Construction of borders: Intra-psychological dynamics of emerging national identity

National identity as border-making

There exists a comprehensive body of literature on national identity (e.g., Anderson, 1997; Eriksen, 1997; Guibernau, 2007; Hutchinson & Smith, 1996), including on Estonian identity (e.g., Ehala, 2017; Jonuks & Remmel, 2020; Jürgenson, 2015; Kalmus & Vihalemm, 2017; Tamm, 2003, 2018; Valk, 2017; Valk et al., 2011). In general, national identity is depicted as the feeling of belonging to a national group that involves a sense of solidarity with a collectivity (Pakulski & Tranter, 2000) and has been characterized as relational, dynamic, and variable (Wodak & Kovács, 2004). In this contribution, I draw on a semiotic approach in cultural psychology (Salvatore, 2012; Valsiner, 2007, 2017) and conceptualize national identity as a semiotic process of border construction that embeds in the interaction between macrosystem events and processes at the intra-psychological level that is linked to one’s affective relation with the surroundings.

In particular, the discussion in this article proceeds from the notion that national identity is inherently the process of border construction, drawing on Herbst’s (1976) notion of cogenetic logic, according to which A occurs always with non-A. Thus, self-understanding, for example, “I am Estonian” always implies immediate contrast with “non-Estonian,” in accord with the notion that the figure, ground, and the boundary separating them always coemerge and define one another (Valsiner, 2007). This psychological act of identifying oneself with a nation—“an imagined political community—and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign” (Anderson, 1997, p. 44) marks also the emergence of “us” <> “non-us” relations (e.g., Tajfel & Turner, 2004). Additionally, like approaches that emphasize the affective aspect of national identity (Verschik, 2017), I consider the emotional component central in national identity and argue for its involvement in the negotiation on borders, based on the concept of hypergeneralized affective fields (Valsiner, 2017).

Borders in the making: The construction of the opposition Estonian versus non-Estonian

No one is born Estonian, or non-Estonian, but becomes Estonian, or non-Estonian, in the process of socialization under the specific sociocultural preconditions shaped by the larger macrosystem that afford and restrict the emergence of certain developmental directions. From the semiotic perspective (Valsiner, 2017), the large-scale events in societal dynamics have an impact on psychological functioning through internalization of social representations and their analysis at an intra-psychological level. It is at this level where the process of construction of borders unfolds in one’s consciousness, where “a border becomes the border”—phenomena function as borders only when they are recognized as borders, when they are attributed the relevant meaning. As posed by Josephs (2007), cultural guidance is effective only when it becomes consciously or unconsciously recognized by the person who constructively internalizes social suggestions and makes meanings of experiences. Social representations, described as the network of concepts that are shared in communities and groups (Marková, 2012) or, as Wagner et al. (1999) proposed, “asocial representation is the ensemble of thoughts and feelings” (p. 96), are involved in semiotic mediation of experiences (Valsiner, 2017) and the infinite process of interpretation (Salvatore, 2012). To explain it in terms of the laminal model (Lawrence & Valsiner, 2003), social representations regulate one’s relations with the world through the constructive process of internalization/externalization. In this process, communicative messages are transposed from the external realm to the intra-psychological domain through three layers with different levels of generalization of the incoming messages. Layer 1 includes messages that are paid attention to, but not generalized, yet, the messages have a potential to be taken to Layer 2, where they become generalized. If the message is taken to Layer 3, it will be integrated into intra-subjectivity, and the message acquires affective flavor. As the result of internalization and integration of social messages, the person constructs a hierarchical semiotic control system that will guide the further meaning-making of experiences.

National identity as affective process

In an attempt to elaborate on the idea of national identity as semiotic regulation of affective process, and to highlight the centrality of the emotional component of national identity and of the construction of relation with the “other,” I draw on the concept of hypergeneralized affective semiotic fields (Valsiner, 2007):

Human psychological life in its sign-mediated forms is affective in its nature. We make sense of our relations with the world, and of the world itself, through our feelings that are themselves culturally organized through the creation and use of signs. The realm of feelings is central for construction of personal cultures. (p. 301)

In line with the notion that an affective component is inherent to human experiences, I argue that the construction of national identity is about semiotic regulation of feelings, an aspect that needs to be considered in order to comprehend the construction of borders and interactions between intra-psychological processes and macrolevel dynamics. Drawing on the laminal model, I propose that Estonian identity (or any other national identity) manifests in different states of affective relating with the national group, extending from neutral to emotional and personally significant. If we consider that the construction of Estonian identity during socialization embraces different affective states as the result of internalization of social messages and their integration in Layer 3, the emergence of Estonian identity within time at intra-psychological level entails, roughly, the following states: (a) the state when a person becomes aware of the messages with potential to feed into further formation of Estonian identity, yet, these messages are not emotionally toned and (b) the state when the message becomes emotionally colored. Theoretically explained, the social suggestion “You are Estonian” that initially exists “externally” and is imposed on a person can become integrated over time in one’s intra-subjectivity and appear in the form “I am Estonian” in the self-revealing and also affective-relating relation with the national group. For example, violence toward national symbols can evoke emotional responses. However, the emotionally flavored-state—the state signifying a personally important/meaningful relationship with the group of Estonians—does not necessarily follow as a natural consequence of internalization of messages. There is also an option that a person does not develop an emotional linkage with the Estonian nation, yet, is aware of their linkages with this group (Layer 2) and considers themself Estonian. For example, a person considers themself a “kind of” Estonian but this remains a neutral fact, like multigenerational migrants who are aware of the Estonian origin of their ancestors, but who have no emotional connection with being Estonian. However, they may develop this after experiencing certain events.

