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

Abstract

Border-making is an inevitable experience in human life. Borders can be viewed as part of an external sociocultural structure that guides the dynamics of dialogues between persons and institutions. However, in addition to the interpersonal and societal level of analysis, borders can be conceptualized as an intra-psychological process of identity formation that is involved in meaning making and in organizing experiences with the world. Within the framework of cultural psychology, this article will provide an account of the process of bordering, using the example of Estonian identity that is approached as an affective process of semiotic construction of borders between us and the “other” (i.e., “non-us”). Using the dialogical self theory, it will examine how different I-positions (e.g., I-as-Estonian) related to collective and personal past experiences are involved in the construction of borders. The tendency to incline toward re-creation of the established structure of borders with the potential to renegotiate them is also revealed in this study.

Keywords

construction of borders cultural psychology dialogical self Estonia national identity

To a great extent, human life is about the construction of borders. According to Vrban (2018), borders can be seen as physical barriers; as imaginary, social, and symbolic lines; as well as the process of constructing self and others. Boundaries result from the identification of differences and the creation of distinction (Marsico & Tateo, 2017) and “emerge, exist and disappear at different scales—from micro-level of personal life to macro-level of historical events—in irreversible time” (Tateo et al., 2018, p. 132). The topic of borders has been widely discussed and has developed into an interdisciplinary field of research that has received input from various fields like sociology, cultural sociology, psychology, political sciences, history, and anthropology (Kurki, 2014; Lamont & Molnár, 2002; Marsico, 2016; Marsico et al., 2013; Nikolov, 2015; Rumford, 2012; Vrban, 2018). Yet, as is always the case, there are still questions that have to be discussed, particularly surrounding the processes in boundary construction (Lamont & Molnár, 2002, p. 170).

In the contemporary globalizing world, borders are an increasingly topical issue that relates to a variety of challenges, the solution to which presupposes an understanding of the formation of boundaries created through the interactions of the processes of different systems in society. Coping with the tensions associated with worldwide integration also affects the dynamics of “us” <> “non-us” or “other” relationships, and the development of the meaning of “other.” National identity is one of the factors involved in negotiating borders between us and them and is challenging in the global area. The construction and reconstruction of borders, as well as the formation of national identity, occurs in the complex system in which the person is a part. In line with Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory (e.g., Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000), different systems (micro, meso, exo, and macro) form an environment that shapes human development. The model suggests that in order to understand the construction of borders, or identity formation, it has to be taken into account that this process involves interactions between macrosystems that “consists of the overarching pattern of values, belief systems, lifestyles, opportunities, customs, and resources embedded therein” (Johnson, 2008, p. 3) and microlevel dynamics. Macrolevel processes, for example, events or trends (e.g., political, social, cultural) taking place in society shape national identity and the attitude toward the “other” (e.g., Ionescu, 2009). For example, Jonuks and Remmel (2020) discuss various Estonian national myths that are involved in the construction of the nation. They point to different motifs of national myth in circulation, such as Estonians being a dancing and singing nation,¹ heroic Estonians, hardworking Estonians, and Estonians as “forest people.” At the same time, stories about Estonians also foster the formation of people’s personal national identity. Research has shown (Kullasepp, 2019) the use of motifs of national myths in creating the image of an Estonian and in defining oneself as an Estonian, thus manifesting as a self-aspect.

Sociological approaches to these different levels of functioning have extensively studied their mutual influence. Still, how macrolevel dynamics are connected with intra-psychological processes at the micro level has not yet been thoroughly investigated. This article intends to further explore the topic and discuss how macrosystem events are related to intra-psychological dynamics. I propose to approach the topic in terms of national identity that is inherently a bordering process. By applying the laminal model of the internalization/externalization process (Lawrence & Valsiner, 2003), dialogical self theory (Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010; Hermans et al., 1992), and based on the example of Estonian national identity, this article explores how border construction at the intra-psychological level between “us” <> “non-us” or “other,” the dynamics of national identity, and macrosystem processes are related.

Theoretical framework

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.

Methodology

The discussion in this article is also informed by the findings from a series of underlying data collections conducted by the author in Estonia over the period between December 2015 and November 2019.

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.

