I am starting my second semester studying for a Master’s degree in International Relations at the University of Iceland.
I am so far mostly satisfied with the quality of the courses on offer. I find the topics discussed, be it globalization, history of Icelandic foreign affairs, theories, nationalism and international institutions very interesting and I am also relieved to find the students mostly engaged and up for interesting discussions.
What is disturbing though is to discover all the wonderful material which exists within the walls of the university, and to realise how little of it finds its way outside.
Realistic assessments of the Cod Wars, where Icelandic interests happened to prosper under the protective arm of the US. Not mindless propaganda about a brave small nation which chased off the big bad empire.
Sober examinations of the role of nationalism in Icelandic foreign and economic affairs.
Interesting tomes on how the political elite in Iceland is more inward looking than other European political elites.
Things like Iceland’s attempt to win a place in the UN Security Council being put into perspective.
How relations between nations actually do work, mostly away from hysteria.
And the origins and effects of globalization examined without the exclamation points of newspaper opinion columns.
But so much great material is not finding its way into the public conciousness. Why?
For now I’ll cast my gaze in two directions, towards the people of the media, who indignantly shout that they are the beacons of information. And then at the faculty at the university, praying that it will only affect my grades insignificantly.
In the last year or so I have increasingly turned away from any television or radio talk-shows where politicians are given the platform to shape opinions. The quality of the information they offer has only given me rapidly diminishing returns. Their view of the world through party-tinted glasses is a narrow one and unhelpful in times that need enlightenment. But yet they are constantly asked for their opinions on things large and small.
This comes as a no surprise after taking a class on globalization which is a mandatory course for International Relations students and available for extra credit for those who seek a master’s degree in journalism. The first class was full of people from both fields. In the end large swathes of the journalism students had withered away. Too few credits for too much work, not that interesting and mumbo-jumbo were amongst the excuses heard. One of those who prevailed told me afterwards that this had been the most informative class he had taken at the university, and this was his last semester before graduation. He is now seeking employment, in the foreign country he fled to.
So, many of the future journalists missed out. As they probably will when they enter the world of journalism. Need proof, browse through Icelandic media with its limp attempts at investigative journalism(and of course notable exceptions).
Icelandic journalists who don’t enjoy the privileges of full time producers and assistants, have an easy fix for deadlines. Instead of chasing after people with something to say, lets just call those who always have something to say and love the attention, i.e. politicians. Time, money, patience and ownership of the media works against them. So they often opt for the easy way out. When Joseph Stiglitz held a tantalising talk at the University of Iceland last autumn, most of the media came late and sat outside the meeting hall chatting, probably about journalism and missed some outstanding comments on the situation in Iceland. The evening news were instead filled with Stiglitz’s comments on something he had said on Silfur Egils the day before. Frettabladid alone did an outstanding piece of reporting on what one of the most important men in the world had to say during his visit. Then again, the reporter seemed to know who Stiglitz was and understand what he was saying.
Then to the faculty of the University of Iceland. Those I have completed a semester with already are outstanding teachers. They have a lot of brilliant information and incredible insight. They know how to deliver it. But they are card-carrying members of political parties, some even running for elections themselves. Might this impair their chance of being the wise sages who journalists can turn to for enlightenment and sense in senseless times? Perhaps. Other faculty actually conduct talk shows, where they sometimes show an impeccable constraint of silence, in the name of journalistic integrity when confronted with guests who misrepresent and skew facts, history, historical figures and events to their own benefits. This is still a country where journalists are not supposed to have opinions remember.
It is a hard job probably, as is evident by the right-wing nutcases who tried to get Egill Helgason thrown off the state television last year after he started calling on experts at the expense of politicians(right-wing).
There is one member of the faculty who does like attention and has a plethora of opinions. Hannes Holmsteinn Gissurarson, who thankfully I will not have to share a classroom with in pursuit of this degree, is someone who likes to put his name out everywhere. During the boom-times he basked in the rock-star glory of easy credit and nothingness which accompanied his heyday, singing love songs of the great leader and his kindness. Should one feel the degrees offered by a university which employs this man tainted or appreciate its approach towards those with special abilities? I don’t know but somewhere along the way, the University and the college of political science decided that the right thing to do in order to reach its goal of being one of the 100 best universities in the world would be to celebrate and defend an intellectual ant(NB: my personal opinion of him, it has never been proven that Hannes Holmsteinn is an ant…or an intellectual for that matter).
