Analyzing Discourses

In order to analyze the relationship between Estonia and the EU in the discourses, I focus on identification-recognition, internal action-interaction (practice-agency), image-substance and the current state of order-the status quo as different, though partly overlapping means used for making a distinction between us and the Other.

In identification-recognition, identification refers to self-understanding as a basis of identity whereas recognition means others’ perception of this understanding. The importance of recognition in relation to (national) identity has been emphasized by variety of scholars (for instance Ringmar 1996, 81;

Kivikuru 2004, 30; see also Therborn 1995, 231-232). Also, Eric Hobsbawm (1992, 8) argues that apart from regarding oneself as a member of a nation it is important to be treated as such.

It has been argued that during the EU accession process applicant states strive for recognition as European states: on accepting a new member the other member states recognize the applicant’s Europeanness de facto (Moisio 2002, 93, 97). Recognition given by the EU has been seen as important not only from the perspective of the accession negotiations but also in relation to the new national identity narratives of post-communist states (the story we tell of ourselves) (Moisio 2002, 93, 110; see also Section 3.1 and Robins and Morley 1993, 405-410).

At the same time the characteristic feature of the media texts is internal recognition: apart from the EU, recognition can also come from internal actors. For instance, citizens’ support towards Estonia’s EU accession is an example of internal recognition during the accession process. As a mixture of external and internal recognition, internal actors mediate in the media texts (putative) recognition of the EU. In this study identification appears either in the form of who/what we are or what we should do/be/become (setting the norms explicitly) whereas recognition as evaluation often in a form of criticism, is a characteristic feature of becoming. At the same time, in the context of becoming, identification implicitly seeks recognition: by emphasizing what should be done, a possibility of further evaluation concerning success or failure is opened. However, no chronological linear process in the form of ‘being/doing something, should be/do something else, not having achieved the aim yet (as a recognition)’ with a clear beginning and an end can be depicted from the texts (see also Rantanen 1997, 55-56). Instead, recognition can be given both to the attempts to make changes and to the original situation, it can refer to the current trends or forecast the future.

In agency-practice relations, agency refers to the EU, which is present in the media texts as an actor in the form of its representatives, institutions, legislative acts etc., indicating also interaction between Estonia and the EU.

Even though practice refers to dealing with the EU, the focus is on how, on the basis of Estonian observations, things are arranged in the EU. At the same time Estonia is not interacting with the EU but is depicting the EU’s practice from

the perspective of internal action. Thus, for instance a suggestion that Estonia should raise a certain tax to the level of the EU refers to the internal action and practice of the EU. At the same time the claim that the tax should be raised in Estonia due to the EU demands or directive is classified as an interaction between Estonia and the EU as an agency.

Substance and image can be seen as complementary sides, that Light (2001, 1055) maps as who we are and how we want Others to see us (see also Section 3.1 and Young and Light 2001, 947). Substance (what is going on and how things are) provides a basis for the image targeted towards the Other (showing what is going on and how things are).

At the same time, the complementarity of the relationship cannot be taken for granted, since the superiority of one side at the expense of the other can occur. In the context of valuing the substance as ‘a real thing’, the image is criticized as ‘just a picture’ that is not in accordance with reality. On the other hand, image can be seen as valuable. In such cases, despite the actual substance, it is still considered, at the least, to maintain the image.

Last but not least, the relationship between us and the Other can be analyzed on the basis of mapping the status quo and the current condition. The latter concept refers to the situation that might be changed in the future whereas in connection with status quo both flexibility of processes as well as actors’ possibility to change things are abolished. Therefore, several issues that are actually considered to be problematic are treated as sealed for good.

***

In sum, this brief chapter provides an overview of the principles for selecting the newspaper articles for the empirical analysis. The process involved substantial as well as linguistic means for forming and analyzing the discourses, which were presented. The substantial means formed a basis for making a distinction between the discourses whereas linguistic means had their role in finding out what was going on inside the discourses (the struggle between being and becoming). An overview of both is also given in the Table 4.2.

Table 4.2. Scheme for forming and analyzing discourses.

Substantial means Linguistic means Forming discourses

Background of analysis IR and Europeanisation theories

Indicative/conditional; affirmative sentence/negation

Question What discourses can be

formed

How are discourses formed

Analyzing discourses

Focus of analysis Construction of us- the Other relations

Wording, expressions etc.

Question What means are used for

construction

How are the means formed

5. REPRESENTATION: ESTONIAN