acceptatera consists of twelve sections. The text is organized together with photomontage, photographs, illustrations and statistics in a creative, almost playful way. Many of the images feature humorous or ironic captions, mocking, for example, anti-modernist conceptions of work or home life. Throughout the text, authors emphasize and draw attention to key points by using bold fonts or arranging words in novel ways on the page.

Dualities of Modernity

On the first page the authors present a series of “two options” (either/or, “one of two”) type propositions that they believe characterize contemporary social thought. Countering the notion that one could actually solve social problems by choosing one option, however, they maintain that both quantity and quality, both the mass and the individual, must provide solutions to contemporary problems. Throughout acceptera, the authors posit the existence of numerous fundamental “binaries” (i.e., industrial production vs. craft), which they attempt to overcome by conceptualizing the goals of architecture and industrial design from a functionalist perspective.

Objectivity and aesthetic values

The authors question how the contradictory anthropological theories of the family offered by Lewis Henry Morgan, Edvard Westermarck") and Robert Briffault could have been recognized as true at different times and in different societies. Arguing that each's theory resonated with a specific hegemonic intellectual paradigm and fell out of favor only when this paradigm was no longer fashionable, they claim that it is actually the idea's conformity to dominant values and ideology, and not any actual claim to verifiable truth, that It is the source of its popularity. However, this lack of objective thinking about society is a problem because, within the realm of social policy, it obscures necessary solutions to pressing problems. This distortion causes people to yearn for an idealized past when the issue in question supposedly does not yet exist, exacerbating the current situation.

Furthermore, the authors point out that, despite widespread recognition of cultural change, people continue to cling to the styles and forms of other eras. Even in the midst of industrialization, certain anachronistic aesthetic values ​​survive and even flourish. For the authors, the radical novelty of current social conditions must be accepted as a true departure from the past, and the "art of construction", which has lagged behind other cultural activities, must be revolutionized to develop in a way that had been, until the appearance of these conditions, impossible. They also sought to show that this pragmatic orientation towards modernity is not something important from somewhere else or a philosophical innovation, but is a particularly national approach based on the traditional Swedish values ​​of "openness, moderation and friendship".[5]

«Europe A» and «Europe B»

Describing the epochal changes that shaped modern European society, the authors describe the continent as two irreconcilable but interdependent domains: “Europe A” and “Europe B.” The A side of Europe, they argue, is made up of the continent's industrialized urban centers and cities that are linked by rail and through which the most striking evidence of modernization can be seen. Unlike side B, it has been "remade" in modernity and "resembles a large organism in which all functions are at the same time specialized and centralized and where all cells, from the solitary farm to the immense factory or bank, depend on each other."[6]​.

In contrast, “Europe B” is composed of isolated agricultural communities whose core cultural patterns have remained largely the same over the past few centuries. It is disorganized and fragmented, standing alongside unified Europe A as "an amalgam of autonomous enterprises and alternating ethnic groups with no unifying forces other than religion and the powers that be, the latter often only by virtue of their swords." Bringing this division closer to home, the authors describe Sweden as a combination of "Sweden-then" and "Sweden-now."

For the purposes of the manifesto, the most critical result of this sociocultural division of Europe into "A" and "B" is the fact that the demographic, technological and social transformations on the A side are "creating a new world" and "a new type of individual" that requires "art of construction in a form commensurate with the conditions that have created it."[8]

Utility, function, style

In addition to describing this unique sociocultural situation in Europe, the authors question received conceptions of art, utility and meaning. Arguing that the contemporary home has been fundamentally changed by technological, social and cultural developments, they argue that its design must reflect new ways in which people live and use their homes, as well as new standards of hygiene, spaciousness and value. Responding to popular claims that functionalism seeks to deprive the home of its charm and comfort, they argue that "if we provide our homes with the things we really need, the selection will be an expression of home life as we live it." In addition, they reject the notion that the home becomes a source of enjoyment based solely on its uniqueness, claiming that comfort is largely a product of organization, order, and functionality.

Meaning in the “art of construction” (whether in the construction of homes or consumer goods), they believe, is a product of authenticity. The authentic form today is the one developed according to utility. Therefore, they criticize the popular and anachronistic distinction, they claim, made between art and utility. They argue that, in fact, machines and other supposedly technical objects contain a unique artistic quality embodied in the fulfillment of their function. In their minds, people must reach a state in which they "no longer conceive of the aesthetic as something that comes from above to merge with the technical, which is of lower origin, but consider all forms that do not offer a satisfactory expression of their aesthetics. They function as simply deficient."[10]​.

