Tartu University

Faculty of Social Sciences

Department of Political Science

ANNIKA AVIKSON

ESTONIA ON ITS WAY TOWARDS A MULTICULTURAL SOCIETY

Bachelor Thesis

Tutor: Ph.D Raivo Vetik

Tartu 2000

CONTENTS

Introduction 3

The emergence and essence of multiculturalism 6
From assimilation to integration to multiculturalism 6
The concept of multiculturalism 7
What is multiculturalism? 9
Western strategies towards minority integration13
Canada14
Sweden19
Estonia24
General background24
Soviet legacy25
Factors affecting integration in Estonia28
Ethnic composition in contemporary Estonia28
The issue of identity30
The issue of citizenship34
The issue of language39
The issue of education41
Media consumption44
Four acculturation strategies46
Integration of non-Estonians47
Estonian version of a multicultural society52
General attitude towards integration55
Criticism towards Estonia57
Estonia compared to the West 60
How does Estonia compare to Canada and Sweden?64

Conclusion68

References70

Resume 75

Diversity is a fact of life; whether it is the “spice” or the

“irritant” to people is the fundamental psychological, social,

cultural and political issue of our times. (Realo 1998: 203)

INTRODUCTION

Today most countries in the world are culturally plural, with more than one ethnicity and language represented in their populations. As a result of the demographic changes and high levels of migration that occurred after World War II this applies also to Western European nation-states that earlier used to be culturally and ethnically rather homogenous. In order to guarantee normal functioning of the society it is obvious that nation states have had to develop policies towards their pluralism. Many attempt to forge some homogeneity through a process of assimilation (this was more a case immediately after World War II, now seen as not very successful or desirable), while others suffer from internal conflicts and even possibilities of break-up due to confrontation or separation movements. The policy that seems to work best in most societies is to seek to achieve mutual accommodation among the various cultural elements, through a process of integration. In this case, dominant and non-dominant populations agree to modify their behavior and institutions so that all can find a secure place in a heterogeneous society. It is important to emphasize here that integration needs to be mutual in order to succeed – it needs involvement and acceptance from both the majority and the minority(ies).

For a long time there was basically no talk about collective rights on the international arena and as minority rights fall under this category, there was not much talk about the rights of minorities as a group, either. The main reason why collective rights where not talked about for decades probably has to do with Nazi Germany. As Hitler explained his actions with the protection of collective interests – the protection of German minorities outside Germany – then after the horrors Hitler caused there was a reluctance to talk about collective rights a such, instead people preferred to talk about human rights. However, now (since the beginning of 1970s and 1980s) collective rights have come to the agenda again, mainly in the context of minority rights. Or as Yasemin Nuholu Soysal has put it: ‘Collective right to self-determination and to political and cultural existence is increasingly codified as a universal human right.’ (Soysal 1994: 159)

The multicultural essence of today’s world is well described by the following figures: less than 10% of all United Nations member-states are ethnically homogeneous. Approximately in one third of all countries in the world no ethnic group exceeds 50% of the whole population. (Vetik 2000: 14)

Ethnic heterogeneity automatically means also cultural heterogeneity. Culture is a delicate matter in the sense that culture together with its traditions gives a person roots and a sense of belonging that are both essential for human existence as such. Thus it is needless to say that tearing whole communities (in this case minorities) away from their roots and making them adapt to foreign cultures by force can do no good for the society as a whole.

However, political philosopher Jürgen Habermas distinguishes between culture, broadly understood, which need not be shared by all, and a common political culture marked by mutual respect for rights. Constitutional democracy dedicates itself to this distinction by granting members of minority cultures ‘equal rights of co-existence’ with majority cultures. Habermas maintains that these are individual rights of free association and nondiscrimination, which therefore do not guarantee survival for any culture. Constitutional democracies respect a broad range of cultural democracies but they guarantee survival to none. (Gutman 1994: x)

It has become increasingly clear that minority rights are central to the future of liberal tradition throughout the world. In many countries of the world – including the emerging democracies in Eastern Europe – the status of national minorities and indigenous peoples is perhaps the most pressing issue. In this context the key questions for a democratic multinational state are whether the minorities are or are not open to multiple and complementary political identities and loyalties and, if so, whether they will be given citizenship. If minorities’ cultural and political freedoms are guaranteed, might they indeed become loyal citizens, or would their primary loyalty remain to their ‘homeland’ state? (Linz & Stepan 1996: 410) Basically the question for contemporary (multi)nation-states lies in the extent to which cultural/linguistic/ethnic diversity can be tolerated and what would be the potential costs or benefits of this toleration (or lack of toleration).

The basic aim of this bachelor thesis is to find out what are the main problems Estonia has had and still has to face on its way towards a multicultural society and how these problems are dealt with. The essential question is: could multiculturalism be a suitable model for managing the minority problem in Estonia? In order to be able to decide that, the first chapter will give an overview of the emergence and essence of multiculturalism as a model of minority-integration. For the purpose of comparison the situation in two Western countries have been described in the second chapter of the bachelor thesis. These are Canada, the only country in the world to have an official act concerning its multiculturalism, and Sweden, that has had to, due to high immigration after World War II, abandon its policy of homogenization in favor of multiculturalism. The third chapter is dedicated to Estonia where aspects affecting minority integration will be analyzed and an overview of the integration process so far will be given.

