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.
AndersonB. (1997). The nation and the origins of national consciousness. In GuibernauM.RexJ. (Eds.), The ethnicity reader: Nationalism, multiculturalism, and migration (pp. 43–51). Polity Press.
2.
BatoryA. M. (2010). Diaologicality and the construction of identity. International Journal for Dialogical Science, 4(1), 45–66. http://ijds.lemoyne.edu/
3.
BronfenbrennerU.EvansG. 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
EriksenT. H. (1997). Ethnicity, race and nation. In GuibernauM.RexJ. (Eds.), The ethnicity reader: Nationalism, multiculturalism, and migration (pp. 33–42). Polity Press.
6.
GuibernauM. (2007). The identity of nations. Polity Press.
7.
HerbstD. (1976). Alternatives to hierarchies. Martinus Nijhoff.
8.
HermansH. 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
9.
HermansH. J. M.Hermans-KonopkaA. (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.
HermansH. J. M.KempenH. J.van LoonR. 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.
HutchinsonJ.SmithD. A. (Eds.). (1996). Ethnicity. Oxford University Press.
12.
IonescuS. (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.
JohnsonE. (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.
JonuksT.RemmelA. (2020). The myth of Estonians as a forest people. A retrospective view. Keel ja Kirjandus, 6, 459–482. https://keeljakirjandus.ee/ee/
15.
JosephsI. 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.
JürgensonA. (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.
KalmusV.VihalemmT. (2017). Väärtused ja identiteedid [Values and identities]. In VihalemmP.LauristinM.KalmusV.VihalemmT. (Eds.), Eesti ühiskond kiirenevas ajas: Uuringu “Mina. Maailm. Meedia” 2002–2014 tulemused (pp. 111–138). Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
18.
KullaseppK. (2019, August19–23). Estonian identity as semiotic construction of borders: The intrapsychological level in focus. In MärtsinM. (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.
LauristinM. (2015). Laulupidu eestiliku kultuuriruumi sümbolina [The Estonian song celebration as a symbol of Estonian culture]. In VetikR. (Ed.), Eesti inimarengu aruanne 2014/2015 [Estonian human development report 2014/2015] (pp. 217–221). Eesti Koostöö Kogu.
22.
LawrenceJ. A.ValsinerJ. (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.
MarkováI. (2012). Social representations as anthropology of culture. In ValsinerJ. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 487–509). Oxford University Press.
MarsicoG.CabellK. R.ValsinerJ.KharlamovN. A. (2013). Interobjectivity as a border: The fluid dynamics of betweenness. In SammutG.DaanenP.MoghaddamF. (Eds.), Understanding the self and others: Explorations in intersubjectivity and interobjectivity (pp. 51–65). Routledge.
26.
MarsicoG.TateoL. (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.
MärtsinM. (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.
NikolovS. 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.
ÕispuuL. (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/
SalvatoreS. (2012). Social life of the sign: Sense-making in society. In ValsinerJ. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 241–254). Oxford University Press.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In JostJ. T.SidaniusJ. (Eds.), Political psychology: Key readings (pp. 276–293). Psychology Press.
TammM. (2018). How are nations made? In GregosK. (Ed.), The state is not a work of art (pp. 137–149). Lugemik.
39.
TateoL.EspañolA.KullaseppK.MarsicoG.PalangH. (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.
ValkA. (2017). Identiteet avatud maailmas [Identity in an open world]. In TammaruT.EametsR.KallasK. (Eds.), Eesti inimarengu aruanne (pp. 202–210). SA Eesti Koostöö Kogu.
41.
ValkA.Karu-KletterK.DrozdovaM. (2011). Estonian open identity: Reality and ideals. Trames: Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 15(1), 33−59. https://kirj.ee/trames/
42.
ValsinerJ. (2007). Culture in minds and societies: Foundation of cultural psychology. SAGE.
43.
ValsinerJ. (2017). Between self and societies: Creating psychology in a new key (RaudseppM., Ed.). Tallinn University Press.
VrbanD. (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.
WagnerW.FarrR.JovchelovitchS.Lorenzi-CioldiF.MarkováI.DuveenG.RoseD. (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.
WodakR.KovácsA. (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.
