The civil society advocates of Võro,
a Balto-Finnic language spoken by some 50,000 people in rural
Estonia, are gamely negotiating a rapidly and radically changing
world. Estonia emerged from the Soviet occupation scarcely a decade
ago and is hastening towards European Union (EU) membership, voluntarily
but without much choice. In the process, the country is reestablishing
a democracy and market economy while witnessing the lurching development
of civil society and ever-shifting civil society-state relations.
The Estonian language, a thread of identity and tradition that
survived Soviet Russification policies, is still perceived to
be in danger, whether from the 400,000 Russian-speakers left from
the Soviet colonization, its pending peripheral position in a
powerful EU, or the demands of the global labor market. As a small
language in a small state, Võro advocates are finding opportunity
amidst often mysterious and threatening changes. Capitalizing
on their new-found freedoms, a web of identities, and decentralizaed
language policy, as well as Estonia's desire to obtain EU membership
and the aid that may ensue, Võro advocates are able to
pursue a diverse set of programs, research, and projects. The
result is best characterized as a kind of "market policy,"
one whose unique benefits and limitations merit broad discussion.
In the midst of rapid transition and despite
the fact that many Estonians feel that the survival of Estonian
itself is still in doubt and national unity is at a premium, several
cultural associations and groups in southeastern Estonia have
declared that Võro is not a backwards, rural dialect, but
a language with a rich cultural history that should receive government
support and funding. In the span of ten years, a civil society
movement persuaded the government to finance both the Võro
Institute, the group spearheading the language revival movement,
and the "Southern Estonian Language and Culture Policy,"
an extensive four-year program to develop southern-Estonian (Võro)
language and culture by:
1) articulating a place and an importance
for Võro in the global, European, national, and regional
contexts;
2) connecting to international civil society networks in the context
of a sometimes resistant local civil society; and
3) utilizing the language of democracy in the process of implementing
language projects. This paper, based on eleven months of ethnographic
research on the Võro-language revival in southeastern Estonia,
discusses these aspects of the Võro case in an effort to
broaden the dialogue about the relationship between civil society
and the language policy process in the twenty-first century.
The Estonian experience in the twentieth
and twenty-first centuries calls into question our most basic
assumptions about the nature of civil society and its role in
the language policy process. The blossoming of language and environmental
movements in the waning years of the Soviet Union boded well for
the development of civil society in the post-Soviet period. Western
Europe and North America championed the power and potential of
civil society in democratizing countries both to balance and to
complement state power.[1]
But the very concept of civil society presupposes that people
will have available both surplus income and free time to support
civil society organizations. For a broad segment of the Estonian
population, especially in rural Võru County, this is simply
not the case. Free time is lacking and, with the second highest
unemployment rate in the country, the county residents face intense
pressures to find and retain jobs.[2]
Even those who work full-time are often insecure
and must spend considerable time growing their own food, making
clothes, or otherwise engaged in activities that more prosperous
people can pay for. The promising civil society movements waned
in the face of harsh economic realities. Additionally, Estonians
had little direct experience with formulating or implementing
"policy," a concept that has no translation in Estonian,
and the transition period has offered few opportunities to learn.
Well-intended decentralization, when carried out without capacity-building,
often leads to ineffective policy. In light of the lack of policy
experience, time, and surplus income, what is a reasonable role
to expect civil society to play in local language revitalization
or preservation movements? Are our concepts of civil society even
appropriate in such a context?
Both broad and narrow definitions of civil
society enlighten the Võro-language policy process. In
its broad sense, civil society is "composed above all of
the intimate sphere (especially the family), the sphere of associations
(especially voluntary associations), social movements, and forms
of public communication." [3]
During the Soviet occupation of Estonia (1940-1991), merely speaking
Estonian or Võro in the "intimate sphere," itself
an assertion of an independent identity, constituted an act of
resistance, however small, to the Soviets' Russification policies.[4]
Yet Estonians generally agreed during this period that preserving
standard Estonian, the language of only one million people, was
a priority and developing "regional dialects" would
divide the energies and resources of a small nation.
During this transition period, however, when
Soviet work, income and health care guarantees have disappeared,
resistance is no longer an issue and collective identities become
subordinate to pressing economic concerns, individual language
choices are dominated by the perceived demands of the global labor
market. Thus, just as many of the 400,000 Russian-speakers in
Estonia are convinced that learning English is more important
than Estonian, children in Võru County prefer English to
Võro in schools.
