Peace through Military Means? The Pan-European Paradox in the Writings of Hagar Olsson

Key findings from this study

• The study found that Pan-European peace ideals in Olsson's works are predicated upon increased European colonization of Africa, revealing contradiction between stated pacifist messaging and underlying colonial frameworks.
• The authors demonstrate that European modernism exhibits an oscillatory pattern between repudiating its warlike past and relapsing into militaristic and colonial discourse.
• The researchers identify that conventional literary interpretations of these texts as pacifist require reassessment when analyzed through decolonial analytical frameworks that foreground colonial dimensions.

Overview

This article examines contradictions in the literary works of Finland-Swedish author Hagar Olsson, specifically analyzing her play S.O.S. (1928) and novels På Kanaanexpressen (1929) and Det blåser upp till storm (1930). While previous scholarship has characterized these texts as advancing a pacifist agenda through the concept of Pan-Europe, the study problematizes this interpretation by demonstrating that Pan-European ideals are fundamentally intertwined with European colonization of Africa. The analysis positions these works within broader patterns of European modernism's engagement with militarism and colonialism.

Methods and approach

The study employs conceptual frameworks derived from decolonial scholarship to reexamine Olsson's textual representations of peace and Pan-European unity. Through this analytical lens, the research deconstructs the apparent pacifist messaging in the three works, revealing how peace advocacy operates alongside or in tension with colonial and militaristic discourse. The decolonial approach enables identification of how European modernist literature negotiates its relationship to imperial violence and military history while simultaneously reproducing colonial structures.

Results

The analysis reveals a fundamental paradox in Olsson's texts: the promotion of Pan-European peace is contingent upon and enabled by increased European colonial expansion in Africa. The study demonstrates that European modernism exhibits an oscillatory pattern, alternating between apparent repudiation of warlike historical legacies and regression into militaristic and colonial frameworks of thought. The texts thus simultaneously articulate anti-war sentiment and reinscribe colonial hierarchies, exposing the incompleteness of peace rhetoric when decoupled from analysis of imperialism.

Implications

The findings suggest that textual peace messaging in early-twentieth-century European literature requires scrutiny regarding its relationship to colonialism and imperial structures. Conventional literary interpretations emphasizing pacifist themes must be reassessed when underlying textual frameworks depend upon or normalize colonial subjugation. This study contributes to understanding how modernist discourse deployed peace rhetoric while maintaining allegiance to European dominance globally.

The research illuminates the limitations of analytical frameworks that isolate peace discourse from colonial discourse in modernist studies. A comprehensive examination of European literary responses to militarism and war must account for how peace advocacy is constructed through colonial presuppositions. This approach has methodological implications for literary scholarship examining modernism's ideological commitments and their relationship to imperial projects.

The study underscores the necessity of decolonial perspectives in reinterpreting canonical texts and established scholarly interpretations. The application of decolonial conceptual apparatus to Olsson's works demonstrates how such frameworks reveal ideological investments previously obscured by conventional literary analysis. This methodological intervention extends beyond individual texts to broader questions about how modernist literature negotiated its historical moment of imperial decline and warfare.

Scope and limitations

This summary is based on the study abstract and available metadata. It does not include a full analysis of the complete paper, supplementary materials, or underlying datasets unless explicitly stated. Findings should be interpreted in the context of the original publication.