately connected for the legitimacy and power of elites, expressing their abilities to present themselves in a way that makes them influential in certain social contexts. Of importance for this, is the ability to maintain social, aesthetic and moral legitimacy, which occurs through the adaptation of the elites to prevailing ideals and to their mutual integration and cooperation, where the economic, academic and cultural elites are of particular importance (see Baltzell, 1958; Gulbrandsen, 2019; Le Wita, 1994). King Carl XVI Gustaf, in his role as Sweden’s head of state, manifests all this well, and is therefore an interesting object of study for the development of theories about elites and how they maintain their power and thus their influence: his unique status and position and the consecration through his royal touch is an expression both of the ideals and values of our time and a certain historical context.

Power and influence in today’s society is not only about access to economic, social and cultural capital, but also to symbolic capital, that is, the ability to successfully represent the ideals and expectations of the current society, simply to be able to present oneself in a way that is in accordance with prevailing expectations and ideals (see e.g. Fleming and Sturdy, 2009; Hearn, 2008; Khurana, 2003). Perhaps never before has the capacity for presentation of self been so essential (cf. Goffman, 1959); by turning to royals who have practised this for centuries, we may learn something not only about them and how they try to adapt to contemporary society by reinventing themselves (see Cannadine, 2013 [1983]; Hobsbawm, 2013 [1983]), but also about the behaviour of elites as ‘leaders’, namely their quest of appearing as social, moral and aesthetic role models. A complete understanding of how elites maintain their influence and privileges, and not least how they aim to function as leaders for us all through their social, communicative and aesthetic expressions, requires that symbolic power and its consecrating potential are examined even more closely, both theoretically and empirically.

A central observation is that power today, to be effective and legitimate, must be ceremonial: how people present themselves, and how they are perceived, is the basis of their authority in a society that values more and more their social, communicative and aesthetic abilities (e.g. Alvesson and Willmott, 2002; Garsten and Jacobsson, 2004; Rivera, 2016). Indeed, students of elites have noted the importance of powerful groups to appear as meritocratic success stories in order to remain legitimate; to be seen as hard-working, self-reliant and energetic people who ‘deserve’ their privileges (Friedman and Reeves, 2020; Mijs and Savage, 2020). Thus, image-making and the presentation of self are critical to contemporary elites’ leadership (see Ho, 2009; Khan, 2011; Rivera, 2016). For that reason, the profiling and image-creating activities of elites are central issues to critically examine in order to understand how power is exercised in the neoliberal era, where royals and other elites aspire to function as societies’ leaders, while at the same time acting as instruments for a distinct ideology, neoliberalism.