On the basis of this chapter, conclusions both about the discourses in Postimees as well as discourse of Postimees can be drawn. The first is based on the constitutivity of the discourses in the text level and being constituted by the sociocultural practice, whereas the second refers to the link between the text level and discourse practice in a form of intertextuality.
While Fairclough (1995, 55) writes that language use can be constitutive in conventional ways (reproducing and maintaining existing social identities,
relations and systems of knowledge) as well as creative ways (help to transform them), in the current analysis both conventional and creative ways can be found. In all three discourses, following the terminology of Fairclough (1995, 55) the creative way challenges conventional way of being constitutive; in the representation part of all three discourses, becoming is stronger than being.
In European Estonia the becoming-part is mostly communicated through failure whereas in Independent Estonia where one does not lean on the EU norms, recognition is weaker than should-part.
In general, this struggle in all three discourses can be seen as sign of social and political tensions that indicate scope for change (Raik 2003, 37). At the more concrete level, in each discourse the necessity of becoming is based on the overall logic of the discourse. In European Estonia where EU authority is admired, a need to change Estonia and become similar to the EU is communicated. The main idea of Independent Estonia is to behave as an independent country by changing its actions. Here, however, no explicit reference to transforming into something else is made. In Humble Estonia the focus is on changing one’s attitude towards the EU as the only aspect Estonia is capable of influencing. In all three cases, identity and action are tightly interlinked. The articles deal with different forms of action that are taken in this study as the basis of identity.
However, despite the challenge, the term ‘creative‘ could also be questioned in the framework of the current study. Although becoming indicates change, it also points to concrete (mostly EU-given, in implicit or explicit ways) directions and gives guidance to what should be done without leaving much space for the ‘free flow of creativity‘. This is though in accordance with the character of formative moment (see Section 3.3). Analysis shows that instead of seeing this formative moment from the perspective of various possibilities, the question is about rational action during this window of opportunity.
This link indicates a constitutive relationship between the text level and sociocultural practice: texts are socio-culturally shaped and they simultaneously constitute to society (Fairclough 1995, 34). The strength of becoming in discourses is a way that the formative moment as sociocultural practice constitutes to discourses. At the same time, the openly normative discourses constitute to the disciplined understanding of the formative moment.
Even though the current research follows the logic of Billig (1995) in connection with banal stories of identity, it has not been directly applied here.
First, while Billig writes about us, I analyze the relationship between Estonia and the EU that is often explicitly mapped in the media texts as a relationship between us and the EU. Here us refers to state, nation, citizens but also different spheres of life (for example Estonia’s education or agriculture). Therefore, the geographical division into local-regional-national community as us is one but not the only characteristic present in the media texts (see also Section 2.1).
At the same time, Estonia is not necessarily mapped as us. Some articles consciously distance themselves from ‘Estonia‘ and criticize it heavily. A clear minority of the articles are also written by Estonians living abroad or foreigners living in Estonia.
Second, on the basis of the analysis, a distinction can be made between the articles that clearly focus on Estonia-EU relations and those where the EU is only mentioned. While asking about the relevance of the latter, in the spirit of Billig (1995) it can be claimed that the question is about ‘banal EU‘ – something that is not necessarily paid attention to but if continuously used, still makes the EU part of the everyday practice.
Third, a banal communication of pro-EU attitude refers to the fact that only a few articles declare explicitly that one should vote for the EU. Implicit ways to communicate the same message are used much more often. A rather common setting in the articles is that negative developments and failures in society are ‘somebody’s fault’ and therefore followed by ambivalent inclusion (see Section 3.1 and Bishop and Jaworski 2003, 257, 261-262) whereas ‘all of us’ have contributed to the success. Needless to say that in the current case, developments in the EU accession process can be mapped as examples of this kind of success. As another example of banal support, articles position themselves substantially against but formally for the EU in a form of ‘I/we will vote for the EU even though I/we am/are not a Euro optimist(s)’. This also means that the general tone of the discussion is rather sceptical in the cases of all the discourses. Last but not least, the scenario outside the EU pointed out in Humble Estonia can be taken as an example where the setting between a
‘bad and worse options’ is made.
