Political scientist Jack Snyder claims that individuals and groups can gain significant power if they can convince others of their ideas, as those become the norms and ideas which shape our reality. Iceland’s president, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson’s official visit to the Vatican in March 2011 raised some interesting questions about agents of powerful positions, be they individual actors or organizations. The first is how both the president of Iceland and the Pope as agents of power can use their positions and the strength of their organization to create norms and “truths” out of assertions which lack sufficient evidence to be determined true. The second is how both use their offices to lend credibility to each other’s agenda, thereby trading in untruths. This leads to the question of whether agents in the international arena should consider carefully who and what causes they are granting credibility to by engaging in diplomatic dialogue and beyond, and finally whether experts and academics should assume a more vigilant role against politicians who attempt to spin their versions of truth around their own agenda.
On March 4, 2011 Pope Benedict XVI hosted a private audience for the president of Iceland, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson at his office in the Vatican. The two officials discussed the importance of the Icelandic Sagas in Christianity and how early European discoverers in North America had brought the religion to the continent earlier than commonly assumed. They also talked about the consequences of the economic crisis in Iceland and the Pope received a warm message from the Catholic bishop in Iceland.
The main event of the visit was a seminar on medieval-and church history in the first centuries of Iceland’s settlement and a gift presented to Pope Benedict by Mr. Grímsson on the behalf of residents of Snæfellsnes peninsula in Iceland, a statue of Guðríður Þorbjarnardóttir, the main female character in Eirík’s Saga and Greenland’s Saga. Born sometime around 980 in Iceland, the legend has it that she and her father left the country for Greenland after she refused to marry the son of slave. There she married Þorsteinn, the son of Greenland’s first European settler Erik the Red, and brother of Leifur Eiríksson. Leifur is considered the first European to land in North America, in an area of Newfoundland then known as Vínland. Þorsteinn died on the way back from the expedition and Guðríður married Þorfinnur Karlsefni and together with him left to attempt settlement in Vínland. While in the New World she gave birth to their son, Snorri Þorfinsson who is said to be the first European born in the New World. The family returned to Greenland shortly thereafter where Þorfinnur died. With Christian conversion sweeping Iceland, Guðríður adopted the new faith and according to legend headed south on a pilgrimage to Rome, visited the Pope and told him of her travels. Returning home, she became a nun and lived in a church her son built on their estate.
The international media and independent bloggers reporting on the president’s visit certainly found the story of the well-travelled Icelandic woman riveting. Rome Reports, an independent television news agency based in Rome, specializing in coverage of the Pope and the Vatican reported on the visit with the headline “President of Iceland speaks about Icelandic missionary in America 1000 years ago” on its YouTube page. The reporter claimed that Guðríður “visited the new world of America on a religious journey” and that she was considered as one of the great heroes of Icelandic culture. The television station interviewed president Grímsson who stated that “she was the first person in world history to be both in America and in Rome five hundred years before Christopher Columbus arrived on the scene”, “she was a Christian woman so her journey to America a thousand years ago was a missionary journey, she had some priests with her so her life story embraces the world of Christianity”. The report concludes with a note from the president that “this remarkable Icelandic woman is not just an important figure for the people of Iceland but also for the entire Catholic world because she was the first person to bring Christianity to America one thousand years ago”. A search of “Icelandic missionary in America” on Google.com on April 20, 2011 returned seven results on the first page, all with a similar headline, “President of Iceland speaks of Icelandic missionary in America”.
They don’t fake it in the Vatican
The president of Iceland says that the Pope’s decision to accept the statue of Guðríður Þorbjarnardóttir as a present is a historical even. Thereby the Vatican officially acknowledges that Christopher Columbus was not the first Christian person in America. In a press conference today, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson said that a strong argument could be made for Guðríður being one of the most important, if not the the most important female explorer in world history. She had also played a notable part in Christianity and was the first person in the world to visit both Rome and America. When the Pope recieved her statue in the Vatican, he was making a historical acknowledgement of her place in world history. - Visir.is, February 24, 2011
While the story of Guðríður is certainly interesting and her reputation has been enhanced in the last couple of decades, there is little or no consensus amongst Icelandic academics on such claims that she was a Christian missionary on her trip to Vínland, and the only indication of her ever visiting Rome is a short passage in Greenland’s Saga which merely states that she “walked south”, which is certainly open to interpretation. Eirik’s Saga makes no mention of a southward journey, yet Guðríður plays an even more central role there. While the president visited the Vatican, historian Guðni Th. Jóhannesson spoke at a seminar sponsored by the Science and Technology Policy Council held at Reykjavík University. The topic was “How do we distribute public funds to projects in science and innovation, in order to maximize quality and gains?” Guðni indicated that the role of academia to inform the public discourse was undermined by a low emphasis on public funding for independent research. He brought up the role of the History and Policy Network in the United Kingdom which aims to dismantle historical myths in contemporary debate and expose political and public relations spin of history.