The more narrow sense of civil society as
"the complex network of freely formed voluntary associations,
apart from the formal governmental institutions of the state,
acting independently or in partnership with state agencies"[5]
can also be misleading. For most of
the Soviet period, independent voluntary associations were forbidden
or coopted by the state for its own political ends. By the late
glasnost period (after 1987), the civil society terrain shifted
as the Soviet Union opened up and permitted those who were disturbed
by the Russification of their country and the potential loss of
Võro to coalesce as a movement.[6]
In 1988, a small group of Estonian university professors, poets
and journalists called publicly for the revival of Võro
and organized regular meetings at the Tartu University library
café; they founded the Võro Language and Culture
Fund (Võro keel ja kultuuri fond) to promote the language[7]
and established an annual summer "open university" with
lectures in Võro.
A new kind of relationship has emerged between
civil society and the state in post-Soviet Estonia. The Estonian
government guarantees cultural and linguistic rights for minority
groups in the Estonian Constitution (paragraphs 6 and 12) and
the Law on Cultural Autonomy of Ethnic Minorities (1993)[8],
yet relies on civil society to design and implement language programs
and does not monitor the results. Meanwhile, civil society groups
lack the means to function independently and are dependent on
funds from international sources or from the state itself. The
state, however, may be more interested in the existence of a regional
language program, because it enhances Estonia's EU portfolio,
than its success.
The existence of civil society organizations
thus frees the government to work on other problems. Both benefit
from the relationship, and the result is an unusual type of policy.
In a climate of new freedoms, the government-funded, civil society
organizations lack the coercive powers of the state, and would
be disinclined to use them. Instead of legally-binding policy,
the state functions more as an enabler: the Võro Institute
has the opportunity to succeed or to fail, to make its case for
the people to choose to learn Võro or not.
In this shifting, post-Soviet terrain of
civil society in partnership with the government, it is difficult
to make clear distinctions between voluntary associations and
state institutes. Typical of the transition period is the "hybrid"
organization that has features of both independent associations
and state organizations. The Võro Institute provides a
good example of a "hybrid organization." On one hand,
the Institute has the markings of an NGO: a grassroots movement
provided the inspiration for the organization in 1989; the staff
draws on local ideas and cooperates closely with another Võro-language
NGOs; and the Institute operates independently of the state by
making all hiring decisions (except for the Director), independently
formulating and implementing research projects, and developing
Võro-language programs without any involvement from the
Estonian government. On the other hand, the Institute is also
closely connected with the state: it is officially designated
as a "state scientific research institution" and the
Ministry of Culture provides most of the funds for projects and
selects the Director.[9]
The mixed features of the hybrid associations
give them the flexibility and the funding to be major players
in the development and implementation of language policy. Yet,
their close connection with the government makes it difficult
to conceive of civil society in Estonia as a force to balance
the state.
The complex relationship between civil society
and the state is reflected further in the shape of regional language
policy. In Estonia, language policy is based on a "competitive
market model" where individuals or organizations in civil
society compete to implement projects that are connected within
a general "program" framework developed by the Ministry
of Culture (e.g. within the "Southern Estonian Language and
Culture Program" guidelines). In short, a series of programs
replace a comprehensive language policy with a clear line of development.
Although this "market policy" model has significant
drawbacks, which I briefly discuss at the end of this paper, it
provides civil society organizations with great freedoms to design
and carry out the project once they receive funding. Moreover,
with few checks on the outcome of the projects, the model also
gives organizations room to experiment.
In the market-dominated model of regional
language policy in Estonia, civil society organizations have discovered
an effective tactic in securing project funding -- the savvy promotion
of regional language projects as programs that benefit more than
one constituency. In the Võro case, civil society has articulated
a place and an importance for the Võro language in the
global, European, national, and regional contexts. These arguments
have proven to be especially potent in the context of the transition
process when the Estonian state and society are undergoing transformations
that rest on both international and national support. Võro
civil society most frequently invokes the "international"
importance of supporting regional-language projects in Estonia
by alluding to the international agreements that emphasize the
value and legitimacy of protecting minority and regional languages.[10]
The most important of these for a country
like Estonia, which is not yet a member of the EU, but is already
adapting many of its policies as part of the accession process,
is the Council of Europe's "Charter for Regional or Minority
Languages." By drawing on this international/European context,
civil society groups have helped to convince the Estonian government
that a Võro-language policy will enhance its European Union
accession portfolio by providing a symbol of the state's support
for the regional cultures of Estonia.