Although the analysis has focused on the struggle between, as well as inside, all three discourses, European Estonia is the most represented and also the most coherent. Throughout Estonia’s EU membership, this discourse has clearly become institutionalized (Estonia has ‘become European’). At the same time, for example, in Humble Estonia the situation is much more confusing since the potential consequences of this discourse at any point are not that clear cut.
On the basis of the second point, the discourse of Postimees, the link between the text level and actors (discourse practice) in a form of intertextuality between official and newspaper discourse can be drawn.
Logically, Estonia’s official enlargement/integration discourse has been widely based on official documents. At the core of this discourse, Kristi Raik (2003, 114-115, 123-126) has depicted the documents produced by the European Commission which was outlining its position as a non-political expert. In this way, the European Commission reports have played a central role in the formulation of Estonia’s integration policy and therefore has had a power role in constructing Estonia’s political and societal realities (Raik 2003, 115, 128).
The current study shows a strong position of the official discourse in the discourse of Postimees especially in the beginning of the accession process
when the EU as actor was referred to as an authority (sometimes ‘political‘
though instead of ‘objective’, see Realize EU authority)121. Also the topics dealt with in Postimees clearly repeated the processes taking place at the official arena (Estonia-EU relations). From the identity perspective, this means that the national identity is not just constructed in relation to the EU, in and by Postimees, but that the EU as an actor is allowed to take part of the identity construction process. Accordingly, the everyday level of ‘the common people’
remains in a rather illustrative role in the opinion articles.
However, this study shows also that while in the beginning of the accession process the EU as an agency was used in Postimees for reasoning necessary societal changes and the Political Elite were very much present as the articles indicate, by the end of the accession process a shift away from EU as an agency and the Political Elite can be depicted. In terms of power relations this means that in reproducing the official discourse, and the EU as an integral part, the discourse of Postimees was evolving during the accession process. Accordingly the voices of the Cultural Elite as well as the Readers strengthened while the voice of the Political Elite weakened.
In order to explain the change, parallels to the research of Kristi Raik can be drawn. Raik (2003) writes about a shift in Estonia’s public EU discussion from an existential to a pragmatic approach. She claims that it was further confirmed by the invitation to Estonia to start membership negotiations with NATO in 2002 which weakened the argument that EU membership is necessary for the country’s security (2003, 195-199).
However, the shift can also be linked to Estonia’s opinion polls at the time, since the polls showed that references to the EU authority in relation to societal reforms as well as EU accession as a project of the elite were both indicators behind the low public support towards EU accession (see Chapter 1). Therefore, it is possible to ask whether or not this shift was based on the conscious decision of Postimees to raise public support for Estonia’s EU accession.
121 Similar conclusions were also drawn by Kristi Raik (2003, 197) on the basis of analysing Postimees from 1995-2000.
6. RELATIONS AND IDENTITIES: ESTONIAN NATIONAL IDENTITY DISCOURSES
Apart from the relationship between Estonia and the EU as representation, relations and identities at the meta-level are analyzed in the articles of Postimees (see Figures 5.1-5.3). This part of the study is based on an interpersonal function of the language that in principle implicitly claims co-membership and solidarity between the paper and audience (Fairclough 1995, 71). In the context of representation, the issue is about the (re)action of us in relation to the EU as the Other whereas this chapter focuses on self-reflection of us and our understandings, (re)producing of subject positions in three discourses (see Section 3.1). Therefore, the analysis is focused on the social identities and relationships set up in the texts (Fairclough 1995, 5).
Accordingly, the normativity is not related to EU’s practice or agency (substance of the accession) but to the values and virtues appreciated in the society122. Since I, as an author, take the citizens’ viewpoint in this section of the monograph, my own position is more normative and therefore also more visible than it was in the previous chapter.
