A Nation of Peers: On Equality and Corruption in the Icelandic House of Cards

Iceland is the home of the largest glacier in Europe, countless elves, and social inequality. Not unlike other parts of the world, a persistent gap exists between the rich and the rest of us, and power and money get concentrated on the hands of those who know how to play – and rig – the game.

In Iceland, like elsewhere, wealthy folks have access to opportunities that others can only dream of. While some kids grow up in financial bliss, other kids can’t participate in sports because fees and the cost of team trips are too heavy for their low-income parents. Inequality takes the form of immigrants with postgraduate degrees working in manual labour because they cannot get access to jobs that match their skills and education and it presents in people with disabilities still having to put up a fight to get essential services properly funded.

And yet, Iceland has a curious characteristic that works in the favour of social equality: Proximity.

Our population is tiny. While Iceland is a decent-sized island (in fact, Iceland is 80% the size of England) the population is minuscule on a global scale (0.6% of the population of England). In addition to that, Iceland’s population is predominantly located in the capital area and in small towns and villages along the coast, while most of the country is taken up by mountainous terrain and fast-melting glaciers. Thus, we literally live right next to each other.

This physical proximity, along with centuries of relative isolation and lack of diversity have created a need for us to look up promising dating prospects in Íslendingabók to check not whether, but how related we are. Not surprisingly, in a society this small, political scandals and financial crises take on a personal tone. We cannot talk about “those people” who engage in corruption without talking about ourselves.

In Iceland, physical proximity translates to social proximity. The son of Jón the factory worker goes to class with the daughter of Jónas the CEO and they just might start dating by the end of 9th grade. On a dark winter morning, the Mayor of Reykjavík (Iceland’s capital) sits shoulder to shoulder with a retired teacher and a construction worker from Lithuania at one of the many outdoor geothermal hot tubs. Everyone must wash thoroughly without swimsuit before entering the pool, regardless of taxable income and offshore assets. And if you keep your eyes open, you just might spot the President on an evening walk on one of the many public trails along the shore. Perhaps you’ll have a casual chat, especially if your aunt was his classmate in college.

Without exception, Icelanders speak to each other on a first name basis. Last names are made up of the first name of one’s parent (typically the father, although some Icelanders have now started challenging that patriarchal tradition) with “-son” (son) or “-dóttir” (daughter) at the end. Although last names help indicate whose kid you are, referring to an Icelander by their last name does not make any sense. Similarly, having a doctorate degree does not mean you will be referred to as Dr. LastName and formal honorifics are simply not used, save for the president, who may get a “Herra” or “Frú” before his or her first name.

Creating and maintaining a rigid class hierarchy should really be difficult in a small and interconnected community like Iceland. Certainly there will be people who gather wealth, but lack of public reverence for the so-called elite and low or nonexistent fear of authority could work beautifully to our advantage.

The Icelandic House of Cards game is rigged. There’s no doubt about that.

Forget about learning to play it right. How about creating a whole new game?

It really is about time.

2547

Bonding vs. Bridging

I sat this weekend in Teachers College at Columbia University and listened to Dr. Isaac Prilleltensky talk about prerequisites for peace. And by peace he did not mean simply the absence of violence, but the presence of justice, wellbeing, and opportunities for all. Dr. Prilleltensky is a leading scholar, researcher, and writer in the area of individual and community wellbeing and his talk covered a lot of material, but the concepts of bonding and bridging got particularly stuck in my head.

IMG_2825In short, bonding refers to our tendency to relate to people who are like us in some way, whereas bridging refers to the times when we reach out to people whom we perceive as being different. This is of course nothing new and many writers and thinkers have examined the human (and the evolutionary) habit of favoring those who are in our in-group, while looking with suspicion at those who belong to the out-group – basically all those who are not in our own circle.

It is easy for people of privileged groups to get comfortable with bonding and put little, if any, effort into building bridges. After all, if you have privileged status in society, bonding with those who are also privileged or have a similar social status feels good! In circles where everyone is on the same social page, there can be this cozy sense of community and shared meaning, and little risk of anyone bringing up uncomfortable topics like oppression and inequality. As soon as the party gets more inclusive, perhaps to the point of people of less-privileged groups joining the space, things can get more complex. Suddenly the party people have to decide whether to keep the conversation at a superficial level so that everyone can appear to relate, or really make a conscious effort to listen to each other and broaden the conversation to cover both shared and unique experiences. This may not sound too difficult, but the thing is that unique experiences of less-privileged people often have to do with social location and that can bring up aspects of reality that may be hard to acknowledge for those who are not directly affected by oppression.

An Icelandic family friend once had a conversation with my mother where she shared her frustration with immigrant employees at her workplace, whom she perceived as always hanging out with each other instead of socializing with the Icelandic staff. When she was asked if she ever approached them first, she got flustered and stumbled on her words. Perhaps she had never thought of that. And perhaps that would have required her to make an effort to understand experiences that are very different from hers and work to create a common ground on which to build a possible friendship.

Listening to Dr. Prilleltensky, I thought of my own experiences as a foreigner in the U.S. and how that opened the door for me to redefine my in-group. Without the friends and family that had surrounded me back home, I found myself connecting very strongly with other international students and now I wonder if that was perhaps an example of bonding and bridging happening at the same time. Our shared experiences of being foreigners in a sea of (mostly white) Americans and our exhaustion from juggling the demands of a U.S. higher education program created a sense of cohesion and safety. At the same time, we reached across racial, cultural, linguistic, religious, and class differences and built stronger friendships than I could ever have imagined.