Standardization and industrial production

This section delves into the topic of quality vs. quantity, the authors argue that only industrial production is capable and economical enough to provide quality consumer goods and housing for the masses. However, they recognize that people tend to associate industrial production with cheap, low-quality products and craftsmanship with rare luxury products. Still, they believe that both antipathy for the former and preference for the latter are rooted in a historical conception of these things that has since become obsolete. They claim that standardization is simply another version of the human propensity for developing "types." Contrary to what people think, it is in fact a timeless process that has occurred seemingly directionlessly for almost every conceivable object: cars, churches, shoes...etc. However, they recognize that people feel restricted and coerced when forced to choose between types. Their solution to this problem is a general change in perception, whereby the object is recognized not as a default option, but as the "pre-selected" optimal option. This, the authors argue, will overcome antipathy towards standardization, allowing housing, such as cars or books, to be standardized and industrially produced, so that they can be objects of quality and quantity.

«Accept» the new times

The manifesto argues that the forces driving cultural and technological changes in Sweden are not on a distant horizon, but exist in the present and shape the social conditions and contingencies that must be accepted and addressed if the "art of construction" and modernity are to be reconciled and brought into productive harmony. In the final section, they ask society to think radically and embrace modernity: “We cannot tiptoe away from our own era. Nor can we ignore the problems and get confused in a utopian future. We can only look reality in the eyes and accept it in order to master it."[1]​.

While the reaction of the Swedish public and critical establishment to the Stockholm Exhibition was mixed, his ideas would find a broader and more receptive audience in the mid-1930s. acceptera, who incorporated these ideas into a playful but scathing critique of contemporary Swedish architecture, was instrumental in distilling the key principles of the functionalist perspective into a simple imperative: accept. Today, acceptera is considered by many to be the "Swedish manifesto of functionalism,"[2] and its provocative conception of the relationship between architecture, social problems, and cultural change continues to inspire discussion of modernist architecture, as well as social engineering, city planning, and social democracy in 20th-century Sweden (see: Nordic Welfare Model).

As part of the broader development of modern architecture in Europe at the turn of the century, acceptera can be cited as one of the most influential Swedish contributions to the theory of functionalism. However, as Mattsson and Wallenstein noted, in the manifesto "modernism was not portrayed to the same extent as a break with tradition, as was the case with the European avant-garde, but rather as a program for reconnecting traditional values to contemporary development."[11] Therefore, although it accepts largely coincides theoretically with the manifestos and essays written by artists and architects of the European and early Soviet avant-garde, such as Moisei Guinzburg, it figures as a unique, closely crafted contribution. according to the particular socio-political conditions of Sweden in the late 1920s and early 1930s.

acceptatera consists of twelve sections. The text is organized together with photomontage, photographs, illustrations and statistics in a creative, almost playful way. Many of the images feature humorous or ironic captions, mocking, for example, anti-modernist conceptions of work or home life. Throughout the text, authors emphasize and draw attention to key points by using bold fonts or arranging words in novel ways on the page.

Dualities of Modernity

On the first page the authors present a series of “two options” (either/or, “one of two”) type propositions that they believe characterize contemporary social thought. Countering the notion that one could actually solve social problems by choosing one option, however, they maintain that both quantity and quality, both the mass and the individual, must provide solutions to contemporary problems. Throughout acceptera, the authors posit the existence of numerous fundamental “binaries” (i.e., industrial production vs. craft), which they attempt to overcome by conceptualizing the goals of architecture and industrial design from a functionalist perspective.

Objectivity and aesthetic values

The authors question how the contradictory anthropological theories of the family offered by Lewis Henry Morgan, Edvard Westermarck") and Robert Briffault could have been recognized as true at different times and in different societies. Arguing that each's theory resonated with a specific hegemonic intellectual paradigm and fell out of favor only when this paradigm was no longer fashionable, they claim that it is actually the idea's conformity to dominant values and ideology, and not any actual claim to verifiable truth, that It is the source of its popularity. However, this lack of objective thinking about society is a problem because, within the realm of social policy, it obscures necessary solutions to pressing problems. This distortion causes people to yearn for an idealized past when the issue in question supposedly does not yet exist, exacerbating the current situation.

Furthermore, the authors point out that, despite widespread recognition of cultural change, people continue to cling to the styles and forms of other eras. Even in the midst of industrialization, certain anachronistic aesthetic values ​​survive and even flourish. For the authors, the radical novelty of current social conditions must be accepted as a true departure from the past, and the "art of construction", which has lagged behind other cultural activities, must be revolutionized to develop in a way that had been, until the appearance of these conditions, impossible. They also sought to show that this pragmatic orientation towards modernity is not something important from somewhere else or a philosophical innovation, but is a particularly national approach based on the traditional Swedish values ​​of "openness, moderation and friendship".[5]

«Europe A» and «Europe B»

Describing the epochal changes that shaped modern European society, the authors describe the continent as two irreconcilable but interdependent domains: “Europe A” and “Europe B.” The A side of Europe, they argue, is made up of the continent's industrialized urban centers and cities that are linked by rail and through which the most striking evidence of modernization can be seen. Unlike side B, it has been "remade" in modernity and "resembles a large organism in which all functions are at the same time specialized and centralized and where all cells, from the solitary farm to the immense factory or bank, depend on each other."[6]​.