Since Fairclough’s discourse analysis does not provide a practical model for analyzing relations and identities, the current framework has been built in connection to the empirical analysis. The current study understands identities either as subject positions that are taken by articles or a way of mapping the other societal parties (those who are talked about and talked to). While own position is not explicitly named, mapping the other parties starts from naming: they can be called Eurosceptics, politicians, people etc. In the articles the explicit focus is either on the author of the article, those addressed in the texts or both, even though implicitly both sides are present.
Identities form the basis for reciprocal relations between the writers and those addressed in their articles. The tone used for addressing society in general or certain parties, varies from friendly to ironical and hostile. The aim of the articles, in the first case, is to integrate and include society, to show the common worries and duties. In the second case, the aim is to exclude the improper element from the common us. This process is an example of inclusion and exclusion/alienation for making a distinction between the
‘proper’ and ‘improper’ citizens (Fairclough 1995, 181; see also Section 3.1).
For instance a Journalist article that deals with abandoning the death penalty, claims that the Estonian state already shares the European level of understanding that sooner or later the death penalty should be abandoned.
The article continues that it might little by little spread also to the masses, to
122 At the same time though, the articles deal with the EU as well and some of them could be (and have been) analysed as part of both representation as well as relations and identities (for example Political Elite article, PM, 03.02.1998).
the conscience of the people who should after for a while become European citizens (PM, 18.03.1998a). Instead of citizens, the Journalist article talks about the masses, as anonymous and impersonal group of people. While the state officials understand what is going on the ‘masses’ are not that intelligent and therefore do not qualify as European citizens (yet).
In all three discourses, European Estonia, Independent Estonia and Humble Estonia, similar to representation, the notions of relations and identities can be divided into being and becoming, and thus accordingly Being/Becoming informed, Being/Becoming rational and Being/Becoming realist. The norms communicated by being informed, rational and realist are all based on a certain logic of understanding things, not the substance of realism or the rationality. Even though information is debated in some articles, the notions of being and becoming informed refers mostly to the logic of the linear communication model as the basis of being informed.
6.1 BEING AND BECOMING INFORMED:
“IT IS A SIN TO SAVE UP FROM INFORMATION”
(PM, 02.07.2003B)
In the representation part of European Estonia (where do we belong), the EU was seen as an authority whose guidance Estonia is supposed to follow without complaining whereas the current part, relations and identities (who we are) focuses on the ideal of being informed about the EU. Both sides of the discourse, representation as well as relations and identities are brought together in an example of a Political Elite article which writes that in addition to the technical problems there are nuances that one should also make oneself clear before joining the EU (PM, 03.02.1998). The article refers to the technical problems that should be solved before the accession (representation). In parallel the meta-level (relations and identities) can be depicted: it is necessary to make certain issues clear and become informed and aware of them.
BEING INFORMED OR UNINFORMED
In Being informed one either admits that people know a lot about the EU (Cultural Elite article, PM, 05.06.1998b) or they lack knowledge (Cultural Elite article, PM, 06.08.1998). Here, however, the lack of knowledge is presented as being acceptable and not as a shortcoming. Accordingly, no one is blamed.
Especially at the beginning of the accession process, it is admitted that nobody actually knows everything about the EU: it is not clear though what the act of joining the European Union gives us, since nobody talks about it and this leads to the real conclusions that nobody knows (Political Elite article, PM, 17.03.1997b). Another Political Elite article writes that the curious aspect of the forthcoming negotiations is that we do not know and cannot know at the
moment into which EU we will go (PM, 29.10.1998). Similarly, a Journalist article claims that we do not even know yet what the anthem of the new EU is or if it even exists (PM, 08.11.1998; see also Cultural Elite article, PM, 16.09.1998).
