People don’t reproduce children, they reproduce families. This is the phrase that came to me following the two days of debate I participated in at this year’s Metsaülikool on the subject of Estonia’s falling population numbers. Given that the theme of this year’s annual Summer Camp for Esto Intellectuals was billed as “Land, Ecology and Land based beliefs”, a surprising amount of discussion went into this off-the-subject topic.
Speaker Jaan Männik, a mobile phone mogul from Estonia, introduced the subject on the Thursday of MÜ discussion. He posited that if Estonia wants to keep its current socio-economic structure, it needs to find ways to boost its population numbers. The other option would be to accept the decline in population and alter the socio-economic structure. Of course, both have economic and social implications and this was the crux of the discussion: bring in “muulased” and face what this might mean to Estonian culture, or clamp down on immigration and sacrifice the bottom line?
During the second day of this debate, it became clear to a group of women who chatted informally over lunch, that some key questions were being ignored – like why are young Estonians, women in particular, leaving the country and settling down elsewhere? Why are ex-pat Estonians, women in particular, reluctant to “return” to Estonia? Why are Estonians worldwide reluctant to bear quantities of children? Why are the social issues underlying these realities not being discussed? And why has Estonian society – informally and in terms of its state institutions - been so reluctant to address issues such as gender inequality, rampant alcoholism and disaffected youth?
The topics of gender and sexism have never been easy to bring up in mixed Estonian company. They exist amongst us like unexploded mines, waiting for the unwary or naïve to stumble upon them. The suggestion that perhaps the exodus of women and their unwillingness to bear children might have something to do with the quality of relationships possible with Estonian men is definitely explosive. After I waded out into the minefield, one heckler suggested that Estonian women marrying outside the country are simply gold-diggers. Another launched a more personal attack suggesting that such ideas might prevent me from “hanging onto a man”. Whatever.
The reality is that 60% of Estonian men are alcoholics and that gender relations in Estonian culture are archaic at best and downright abusive at worst. Gold-digger or not, why would any self respecting woman want to partner with a drunkard who thinks her place is barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen? What’s in it for us? Which leads me back to my original proposition: thinking people don’t just reproduce children, they reproduce families. They have children because the experience of participating in the life of a family appeals to them. Usually, they’ve had a good experience of it themselves or want to right the wrongs of their families of origin.
Growing up in Toronto’s Estonian community, I have quietly subscribed to the notion that there are healthy Estonian families and unhealthy ones. Perhaps the better terminology would be healed and unhealed Estonians. The difference is obvious. Healthy families focus on positive cultural and social values, unhealthy ones on loss, pain and poor coping strategies. One is open to new ideas and change; the other is fixed, rigid and closed. To one, the content of life’s experiences is the point, while appearances often rule in the other.
It was no surprise to me to find the representatives of at least three of Toronto’s quintessentially “healthy families” at Kotkajärve. Their culture of origin has been a grounding and positive experience for them and hence they seek to continue it and to participate in it. All of them have reproduced families. In Jaan Männik’s terminology, they are the “strong ones,” the ones supported and encouraged by the current Estonian state. But unlike the economic tigers of Estonia, these individuals, these families, have a collective concern for their kaasmaalased and are interested in dealing with the social issues that have swamped Estonian culture.
800 years of occupation, oppression, various forms of genocide and the imposition of foreign religions, cultures and mores have left a profound mark. No amount of joining the capitalist rat race and hoping for the miraculous and elusive trickle down effect is going to alter the despair and victim mentality that many Estonians suffer from. Nor will economic power repair the damaged and conflictual relationship between ethnic Estonians and ethnic Russians in Estonian. Nor will GDP render sober the hundreds of thousands of Estonian men (and increasingly women) who are trying to drown their powerlessness in liquor. Not all the cash in the world will make Estonians want to reproduce dysfunctional, painful, broken or abusive families.
Healing an entire culture is a much more profound process that requires a clear and unrelenting social and political will. It requires men, particularly in places of power, to stop being defensive and come to the aid of their brethren. It requires a collective cultural step out of denial and into creative thinking and a commitment to people. It requires not just the inclusion of women in the discussion but of women taking the lead in creating and working on solutions. Letting women – who have traditionally been strong healers and rulers of the hearth – show the way.
It requires not a return to old ways, but a bringing forward of strong Estonian cultural values that know how to honour the land and its people. This work is being done by people like the Taarausuliste ja Maausuliste Maavald. The most wonderful part of MÜ for me was hearing Ahto Kaasik, an elder of this organization, speak about the work that’s being done to renew these values, to bring to life our much abused, but nevertheless surviving, indigenous worldview. If you read Estonian, a fascinating article about this can be found on the web at www.suri.ee/etnofutu/4/omausk.....
Let’s not just stem the tide of young Estonians leaving the country; let’s stem the haemorrhage of our cultural blood. It is from within a strong culture that we can enlarge the diversity of our society without risking further losses. I believe we’re capable of it. Now all we need is the collective will.
Populating Estonia with healthy Estonians (16)
Archived Articles | 07 Sep 2007 | K. Linda KiviEWR
Viimased kommentaarid
Kommentaarid on kirjutatud EWR lugejate poolt. Nende sisu ei pruugi ühtida EWR toimetuse seisukohtadega.
As the "heckler" at MU who jokingly suggested gold-digging as a possible motive of women who emigrate from Estonia, I would like to say a few words in my own defense.
Toomas Sepp's e-post paints a grim picture of Linda Kivi's heckling ordeal as the moral equivalent of Kristallnaht or something like that. As a participant and an observer, I can say that the tenor of the discussion was moderately spirited - at best.
