The astonishing range of writings about the social causes and consequences of the Icelandic 2008 financial crisis proffers a unique opportunity to analyse comparative-ly how scholars from different disciplines in the humanities and social sciences deal with one and the same subject. How does the scholarly approach differ regarding the employment of theories, hypotheses, empirical data and concepts? Is the methodology of the humanities noticeably different from that of the social sciences? Did the boundaries of philosophy and related sciences change in times of crisis, momentarily or permanently?
Markmið greinarinnar er að fjalla um skáldsögur tveggja íslenskra kvenrithöfunda sem beita fagurfræði hins ókennilega (e. the uncanny, þ. das unheimliche) til að takast á við atburði fjármálahrunsins árið 2008. Sögurnar sem um ræðir eru Ég man þig (2010) eftir Yrsu Sigurðardóttur, og Hvítfeld: Fjölskyldusaga (2012) eftir Kristínu Eiríksdóttur. Í hug- og félagsvísindum er hrunið skilgreint sem sameiginlegt áfall þjóðar sem leiddi til djúpstæðrar minnis- og sjálfsmyndarkrísu á hinu sameiginlega opinbera sviði. Þá hefur hugmyndin um hrunbókmenntir verið glögglega skilgreind og rædd, til dæmis í bók Aleric Hall, Útrásarvíkingar: The Literature of the Icelandic Financial Crisis (2008-2014). Í greininni skoða ég hvernig ókennileg stef verkanna skírskota til samfélagsástands á hruntímum og hvernig reimd hús frásagnanna endurspegla bælingu, ótta og loks sorg á tímum fjármálakreppu.
Icelandic politics are analysed from the perspectives of three normative models of democracy: the liberal, republican and deliberative democratic theories. While the Icelandic constitution is rooted in classical liberal ideas, Icelandic politics can be harshly criticized from a liberal perspective, primarily because of the unclear separation of powers of government and for the extensive involvement of politics in other social sectors. Despite strong nationalist discourse which reflects republican characteristics, rooted in the struggle for independence from Denmark, republicanism has been marginal in Icelandic politics. In the years before the financial collapse, Icelandic society underwent a process of liberalization in which power shifted to the financial sector without disentangling the close ties that had prevailed between business and politics. The special commission set up by the Icelandic Parliament to investigate the causes of the financial collapse criticized Icelandic politics and governance for its flawed working practices and lack of professionalism. The appropriate lessons to draw from this criticism are to strengthen democratic practices and institutions. In the spirit of republicanism, however, the dominant discourse about Icelandic democracy after the financial collapse has been on increasing direct, vote-centric participation in opposition to the system of formal politics. While this development is understandable in light of the loss of trust in political institutions in the wake of the financial collapse, it has not contributed to trustworthy practices. In order to improve Icelandic politics, the analysis in this paper shows, it is important to work more in the spirit of deliberative democratic theory ; Peer Reviewed
The ambiguity between reality and fiction haunts Einar Már Guðmundsson's novel Hundadagar (Dog Days, 2015), as it is a fictional narrative about factual, historical figures and events, such as Jörgen Jörgensen, Rev. Jón Steingrímsson, Finnur Magnússon and Guðrún Johnsen, while the same can be said about many other novels labeled as postmodernism. Canadian literary scholar Linda Hutcheon coined the concept of historiographic metafiction to describe fictions as such, which are "intensely self-reflexive", while "paradoxically lay claim to historical events and personages". Hutcheon suggests that historiographic metafictions fully illuminate the very way in which postmodernism entangles itself with both the epistemological and ontological status of history. This paper begins with an introduction to Hutcheon's theoretical contributions on postmodernism, postmodern literature and the relationship between history and fiction, followed by a reading of Hundadagar as a historiographic metafiction. The narrator's strategies—such as parataxis, metanarrative comments, we-narrative discourse and documentary intertext—largely indicate an imitation, a revelation, or say, a parody of the process of historian's writings. The paper further suggests that it is the Icelandic financial crisis in 2008 that prompts the narrator to revisit the 18. and 19. century, since the financial crisis takes the role of a rupture of the Enlightenment ideals, leading to disorder and chaos. Moreover, the narrator finds an uncanny similarity between the past and the present, as if the history has been repeating itself. The spectre of history keeps (re)appearing in a deferred temporality. While revisiting the past, the narrator also (re)visits the present in an allegorical way. In a word, as a historiographic metafiction, Einar Már Guðmundsson's Hundadagar is "fundamentally contradictory, resolutely historical, and inescapably political", just as Hutcheon's perception of postmodernism.
Í þeirri lýðræðisvakningu sem varð á Íslandi eftir hrun mátti sjá hvernig ólíkir hópar byggðu lýðræðiskröfur og ákall um meira eða dýpra lýðræði á ólíkum hugmyndum um lýðræði. Kjarni þessara krafna var þó hinn sami: meira lýðræði þýddi aukin áhrif almennings á ákvarðanir og stefnumótun. Þannig undirstrikaði hin almenna umræða um lýðræði þann skilning að virkt samráð við almenning sé nauðsynlegur hluti lýðræðislegra stjórnarhátta. Í þessari grein er gerð tilraun til að varpa ljósi á ólíkt inntak lýðræðiskröfunnar eftir málefnum hverju sinni og athyglinni einkkum beint að þekkingarmiðuðu lýðræði. Því er haldið fram að þótt enn sé ekki hægt að segja að þekkingarmiðað lýðræði byggi á veigamiklum empíriskum rökum, þá bjóði það upp á áhugaverðustu leið samtímans til að hugsa um lýðræðisnýjungar. ; During the democratic awakening in Iceland during and after the financial crisis of 2008 it was evident that different groups based their demands for more or deeper democracy on different conceptions of democracy. Yet their demands had a common core: more democracy meant greater public influence on policy- and decision-making. Thus public discussion insisted on a conception of democracy according to which public consultation is a necessary part of democratic governance. This paper discusses different kinds of consultation depending on the particular demands in each case with particular emphasis on epistemic democracy. I argue that even though it can hardly be said that epistemic democracy is based on much empirical evidence yet, its approach is the most promising way to think about future democratic. ; Peer Reviewed ; Ritrýnt tímarit