Results

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

Macrosystem reflection on inner dialogues about borders: “Past voices” in the closing and opening of the border

The findings revealed how narratives on nation and large-scale historical events reappear in dialogues between different I-positions at an intra-psychological level, bridging the macrosystem events with the present “us” <> “non-us” dynamics. For example, participant F (female, age 32) from the INT group, when asked about conditions of becoming Estonian, reported:

I do think, it is possible. If I learn to speak Estonian and I want to learn it, not just out of an obligation, I make my home here, I have a family here, I bring up my children and teach them to respect the Estonian state and Estonian country. I think that then I’m Estonian. The native Estonians have their parents and grandparents here, a historical background – take the 700 years of serfdom, we have the background of deportations, which affected every family. That’s the difference, history and background. Yet, if I respect and teach my children to respect Estonians and Estonia, then, why not.

In this particular case, to renegotiate the border, the focus is on the acquisition of the Estonian language, starting a family, developing values, and attitude toward the Estonian state. That part seems to suggest that renegotiation is possible, in other terms, it could be possible to move from the group of “other” to “our” group. However, the border between us and “other” tends to become less renegotiable when this reference is made to previous generations. The semiotic construction of Estonians in this particular case is defined through family ties and through the macrolevel traumatic collective past events, such as 700 years of serfdom³ and deportation.⁴

In terms of the dialogical self, the construction of a border between Estonian and non-Estonian is guided through different I-positions which also reflect different affective reactions. For example, the emergence of the I-position I-as-a-descendant-of-Indigenous-Estonians that can be regarded as a “past voice” communicating the traumatic experiences of the earlier generations of Estonians, can stand for the creation of a border even if another voice may argue for the renegotiation of the border. We can also observe that the domination of “past voices” can bring into construction a border between “us” and “other,” the past experiences and fears about survival—an existential dimension—that affects the construction of future in present.

However, the maintenance of borders can be also supported by the “present voice” bringing the dimension of present conditions into the inner dialogue. Specifically, some of the participants explained that due to the small number of ethnic Estonians in Estonia, which is around 909,000,⁵ the survival of Estonian culture is under threat. Participant Z (female, age 25) from the INT group reported:

Estonians may die out, because there are so few of us. It depends on how many of them would come. Estonians are so passive that they won’t impose themselves when a large number of others come here. History has shown that they won’t become like us.

First, we can observe the use of categories “us” and “they” that indicate one’s identification with Estonians. The “present voice” in the inner dialogue on borders in the self in the above example describes the current demographic situation in Estonia and links the current number of the population of Estonia to the narrative about dying out. Thus, in this example the I-position I-as-an-Estonian-descendant (“past voice”)—the participant refers to the category of “us” that communicates a rather negative affectivity related to existential survival.

“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.

Interplay between macrosystem and psychological distancing in renegotiation of borders

The following examples illustrate the involvement of macrosystem processes and movement into another macrosystem in the formation of an inner structure of I-positions which is accompanied by a change in the defining of “other.” The findings also allow us to see how the affective component of psychological distancing from the national group contributes to the construction of borders. The following is an extract from the interview conducted with participant C (male, age 30) from the INT group, who was instructed to reflect on how it feels to be Estonian and whether he thinks he is a typical Estonian:

I am rather proud to be Estonian. But who is a typical Estonian? A typical Estonian is a fool who always goes with the crowd, who tramples on the top of his rake until it breaks, instead of stepping aside. I think I’m not a typical Estonian. If I once considered myself a tough Estonian and I was ready to stand up for Estonia if necessary, then today I don’t think so anymore. Because the “fathers” in charge (politicians) have taken away this will. Probably also because of what they do to the country. If all this Estonianness today is such that the last money has to be seized from people, patriotism doesn’t help anyone anymore. The pride of being Estonian has been suppressed, before it was good to live in Estonia and you had the opportunity to earn well and do your thing, then today you will be killed. This is typical Estonianness.

In C’s reflection on the Estonian nation we can observe the construction of “typical Estonian” with which C does not identify and to which negative tonality is associated. In other words, a border has been established between the imaginary groups of “typical Estonians” and “non-typical Estonians” in the involvement of affective relating. With regard to the macrosystem, the linkage between large-scale events, C refers to politicians and political trends in the country that have occurred or are currently occurring in society, which manifest in distancing from “non-typical Estonians,” thus, in the construction of a distinct group.

