Gripla - 20.12.2009, Page 36

GRIPLA36
source of significant variations to the cultural and institutional patterns
that prevailed in the surrounding European world. At that level, we would
be dealing with civilizational results and ramifications of a process that
originally seemed to have no such significance. As I will try to show, this is
precisely nordal’s line of argument. In Iceland, the ethos of viking expan­
sion was transfigured into a spirit of state formation (this term is used by
analogy with the “spirit of capitalism”, as defined by Weber and others, i.e.
to denote inbuilt cultural orientations of institutional dynamics); this set
the scene for further combinations of innovation and archaism, including
an exceptionally long-drawn encounter between paganism and Chris-
tianity.
The Viking ethos, as described by Nordal, was doubly resistant to cen­
tral authority: the principal actors were small units, rather than expanding
states in pursuit of more power, and these units were organized in a rela­
tively egalitarian way. When the conquerors and colonizers came into
closer contact with established power structures, these habits gave way to
more hierarchical patterns on both levels. But where a shared order had to
be created anew, the de-centralized, individualistic and egalitarian trends
could remain strong enough to leave their mark on the emerging regime. It
is not being suggested that the Icelandic mode of state formation was
wholly unique; Nordal notes the beginnings of a similar political culture in
the Isle of Man and the Faroe Islands (Ibid., 105). But there were several
factors that set Iceland apart. It was not only virgin territory; it was also
big enough to make it possible for the project to unfold on an incompara­
bly larger scale than elsewhere; and it was remote enough for external
threats to be minimal. Aspirations to autonomy came naturally to the set­
tler community. It should, however, be noted that Nordal is not talking
about national independence or sovereignty. As he sees it (Ibid., 98), the
awareness of a separate Icelandic identity was comparable to regional iden­
tities within the emerging Norwegian, Swedish and Danish kingdoms. But
the fact that a comparable collective identity was linked to a higher level of
political autonomy made the Icelandic constellation, in the long run, more
conducive to nation formation.
So far, I have discussed the cultural matrix of state formation. It is time
to consider the formative events as such, i.e. the decisive moves towards
common statehood. Nordal’s analysis of them is worth reconstructing in