Saga - 1989, Page 153

IHALDSSEMI OG FRAMFARAHUGMYNDIR FYRR A TÍMUM 151
Summary
This artícle examines some aspects of Icelandic conservatísm and resistance
to economic and social change up to the middle of the 19th century. The pre-
sent authors find themselves in agreement with the positíon taken by Gísli
Gunnarsson in his book, Upp er boðið ísaland. Einokunarverslun og íslenskt sam-
félag 1602-1787, that resistance to increased fishing and the establishment of
permanent autonomous seaside communitíes was intended to guard the
interests of the ruling farming class. The positíon taken by some authors,
notably Bjöm S. Stefánsson, in Saga 1988, that resistance to change was non-
existent, involves denial of established facts and is only peripheral in this
discussion.
However, a fuller explanatíon of Icelandic conservatísm requires that re-
Iigious and philosophical beliefs, as well as economic and politícal interests,
should be taken into account. Up to the middle of the nineteenth century the
ideas of Lutheran orthodoxy dominated the thinking of the Icelanders. This
involved a deep distmst of all forms of capitalist enterprise, as interest in
profit was considered dangerous to spiritual welfare and a menace to the
community. It also involved a vision of a healthy society based on a compar-
ison with the human body. The „body social" should be kept in good health
against all outside influences. Translated into the Icelandic context this old
idea supported a class system which greatly inhibited the freedom of farm-
workers, keeping them in virtual bondage. Restrictíons of the freedom of
boatowners to reward their workers for efficiency with higher pay demon-
strates the philosophy of keeping the workers subservient. It also shows a
commitment to harmonious coexistence between farmers. The term „farm-
ers" refers equally to those who operated fishing boats in this contest of „út-
vegsbændur", which in many ways restrained the more enterprising ones
from competing for wealth and positíon with others in their class. The ban
on the development of seaside communitíes which effectívely kept farm-
workers in their bondage was justífied with the assertíon that such com-
niunities were more vulnerable to famine. However, a recent study has
shown that in fact the farming populatíon suffered a higher death rate than
the fishermen did during such crises.
The religious literature (which represented the bulk of Icelandic reading
material) shows a sincere belief in the necessity of having a meek and dutyful
underclass, but full responsibility for its welfare was placed on those who
eld the wealth. In actual practice these expectatíons proved unrealistíc be-
cause of the poverty and economic stagnatíon that resulted, at least in part,
n'om the dominant ideology.