“The global centre is always local”: An overview of Icelandic educationalists‘ ideas in the late 19th and early 20th century on the use of local studies in school work

Abstract

In recent years educationalists‘ attention has, amongst other things, turned to the possibilities schools have to use their closest surroundings for study purposes by going on field trips, setting up facilities for outdoor teaching, and/or using examples from each school‘s cultural or natural environment to make the studies as meaningful as possible. Ideas of this kind are commonly linked to a recent concept, local studies, but their foundations have been in place within the field of education for a long time. The object of this study is to examine how educationalists‘ ideas on the utilization of local studies appeared in selected newspapers and journals towards the end of the 19th century and in the beginning of the 20th century, when the foundations of the present Icelandic educational system for children and teenagers were discussed and laid. The research questions which guides the study are as follows: What were the ideas of Icelandic educationalists on local studies and local teaching around 1900? How, and to what extent, did these ideas appear in journals from this time? Which are the sources of Icelandic educationalists‘ ideas about the use of local surroundings for teaching purposes? The answer to these questions is sought by analyzing educational journals and a few general journals from this period. The first parts of the article consist of short definitions, a description of how sources were gathered, and a brief discussion of the relevant journals. This is followed by an examination of the clues found regarding the ideas on local studies and local teaching in the period in question. This examination is divided into two parts. The former covers the period prior to the publication of Guðmundur Finnbogason‘s book Lýðmenntun in 1903 and the passing of the law on compulsory education four years later. The second part deals with the debate which followed in the wake of the passing of the public educational law and lasted until 1920, when the return of Steingrímur Arason from USA resulted in noteworthy changes. The parts of Lýðmenntun which address curricular matters are also discussed. Finally, the findings are discussed and summarized. The authors‘ main conclusion is that the study reveals that a century ago Icelandic educationalists had a clear picture of using local studies for teaching purposes. Their ideas were adapted to Icelandic circumstances but their roots can be traced further back in time. Not all these roots can be examined in detail, but four call for further scrutiny. Firstly, romanticism, nationalism, and the fight for independence in the 19th century caused a change of focus in Icelanders‘ search for role-models, as international standards were to some extent replaced by national symbols embodied in medieval heroes or the harsh but invigorating nature of Iceland. This switch appeared in its purest form in patriotic poetry, Icelandic history that was taught, in a nationalistic spirit, emphasizing the importance and initiative of strong individuals. This historical interpretation underlined the importance and ability of Icelanders and drew a clear line between right and wrong. In other words, it was perfectly clear to the reader when good compatriots were wronged by evil foreigners. Secondly, direct and indirect influences from the folk school movement in Denmark, and later Norway and Sweden, should be mentioned. A large group of Icelanders went to Askov and other Scandinavian folk schools in the last two decades of the 19th century and the first three decades of the 20th century.

The influence from these schools appeared e.g. in schools run by Sigurður Þórólfsson in Reykjavík 1902?1904 and Hvítárbakki in 1905, and in the school founded by Sigtryggur Guðlaugsson in Núpur in Dýrafjörður 1907. The agricultural schools in Hólar and Hvanneyri were a further outlet for these influences. Thirdly, youth associations, which originally were closely related to the folk schools and became quite common in Norway in the latter half of the 19th century, were influential. Initially, these associations rested on Grundtvigian foundations, but their religious focus was soon replaced by an emphasis on public enlightenment and political liberalism. This movement was brought to Iceland in the first decade of the 20th century and quickly established itself quite firmly, especially in rural areas. Patriotism and public enlightenment quickly became their main fields of interest, and this materialized in e.g. forestry and handwritten pamphlets which honed their authors‘ writing and argumentation skills. The fourth kind of influence behind the emphasis on local studies was also of foreign origin, even though the educational thinkers in this case were not Scandinavian. It is difficult to trace their direct influence until the beginning of the 20th century, but the visits of a handful of Icelanders to USA (Chicago, New York and other cities) for educational purposes are critical. In USA they got acquainted with international ideas which they brought with them to Iceland with good results. When all four strands mentioned above combined, an exciting ideological melting pot was created which is still quite evident in the school environment in Iceland.