ANNI KANGAS The Knight, the Beast and the Treasure A Semeiotic Inquiry into the Finnish Political Imaginary on Russia, 1918–1930s ACADEMIC DISSERTATION To be presented, with the permission of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Tampere, for public discussion in the Paavo Koli Auditorium, Kanslerinrinne 1, Tampere, on December 14th, 2007, at 12 o’clock. UNIVERSITY OF TAMPERE ACADEMIC DISSERTATION University of Tampere Department of Political Science and International Relations Distribution Tel. +358 3 3551 6055 Bookshop TAJU Fax +358 3 3551 7685 P.O. Box 617 [email protected] 33014 University of Tampere www.uta.fi/taju Finland http://granum.uta.fi Cover design by Juha Siro Layout Marita Alanko Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1283 Acta Electronica Universitatis Tamperensis 679 ISBN 978-951-44-7156-8 (print) ISBN 978-951-44-7157-5 (pdf) ISSN 1455-1616 ISSN 1456-954X http://acta.uta.fi Tampereen Yliopistopaino Oy – Juvenes Print Tampere 2007 Acknowledgements Th is is an inquiry into the Finnish political imaginary on Russia. It examines the practices of knowledge production on Russia and the Soviet Union during the Finnish interwar period. Th e point of departure for this endeavour is the recognition that knowledge production is not an act of one’s subjectivity. It involves placing oneself within a tradition of interpreta- tion. In the study at hand, I examine how the Finnish ways of making sense of Russia unfold against the background of previous knowledge and experience which is wider than that of an individual interpreter. Similarly, this piece of research should not be read as an act of my subjectivity only. It is best taken as a fruit of my participation in the activities of certain com- munities of inquiry. Over the course of my education, I have had the privilege of being taught by and work- ing with a number of talented and stimulating people. Professor Emeritus Osmo Apunen deserves special thanks for having suggested that there is something worth uncovering in old political cartoons. He pointed out some interesting signposts for this inquiry, but left enough intellectual space for me to be able to say ‘I did it my way.’ I feel greatly indebted to my supervisor, Docent Helena Rytövuori-Apunen, whose in-depth knowledge of the prag- matist research tradition has been invaluable for this study. Since I took part in her graduate programme at the International School of Social Sciences, I have appreciated her enthusiastic and ambitious stance towards knowledge. For the most part, this study has been fi nanced by the Russia in Flux research programme of the Academy of Finland and its subproject New and Old Russia in the Transition Dis- courses of Finnish–Russian Relationships. I have also received fi nancial support from the Tampere University Foundation and the Konkordia Foundation. For the past year and a half I have been employed by the IR Masters Programme within the Finnish-Russian Cross-Bor- der University, which not only has provided me with my monthly salary, but has also kept me practically immersed in Finnish-Russian relations. Th e scholarly community within the Department of Political Science and International Relations has always been a source of support and stimulation. My dear colleagues, thank you for the good conversations that have sometimes been IR related and oft en not. Th anks to you, it has always been nice to come to work. I would like to thank Professor Vilho Harle for many things, particularly for his unconditional faith in us, his younger colleagues. Professor Harle also read the manuscript and provided comments that helped me in fi nalising it. I am also grateful to Riitta Lehtimäki and Raija Oksanen for their assistance in administrative and technical matters that has contributed to the creation of a comfortable environment for me to focus on research. A part of this work was written while I was working at the Research Centre for Social Sciences, University of Tampere, thus warm thanks in that direction as well. Professor Roland Bleiker and Professor Niilo Kauppi approved the work for publication. Th eir supportive and constructive comments were extremely helpful when it came to improv- ing the quality of the initial manuscript. Th ey gave me the inspiration required to fi nalise this study in good spirit. Moreover, Professors Bleiker and Kauppi gave precious suggestions on how to continue from here. I am also grateful to Kathryn Rannikko, who