Whatever there is, there is something stopping the excellent information on the inside from bursting out towards the society. The people holding the keys to a better, more enlightened, more open and honest society need to step forward.
Their voices are desperately needed to drown out the politicians.
PS: For lessons on correcting politicians, Chris Matthews:
Related posts:
The Curious Case Of The University Of Iceland | iceland today
7 months ago
[...] View original here: The Curious Case Of The University Of Iceland [...]
torsten
7 months ago
Well, I’ve not read the whole of your posting, but concerning the question why knowledge about icelands foreign affairs or economy that exists within the university doesn’t exist outside the university I think, that outside the university there does exist knowledge about icelands economy. You can call it folk knowledge or situated knowledge or indigenous knowledge or laymens knowledge or whatever.
> Whatever there is, there is something stopping the excellent information
> on the inside from bursting out towards the society. The people holding the
> keys to a better, more enlightened, more open and honest society need to step
> forward.
Isn’t this trust in the knowledge of the experts and the scientists what caused “all this damage” for the people outside the university or outside the parliament? Why should they trust the experts?
I Think that it’s only from your perspective that you see the keys to a better, more enlightened, more open and honest society in the hands of those experts.
Daði
7 months ago
Thanks Torsten for not reading the post. If it is unclear after not being read then let me explain it a bit better.
- What you call folk knowledge, laymans knowledge etc. is what has been dominant in Icelandic business and politics. The banks for example, used to claim that some people were just better at banking than others because of cultural myths(hard-working, strong, persistent vikings). The laymen have been kings in Iceland, how else could beer-bottlers from Russia be handed the keys to one of the nations’ most important banks?
- I am NOT saying that any keys to any kingdom must be handed out to academics at the cost of laymen or people outside the university. I am simply saying that the information available, the research that has been done, the articles that have been written etc. are being drowned out by political agendas. Which in turn are protected by “journalistic objectivity”. The laymen and the academics must come together, not dismiss each other. So far, the former have been more dismissing of the latter, unless they can provide “favourable results”.
- “Why should they trust the experts?” You should rather be more careful about what experts you chose to listen to. For example, Hannes Holmsteinn Gissurarson has found it appropriate to debate scientific researchers on issues such as global warming, based on his personal experience of winters as a child and an adult. Tryggvi Thor Herbertsson got paid a lot of money from the Icelandic Chamber of Commerce to write a glowing report on the state of the economy. Studying at a university gives you a pretty thorough guide to what sources can be deemed credible. But obviously it is up to you to ultimately decide what you believe.
- I think that what has been stopping this information from coming out, is fear. Iceland is a small nation and it really hard to swim against the stream. Academics have been too readily dismissed with the old notion of having “theoretical experience but no practical experience”. And it seems like the academic community which is doing a good job has walled itself off within their scarcely read academic journals and poorly attended seminars. I repeat that I am not agitating for academia to take anything over, just simply immersing itself into society in more ways than before. We need good information, not propaganda and we also need to learn know how to make a distinction between the two.
torsten
7 months ago
No no, I did not say, that I didn’t read it, I read so much of it, so that I had a picture of what you meant (or what I thought you meant at least).
“- What you call folk knowledge, laymans knowledge etc. is what has been dominant in Icelandic business and politics.” – Is your point, that this kind of former-folk-knowledge/beer-bottling-bankdirectors-knowledge wouldn’t have been accepted by the public, if the public had only more/better knowledge of economics/politics?
I doubt that democracy works like this. It is not an expertocracy, where processes are started that are supposedly best from the experts point of view.
Knowledge of the laymen (can I say the public?) about economics and politics might be necessary to prevent beer-bottlers from becoming bank directors, but it is not sufficient. And the question is: what institution is it that educates the laymen about economics and politics? Doesn’t this institution have a political agenda too?
