<p>The essay explores nationalism in the curriculum of the swedish school from 1878 to 1994. The text has been undertaken an analysis in three levels of discourse based on Norman Faircloughs critical language analysis. The first level is the text, the second is types of discourses and the third is order of discourse.</p><p>The nationalism in the curriculum has been related to three nationalistic types of discourses, derived from earlier studies on Swedish nationalism. They are conservative nationalism, “folkhemsnationalism” and contemporary nationalism. These discourses are related to Antonio Gramscis theory on hegemony and power in the capitalist society witch covers the order of discourse level of the analysis. Nationalism is then viewed as an ideology to maintain status quo and that the discursive changes are the result of an hegemonic negotiation between dominant and subaltern.</p><p> The study shows how an conservative nationalism dominates in the curriculum from 1878 and 1919. There is some signs of the “folkhemsnationalism” in 1919 but it is not until 1955 that it becomes dominant. The contemporary nationalism is a less clear category than the earlier kinds. It is existing in 1969, then there is a movement backwards in the 1980 before the contemporary nationalism becomes dominant in 1994.      </p>

The essay explores nationalism in the curriculum of the swedish school from 1878 to 1994. The text has been undertaken an analysis in three levels of discourse based on Norman Faircloughs critical language analysis. The first level is the text, the second is types of discourses and the third is order of discourse. The nationalism in the curriculum has been related to three nationalistic types of discourses, derived from earlier studies on Swedish nationalism. They are conservative nationalism, “folkhemsnationalism” and contemporary nationalism. These discourses are related to Antonio Gramscis theory on hegemony and power in the capitalist society witch covers the order of discourse level of the analysis. Nationalism is then viewed as an ideology to maintain status quo and that the discursive changes are the result of an hegemonic negotiation between dominant and subaltern.  The study shows how an conservative nationalism dominates in the curriculum from 1878 and 1919. There is some signs of the “folkhemsnationalism” in 1919 but it is not until 1955 that it becomes dominant. The contemporary nationalism is a less clear category than the earlier kinds. It is existing in 1969, then there is a movement backwards in the 1980 before the contemporary nationalism becomes dominant in 1994.