Jean-Claude Arnault
As Nobel Prize winners are announced this week, there has been one notable exception. In May, the Swedish Academy, the exclusive and secretive body that awards the Nobel Prize for Literature, announced that it would not be naming a laureate in 2018. Instead, two winners will be announced in 2019.
The dramatic decision came after the academy was engulfed in a scandal involving sexual assault and financial misconduct. It’s a controversy that sorely tarnished the credibility of one of the world’s most exalted cultural institutions.
What were the allegations against Arnault?
At the root of the scandal was a series of allegations made against Jean-Claude Arnault — the husband of academy member Katarina Frostenson, and a titanic figure in Sweden’s arts community. Last November, Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter published the testimonies of 18 women alleging cases of sexual assault and sexual harassment committed by Arnault over a period spanning two decades. This week, Arnault was convicted of rape by a Stockholm court and sentenced to two years in prison concerning a separate incident in 2011.
Although Arnault was not a member, his close proximity to the academy inadvertently embroiled the organisation in the growing scandal. Arnault and Frostenson jointly ran Forum — an elite cultural club known for its poetry readings performance art which received subsidies from the Academy. Several women in the Dagens Nyheter story alleged they were assaulted at Forum, or other properties owned by the Academy in Sweden and France. Amidst concerns about conflict of interest, the Academy hired a law firm to investigate the relationship, and discovered evidence of “financial irregularities“.
Further reporting dredged up an internal investigation, which suggested that Arnault, who grandiosely referred to himself as the academy’s “19th member” had possibly leaked the names of past winners ahead of the official announcement, including Bob Dylan in 2016. Such leaks are hugely damaging to the reputation of the academy, which holds its deliberations in an environment of intense opacity.
What happened after the Arnault scandal?
The Swedish Academy, which was founded by King Carl Gustav III in 1786, was torn apart by the Arnault affair. The academy’s refusal to expel Frostenson triggered a nasty public feud, played out in the pages of Sweden’s newspapers, which led to three members resigning.
Finally, Sara Danius, the first woman to lead the once male-dominated body also stepped down. That a woman at the helm of a traditionally stuffy, patriarchal and cloistered institution should be forced to take the fall for a scandal that began with a man’s sexual misconduct led to even greater outcry.
Protesters (mostly women) congregated outside the academy’s headquarters in Stockholm. More members resigned, leaving the academy’s membership reduced to 10 people — two less than the minimum required to appoint new members under its rules. The academy needed royal intervention to survive, with King Carl Gustaf XVI using his authority to amend the rules.
With a deeply divided and depleted membership, the Academy finally announced its decision to postpone the prize for the first time since 1949. A year, however, may not be enough time for the Academy to piece together its shredded public image.
If you or someone you know is impacted by sexual assault, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit 1800RESPECT.org.au. In an emergency, call 000.
Are we serious? A not unrelated event occurred in Oz a few years ago. A guy received a reward for bravery over the bush fires in Victoria in 2009. A few short years later he was in front of a magistrate for domestic violence. Numerous bimbos (some – so called – high profile) appealed to have the award withdrawn.
I can’t recall what the eventual result (I do not have a great regard for the Australian or the NZ character – far to much mental and moral cowardice for my liking – citizenship notwithstanding) but it didn’t seem to occur to anyone that the guy was presented with an award not for behaviour becoming a gentleman but for bravery. Being sent down for domestic violence is quite another matter.
The PC influence is now so ingrained that any capacity to distinguish event A from event B has disappeared. Appealing to logic is regarded with contempt.
As an aside the Committee has only ever rewarded the “faithful”. Just in terms of who is selected and who is excluded the Committee could not be more political. Now its impregnated with PC. Good Luck.
Kyle, I must squawk in protest. I have been flying backwards, indeed undertaking aerial feats of extraordinary dexterity, in my attempt to gain your esteem. What do I get for my trouble but (I do not have a high regard for the Australian or the NZ character – far (sic) too much mental and moral cowardice for my liking..”
What’s that great Aussie icon a magpie got to do to gain your respect and esteem? I dive bomb as many cyclists and humans who dare to step into my sphere of nesting influence as possible, and all I get is disrespect.
Cast an eye over Ayer, A. J. “Language, Truth and Logic”. It is a short book but a remarkable book and about 80 odd years old. A good 2nd hand book shop should have it. I have seen copies in Elizabeth’s.
Of similar ilk is Kurz, H. D. “Economic Thought” 2016
With those two books, b.b. you’ll save the world.
When I’ve ploughed through the 2000 odd books I have yet to read, I’ll get right onto it, although I did mention I have pretty much avoided reading philosophers since doing Philosophy 101. My extremely knowledgeable 17 year old self thought the whole course was a load of wankery. This was confirmed when I skimmed the required reading the night before the exam, went in and wrote what was a complete load of rubbish, only to given a credit for the subject.
Even then, I was wise enough to know the study of economics was not a good fit for me.
As a completely off topic factoid, Albert Einstein won his 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics for the photoelectric effect in 1922, not in 1921, and not for special or general relativity.
Why he wasn’t awarded it in 1921 is a mystery to me. Perhaps it’s because in 1921, relativity was still regarded as controversial- the awards committee wanted to honour Einstein, but had to spend a year thinking of a reason?
Not off topic at all; quite germane in fact. The Awards are for empirically based research and NOT for theoretical research. Until Eddington’s expedition 1919 general (and special) relativity remained unconfirmed. The photo-electric effect (a quantum effect) occurred earlier. Interesting that Einstein rejected quantum mechanics (god does not play dice) yet Neils Bohr (with whom he was friends) moped the floor with him.
A better example (from Physics) is Oppenheimer. All was not forgiven until the early 60s. He received the Nobel AFTER Teller and after being sanatised by the FBI.