An analysis of the interviews conducted with participants B (male, age 47) and A (female, age 25) from the ESTFIN group who had migrated to Finland reveals how change in the macrosystem manifests in the formation of the structure of I-positions, in psychological distancing, and in renegotiation of borders. Participant B reported:

Actually, I feel now that I have changed, I feel different, not that much Estonian anymore. I feel like Finnish, too. When I didn’t speak Finnish, I felt that they were different compared to me. But now I feel that they are absolutely like me.

Changes in the perceived affiliation to both of the groups—Estonians and Finns—illustrate renegotiated borders, occurring in parallel with the dynamics in self-understanding. In this particular case, Finns, initially representing the “non-us” group from the person’s perspective, had turned over time into the “us” group, whereas Estonian identity was retained.

The following example illustrates how temporary domination of a specific I-position is linked to the temporarily established borders—first with one and then with another group depending on the guiding voice in the inner dialogue. The extract below is from an interview conducted with participant A, who was born in Estonia and whose family moved to Finland 20 years ago. Participant A visits Estonia regularly and has worked in Estonia for a short time:

I feel like a Finn, but like an Estonianized Finn. When I visit Estonia, when I meet relatives who live in Estonia then I feel I’m Estonian. But I still feel more like a Finn. Estonians are different compared to Finns. In the beginning, my Estonian colleagues kept distance from me, because I was Finnish for them, not Estonian like they are, although, I am Estonian.

Participant A seems to operate in the transition zone due to the I-positions’ (i.e., I-Estonianized-Finn, I-as-Finn, and I-as-Estonian) temporary dominance over one another. Moreover, socialization in different macrosystems is expressed by the formation of different I-positions (e.g., I-as-Estonian, I-as-Finnish). That is accompanied by semiotic construction of “they” on the basis of nationality in different social encounters.

Discussion and conclusion: Borders in dialogue

The construction and reconstruction of borders is an inherent part of institutionally organized and culturally embedded human lives, a topic that has attracted scholars’ attention from various scientific fields. Within the context of the large-scale dynamics happening in societies today, comprehending the complex and multilayered process of the construction of borders is required and it is undoubtedly a topical issue for scientists from different disciplines to tackle.

This article explores bordering as an essential part of national identity, and provides an account of the connection between macrosystem events and intra-psychological processes. This “bridging” can be explained in terms of the construction of meaning complexes and their involvement in semiotic regulation of interactions between different levels of (macro and intra-psychological) processes. In accord with the frame of reference, national identity can be viewed as the manifestation of macrolevel dynamics and events at the intra-psychological level, an internalized inclination to order the world in terms of “us” and “non-us.” In terms of the laminal model, external semiotic–cultural material is used in the building of higher affective fields through which the attitude towards the “other” is shaped. The results showed that in the process of internalization of national identity affective higher fields have developed that inform emotional responses to the “other.” Specifically, analysis of data revealed that collective experiences in the past that associated with negative affectivity tended to foster the ongoing creation of a boundary between us and them. It was also possible to infer that the elements of myths and stereotypes concerning Estonianness, Estonia, and the Estonian nation that are prevalent in society are involved in the negotiation of borders. In particular, Jonuks and Remmel (2020) have described national myths and point out various common notions about Estonians. The content of one national myth is the struggle of Estonians for freedom and the preservation of their culture. This study also shows that one of the motifs that on the occasion of changing boundaries was more likely to facilitate the preservation of borders, was the threat of destruction of culture, which can be related to one of the Estonian national myths about the fight of Estonians for survival through the ages. Although Estonians were repeatedly constructed as endangered by “others,” which involved closing the negotiating space, in some cases “past voices” can support the renegotiation of a border and being more accepting towards the “other.” Fear, or other emotional responses, in this case, can be viewed as externally suggested—macro-level suggestions—and personally accepted and externalized affective responses.

