PRG1052 - National identity and Estonian-Russian relations: a longitudinal study of elite and mass discourses

Selle kollektsiooni püsiv URIhttps://hdl.handle.net/10062/108183

PRG1052 kodulehekülg.

The complex relationship between Russia and the Baltic states, with a particular focus on Estonia, serves as a critical case study for constructivist theories in International Relations. Existing scholarship has convincingly demonstrated that patterns of conflict and intermittent cooperation are fundamentally shaped by the intricate dynamics of national identity formation. While previous research predominantly examined elite-level identity discourses, this innovative project develops comprehensive interpretivist datasets that capture broader societal narratives. As part of the global 'Making Identity Count' network—which has traditionally concentrated on great powers—this research uniquely contributes Estonian data and expands the existing database on Russia. Through a nuanced comparative analysis of national identities across historical periods, the project team aims to uncover the precise conditions under which popular perceptions of national identity can substantially influence foreign policy decisions. The resulting insights hold significant potential for strategic policy planning and sophisticated risk assessment in international relations.

Sirvi

Sirvi PRG1052 - National identity and Estonian-Russian relations: a longitudinal study of elite and mass discourses Pealkiri järgi

Tulemuste filtreerimiseks trükkige paar esimest tähte
Nüüd näidatakse 1 - 3 3
  • Pisipilt
    Kirje
    Estonian Russophone Identity in 1990
    (2024) Nurseitova, Aigerim
    In 1990, the dominant identity discourse among Russophones in Estonia focused on rethinking their Soviet past amid an uncertain present. This is the time of reflection on how the Soviet Un-ion affected people living in Estonia, both positively and negatively, over the past 50 years, all while Estonia was striving for independence. Once a majority, Russophones struggled to define their identity in a period of change; were they Soviet Estonians or Estonian Russophones? Many had a tough time accepting their new minority status and the re-independence of Estonia due to the socio-economic inequalities and the resurgence of nationalism that accompanied it. Never-theless, Estonian independence viewed positively, as it was imagined as a time of positive change when Estonians and Russophones could be equals, working together for a democratic and just future.
  • Pisipilt
    Kirje
    Estonian Russophone Identity in 1995
    (2023) Nurseitova, Aigerim
    In 1995, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Estonia regained independence, the dominant identity discourse among Estonian Russophones centred on the question of belonging. The earlier adoption of citizenship laws and the beginning of the negotiations for Estonia’s accession to the European Union have also led local Russophones to contest the Estonian authorities’ decisions regarding ethnic minorities. Those decisions were viewed as discriminatory against minority rights. While Estonia’s trajectory towards (re-)building the state was supported by many, and Estonian Russophones expressed loyalty to the country and Estonian nationhood, the creation of a nation-state where ethnic Estonians enjoyed more privileges than non-Estonians was contested. The main challenge was seen as the lack of unity both among Estonian Russophones themselves and between Estonian Russophones and Estonian elites. In their competing discourses, Estonian Russophones sought to position their identity in relation to, and articulate their perspective on, the Estonian national identity.
  • Pisipilt
    Kirje
    Making Identity Count: Estonia 1995
    (2025) Kilp, Alar
    In 1995, hegemonic identity discourses were centred on the market economy and nationalism. Neoliberal market hegemony was primarily (re)produced by elites and remained unchallenged by popular discourses, which generally took market reasoning and meritocratic justice for granted. Instead, public concerns focused on increasing social status stratification and the welfare state, with democracy often assessed on the basis of socio-economic outcomes rather than formal parliamentary institutions and being identified more strongly than the elite with traditions, conservative values and rural life. Nationalism functioned as a true ‘collective identity’, shared and positively valued by both elites and the masses. In particular, ethnic and cultural nationalism served as a filter through which contemporary and past periods of independence, as well as the most relevant historic Others (Imperial Russia and Baltic Germans), were evaluated.