1. THE EMERGENCE AND ESSENCE OF MULTICULTURALISM

1.1 From assimilation to integration to multiculturalism

Minority demands have been ignored by liberal democracies in history. Up to 1960s states have practiced assimilation of their immigrant minorities into the majority society. Since 1970s it has been admitted that this is unrealistic, unnecessary and unfair. It is unrealistic because no matter how much pressure is put on assimilation, immigrants will never completely lose their special identity and way of living. The idea of a ‘melting pot’ was never really realistic. Pressure on assimilation is unnecessary because experience shows that immigrants who retain their strong ethnic identities and pride can nevertheless be loyal and productive citizens. Forced assimilation is unfair as this does not guarantee equal respect towards immigrants and turns integration into a burdening process. (Kymlicka 2000, 37-38)

Instead of assimilation, the world is turning towards integration. Integration means the emergence of an integral society where members of different ethnicities participate in its different structures and spheres as rightful and equal subjects. Integration differs from assimilation mainly because ethnic minorities retain their cultural and linguistic peculiarities while being capable of successful participation in the society of the host country.

The ‘discovery’ of multiculturalism in 1970s fell on the time when it became increasingly clear that the nationalistic model of integration based on monocultural unification had not succeeded. On the other hand multiculturalism ideology presented (and presents) an accountable counterbalance to growing new-racism and national-extremist forces. (Hallik 1997: 107)

Actually discussions about multiculturalism are in fact discussions about changes in the conditions of integration of immigrants. Or to put it differently – multiculturalism can be considered as one version of integration. Immigrants demand a more tolerant approach that would allow and promote the preservation of minorities’ ethnic heritage even if they do integrate into the common institutions that are based on the majority language. They want acceptance of their religious or other holidays, clothing, cuisine, traditional entertainment etc. Their claims are based on the understanding that these practices are necessary for the preservation of their identity while these do no harm to the majority culture or traditions.

Together with the shift to integration and multiculturalism, we can witness a shift from understanding of equality in terms of individualism and cultural assimilation to a politics of recognition. The notion of equality, as not having to hide or apologize for one’s origins, has gained importance. The wider society is required to show respect for minorities and adapt public attitudes and arrangements so that the heritage they represent is encouraged rather than contemptuously expected to wither away.

Today more and more countries are seeking strategies in which to best accommodate their minorities in a way that would guarantee healthy functioning of the society as a whole and also show respect towards the heritage of their minorities. Diversity, equality and due recognition have become three most important notions in the discourse of minority integration. The fact that 1995 was celebrated as the international year of multiculturalism gives sufficient proof that the world has recognized and accepted the plural essence of the majority of its countries realizing, that cultural diversity can enrich our lives.

1.2 The concept of multiculturalism

As it is with most concepts in society, ‘multiculturalism’ means different things for different people or different countries. Some authors have theorized it as a paternalistic, top-down solution to the ‘problem’ of minorities, a dangerous reification of ‘culture’, or a new way forward to a politics of ‘recognition ‘ and ‘authenticity’. (Modood: 1997: back cover) As defined by Fowers and Richardson (1996), “Multiculturalism is a social-intellectual movement that promotes the value of diversity as a core principle and insists that all cultural groups be treated with respect and as equals.” These authors maintain that multiculturalism is, “…at its core, a moral movement that is intended to enhance the dignity, rights, and recognized worth of marginalized groups.” (Bond 1998: 237)

According to Berry and colleagues, “a multicultural society is a plural society in which pluralism is valued (by the population generally, by the various acculturating groups, and by government policy) and in which diversity is likely to remain”. In other words “Multiculturalism is meant to create a sociopolitical context within which individuals can develop healthy identities and mutually positive inter-group attitudes” (Realo 1998: 205).

Multiculturalism can also be defined as the impact of different cultures on individuals so that they could enrich their own behavior through contacts with representatives of other ethnicities. (Mis on multikultuurne ühiskond? 1997: 19)

According to Phil Barnett from the British Committee of Racial Equality, multiculturalism could and should mean that certain races, cultural and religious groups find their place in the world, feel secure in their identity and in relation to others. (ibid: 57)

The shortest and simplest definition of multiculturalism is offered by Yasemin Nuhoğlu Soysal according to whom it is ‘the right to be different and to foster one’s own culture’. (Soysal 1994: 154)

John W. Berry (Berry 1998: 218) also lists four preconditions for the maintenance of a multicultural society: 1) there needs to be a general support for multiculturalism, including acceptance of various aspects and consequences of the policy, and of cultural diversity as a valuable resource for a society; 2) there should be overall low levels of intolerance or prejudice in the population; 3) there should be generally positive attitudes among the various ethnocultural groups that constitute the society; and 4) there needs to be a degree of attachment to the larger society, but without derogation of its constituent ethnocultural groups.