In general, based on the findings, Estonians were viewed as a conditional/limited open group—a person needs to meet some criteria to become Estonian. These criteria can be divided according to what extent it is possible to respond to them. If the criteria for becoming Estonian were more difficult to meet, if at all, then it referred to the tendency to consider Estonians as a rather closed group. For instance, if a reference was made to the Estonians’ collectively shared experiences in which the previous generations had participated (e.g., deportation) in the past then the border is quite difficult to penetrate. If becoming Estonian required the development of a special kind of mentality or values, learning of the Estonian language, getting married to an Estonian (becoming Estonian through close relation with other Estonians), it indicated a possibility to penetrate the border. The findings are interesting. Considering nation as a stable or rather fixed phenomenon, the options for other (i.e., “non-us”) to be accepted as “one of us” are rather limited.

An aspect to consider in explaining the negotiation of borders is the multiplicity of I-positions. The construction of borders between “us” and “non-us” is negotiated in the dialogues between different I-positions, which lead to a different perspective and affectivity to defining relations with “others.” As shown by the results, the multiplicity of I-positions makes the negotiation of a border with the “other” more complex, meaning that I-positions bring different perspectives into a dialogue. The dialogical space that I-positions create can facilitate the renegotiation of borders. This can be done in a variety of ways, in line with Hermans and Hermans-Konopka (2010), like forming a coalition between I-positions, or the formation of new I-positions.

Drawing on the concept of hypergeneralized affective fields (Valsiner, 2007) and the laminal model (Lawrence & Valsiner, 2003), I propose an obviously simplified scheme of national identity formation that consists of different states, where the ongoing affective relating with the national group is viewed in relation to the renegotiation of borders—changes in affective responses are involved in the dynamics of the construction of borders between “us” and “non-us.” Therefore, the fluctuation of psychological distancing from one’s own national group—reconsidering one’s own relationship with a national group—can be triggered by an interpretation of macrolevel events, including a change in a larger system. No national identity is fixed and it constitutes a developmental phenomenon; even if regarding oneself as Estonian over time leaves an impression of a static state, it is a rather misleading façade that “hides” the dynamic conditions. Seemingly constant self-understanding “I am Estonian” does not actually exclude dynamics regarding relating to the group of Estonians. “I think I am now less like a typical Estonian who seems to value X,” is a simplified schematic illustration of the possible scenarios of changing psychological distancing from the national group and illustrates the temporality of the person–group complex relations.

To conclude, to comprehend the bordering phenomenon in a society, one has to consider the complexity of interactions between processes at different levels of functioning where intra-psychological processes play the decisive role.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The support by School of Natural Sciences and Health, Tallinn University, Aalborg University, and co-operation with Dr. Thomas Kühn (Bremen University) on the joint project in 2015–2016 is appreciated.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declares no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The financial support for the joint project on “Identiteedi piiride loomine” (TF5316) (2016 -2018) was provided by Tallinn University Research Fund and by Niels Bohr Professorship Grant Aalborg University.

Notes

Author biography

Katrin Kullasepp is associate professor at Tallinn University, School of Natural Sciences and Health. Dr. Kullasepp’s scientific interests concern cultural psychology and her research focuses on development of identity, including students’ professional identity construction and national identity formation. She also takes interest in border studies and in policy design. Recent publications include (with S. Salvatore et al.) “Globalization, Demand of Sense and Enemization of the Other: A Psychocultural Analysis of European Societies’ Sociopolitical Crisis” in Culture & Psychology (2019) and “An Intra-Psychological Perspective on Borders: On the Example of Becoming Estonian” in K. Kullasepp & G. Marsico (Eds.), Identity at the Borders and Between the Borders (Springer, 2021).

References

Anderson

(1997). The nation and the origins of national consciousness. In Guibernau

Rex

(Eds.), The ethnicity reader: Nationalism, multiculturalism, and migration (pp. 43–51). Polity Press.

Batory

A. M.

(2010). Diaologicality and the construction of identity. International Journal for Dialogical Science, 4(1), 45–66. http://ijds.lemoyne.edu/

Bronfenbrenner

Evans

G. W.

(2000). Developmental science in the 21st century: Emerging questions, theoretical models, research designs and empirical findings. Social Development, 9(1), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00114

Ehala

(2017). The role of language in Estonian national identity. In Tammaru

Eamets

Kallas

(Eds.), Estonian human development report 2016/2017: Estonia at the age of migration. Eesti Koostöö Kogu. https://inimareng.ee/en/migration-identity-and-language-change/the-role-of-language-in-estonian-national-identity/

Eriksen

T. H.

(1997). Ethnicity, race and nation. In Guibernau

Rex

(Eds.), The ethnicity reader: Nationalism, multiculturalism, and migration (pp. 33–42). Polity Press.