Dr. Prilleltensky and I agree that both bonding and bridging are important. They represent some of the fundamental processes of human interaction and in order to create decent societies we have to do both. However, what I find very interesting is how people of privileged groups sometimes feel entitled to bonding, while expecting people of minority or underprivileged groups to do all the bridging. Immigrants are given the side eye for hanging out with each other in Icelandic lunch rooms; international students are criticized for not engaging more with domestic students; Latinos are supposed to assimilate and stop speaking Spanish to their kids; African Americans are expected to integrate. Meanwhile, dominant groups at times reserve the right to keep to themselves, stay in their suburbs on the weekends, send their kids to after-school activities with other kids who look like them, and invite some but not others to dinner on Sundays.

This isn’t helpful. Because for minority groups and underprivileged populations, bonding creates an essential opportunity for sharing resources, getting support, expressing feelings and ideas safely, and gathering strength before heading back out into a society that does not view them as equals.

At the end of the day, we all need to bond. And then, we need to reach out to each other to make sure that everyone gets a place at the table. Bridges are best built from a position of equality and shared power. And safe bridges make this world a lot more interesting to navigate!

Culturally Normal

Multicultural psychology has always sounded intriguing to me, with “always” meaning, since the time I first heard of the term while looking into graduate programs in the U.S. Never in Iceland had I heard any mention of multicultural psychology or any variant thereof. Psychology was taught from a European/U.S. perspective and History of Psychology was the only class in my undergraduate program that contained a discussion on the underlying cultural assumptions of the field. But even there, the focus was on Western-developed theories.

In the U.S. things were different. Psychologists had apparently started to realize, long before I arrived, that not everyone walks through life in the same way. They had also started to write books and articles on the ways that race, culture, gender identity, sexual orientation, ability level, social class, and religious beliefs shape people’s view of the world and give access to positive experiences for some and not for others. I found this perspective absolutely refreshing.

A few years later, when I got a chance to teach an undergraduate course on multicultural counseling, I used a textbook similar to the ones I had read my first semester of grad school: Counseling the Culturally Different. However, by then the title and focus didn’t digest too well and it took listening to other frustrated people to figure out why. What bothered me back then and still bothers me now is that despite all the awareness that has started to build in the U.S. about the relevance of culture, social location, oppression and privilege, and the –isms that saturate society, there is still an strong tendency to regard white, European American, heterosexual, upper middle class, Christian culture as the norm, and all other variations as different. And this standard textbook represented a version of multicultural psychology that still revolves around teaching us to help them­ – with us being culturally normal and them being culturally different. There were chapters on Latino culture, African American culture, Asian American culture, gay/lesbian/bisexual culture, poor people and old people and several other different sociocultural groups. There was even a chapter on European Americans, but that one happened to focus on first generation European immigrants, with almost no discussion on the larger European American/white culture.

The reality is that the majority of graduate psychology students and professional psychologists in the U.S. are white, able bodied, heterosexual, from roughly a middle class background. And, of course, each person tends to be more familiar with their own culture than the cultural background of everyone else. But does that mean the majority should sit down on a comfortable platform and look down with binoculars on all the different people they need to somehow help and understand?  Or might the majority be well served by picking up some mirrors and looking at how dominant values and practices are also culturally shaped and no less worthy of critical examination?

The most multiculturally competent psychologists I have met have not been multicultural “experts” spouting off their knowledge on diversity. Instead they have been folks who are openly aware of their own biases and willing to admit that they are not experts in each person’s unique cultural experience, may not always get it, and do still have a lot to learn.

Perhaps the starting point of multicultural competence training needs to be humility. Without it, skills and knowledge can only get us so far.

The Power of Abuse

An NFL player was cut from his team on September 8, 2014. The Baltimore Ravens let their running back Ray Rice go after a video was released of him punching his fiancée out cold in an elevator. But this is already old news to anyone who dabbles in social media and/or follows American news stories.

Even Fox news covered the incident. But there, the focus seemed to be more on why the knocked-out woman decided to stay with her fiancé and – wait for it – even marry him! After all, who would want to stay in an abusive relationship? Obviously, she must have instigated the fight herself, deserved it, or even wanted it. Or simply be a woman of poor decisions. Right?

Wrong. Abusive relationships tend to be very hard to break out of and many abused partners (often women) need multiple attempts and a ton of support before they manage to leave the situation. That is, if they manage to leave at all. Perpetrators are often very skilled at getting their abused partner to believe that it was all their fault to begin with and that it will never ever happen again if only they do X, Y, and Z right. Partner abuse is not about loss of control. On the contrary, it tends to be all about control – controlling another person’s behavior and decisions, and keeping them under the abuser’s thumb.

The problem with focusing on the abused person’s decision to stay in the relationship is that it minimizes the power of abuse. And on top of that, it makes it seem like partner abuse is as much due to the survivor’s poor decisions, as to the abuser’s oppression. As if the responsibility is shared equally. Does this sound familiar? Rape myths function in the same way. And in both cases, survivors tend to be women and perpetrators tend to be men.

So… as with rape, let’s place the responsibility where it belongs – with the abuser – and leave the survivor out of it.