Deriving from the definitions presented above it could be concluded that the debate of multiculturalism might be conceived of as a discussion of democracy that highlights the tension between equality and difference, homogeneity and heterogeneity. At issue is the reconciliation of the right to be different with the right to be equal, and the definition of the limits of these rights. The question is to which extent a society should foster homogenization and to what extent it should allow the existence of heterogeneity.

1.3 What is multiculturalism?

The definition of ‘integration’ offered by the British Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins in 1968, is used as a charter of egalitarian multiculturalism. Jenkins defined integration ‘not as a flattening process of uniformity, but of cultural diversity, coupled with equality of opportunity in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance’ (Rex 1996: 32)

Jenkins’ definition also argues that the concept presented above rests on the recognition of two cultural or value domains, one a shared political culture of the public domain based on the idea of equality, the other a private or communal one based upon differences of language, religion and family customs.

When drawing a distinction between the public and the private domain there appears to be four possibilities:

a)One might envisage a society which is unitary in the public domain but which encourages diversity in what are though of as private and communal matters;

b)A society might be unitary in the public domain and also enforce or at least encourage unity of cultural practice in private or communal matters;

c)A society might allow diversity and differential rights for groups in the public domain and also encourage or insist upon diversity of cultural practice by different groups;

d)A society might have diversity and differential rights in the public domain even though there is considerable unity of cultural practice between groups. (Rex 1996: 15-16)

The idea of multiculturalism is represented by a); b) is best exemplified by the French ideal of total assimilation; c) is common under all forms of colonialism; c) is characteristic to the southern states of the United States before the Civil Rights movement. The crucial point about multiculturalism is that it should not be confused with c). All too often it is, and those who support c) are likely to accept the slogan of multiculturalism and bend it in that direction. But in this case it would be quite difficult to guarantee proper functioning of the state together with its institutions as differential rights in the public domain are always a potential for conflict between different groups, in this case ethnic groups.

It appears that this differentiation between the public and private spheres seems to be a sensible and ‘workable’ approach in multiethnic societies that have to deal with their minorities. It is normal for any democratic country to promote or even demand unity in the public domain - there have to be common political and economic understandings and goals in order to guarantee order, there has to be a single set of laws to avoid chaos, people should be able to communicate in the same (official) language. At the same time it is essential that people be allowed to maintain their identities, cultural ties and traditions.

The basic characteristics of a multicultural society might be summarized as follows:

First of all it is important that the multicultural ideal is to be distinguished from the notion of a plural society. What all theories of plural society have in common is that they emphasize the inequalities of economic and political power between the society’s constituent groups while in the case of multiculturalism, as claims John Rex, any deviation from equality in the public domain would be a deviation from multiculturalism itself. On the other hand, we could argue against Rex’s claim that it will never be possible to guarantee 100% equality even in the public domain, especially under the conditions of present day market economy. Besides, it should be considered that while multiculturalism is based more on collective rights and group rights, then equality is more individual.
In a multicultural society we should distinguish between the public domain in which there is a single culture based upon the notion of equality between individuals and the private domain, which permits diversity between groups.

The public domain includes the world of law, politics and economics. It also includes education insofar as this is concerned with selection, the transmission of skills and the perpetuation of the civic culture.
Moral education, primary socialization and the inculcation of religious belief belong to the private domain.
The structure of the private domain amongst immigrant communities includes extended kinship extending back into a homeland, a network of associations and a system of religious organization and belief. This structure provides a valuable means in an impersonal society of providing a home and source of identity for individuals.

However, it has to be acknowledged that the differentiation between the two domains entails its own problem, namely, as also seen above, that education belongs to both spheres. According to Rex (Rex 1996: 21) amodern educational system has three clear functions. It selects individuals on the basis of their achievement for training for various occupational roles. It transmits important skills necessary for survival and for work in industry. And it also transmits moral values. It is this third function which brings it into conflict with the private domain and countries that decide to deal with their minorities using the model of multiculturalism have to figure how to overcome this problem.

As shown above immigrants/minorities are no longer expected to assimilate entirely to the norms and customs of the dominant culture, and indeed are encouraged to maintain some aspects of their ethnic particularity. But this commitment to multiculturalism is a shift in how immigrants integrate into the dominant culture, not whether they integrate.

What should appeal to immigrants is that multiculturalism acknowledges the fact that integration is a two-direction street. Just like immigrants are expected to tie themselves to the new society, be loyal to their new country and learn to know its language, history and institutions, the wider society has to show interest towards their minorities and adjust its institutions according to their identity and customs.

However, even under the conditions of multiculturalism, when basic rights and equality in the public sphere have been guaranteed, none the less minority communities at any one time may conflict with and challenge the existing order as have communities based upon social class in the past. Just like different social classes fought for their rights before, today conflicts between different cultures and ethnicities should not be viewed as something abnormal. Or as John Rex (Rex 1996: 29) has phrased it, the new social order of the multicultural society is an emergent one, which will result from the dialogue and the conflict between cultures.