Iceland,
an Unlikely Utopia
Summarised from an article by Eliot Weinberger, entitled
'Heaven on Ice' in Utne Reader (May '97; reprinted from The Nation (Feb 10th '97) and another by Richard C.
Morais, entitled 'Who are the happiest people?', in Forbes magazine (Oct 23rd
'95) monitored for the Institute by Roger Knights.
The classic social ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity, along with
more modern ones such as sorority and sustainability seem, of all Western
nations, to have been best realised in the unlikely, but spectacularly
beautiful setting of Iceland. 82 per cent of its citizens reckon themselves
satisfied with their personal lives, which is the highest figure anywhere, some
10 per cent more than the United States.
'Its small, ethnically and
linguistically distinct population (268,000) have sustained a remarkably
cohesive culture'
Remote
from the convulsions of European history, its small, ethnically and
linguistically distinct population (268,000) have sustained a remarkably
cohesive culture over their 1,000 year history. (Since it was originally
uninhabited, it has none of the painful colonial legacies borne by other
nations.) Even now, its uniquely literate population - they are the keenest
readers on Earth - are all well-versed in their foundation sagas, which
celebrate the trials of ordinary folk (rather than kings or gods) and the
magnificent glacial wilderness which surrounds them still. They speak more or
less the same, unique language as their forefathers, and have the same, ancient
system of traditional names: first name plus fathers' first name plus 'son' or
'daughter'. The phone book is indexed by first names - all of which are the
same - and people can differentiate one another only because they know each
other.
'Its uniquely literate population -
they are the keenest readers on Earth'
They
also have one of the longest democratic histories in the world - having
invented the idea of a parliament, and established women's rights to divorce
and property some thousand-odd years ahead of the rest of the world.
It is also, nevertheless, a modern, capitalist welfare state, which provides
well for its citizens, and is notable for its equitable social mix. The
statistics make one's jaw droop: there is very little unemployment; no poverty
- and no conspicuous wealth either; they have the world's lowest infant
mortality rate, and are fantastically long-lived. Whilst enjoying the
advantages of modern technocratic society, they seem to have escaped most of
its pitfalls: Since there is so much freely available geothermal heat, they
have little pollution; there is no army and little crime. Most prisoners are
allowed home for holidays and children walk the city streets without fear. 'Established
women's rights to divorce and property some thousand-odd years ahead of the
rest of the world'
How
have they achieved this remarkable social success? Writing in the Nation, Eliot
Weinberger suggests that Iceland has simply been lucky with its happy
combination of history and geography: its success could not be emulated
elsewhere. Another historical fluke theory, from sociologist Thorolfur
Thorlindson of the University of Iceland, argues that the Icelanders' gift for
contentment arises out of their centuries of coping with an extreme climate and
the vicissitudes of a fishing economy.
'They have the world's lowest infant
mortality rate, and are fantastically long-lived'
However,
as a long standing advocate of small nations as the best social formula, the
Institute for Social Inventions is pleased to note that Iceland's Utopian
social achievements have been realised on a very human - almost tribal - scale:
Akureyri, for instance, its second city and cultural capital, has a population
of 15,000.
|
|
|
|
Happiest nations - Sweden, the
Netherlands and Iceland
Summarised from a report by Ruut Veenhoven, entitled
'Happy life expectancy - A comprehensive measure of quality of life in
nations', in Social Indicators Research (Number 39, 1996, published in the Netherlands
by Kluwer Academic Publishers).
Leaving aside considerations of wealth, Gross National Product and so on,
and measuring only life expectancy and reported happiness, the developed
Western nations still come out way ahead for Quality of Life.
Ruut Veenhoven's study has concerns at possible criteria for measuring
quality of life. It is, he concedes, a very difficult concept to quantify
objectively, particularly if comparisons are to be drawn across national
boundaries. Social stability, for instance, is widely assumed to be
prerequisite for happiness, but if it can be agreed that a civil war will tend
not to promote wellbeing, a very stable society may be equally miserable, under
the heel of some repressive regime. Any number of other factors - wealth,
pollution, population density - may be presumed to have an impact on happiness.
None of them, however, constitute happiness or unhappiness in themselves, and
their proportional impact could be a matter for endless and inconclusive
debate.
'Two more or less objective outputs:
life expectancy and reported happiness'
Veenhoven's
strategy avoids the attempt to compute any of these moot 'input' factors.
Rather, he turns attention to just two more or less objective 'outputs': life
expectancy and reported happiness. Photographic accuracy cannot be claimed for
these measures either, of course, and the definition and expression of
happiness may be subject to some cultural distortion. On balance, however,
Veenhoven argues that longevity is a universal criteria for appraisal of
happiness, and that, where surveys are available, people's self-assessment of
their own happiness is liable to be accurate.
It was with these criteria, then, that Veenhoven has produced his
comparative study of 'Happy Life Expectancy' in the early '90s, in the 48
nations for whom figures were available. Average life expectancy in each
country was multiplied with self-reported happiness, expressed on a rising
scale of 0 to 1. (If life expectancy is 70, and happiness reported as 0.5,
Happy Life Expectancy is thus 35.)
This new methodology does not yield many surprises. For the most part, the
highly-developed and modernised Western democracies that have always been
assumed to have the best quality of life (worries about the stresses of
modernity notwithstanding) still come out on top.
'The top three happiest nations -
Sweden, the Netherlands, and at the top of the league, Iceland'
That
said, it is interesting to speculate why it should be that the top three
happiest nations - by a margin of more than 1.5 years of Happy Life Expectancy
- are all Northern European - Sweden, the Netherlands, and at the top of the
league, Iceland. Why this should be so remains obscure, but does seem to put
paid to the commonly-held opinion that plenty of sunshine is necessary for
happiness.
|