Becoming Estonian is a process that does not have an end state, nor is it a linear process where there is a strong emotional linkage with a national group that marks that “one has completed the process” or is “more Estonian.” Rather, affective linkage with Estonians can fluctuate over time, yet, the ontological trajectory of becoming Estonian continuously unfolds. The fluctuation in affective relating can be triggered by interpretation of macrolevel events, or everyday interactions. It is a complex process that may lead to redefining the relations with the group of “us.”

The model also enables us to suggest that internalization of messages does not guarantee one’s identification with a national group. A person can be aware of traditions, can acquire the linguistic skills and be fluent in Estonian, and yet, not regard themself as Estonian. “I am not Estonian although I know what Estonians value and what their traditions are,” could characterize this state. It is also possible that a person develops strong emotions related to the traditions of the Estonian national group but these are not induced by considering themself Estonian (e.g., Lauristin, 2015).

To conclude, this is one of the possible and hypothetical scenarios and a simplified scheme that does not capture the whole complexity of the phenomenon. Still, the model poses an explanation of how macrolevel events and intra-psychological processes become connected through the semiotic “inflow” of cultural material, the emergence of the hyperlevel affective fields, and the “outflow” of affectively flavored personal–cultural meanings.

Dialogicality within the self

A promising theoretical tool for analyzing national identity and for better understanding the negotiation of borders, establishing and reestablishing “us” <> “non-us” relations at the intra-psychological level, is the dialogical self theory (DST; Hermans et al., 1992), which is based on James’s distinction between I (I-as-a-subject) and Me (I-as-an-object) and derives from Bakhtin’s concept of the polyphonic novel. According to DST, the identity as a unified self comprises different I-positions that are supplied with voices that make dialogical relations between different I-positions possible (Hermans, 2001). As has been proposed:

we conceptualize the self in terms of dynamics multiplicity of relatively autonomous I positions in an imaginal landscape. . . . The I has the possibility to move, as in a space, from one position to the other in accordance with changes in situation and time. The I fluctuates among different and even opposed positions. The I has the capacity to imaginatively endow each position with a voice so that dialogical relations between positions can be established. The voices function like interacting characters in a story. (Hermans et al., 1992, p. 28)

The voices, “which can be related to the individual and social identity” (Batory, 2010, p. 46), represent social groups, worldviews, in other words, a variety of perspectives internalized through experiences. Accordingly, Estonian identity can appear in an imaginal landscape as a voice of an I-position—I-as-Estonian. Still, every person of the generic I-as-X identity position includes a multitude of different I-positions that represent different perspectives on being-X. National identity can thus manifest in myriad different self-positions arising in the course of experience, which in interaction facilitate identity creation.

At the same time, Estonian identity is only one of the many identities that individuals construct out of different experiences in life (e.g., I-as-a-parent, I-as-empathetic) and that bring their own perspective to the construction of borders. Thus, many other positions are included in the negotiation of borders. Due to the multiplicity of different perspectives, I-positions can set the stage for disagreements within the self and lead to different possibilities of solving the tension that the multiplicity of voices evokes. For instance, I-positions can dominate each other, become silenced, co-operate and make coalitions that enable other positions to dominate (Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010). The interactions between the I-positions in the self are high in importance when negotiating borders as they have an impact on how dilemmas, for instance, the relations with “other,” are solved.

Participants

In total, two different data collections were performed in different groups (interviews [INT] and Estonians in Finland [ESTFIN]). The participants in group INT (n = 12) were Estonian residents aged 19 to 54. The participants in group ESTFIN (n = 3) were individuals who had been born in Estonia and had migrated abroad (to Finland) ² around 20 years before.

Sampling

When recruiting participants, invitations were distributed through social media, potential participants were accessed directly, and by relying on the snowball technique.

