Learn Hardcore Swedish: Hon vill fokusera på det som är positivt och inte på det som är negativt. - She wants to focus on what is positive and not on what is negative.

Jag försöker fokusera på jobbet. – I’m trying to focus on work.
Hon vill fokusera på det som är positivt. – She wants to focus on what is positive.

Using fokusera without på is unusual in this sense; you almost always say fokusera på X.

What does det mean in det som är positivt? Is it “it,” “that,” or “what”?

Here det is a neuter pronoun that you can think of as “that which” / “what”:

det som är positivt ≈ “that which is positive” / “what is positive”

So:

Hon vill fokusera på det som är positivt
≈ “She wants to focus on what is positive.”

It doesn’t refer to a specific object already mentioned; it’s a general “that/what” idea, made concrete by the som … clause.

Why do positivt and negativt end in -t, and not positiv / negativ?

Swedish adjectives agree with the noun (or pronoun) in gender and number.

det is a neuter singular pronoun.
Adjectives with a neuter singular noun/pronoun usually take -t:
- en positiv sak → den är positiv (common gender: no -t)
- ett positivt tecken → det är positivt (neuter: -t)

So with det (neuter), you need:

det som är positivt
det som är negativt

Using positiv / negativ here would be ungrammatical.

Are positivt and negativt adjectives or nouns here?

Grammatically they are adjectives, but they are used in an abstract / general way:

det som är positivt – literally “that which is positive,” i.e. everything that has a positive quality.
det som är negativt – “that which is negative.”

So they remain adjectives describing an implied “thing,” not true nouns, but in meaning they cover the abstract ideas “the positive” and “the negative.”

Could you also say det positiva / det negativa instead of det som är positivt / negativt?

Yes, you can:

Hon vill fokusera på det positiva och inte på det negativa.

This uses adjectives as nouns:

det positiva ≈ “the positive (things/aspects)”
det negativa ≈ “the negative (things/aspects)”

Difference in nuance:

det som är positivt – more literally “that which is positive,” slightly more explicit and “clause-like.”
det positiva – a bit more compact, often sounds slightly more formal or abstract.

Both are completely correct here.

Why is som used in det som är positivt? Can I use att instead?

No, you can’t use att here.

som is a relative pronoun: “that/which/who” in English.
It introduces a relative clause describing det:
- det [som är positivt] = that which is positive

att is a subordinating conjunction used in other types of clauses:

Hon säger att hon är trött. – She says that she is tired.

So:

✔ det som är positivt
✘ det att är positivt (ungrammatical)

Could you say vad som är positivt instead of det som är positivt?

You can say it, but there is a slight nuance:

det som är positivt – literally “that which is positive”; a bit more definite.
vad som är positivt – literally “what is positive”; often feels more open or indefinite (“whatever is positive”).

In many contexts they overlap, but det som är positivt is very natural in this sentence.
If you say:

Hon vill fokusera på vad som är positivt, it’s still fine, just slightly different in tone.

Why is inte placed before på det som är negativt, and not somewhere else?

In this sentence, inte negates the second prepositional phrase:

[på det som är positivt] – on what is positive
och inte [på det som är negativt] – and not on what is negative

So inte comes before the thing it negates:

och inte på det som är negativt

If you moved inte:

Hon vill inte fokusera på det som är negativt – then you’re just saying she doesn’t want to focus on what is negative (no contrast with the positive).
Hon vill fokusera inte på det som är negativt – sounds wrong/unnatural.

The original word order clearly contrasts positive vs negative.

Can I drop the second det som är and just say …och inte på det som är positivt och inte negativt?

You can do this, but you need to be careful:

Hon vill fokusera på det som är positivt och inte negativt.

This is grammatically fine and is understood as:

“She wants to focus on what is positive and not (what is) negative.”

Here, negativt is understood as referring to the same implied “thing” as positivt.

However, the original version:

…och inte på det som är negativt

is a bit clearer and more balanced because you repeat the whole structure.

Could I say Hon vill inte fokusera på det som är negativt utan på det som är positivt? Is that different?

Yes, and that’s a very natural alternative:

Hon vill inte fokusera på det som är negativt utan på det som är positivt.

Here:

inte negates the first focus.
utan means “but rather / but instead.”

So the structure is:

not focus on the negative, but instead on the positive.

The meaning is basically the same, but the emphasis shifts slightly:

Original: She wants to focus on the positive and not on the negative.
Alternative: She doesn’t want to focus on the negative, but instead on the positive.

Can det here be replaced with det här or detta?

Not in the same way.

det som är positivt is a general expression: “that which is positive / what is positive (in general).”
det här / detta usually point to something specific and near (“this”).

If you said:

✘ det här som är positivt in this sentence, it would sound like you are pointing at some specific thing right here that is positive.

So for the general idea “what is positive/negative,” you should keep det som är positivt / negativt (or use det positiva / det negativa).

Why is the subject Hon and not Henne?

Hon is the subject form (“she”).
Henne is the object form (“her”).

In this sentence, she is the one doing the wanting and focusing, so you must use the subject form:

Hon vill fokusera… – She wants to focus…
Jag ser henne. – I see her. (object form)

So:

✔ Hon vill fokusera…
✘ Henne vill fokusera… (ungrammatical)