In contrast, “Europe B” is composed of isolated agricultural communities whose core cultural patterns have remained largely the same over the past few centuries. It is disorganized and fragmented, standing alongside unified Europe A as "an amalgam of autonomous enterprises and alternating ethnic groups with no unifying forces other than religion and the powers that be, the latter often only by virtue of their swords." Bringing this division closer to home, the authors describe Sweden as a combination of "Sweden-then" and "Sweden-now."

For the purposes of the manifesto, the most critical result of this sociocultural division of Europe into "A" and "B" is the fact that the demographic, technological and social transformations on the A side are "creating a new world" and "a new type of individual" that requires "art of construction in a form commensurate with the conditions that have created it."[8]

Utility, function, style

In addition to describing this unique sociocultural situation in Europe, the authors question received conceptions of art, utility and meaning. Arguing that the contemporary home has been fundamentally changed by technological, social and cultural developments, they argue that its design must reflect new ways in which people live and use their homes, as well as new standards of hygiene, spaciousness and value. Responding to popular claims that functionalism seeks to deprive the home of its charm and comfort, they argue that "if we provide our homes with the things we really need, the selection will be an expression of home life as we live it." In addition, they reject the notion that the home becomes a source of enjoyment based solely on its uniqueness, claiming that comfort is largely a product of organization, order, and functionality.

Meaning in the “art of construction” (whether in the construction of homes or consumer goods), they believe, is a product of authenticity. The authentic form today is the one developed according to utility. Therefore, they criticize the popular and anachronistic distinction, they claim, made between art and utility. They argue that, in fact, machines and other supposedly technical objects contain a unique artistic quality embodied in the fulfillment of their function. In their minds, people must reach a state in which they "no longer conceive of the aesthetic as something that comes from above to merge with the technical, which is of lower origin, but consider all forms that do not offer a satisfactory expression of their aesthetics. They function as simply deficient."[10]​.

Standardization and industrial production

This section delves into the topic of quality vs. quantity, the authors argue that only industrial production is capable and economical enough to provide quality consumer goods and housing for the masses. However, they recognize that people tend to associate industrial production with cheap, low-quality products and craftsmanship with rare luxury products. Still, they believe that both antipathy for the former and preference for the latter are rooted in a historical conception of these things that has since become obsolete. They claim that standardization is simply another version of the human propensity for developing "types." Contrary to what people think, it is in fact a timeless process that has occurred seemingly directionlessly for almost every conceivable object: cars, churches, shoes...etc. However, they recognize that people feel restricted and coerced when forced to choose between types. Their solution to this problem is a general change in perception, whereby the object is recognized not as a default option, but as the "pre-selected" optimal option. This, the authors argue, will overcome antipathy towards standardization, allowing housing, such as cars or books, to be standardized and industrially produced, so that they can be objects of quality and quantity.

«Accept» the new times

The manifesto argues that the forces driving cultural and technological changes in Sweden are not on a distant horizon, but exist in the present and shape the social conditions and contingencies that must be accepted and addressed if the "art of construction" and modernity are to be reconciled and brought into productive harmony. In the final section, they ask society to think radically and embrace modernity: “We cannot tiptoe away from our own era. Nor can we ignore the problems and get confused in a utopian future. We can only look reality in the eyes and accept it in order to master it."[1]​.

While the reaction of the Swedish public and critical establishment to the Stockholm Exhibition was mixed, his ideas would find a broader and more receptive audience in the mid-1930s. acceptera, who incorporated these ideas into a playful but scathing critique of contemporary Swedish architecture, was instrumental in distilling the key principles of the functionalist perspective into a simple imperative: accept. Today, acceptera is considered by many to be the "Swedish manifesto of functionalism,"[2] and its provocative conception of the relationship between architecture, social problems, and cultural change continues to inspire discussion of modernist architecture, as well as social engineering, city planning, and social democracy in 20th-century Sweden (see: Nordic Welfare Model).

As part of the broader development of modern architecture in Europe at the turn of the century, acceptera can be cited as one of the most influential Swedish contributions to the theory of functionalism. However, as Mattsson and Wallenstein noted, in the manifesto "modernism was not portrayed to the same extent as a break with tradition, as was the case with the European avant-garde, but rather as a program for reconnecting traditional values to contemporary development."[11] Therefore, although it accepts largely coincides theoretically with the manifestos and essays written by artists and architects of the European and early Soviet avant-garde, such as Moisei Guinzburg, it figures as a unique, closely crafted contribution. according to the particular socio-political conditions of Sweden in the late 1920s and early 1930s.