Jóhannesson used president Grímsson’s visit and the promotion of the story of Guðríður Þorbjarnardóttir as an example of such “bad history” and showed the audience bits from a mailing list conversation which had taken place between Icelandic historians and academics a week earlier.
These are the same clichés that were being bandied about in 2000. This version of historical events was harshly criticized back then. But the politicians did not want research, they wanted images. - Úlfar Bragason
We can not guarantee any of this as historical facts, but neither dismiss this as nonsensical myths, we can only estimate the likelihood of each part by itself, from Guðríður existing (good odds), to her visiting Rome (rather implausible). - Helgi Skúli Kjartansson
It is hardly encouraging to attempt to engage in discourse with politicians and those who aspire to lead the public. - Sigurður Gylfi Magnússon
Looking back, is it not rather odd, considering the given importance of the issue, that it is Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson who is knocking on the Pope’s doors instead of the Pope making the first move. - Sigurður Gylfi Magnússon
I should also mention that I was on the radio … Channel 2 two days ago … talking about this issue with Guðríður. There I could refer to my article from Approaches to Vínland from 2001 … where I emphasise how suspicious it is that Guðríður walking south is only mentioned in Greenland’s Saga, but not in Eirik’s Saga, where yet she is the main character.- Helgi Þorláksson
“Isn’t this a bit of historical pompousness my dear Guðmundur. History is not the private property of those with a BA degree or more in history; not anymore than psychosis is only the business of pshychiatrists.” Yes it is probably true what you say, discussing these matters with politicians will get us nowhere. - Guðmundur Magnússon reciting a Facebook-conversation with a politician.
From these discussions between leading academic historians in Iceland it can be safely assumed that the story being told of Guðríður in the Vatican is considered at least debatable within their circles. Helgi Þorláksson who is a leading research authority on Guðríður’s story has appeared on several radio and television programs to dampen the hype surrounding it. As Úlfar Bragason mentions, the same myths were resurrected around the year 2000 when the one thousandth anniversary of Christianity and the discovering of America by Leifur Eiriksson was celebrated in Iceland. On his popular blog, television host Egill Helgason pointed out that back then, feminist historian Þorgerður Þorvaldsdóttir claimed that there were commercial interests at play, that the discovery of America was supposed to be a sellable product, including a thousand year old image of a woman who had suddenly become a national hero, as the first woman to bear a white child in America, yet mostly unfamiliar to Icelanders. Þorgerður herself, “can not recall ever hearing of this woman”. Helgason wrote that the president’s visit to the Vatican was a good example of how the past is designed, history being produced so to speak.
Snyder says that the study of international relations is supposed to tell us how the world works and explains that it can puncture illusions and strip away simplistic assumptions and brand names used in popular discourse. Þorgerður Þorvaldsdóttir’s point of Guðríður Þorbjarnardóttir’s commercial value is an interesting one. Accompanying the president of Iceland to the Vatican was Guðrún Bergmann leading a small group of inhabitants from the Snæfellsnes peninsula. The group appeared unfazed by the discussion taking place back in their home nation, about the vagueness of Guðríður’s story. Asked about the claims made by the president about the role of Christianity in Guðríður’s life and her making the trip to Rome, Bergmann replied, “We do not know this but we intend to strike a deal on cooperation between the University of Iceland and the Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic studies on one hand and a catholic university in Rome on the other to research documents in the Vatican and other things relating to these events in early Christianity”. Another visitor to the Vatican, Guðmundur Kristjánsson, owner of one of Iceland’s largest fisheries and an influential member of the Snæfellsnes society brushed off the concerns by stating that the Vatican had studied the story thoroughly, that “there were dozens of people and they knew what they were talking about. They don’t fake it in the Vatican”.
Trading untruths
Ecclesiastical principalities are acquired either by ability or by fortune; but are maintained without either, for they are sustained by ancient religious customs, which are so powerful and of such quality, that they keep their princes in power in whatever manner they proceed and live. – Macchiavelli
To gain an understanding of the reasons and motives behind the president’s visit, the constructivist approach of Alexander Wendt explains how cooperation between actors who have their own agendas, egoists as he puts it, is a process of reconstructing their interests in terms of shared commitments to social norms. States and actors agree on certain norms and realities and their sovereignty is dependent on recognition from other actors. In the case of the Icelandic president and the Pope, each has a story to tell, stories lacking evidence and facts. So they seek approval from each other. What is Pope Benedict getting in return for his approval of the story of Guðríður Þorbjarnardóttir? He receives accreditation. By making an official visit to the Vatican, heads of state acknowledge the Pope’s role as the representative of God on Earth, furthermore granting credibility to a deity and a belief system which not only lacks in scientific evidence but has also been criticised for the manifestations of its power.