Anne
7 months ago
The situation at the University of Iceland resembles depressing scenarios unfolding in higher education everywhere. You might find this review interesting:
http://www.financialpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=2380852&p=2
These articles are related:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/14/where-all-that-money-is-going/
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2422499#ixzz0dl1kLbUp
Blubber
7 months ago
It’s interesting that it works like that in such a small society. One would think that the correct information would leak out to enough people to form a near prevalent public opinion.
Mike (UK Nordic analyst)
7 months ago
I am very suspicious of HI and HR as institutions.
During the boom years both universities promoted the Icelandic economic miracle with extreme gusto – backing up that line with detailed support to free-market neo-liberal economics. This was particularly so in the business schools. If you questioned them then you certainly got “slapped down” (I know about that personally!).
On the one hand there was a total lack of coverage of “business basics” – I met MBA graduates who couldn’t do some simple mathematical calculations. Those graduates had covered everything in a soft-squidgy sort of way considering “policy”, “strategy”, “major trends”, etc. It was as if they all thought they were going to be CEOs as soon as they graduated. The courses didn’t emphasise “hard” or “nitty gritty” subjects such as “quantitative analysis”, “technological systems”, or detailed financial analysis (my own area). For example, the detailed maths that lie behind areas such as credit default-swaps were not, and still aren’t, covered.
On the other hand the degrees presented a monoculture of market-led economics. I met business graduate after graduate who had not studied Keynes – a couple of them had never even heard of him! It was as if the world had only started in 1987 when Greenspan became chair of the Fed – nothing before then was worth studying as far as Icelandic business schools were concerned.
This was reflected by endless op ed pieces in MBL written by Icelandic academics spouting “the fashionable line”.
You can see this from the international intellectual colleagues who tread Icelandic soil: the Portes-and-Mishkin Show has been replaced by the Hudson-and-Perkins Show. Icelandic academics changed their mind and have merely swapped one group of international “justifiers” for another.
So now low and behold, those same institutions and academics have become the leaders of the opposite paradigm, telling us all about the role of the state, the limits on markets, the failings in financial systems, the need for proper regulatory systems etc etc.
You can’t help but think they are not insitutions devoted to eternal verities or high principles, but a rather opportunistic bunch of poorly prepared individuals lacking any real integrity. They have certainly served Iceland badly over the last decade – by swinging too far the other way they threaten to serve the country badly again in the future.
Dadi
7 months ago
“It was as if they all thought they were going to be CEOs as soon as they graduated. ”
Mike, you are probably right.
Failing Democracy Again: This Time With A National Referendum
7 months ago
[...] On a follow up from a previous post, Svanur argued that the University of Iceland appeared to have some severe shortcomings in filling [...]
James
7 months ago
Interesting post, it’s nice to know that some of this is at least being taught in the University. National media through neoptism, partisanism and bowing to the audience will always skew facts and put their own spin on them.
This seems like a particularly bad problem in Iceland’s current media climate where blind nationalism seems to be at the forefront of representation of issues. I would prefer to see more genuine pitbulls in the press or television news programmes asking direct, tough questions even if it hurts person, nation or identity. It helps in the long run. Someone like the Chris Matthews or Jeremy Paxman who are not fazed by repetitive rhetoric.
Ella J.
7 months ago
I once read an interview with an Icelandic journalist where she described the UofI as an “intellectual wasteland.” Considering the output from the U’s business depts., I have to agree. I used to work on various PR-related projects for Icelandic bank execs – editing, writing, translating reports, speeches, and other written material. The lack of intellect, sophistication (not to mention simple correct grammar and spelling) and knowledge was mind-boggling. Hideous. They also appeared to never have taken a business ethics class (well, duh, we know that) or have any knowledge or experience of critical thinking or presenting a coherent argument. And they KNOW nothing! They didn’t know who some of the most important figures in their own field or related fields or historical (Icelandic or foreign) knowledge related to their “expertise”; you wouldn’t be allowed to graduate from high shool in the US without some of these basics. Something is SERIOUSLY wrong with the U of I (and HR)AND the Icelandic education system.