Árbók Hins íslenzka fornleifafélags - 01.01.1985, Side 176

180
ÁRBÓK FORNLEIFAFÉLAGSINS
and thcy had limitcd acccss to a fcw natural rcsourccs, turf- and seaweed gathcring and
pasturage on the waterside. This miscellaneous crowd of landless made up the lower strata
of the population. 1900 thcir houscholds rcachcd thc number of 72-75% of the total,
which indicates a pronounced dcgree of proletarianization.
To cope with their limited nreans of subsistence, thc crofters were constantly on the
move, seeking employment wherever they could find it and they were hampercd by a
pcrpetual state of debt.
In spitc of thcse obvious objcctivc ties betwecn thc social stratification and modes of
production, wc find some enormously complicated patterns of social rclations in thc reg-
ion. A class analysis with its starting point in predetermined cconoinically functipnal
rclations bctween basc and supcrstructurc only rcvcals somc of this problcnr. But driven
too far such an analysis runs thc risk of reducing people’s own subjective cxperience and
intcrprctations of their social surroundings to nrcrc forms of falsc consciousncss. In ordcr
to avoid such an unfortunatc view I wish to combinc an analysis of the economical sup-
erstructure with alternative angles of incidence in the crofters’ and day-labourers’ attitude
towards work and work discipline, secking for identity in thc patriarchal milicu of thc
peasant socicty and their perceptions of thc local cnvironment. Thc aim, in a broader
sense, is to clarify culture’s autonomy or conncctions with changes of evcryday life in
rclation to productional conditions. This is an old subjcct of discussion of an internal
Marxist debate between Scientific or Structural Marxist such as Althusscr and Hcgelian
Marxists represented by Gramsci and Lukács, to name but a few.
Conscious of the greatness of this problcm, my ambition in this paper has solely bcen
to point out some of the complex dialcctic relations between thc social stratas of the two
maritimc hamlets and thc study should be regardcd as a strictly cxploring attempt, rathcr
than a constituting of a solution.
ATHUGASEMDIR OG TILVITNANIR
1. í hefðbundinni merkingu var íslcnski þurrabúðarmaðurinn cða tómthúsmaðurinn sá
scnr ckki stundaði búskap, hcldur hafði franrfæri sitt cingöngu af fiskvciðum og til-
fallandi vinnu. Eftir aldamótin 1900 er þcssi skilgrcining varla fullnægjandi lengur,
þar scm æ flciri stunduðu búskap til cigin þarfa. Ég mun þó nota orðin þurrabúð-
armaður og verkamaður sem safnhciti um jarðnæðislausa mcnn við sjávarsíðuna. Um
afkomu þurrabúðarmanna í sagnfræðilcgu ljósi sjá t.d.: Rorkcll Jóhannesson 1933,
Guðbrandur Jónsson 1932-1934 og Þorvaldur Thoroddscn 1958 1:144 og 111:167-172.
2. Sjá t.d.: Jackson, Anthony 1979, Ennew, Judith 1980 og Fox, Robin 1978.
3. Sjá nánar: Björn Lárusson 1982: 8.
4. Pctur Pétursson 1983: 52-81.
5. Sbr. Hastrup, Kirsten 1983 og 1984.
6. Halldór Þorgrímsson 1861: 77.
7. Sbr. Guðni Jónsson 1960 I: 86, Gísli Gunnarsson 1980: 12-13, Magnús Friðriksson
1957: 46 og 67 og Guðmundur Jónsson 1981: 22-23.
8. Guðmundur Jónsson 1981: 70-79.
9. Sjá t.d.: Sigfús Jónsson 1983 og Hclgi Skúli Kjartansson 1978.
10. Þessi grcin byggist á rannsókn á svæðinu frá vorinu 1984. Þá átti cg u.þ.b. þrjátíu
viðtöl við fólk fætt á tímabilinu 1892-1936. Frckar var um samtöl að ræða en beinar
spurningar cftir ákvcðnum spurningaskrám. Viðtölin náðu yfir allt að því alla félags-
hcildina í báðunr þorpunum og voru heimildamenn úr 18 fjölskyldunr. Við þetta cfni