corrected and revised my English, and Marita Alanko who kindly prepared this work for publication. Last but not least, I owe thanks to my friends who have always been there although this work might have at times made me absent-minded. Sami Moisio has been an invaluable com- panion and collaborator. I want to thank him for being there, for reading parts of the manu- script as well as for the numerous conversations that have helped me sharpen my argument. I dedicate this work to my mother, Riitta Kangas, who has taught me to value knowledge and learning. Turku, 12 October 2007 Anni Kangas Table of Contents THE KNIGHT, THE BEAST AND THE TREASURE Acknowledgements 3 1. Introduction 11 1.1. Setting the Stage for an Inquiry into Political Imaginary 16 1.1.1. Th e Chivalric Equation 17 1.1.2. Chivalry and Statecraft ing 20 1.2. Statecraft ing in the Newly Independent Finland 24 1.3. Research Design 29 1.3.1. International Political Action as Mimesis 29 1.3.2. Countering Criticism against Mimesis 32 1.4. Towards the “Machiavellian” Th ought-Paradigm 38 1.5. Relation to Previous Research 45 1.6. Political Imaginary à la Pragmatism 51 1.6.1. Political Imaginary and International Relations 52 1.6.2. Continuity and Discontinuity 54 1.6.3. Habituality and Creativity 57 1.7. Intentional Communication in Political Cartoons 60 1.8. Chapter Outline 65 2. Logic of Analysis 66 2.1. Naïve Interpretation 68 2.2. Structural Interpretation 70 2.3. Historical-Critical Interpretation 72 2.4. History: From Lessons and Laboratories to Games 75 3. Broadening and Deepening the Notion of Political Fact 79 3.1. What is a Political Fact? 80 3.2. Non-Literalness in International Relations 84 3.3. Broadening: Speech Act Th eory 88 3.4. Deepening: Semiotic Realism 91 3.5. Objects of Active Historical Experience 93 3.6. From Tokens to Archetypes and Back 94 3.7. Sign Th eory as a Lantern 98 4. The Maiden: Articulating the Irritation 102 4.1. Judging Submissiveness 105 4.2. Independent Being 115 4.3. Dangerous Trap of Friendship 119 4.4. From Moral Confusion to Victimisation 130 4.5. Impenetrable Body Politic 134 4.6. Eastern Contamination 138 4.7. Th e Maiden Meets the Knight 142 4.8. Flirtatious Femme 143 4.9. Between Scylla and Charybdis 149 4.10. Wrapping Up the Maiden 154 5. The Knight: Presenting the Solution 156 5.1. Unpatriotic Deeds of the Anti-Knight 158 5.2. Th e Knight on the Russian side 167 5.3. Knights of White Finland 174 5.4. Cowardice vs. Heroism 180 5.5. Securing the Home Front 189 5.6. Politics in Harsh Surroundings 197 5.7. Know Th y Heroes 207 5.8. (Un)natural Borders 214 5.9. Own vs. Alien 218 5.10. Virtuous Voter and Th at Man 221 5.11. Wrapping up the Knight 225 6. The Beast: Specifying the Challenge 227 6.1. Russian People and the Soviet Power 229 6.2. Th e Mighty Eastern Neighbour 232 6.3. Russian Charm Off enses 245 6.4. Beware of the Human Beast 250 6.5. Apocalyptic Realm 256 6.6. Wrapping up the Beast 258 7. The “Machiavellian” Thought-Paradigm 261 7.1. Strategies of Statecraft ing 266 7.1.1. Loyalty 268 7.1.2. Activism 273 7.1.3. Prudence 277 7.1.4. Normalcy 280 8. Conclusions and Contributions 282 8.1. So What Does It Mean to Observe Russia as Finns? 282 8.2. Habitual Creativity and Creative Habituality 286 8.3. Th e Question of History in IR 290 Epilogue 294 Printed Primary Sources 299 References 301 Appendix 321 It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct to the other way… Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities 1 Introduction “Th e relations between Finland and Russia are unique for the reason that they are not always of the same kind but are quite ambiguous. Over here, one hears full-mouthed talk about the Russian hereditary enemy and sees monuments being erected for Russian emperors.”1 So spoke Väinö Voionmaa, a Finnish parliamentarian in 1919. His words provide a convenient point of departure for introducing the present study. Th ey suggest that the Finnish relation- ship with Russia is ambiguous but seems to cohere as a continuous fl ow. Recently, a top- ranking civil servant in the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Aff airs also alluded to such a pos- sibility. In a TV interview aired in 2006, on Independence Day, he argued that Finns ought to “observe Russia as Finns and Europeans.”2 While I leave inquiries into European political imaginaries for others to pursue, my task in this work is to elaborate on what ‘observing Rus- sia as Finns’ might actually mean.