The Catholic church receives regular criticism for is its conservative approach towards women, which includes banning them from entering priesthood, a high degree of tolerance of children’s abuse by its officials and a tough stance against contraceptives and abortion which has grave consequences in the developing world. When the church issues statements or policies they sometimes revolve around matters of life and death. For centuries it maintained that unbaptized children would end up in limbo forever denied access to heaven, then one day Benedict XVI, the same Pope who hosted the Icelandic delegation, suddenly abolished it as if it had never mattered at all. When the Icelandic delegation met with the Pope, observers in Iceland noticed that they covered their hair with veils out of respect to Vatican tradition. Is it simply an innocent sign of common courtesy for representatives of liberal democratic states to discount their values in the presence of agents of conservative states or does such show of respect lend credibility to their values, beliefs and actions?
In contemporary world society actions are carried out by actors who dominate the cultural stage in virtually all cultural theories. Individuals, organizations and states are legitimated entities expected to act as agents of their interests. No single actor has central control and the legitimated actors are supposed to have similar goals. Supporting this cultural framework yields collective authority as proper actors legitimate each other. Norms and ideas then define the actors and their actions. Nation states, ritualized and structured actors are more isomorphic and more uniformly reactive than is commonly believed. Christianity and its branches are certainly amongst the biggest influences on Western culture in the past two millennia. The Catholic Church has withstood both the Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment and remains a powerful enough force in world politics for the president of Iceland to seek the Pope’s accreditation. Guðrún Bergmann at least seemed overawed as she described the group’s reaction when it visited the Vatican, “One fills with respect, walking through halls inaccessible to the public. We talked amongst ourselves that a billion people would like to trade places with us. This was a big moment.”
A perspective
When a democratically elected president speaks publicly as his nation’s representative, he is listened to and therefore his words matter as well as who he is speaking to. That is where his responsibility lies. The president strived to present a polished, hubristic and nationalistic image of Icelandic superiority, based on ancient heritage. – Althingi’s Special Investigation Report.
What is concerning about the before mentioned discussion in the historians’ mailing list is the resigned attitude many of the academics display towards politicians shaping their own versions of the truth. It appears as if they consider themselves unable or at least unwilling to go up against seasoned political debaters and spinsters in a public debate. It is truly a shame as the public would surely benefit from their expert insight. During a course named The Crash in an academic light at University of Iceland in the summer of 2010, associate professor in translation studies, Gauti Kristmannsson pondered the musings of Antonio Gramsci about whether academics were an isolated group in society or whether elite groups exalted their own preferred scholars. Kristmannsson expressed his concerns that academics were being suppressed in Iceland, through muted threats of lawsuits or assaults on their academic integrity by politicians, members of the business community and even from their own politically involved colleagues in the academic profession. Balancing the public discourse is not solely an Icelandic concern. Political spin on facts and history is common everywhere as is evident by the need organizations such as History and Policy in the UK.
In his seminar, Guðni Th. Jóhannesson’s conclusion is that science and research is far too important to be locked up within small research communities and that academics must engage the public and expose it to their work. When considering the benefits of academia in Iceland, the emphasis often seems to be on innovation and value creation, market driven rewards mirroring the emphasis on the libertarian theory so dominant in Iceland. But there is certainly also value in academic criticism and in experts seeking to balance the public discourse and the actors of powers who try to mould it as they see fit.
In 2009 Alþingi, the Icelandic parliament appointed a Special Investigation Committee (SIC) to compile a report on the causes of the Icelandic banking collapse of 2008. It included a section on ethics in Icelandic society where politicians are criticized for neglecting their duties towards the public, by amongst other things refraining from consulting independent expert advice on the bank’s true position. The report claims that “the state was systematically neglected, as dominant belief in self-regulation by private actors was the mantra of the day. Disbelief in experts and expert opinion has been apparent within Icelandic politics, probably because it is thought to dampen the power of elected officials,” and “political culture in Iceland has been overly characterized by power struggles and debates where the truthfulness of statements are insignificant”.
