President Jóhannesson started by discussing his experience at St Antony’s. After a few anecdotes about his time at the College and his meetings with his supervisor, Professor Anne Deighton, he focused his discussion on his dissertation topic: Cod Wars. The Cod Wars had been the quintessential heroic tale of Icelandic national unity and had demonstrated that the strong will of a small country was mightier than the military power of the United Kingdom. They have been etched into the collective memory of Icelanders as a triumphant story and had become part of Icelandic collective identity.
The young Icelandic historian with an Oxford degree challenged that version of the history of the Cod Wars and – consequently – Icelandic pride. As a historian, Jóhannesson had been drawn by myths in order to deconstruct them and offer a more critical and objective perspective of history. He had seen the misuse of history through the creation of national myths by Icelandic politicians, and was thus entering into the midst of narrative battles on the role of the academic versus the role of the politician and between the passionate national truth and the impassionate objective truth. The perception of academics by the general public and the politicians in Iceland had been one of the detached and elitist professional pontificating from their ivory tower with verbiage that was alien to the common folk. They were seen with suspicion, and even more so were those “revisionist” historians who dared to challenge that national consensus.Paradoxically, the revisionist historian decided to run for president of the country whose politicians and members of the public had criticised his approach towards the Cod Wars. He ran in the summer of 2016 and was re-elected in 2020 by winning 92.2 percent of the votes.
Although many of his critics castigated him as being an out-of-touch academic isolated in his ivory tower, they ended up supporting him after understanding that the purpose of his academic work was not to belittle Iceland’s achievements or its national pride but to have national pride and use it to build an inclusive and just society, not as a tool to sway public opinion for narrow political goals.
Jóhannesson’s time in office presented particular challenges as he wrestled to reconcile his position as a critical historian of the past and the mandated leader to preserve the country’s unity in the present. His main dilemma was whether to use the position of the president to promote his view of the past and shape Icelandic collective memory or continue on with the traditional view of the need to emphasise past glories to preserve the unity of the present.
He eventually concluded that he could be both a critical historian and a proud Icelandic patriot. While he believed that critical history is indispensable to demonstrate the potential evils of bigotry and extremism, and the virtue of tolerance and compassion, at the same time it could promote the beauty of patriotism and togetherness in society and the ugliness of chauvinism and exclusion. Jóhannesson posited that academics must counter the tendency to tell historical myths that serve to promote patriotism or nationalism and must produce a fairer account of the past and our present. But he also asserted that academics need to acknowledge the need of the public for a common understanding of their past and future.
The question and answer session that followed the President’s speech was centred on Iceland’s role as a NATO member and its geostrategic positioning, the challenges of being a unifying national leader in an increasingly changing and polarised world, and the President’s future plans.
by Alban Dafa (ESC Research Assistant)
No comments:
Post a Comment