While the purpose of the study was to explore the construction of borders on the example of Estonian national identity, and it was based on the presumption that self-determination of the participants is crucial in answering the questions related to the national group of Estonians, the sample consisted of participants who considered themselves to be Estonians, and no other features or attributes were specified in this regard (e.g., place of birth). Asking for a personal opinion of one’s own nationality was thought to be appropriate in this study, resting on the notion that the decisive factor in the self-determination of one’s national affiliation is one’s own subjective assessment (e.g., Ehala, 2017; Verschik, 2017). This criterion was applied to all participants in the study. An exception was made for the participants who had emigrated abroad (group ESTFIN). It was expected that due to their long-term experience of living abroad, their self-understanding with respect to national identity was rather ambiguous, reflecting multicultural experiences in the host culture (Finland). Therefore, the possibility of multiple group identities was assumed (e.g., Märtsin, 2010; Roccas & Brewer, 2002).

In sampling, the purposive sampling was applied in data collection involving identifying and selecting information-rich cases that “are those from which one can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the research” (Patton, 1990, p. 169) and who in this study were persons who considered themselves Estonian. More specifically, it was assumed that the socialization and internalization of Estonian identity of the participants consists of their experiences related to the construction of “other” (i.e., viewing oneself as Estonian involves defining non-Estonians and one’s relation with them).

Procedures

Semistructured interviews with the participants from the groups INT and ESTFIN were conducted for in-depth exploration of renegotiability of the border between “us” and “non-us” and how macrosystem events are reflected in national identity construction. Additionally, interviews with the participants from the group ESTFIN focused on how movement from one macrosystem to another appears in the reflection on experiences related to I-positions like I-as-Estonian, I-as-Finn (i.e., non-Estonian).

Data analysis started with reading of the data corpus to become familiar with the interview transcripts. Then, thematic analysis was applied to the text to identify themes related to belongingness to a national group in relation to border construction (the meanings of the “other” and “us” <> “non-us” relation to determine whether and under what conditions a change in the boundary between “us” and “non-us” is considered possible; e.g., the possibility of becoming Estonian), the affective component related to the renegotiability of borders (affectivity in relation to “other”), the manifestation of macrosystem events in the renegotiation of the border and in self-understanding (the meanings of oneself and “other” which contained references to macrolevel events like national myths).

After that, the identified themes were coded. In coding, the following categories were applied: I-position, affectivity, macrosystem events, and processes. The I-position I-as-Estonian, or I-as-non-Estonian (e.g., Finn), or its variations (e.g., I-as-a-descendant-of-previous-generations-of-Estonians) were identified when participants’ self-reflection contained direct or indirect reference to group belonging; the use of the category “us” where “us” referred to a national group (e.g., Estonians). For instance, “They will not integrate with us.”

Regarding affectivity, positively or negatively oriented affectivity was identified. For instance, the text “I am afraid that Estonian culture will die out if they keep coming to Estonia” indicates negatively oriented affectivity in relation to the “other.”

In regard to the manifestation of macrosystem processes and events in the negotiation of the border and self-understanding, national myths (e.g., “Estonians are a dancing and singing nation”), references to political events, or changes in society and collective incidents in the past were identified.

The interviews were conducted in Estonian and were recorded and transcribed. The selected excerpts from the interviews presented in this article were translated into English. To confirm the accuracy of the translation, the back-translation method was applied and was carried out by a professional English language expert and by the author of this article.

“Voices” in the present dialogues on borders: Who is one of us and who is not?

“Past voice” in the opening of the border

Besides maintaining the present order of the world of different national groups—the border between “us” and “non-us” should be kept fixed—the “past voices” can also contribute to the renegotiation of borders. When participant R (female, age 27) from the group INT was asked to reflect on her perception of Estonians, she developed the subject further and began to talk about a topic associated with it:

I’m not sure that all Estonians would like people to come here. Many would certainly argue against it, asking, “Why are you coming here?” We need to first and foremost support our own, and so on. And Estonians are afraid that our language could disappear, and others have never really assimilated here. I completely understand it. But on the other hand, Estonians have also been helped at times. That makes me think that we ought to help, that we cannot simply be like this.

“Our language,” “we ought to help,” “we cannot just be doing nothing,” all refer to a formed I-position I-as-Estonian that brings different opposing perspectives into the dialogue, sometimes supporting border construction and sometimes not: one that expresses willingness to contact and help and the other that argues against it. Again, we can assume the involvement of macrolevel events and dynamics in the formation of one’s identity and the construction of borders—historical events and contemporary large-scale processes of migration have been taken into account.

In general, the reasons for maintaining the otherness are different, not exclusively related to the fear for the future. The continuous construction of borders as rather fixed—the transition from one group to another is limited—can also be affected by the wish to preserve differences while, as participant L from the INT group (female, age 42) reported, “The world is more interesting when there are different cultures. Otherwise it would be boring.”

To conclude, when whole communities were found to be affected by large-scale events in the past (e.g., deportation) that had had an effect on society as a whole and were associated with negative affectivity, referring to such events was likely to make respondents “suggest” to keep the border between Estonians and “others.” Yet, once established, the structure of borders can become open to renegotiation under the specific combination of sociocultural and psychological conditions over time, allowing the persons to reconsider their own and others’ position in the matrix of social relations.