According to the SIC, the Icelandic media participated in shaping the discourse which promoted the success of the Icelandic banks instead of offering healthy criticism. It also makes a point of noting that academics could have participated more in the public discourse, but admits that they would probably not have been received well, and even silenced. Finally, a critical mention is made of the president’s role in promoting ideas of the superiority of Icelandic bankers. French philosopher and political scientist, Michel Focault asked if there was a common thread between the fields of knowledge and power. He believed there was a general consistency, which could not be reduced to identity, between modes of interpretation and operations of power. Focault claimed that power and knowledge were mutually supportive and directly implied one another. This helps in understanding how operations of power holders fit with the social and political fabric of the world. This contradicts the orthodox scientific account that knowledge should be immune from the influence of power. Here Focault is in opposition to Immanuel Kant‘s claim that the possession of power must inevitable corrupt the free judgement of reason. Scholarly work, including studies in International Relations is often supposed to require a suspension of values, interests and power relations and lead researchers to an objective conclusions. Focault countered the production of knowledge as a cognitive matter by explaining it as a normative and political.
The role of the president of Iceland as performed by Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson in the years leading up to the banking collapse in 2008 was severely criticized by the SIC report which asked whom the office was really serving? The report finds the president’s support for private institutions and the access he granted wealthy businessmen to the office concerning. It also describes how Icelandic historians reacted to his speech to the Walbrook Club in London in 2005, which was mostly repeated at the Icelandic History Society in 2006, as being filled with “generalizing, nationalistic arrogance and outdated interpretations of history not based on modern research nor modern theories”. Icelandic historian Guðmundur Hálfdánarson draws on Barrés and Renan’s assertions that identities and thereby nationalities are shaped by common history and memories of the past and how people are united under historic interpretation which forgets an inconvenient past and enhances the versions which fit a convenient truth. Hálfdánarson explains how traditionally Icelandic politicians celebrate a glorious past of the Icelandic Saga’s to mould a uniting story of a special people. Similarly journalist David Campbell explains In National Deconstruction, his account of the Bosnian war, how narratives shape how we sense reality. He cites White‘s observation that events in a chronicle are real, not because they occurred, but because they are remembered by ex post facto accounts. The historical field is simply to wast and heterogeneous to be able to draw conclusions from a single account. For there to exist a historical account of events, they must be used in a narrative which is neither given nor determined by the events themselves. Scholars as well as the public must therefore be on guard for the possibility of different interpretations of events when pay close attention to the narratives available when drawing conclusions from them. Campbell warns that the same events can be represented in markedly different ways with significantly different effects. Events must therefore be examined through perspective.
When in Rome
Politicians who are able to construct reality around their versions of events are able to obtain and hold onto power. When the facts do not add up, they are able to seek support from other powerful actors. The Icelandic president is far from alone amongst state leaders and politicians in mishandling historical events to fit an agenda. Enhancing the reputation of an Icelandic woman who lived 1.000 years ago might lead to increased cooperation between Icelandic and foreign institutions, there might be research money to be had from sources that otherwise would not be available, and tourists might arrive in greater numbers at sites of historical significance. Yet perspective gives cause for caution. In Christian Reus-Smith’s introduction to constructivism it is explained how institutionalized norms and ideas define the meaning and identity of the individual actor and the patterns of appropriate economic, political and cultural activity it engages in. Through reciprocal interaction, actors create the relatively enduring social structures by which identities and interests are defined. Norms and ides shape identities through three mechanisms; imagination, communication and constraint. A president in an established liberal democracy will use strategies to enhance his or her power within the norms expected.
According to the SIC report and academics Icelandic politicians are notorious for disregarding facts and expert opinion. The report states that citizens in a democratic state are responsible for their elected officials, and that to be able to carry this responsibility the conditions for forming enlightened opinions must be favourable. So is the nation responsible for creating conditions where it is represented by a head of state that is repeatedly criticized for bending facts and shaping history to his own accord? When in Rome it might be considered appropriate to do as the Romans. But the Pope is no ordinary head of state but a representative of an ecclesiastical principality on Earth, albeit a very powerful one. Unlike the Icelandic president, he is not democratically elected and his subjects are actively ordered to not question his policies, words or actions. The Pope’s official visit to Britain in 2010 was met with a high level of public criticism, led by academics such as Richard Dawkins and media figures such as Stephen Fry. Seeking credibility by trading untruths with an absolute monarch is highly questionable for a democratic leader and it should certainly be challenged by academics, experts and critical thought but as the Special Investigative Committee admits and Guðmundur Hálfdánarson has described, the conditions for a challenging debate has historically little traction in Iceland.
There is a difference in claiming knowledge and exhibiting desire to find the truth. In a television interview with Rome Reports, president Grímsson without exhibiting much constraint, makes blunt statements about the importance of a vague historical figure. Unsuspecting persons searching for known facts and preserved stories on Guðríður Þorbjarnardóttir might take him for his word and put faith in what he says because of his position. The question remains for experts, academics and critical thinkers, if untruths are not challenged by society, what other stories might persons in the office of a president construct to fit their own agenda?
Related posts:
May 16th, 2011 → 7:44 pm @ Dadi
0