Guibernau

(2007). The identity of nations. Polity Press.

Herbst

(1976). Alternatives to hierarchies. Martinus Nijhoff.

Hermans

H. J. M.

(2001). The dialogical self: Toward a theory of personal and cultural positioning. Culture & Psychology, 7(3), 243–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X0173001

Hermans

H. J. M.

Hermans-Konopka

(2010). Dialogical self theory: Positioning and counter -positioning in a globalizing society. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.2.3.10vit

10.

Hermans

H. J. M.

Kempen

H. J.

van Loon

R. J.

(1992). The dialogical self: Beyond individualism and rationalism. American Psychologist, 47(1), 23–33. http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.47.1.23

11.

Hutchinson

Smith

D. A.

(Eds.). (1996). Ethnicity. Oxford University Press.

12.

Ionescu

(2009). Myths, narratives, and patterns of rumours: The construction of “Jewish subversion” and retributive violence in 1940–41 Romania. Culture & Psychology, 15(3), 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X09337865

13.

Johnson

(2008). Ecological systems and complexity theory: Toward an alternative model of accountability in education. International Journal of Complexity and Education, 5(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.29173/cmplct8777

14.

Jonuks

Remmel

(2020). The myth of Estonians as a forest people. A retrospective view. Keel ja Kirjandus, 6, 459–482. https://keeljakirjandus.ee/ee/

15.

Josephs

I. E.

(2007). The semiotic regulation of sexuality from a microgenetic perspective. Integrative Psychological & Behavioural Science, 41(2), 319–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-007-9028-5

16.

Jürgenson

(2015). Etniline ja rahvuslik. Etnokultuurilistest protsessidest eesti idadiasporaas [Ethnic and nationa. Ethnocultural processes in the Estonian eastern diaspora]. Acta Historica Tallinnensia, 21, 23–50. https://doi.org/10.3176/hist.2015.1.02

17.

Kalmus

Vihalemm

(2017). Väärtused ja identiteedid [Values and identities]. In Vihalemm

Lauristin

Kalmus

Vihalemm

(Eds.), Eesti ühiskond kiirenevas ajas: Uuringu “Mina. Maailm. Meedia” 2002–2014 tulemused (pp. 111–138). Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.

18.

Kullasepp

(2019, August 19–23). Estonian identity as semiotic construction of borders: The intrapsychological level in focus. In Märtsin

(Chair), Borders, identity processes and the complexities of human becoming: A semiotic cultural perspective [Symposium]. Measured lives: Theoretical psychology in an era of acceleration. Conference of the International Society for Theoretical Psychology, Copenhagen, Denmark. Denmark, Copenhagen.

19.

Kurki

(2014). Borders from the cultural point of view: An introduction to writing at borders. Culture Unbound, 6, 1055–1070. https://doi.org/10.3384/cu.2000.1525.1461055

20.

Lamont

Molnár

(2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167–195. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141107

21.

Lauristin

(2015). Laulupidu eestiliku kultuuriruumi sümbolina [The Estonian song celebration as a symbol of Estonian culture]. In Vetik

(Ed.), Eesti inimarengu aruanne 2014/2015 [Estonian human development report 2014/2015] (pp. 217–221). Eesti Koostöö Kogu.

22.

Lawrence

J. A.

Valsiner

(2003). Making personal sense: An account of basic internalization and externalization processes. Theory & Psychology, 13(6), 723–752. http://doi.org/10.1177/0959354303136001

23.

Marková

(2012). Social representations as anthropology of culture. In Valsiner

(Ed.), Oxford handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 487–509). Oxford University Press.

24.

Marsico

(2016). The borderland. Culture & Psychology, 22(2), 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X15601199

25.