What needs to be remembered is that the heckling was not just coming from one side. For instance, what motivated me into saying my piece was the fact that Linda had wound up a coterie of older feminist friends of hers into shouting anti-Estonian-men slogans that I considered insulting.
But that is OK. What bothers me though is that some people seem to think that if one side shouts and heckles, its all in the name of "diversity of opinion" and "freedom of speech" and is therefore a Good Thing, but if the other side responds in kind then it is "intolerant", "mean spirited" and "hateful" and therefore a Bad Thing.
Going back to the family theme, Linda seems to suggest that healthy (i.e. modern, liberal, feminist) families are better at forming families than unhealthy (i.e. old-fashioned, patriarchal) families. Why is it then that societies, the world over, that aspouse "healthy" values are in demographic decline while societies that aspouse "unhealthy" values are all growing exponentially. I know. I know. We should, of course, prefer healthy family environments to unhealthy ones but ultimately, as Mark Steyn says, "history is made by those who show up." And, like it or not, those who show up are those who determine how humanhind rears its offspring.
Toomas Sepp's e-post paints a grim picture of Linda Kivi's heckling ordeal as the moral equivalent of Kristallnaht or something like that. As a participant and an observer, I can say that the tenor of the discussion was moderately spirited - at best.
What needs to be remembered is that the heckling was not just coming from one side. For instance, what motivated me into saying my piece was the fact that Linda had wound up a coterie of older feminist friends of hers into shouting anti-Estonian-men slogans that I considered insulting.
But that is OK. What bothers me though is that some people seem to think that if one side shouts and heckles, its all in the name of "diversity of opinion" and "freedom of speech" and is therefore a Good Thing, but if the other side responds in kind then it is "intolerant", "mean spirited" and "hateful" and therefore a Bad Thing.
Going back to the family theme, Linda seems to suggest that healthy (i.e. modern, liberal, feminist) families are better at forming families than unhealthy (i.e. old-fashioned, patriarchal) families. Why is it then that societies, the world over, that aspouse "healthy" values are in demographic decline while societies that aspouse "unhealthy" values are all growing exponentially. I know. I know. We should, of course, prefer healthy family environments to unhealthy ones but ultimately, as Mark Steyn says, "history is made by those who show up." And, like it or not, those who show up are those who determine how humanhind rears its offspring.
Let's agree to disagree. I probably wouldn't agree with some of Kivi's assertions, should I be listening to her in a one hour lecture. But I don't see why on earth she is pounded upon for stating something she believes in? Why is this such a crime?? It's a shame that our community spurns alternative opinion, and let's face it-much of the lifeblood of the Toronto community has dried up because of this very problem. It is not only Toronto's problem, it is widespread throughout the globe. The talent is there. It just doesn't pump its energy into the community because people know too well they will be ostrasized anyway. The proof is in the comments!
To: Toomas Sepp
I’ll be honest, I just got off the phone with Toomas Sepp, because I wanted to know where he was coming from with this e-comment of his. Turns out we agree on much, but not all. Hence, I don’t feel badly about my online response to him below.
Firstly, Toomas Sepp wrote, “[K. Linda Kivi] was ridiculed. It wasn’t fair and it wasn’t right.” I suggested that I too would have been ridiculed, had I come up with a statement like, “Every Canadian Estonian male, who left Canada to live in Eesti did so to escape the Oppressive Estonian Females in Canada.” And in such a case, ridicule would have been fair and right… not to mention obligatory.
Furthermore Toomas Sepp wrote, “What’s worse, it was an attack… In my opinion the hecklers owe her an apology.” Here I reluctantly agree: to have brought up points like Linda Kivi’s ability to form personal relationships does not belong in this discussion. But I do believe she purposely inflamed the audience, to the point where both males and females pounced upon her words.
Insofar as diversity is involved, I fully support the notion that it is not only desirable, but nigh necessary in any organic environment. This includes Society.
This being said, I find that while there may not be an infinity of supportable viewpoints, there are an infinity of unsupportable viewpoints on any subject matter. The latter are often referred to as “nonsense”, something to be dismissed out of hand.
Much of what Linda Kivi articulated at MÜ falls into this category.
I’ll be honest, I just got off the phone with Toomas Sepp, because I wanted to know where he was coming from with this e-comment of his. Turns out we agree on much, but not all. Hence, I don’t feel badly about my online response to him below.
Firstly, Toomas Sepp wrote, “[K. Linda Kivi] was ridiculed. It wasn’t fair and it wasn’t right.” I suggested that I too would have been ridiculed, had I come up with a statement like, “Every Canadian Estonian male, who left Canada to live in Eesti did so to escape the Oppressive Estonian Females in Canada.” And in such a case, ridicule would have been fair and right… not to mention obligatory.
Furthermore Toomas Sepp wrote, “What’s worse, it was an attack… In my opinion the hecklers owe her an apology.” Here I reluctantly agree: to have brought up points like Linda Kivi’s ability to form personal relationships does not belong in this discussion. But I do believe she purposely inflamed the audience, to the point where both males and females pounced upon her words.
Insofar as diversity is involved, I fully support the notion that it is not only desirable, but nigh necessary in any organic environment. This includes Society.
This being said, I find that while there may not be an infinity of supportable viewpoints, there are an infinity of unsupportable viewpoints on any subject matter. The latter are often referred to as “nonsense”, something to be dismissed out of hand.
Much of what Linda Kivi articulated at MÜ falls into this category.
Archived Articles
TRENDING
