Iceland review - 2014, Síða 46

icelAnd
Throughout history, the idea of a utopia has often been
preached by a strong leader. The leader is invariably well spo-
ken and charming. But as he gains in power, he becomes more
aggressive, more intolerant, more demanding of his people, less
inclined to accept criticism, more sure in his conviction that
he is always right. Any criticism, even the advancement of an
opposite view is seen as an attack. “There are those who do not
believe in Iceland, those who breed dissent, those who adhere to
an extreme ideology and look upon every problem faced by our
society as an opportunity to implement an extreme ideology,” the
Prime Minister said earlier this year as he addressed a gathering
of Iceland’s business elite, responding to criticism of his previous
comments that global warming presented unique opportunities
for Iceland.
So what about this vision of Iceland as a utopia expounded by
the Prime Minister? What would it be like? “Such a country,” he
said, “would be ideally situated on the planet, between Europe
and North America. It would be in the North, which is the best
position given climate change, communications, population
growth, food production and security. The country would be an
island with natural borders, populated by a single nation with a
single value system.” Isaiah Berlin pointed out that even if a soci-
ety could agree on a set of values, however laudable they might
be, they were often in conflict with each other. The most famous
of mottos, the French revolutionary liberté, égalité, fraternité (free-
dom, equality and brotherhood) are in direct contradiction with
one another.
As to the attractiveness of being like-minded people living
in agreement on an island in the Atlantic; an independent
country making its own luck, we can look to Adam Smith.
He described in Theory of Moral Sentiments the concept of
sympathy, which for him was the capacity to enter into the
experience of someone not necessarily like you. He believed
this was a fundamental principle around which just societies,
including rich ones, evolved. Similarly, the historian Simon
Schama waded into the debate about an independent Scotland
by contrasting die-hard patriots—of which he counts Nigel
Farage of the u.K. Independence Party and Russian President
Vladimir Putin—for whom similarity is identity, with those
who feel enriched by sharing a national home with people
who do not necessarily look, sound or pray like themselves but
nonetheless manage to live in neighborly sympathy.
It is doubtful that many of us would want to live in a utopia,
an ideal society. The problem is that our ideas about what
constitutes an ideal society vary widely, and rightly so. Many
of us do not fit in. Some of us are merely contrarians, have
another vision and different ideas about what constitutes an
ideal life; others find it difficult, for whatever reason, to adapt
to the mainstream. For many, life is a struggle; just getting
out of bed in the morning can be a victory of sorts. Some of
us believe in another god, or no god at all. We may belong to
a different culture; although we respect the national culture
we may not belong to it. A society with a single vision is not
desirable; a utopia is therefore not what we should aim for. *
“...would be ideally
situated on the planet,
between Europe and
North America.”