In order to appeal to more nationalist-minded
politicians, organizations in Võro civil society use two
arguments. The first is the "two in one" language protection
reasoning, which posits that investing in the development of Võro
also protects Estonian as well by enriching the Balto-Finnic language
sphere in Estonia and by providing an additional linguistic buffer.
This line of reasoning taps into the Estonians' concern about
the future of the Estonian language once Estonia becomes a member
of the European Union and, more generally, in the age of linguistic
globalization.[11]
The second argument is connected with economic development --
that an investment in Võro is an investment in the rural
south, one of the more underdeveloped regions in the country.[12]
According to civil society organizations, an educational program
that emphasizes local culture and regional language will also
nurture regional pride. In the future, this pride may translate
into the return of valuable human capital to the south and be
the foundation of a larger strategy of economic development.
Indicative of this post-Soviet and pre-European
Union transition phase are the efforts of Võro civil society
groups to link webs of identity with language-project design.
Since 1991, the promotion of two identities -- the Finno-Ugric
and the Northern European - (in addition to the advancement of
the Võro and Estonian identities), has informed the design
of language projects and driven the connections made between Võro
civil society and other NGO groups. The experiences and know-how
of nearby minority groups has been especially important as southeastern
Estonia NGOs attempt to reshape "international trends…to
local ends."[13]
The Võro organizations, especially
the Võro Institute, have reached out to the East to other
Finno-Ugric (e.g. Karelians, Mari, Udmurts, and Komis) nations
that share a similar past as the Võro speakers: Russification,
weakened languages, the pressures of the post-Soviet period. When
project ideas are informed by the activities of other Finno-Ugric
groups, such as the publication of regional-language primer and
the collection of local place-names, the Institute not only places
their projects in the "tradition" of the Finno-Ugric
peoples, but also has a useful project "blueprint" available.
The ideas generated in civil society organizations
in the Scandinavia, especially Finland, have also played an important
role during the transition period. Finland, as Estonia's most
influential northern neighbor, as well as being a Finno-Ugric
country and member of the EU, has been especially influential
and provides an idea to Võro civil society of the resources
that might be available once Estonia is in the EU. Moreover, the
similar languages (Finnish and Võro are believed to be
more closely related to each other than Võro with standard
Estonian) and the geographic proximity facilitate the flow of
ideas from North to South and vice-versa and joint projects. Since
projects with Finland carry a certain prestige in Estonia and
are likely to be funded and well-received by the public, the past
five years has witnessed a variety of joint Finnish-Võro
projects including linguistics research and the writing and publication
of a bilingual poetry collection.
Just as making civil society contacts to
the East and North is indicative of this transitional time in
Estonia, so is the careful use of "democratic" language
to facilitate the implementation of language projects and secure
a spot for regional-language education in the "domain"
of optional subjects.[14]
Since the Soviet experience of forced language learning is still
fresh in Estonians' minds and civil society organizations are
careful to avoid tactics that smack of anything totalitarian,
the language of democracy with the watchwords - "choice,"
"voluntary," "optional" - permeates the civil
society associations' descriptions of their projects' implementation.
A recent controversy over Võro-language education, the
most heavily funded, yet most controversial project, reflects
the importance of using these democratic watchwords in the implementation
process.
In Spring 2000, the southeastern Estonian
public was in an uproar over a misunderstood announcement that
Võro-language education would be mandatory (sundõpe)
in all county schools.[15]
In response, one civil association education director explained
that "the development of a Võro-language program in
County schools will be voluntary, based on the interest expressed
by students and teachers, and will remain an optional subject."
[16]
The ability of Võro civil society
to navigate skillfully over the ever-changing and developing political
and social terrain of the transition period should not cloud some
of the major problems that have arisen in the last ten years in
the language policy process. Most problematic is that civil society
organizations lack the "marketing" or public relations
experience necessary to garner public support and to anchor "their
ideas in wider circles."[17]
Currently, the Võro-language movement is yet to be a broad-based
movement. Many Southern Estonians, keenly aware of the lack of
economic opportunity in the region, find it difficult to support
the investment of time, resources, and energy into a language
whose boundaries are coextensive with those of economic deprivation.
Although Estonia is doing well relative to other former communist
countries, opportunity is seen in cities, in technology, and in
"global" languages, particularly English. As a result
of this general lack of support and interest, the Võro
Institute has found it difficult to convince today's students
to take Võro in school -- of the twenty-seven Võro
programs in local schools, few offer a Võro-language class
to more than one grade per year.