Marsico

Cabell

K. R.

Valsiner

Kharlamov

N. A.

(2013). Interobjectivity as a border: The fluid dynamics of betweenness. In Sammut

Daanen

Moghaddam

(Eds.), Understanding the self and others: Explorations in intersubjectivity and interobjectivity (pp. 51–65). Routledge.

26.

Marsico

Tateo

(2017). Borders, tensegrity and development in dialogue. Integrative Psychological & Behavioural Science, 51(4), 536–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-017-9398-2

27.

Märtsin

(2010). Rupturing otherness: Becoming Estonian in the context of contemporary Britain. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 44, 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-009-9109-8

28.

Nikolov

S. E.

(2015). Why sociology is silent concerning borders. Venets: The Belogradchik Journal for Local History, Cultural Heritage and Folk Studies, 6(1), 9–32. http://www.venets.org/getfile.php?id=199

29.

Õispuu

(Ed.). (2001). Deportation from Estonia to Russia: Deportation in June 1941 & deportation in 1940–1953: Book 6. Estonian repressed persons records bureau. Memento. https://www.memento.ee/trukised/memento-raamatud/

30.

Pakulski

Tranter

(2000). Civic, national and denizen identity in Australia. Journal of Sociology, 36(2), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/144078330003600205

31.

Patton

(1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE.

32.

Roccas

Brewer

M. B.

(2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0602_01

33.

Rumford

(2012). Towards a multiperspectival study of borders. Geopolitics, 17, 887–902. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2012.660584

34.

Salvatore

(2012). Social life of the sign: Sense-making in society. In Valsiner

(Ed.), Oxford handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 241–254). Oxford University Press.

35.

Statistics Estonia. (2018, January 1). RV0222U: Population by sex, ethnic nationality and county. https://andmed.stat.ee/en/stat/rahvastik__rahvastikunaitajad-ja-koosseis__rahvaarv-ja-rahvastiku-koosseis/RV0222U

36.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Jost

J. T.

Sidanius

(Eds.), Political psychology: Key readings (pp. 276–293). Psychology Press.

37.

Tamm

(2003). Monumentaalne ajalugu: Mida me mäletame Eesti ajaloost? [Monumental history: Essays on the historical culture in Estonia]. Vikerkaar, 10–11 (28–30), 60−68. https://www.academia.edu/2186754/Monumentaalne_ajalugu_Esseid_eesti_ajalookultuurist_Monumental_history_Essays_on_the_historical_culture_in_Estonia_

38.

Tamm

(2018). How are nations made? In Gregos

(Ed.), The state is not a work of art (pp. 137–149). Lugemik.

39.

Tateo

Español

Kullasepp

Marsico

Palang

(2018). Five gazes on the border: A collective auto-ethnographic writing. Human Arenas, 1(2), 113–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-018-0010-1

40.

Valk

(2017). Identiteet avatud maailmas [Identity in an open world]. In Tammaru

Eamets

Kallas

(Eds.), Eesti inimarengu aruanne (pp. 202–210). SA Eesti Koostöö Kogu.

41.

Valk

Karu-Kletter

Drozdova

(2011). Estonian open identity: Reality and ideals. Trames: Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 15(1), 33−59. https://kirj.ee/trames/

42.

Valsiner

(2007). Culture in minds and societies: Foundation of cultural psychology. SAGE.

43.

Valsiner

(2017). Between self and societies: Creating psychology in a new key ( Raudsepp

, Ed.). Tallinn University Press.

44.

Verschik

(2017). Migration, identity and language change. In Tammaru

Eamets

Kallas

(Eds.), Estonian human development report 2016/2017: Estonia at the age of migration. Eesti Koostöö Kogu. https://www.2017.inimareng.ee/en/migration-identity-and-language-change/

45.

Vrban

(2018). Borders as an interdisciplinary problem: Territoriality and identity—past and present. Pravni Vjesnik, 34(1), 9–50. https://doi.org/10.25234/pv/6317

46.

Wagner

Farr

Jovchelovitch

Lorenzi-Cioldi

Marková

Duveen

Rose

(1999). Theory and method of social representations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2(1), 95–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00028

47.

Wodak

Kovács

(2004). National identities in times of supra-national challenges: The debates on NATO and neutrality in Austria and Hungary. Journal of Language and Politics, 3(2), 209–246.