This article draws on identity construction, emotions and a notion of productive power to address the question of why Swedish policymakers and public opinion are becoming increasingly supportive of NATO membership. It contributes theoretically by arguing that such textual phenomena intertwine with ‘disciplinary power’, which operates on the bodies of the subjects of power, exposing them to verbal and physical sanctions, a host of complex feelings and enhanced levels of self-disciplining. The article analyses 354 editorials and op-eds related to Sweden and NATO, published in the four biggest Swedish newspapers in 2014–2018; 1408 tweets, with a focus on 14 selected NATO campaigners and their advocacy; and semi-structured interviews with 12 such influencers. It concludes that Swedish NATO campaigners produce and negotiate emotional discourses in a way that targets other influencers and potential influencers by exposing them to ridicule and allegations of treason. While tendencies are similar on both sides of the debate, the article demonstrates that productive power currently intertwines with disciplinary power in a way that makes anti-NATO advocacy seem more fraught with personal risk than pro-NATO campaigning, and joining NATO appear to be the most normal, realistic and responsible policy option.

本文利用身份建构，情感和生产能力的概念来解决瑞典决策者和公众舆论为什么越来越支持北约成员的问题。它在理论上通过争论说这样的文本现象与“纪律权力”交织在一起，“纪律权力”作用于权力主体，使他们受到口头和身体上的制裁，一系列复杂的感觉和增强的自我约束水平，从而在理论上做出了贡献。本文分析了2014-2018年在瑞典四大报纸上发表的354篇与瑞典和北约相关的社论和专着；1408条推文，重点关注14名选定的北约竞选者及其倡导者；以及对12位此类影响者的半结构化访谈。结论是，瑞典北约活动家通过以嘲笑和叛国罪指控为对象，以针对其他影响者和潜在影响者的方式来进行情感对话并进行谈判。尽管辩论的双方在趋势上相似，但该文章表明，生产能力目前与纪律能力交织在一起，这种方式使反北约的倡导似乎比亲北约的竞选活动更担负个人风险，加入北约看来是最大的挑战。最正常，现实和负责任的政策选择。