Towards the end of the accession process a Cultural Elite article writes allegorically that we do not know if it is allowed to cough in the EU, since from our perspective joining the European Union under the current conditions is like jumping into the water in an unknown place (PM, 18.01.2003b). Even though the articles, and thus their authors by default, referred to above admit that nobody knows what the EU accession means in practice, the situation is accepted. With the term us everybody is also put into the same position and no specific groups are excluded.
Apart from the articles that deal with ‘all of us’, in some cases certain people are pointed out as those who lack knowledge. However, these people are understood and helped, not condemned for their ignorance (Cultural Elite article, PM, 25.10.1997). For example, a Readers article writes about the threatened rise of sugar and gas prices in connection with the EU accession that inevitably brings about rising prices of other goods and services, all of which makes people extremely nervous (PM, 16.07.2003a; see also PM, 30.07.2003). The connection made between the EU accession and the sugar and gas prices also means that the term ‘people’ refers to those who are worried about their difficult socioeconomic situation. A similar understanding of ‘people’ is also expressed in a Journalist article about the EU information day: “In places one is not as much against the Euro Union as against the unawareness that joining the EU brings about.”123 (PM, 11.04.1997; see also Political Elite article PM, 23.04.2003). The term ‘places’ used by the article is a rather exceptional way of talking about the people who live in small towns and villages.
Apart from knowing or not knowing, the articles also deal with understanding or not understanding things. A Cultural Elite article writes that on the basis of the research results one can draw the conclusion that at the personal level, Estonians have not yet clearly realized the potential positive changes that joining the EU infers (PM, 17.09.1998). An opposite view is expressed in another article on the basis of an opinion poll indicating that at least 60% of people think that Estonia gets direct benefits from the European integration process. Article contends that despite some hesitancy, most Estonians have quite a clear understanding that while joining the European Union, Estonia is more likely to win than lose (PM, 16.06.1998; see also Cultural Elite article PM, 12.07.2003b). Another example, a Political Elite article claims that probably more and more people have gone deep into the accession details and reached to the conviction that joining the European Union is a reasonable activity and those who have worked hard for this, have
123 Kohtadel polda meelestatud niivõrd euroliidu vastu, kuivõrd teadmatuse vastu, mis sinna astumine kaasa toob.
done it well (PM, 13.12.2002). Therefore, the main issue is not related to the variety of opinions about the EU membership but correct understanding of things. Similarly, a Readers article praises the correct understanding in case of the politicians who have been active in connection with regaining Estonian independence like Lennart Meri, Siim Kallas, Marju Lauristin, Tunne Kelam etc. The article writes that they are clearly for joining the EU, since they understand that the EU secures our independence (PM, 12.07.2003c).
Mapping the politicians as ‘those who helped to regain Estonian independence’ gives extra credit to their opinions also on the EU issue.
Conclusively, even though no openly normative statements are made in the being-part, implicitly the examples still contain a message to those different from us. Praising those who have understood things in a correct way means that the same goal is set for the rest as a precondition for being part of us. In the case of ‘people’, one understands and accepts their lack of knowledge but also lets the more informed groups know that their help is possibly needed in this situation.
SHOULD INFORM AND BE INFORMED: MODEL OF FIVE “W”
The logic of Becoming informed can be understood with the help of a transmission model as analytical tool. Instead of one single model, various models can be depicted (for example Fiske [1982]1990, 6-38), as a common feature, they all view the communication process as a linear one (from sender to the recipient) with the clear goal to get the message transmitted. From the various models, I use Harold Lasswell’s ‘five Ws’ for this study (Lasswell 1948).
The Ws refer to ‘who’ says ‘what’ to ‘whom’ through ‘which channel’ with ‘what effect’. Except for the channel, the current analysis pays attention to all aspects
The Ws refer to ‘who’ says ‘what’ to ‘whom’ through ‘which channel’ with ‘what effect’. Except for the channel, the current analysis pays attention to all aspects