There are also significant problems with
the "market model" of language policy. First, it is
essentially a competitive model of funding that pits civil society
groups against one another instead of encouraging cooperation.
Second, the government has abdicated its coercive power with the
"market model" and has left the regional language projects
to be implemented by civil society groups that lack the "teeth"
of a defined and enforced government policy. Without the charge
of the state, civil society groups are not able to compel the
public to do things necessary for the preservation of the language
like forcing schools of education to offer Võro-language
teacher training or coercing resistant school directors to offer
Võro-language classes in their schools. Lastly, the current
policy process lacks a comprehensive and stringent evaluation
of the regional-language projects. With civil society organizations
usually understaffed and underresourced, it is the responsibility
of the government to follow-up on the projects it has funded.
In conclusion, the Võro-language case
reveals the complex and shifting relationship between civil society
and the language policy process in a country undergoing rapid
and dramatic change as it emerges from totalitarianism, and introduces
and establishes democratic and market systems. Since the "market
model" of language policy is only likely to spread, we need
to consider how the optimal freedom of this model can be reconciled
with a coherent vision of policy to enable those who so desire
to pursue the language of their choice and to make that a viable
decision.
Notes
- William A. Galston, "Civil Society and
the 'Art of Association,'" Journal of Democracy
11, 1 (2000): 64.
- Võru County Government, Võru
County Development Report 2000 (Võru, 1999).
- John Patrick, quoting Jean L. Cohen and Andrew
Arato in "Principles of Democracy for the Education of
Citizens in Former Communist Countries of Central and Eastern
Europe," in Richard C. Remy and Jacek Strzemieczny, eds.,
Building Civic Education for Democracy in Poland (Washington,
D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies and Eric Clearinghouse
for Social Studies/Social Science Education, 1996): 11.
- According to the Baltic historian, Toivo Raun,
Russification policies strove to "increase the role of
Russian in education, administration, and everyday life….[resulting
in] the scarcity of printed matter in Estonian; and the restrictions
on research in Estonian culture." Raun, Estonia and
the Estonians 2nd Edition (Stanford, CA: Hoover University
Press, 1991): 219-220.
- John Patrick, "Principles of Democracy for
the Education of Citizens in Former Communist Countries of Central
and Eastern Europe," 11.
- Võro Institute homepage, "History,"
www.wi.ee
- Maire Kriis, "Asutati võro keele
ja kultuuri fond (The Foundation of the Võro Language
and Culture Fund," Töörahva Elu (24 November
1988): 2.
- This law allows national minorities to have public
education in their mother tongue from first through ninth grade
and gives the option of establishing private Upper Secondary
Schools (10-12th grade) with instruction in a language other
than Estonian.
- Võru Institute, "Võru Instituudi
põhimäärus," from the Võru Institute's
homepage, 1, www.wi.ee/est/pohimaarus.html
- The importance of this European context is reflected
in the preamble to the "Southern Estonian Languages and
Culture Program."
- Toivo U. Raun, "Estonia in the 1990s,"
Journal of Baltic Studies 32, 1 (Spring 2001): 36.
- Jussi S. Jauhianen and Priidu Ristkok, "Development
of Regional Policy in Estonia," www.geo.ut.ee/nbc/paper/jauhiainen.htm,
9
- Robert F. Arnove and Carlos Alberto Torres, "Reframing
Comparative Education," in Robert F. Arnove and Carlos
Alberto Torres, eds., Comparative Education: The Dialectic
of the Global and the Local (Boulder: Rowman and Littlefield,
1999): 3.
- Séamus Mac Mathúna and Ailbhe Ó
Corráin, "Introduction: The Minority Language Syndrome,"
in Ailbhe Ó Corráin and Séamus Mac Mathúna,
eds., Minority Languages in Scandinavia, Britain, and
Ireland (Uppsala, 1998): 15
- Urmas Seaver, "Lõuna-Eesti lapsi
ähvardab võru ja setu keele sundõpe (Southern-Estonian
Children Threatened by Mandatory Võru
and Setu Instruction)," Postimees (March 2000).
- Interview with Nele Reimann,
education director at the Võru Institute. Summer 2000,
Võru, Estonia
.
- Leena Huus, Reversing Language Shift in the
Far North (Uppsala, 1999): 28
