www.ssoar.info

Spiritually ours, factually yours: and Russia in Finnish public consciousness Laine, Jussi P.; Velde, Martin van der

Veröffentlichungsversion / Published Version Zeitschriftenartikel / journal article

Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Laine, J. P., & Velde, M. v. d. (2017). Spiritually ours, factually yours: Karelia and Russia in Finnish public consciousness. Europa Regional, 24.2016(1/2), 65-79. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-54451-8

Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter einer Deposit-Lizenz (Keine This document is made available under Deposit Licence (No Weiterverbreitung - keine Bearbeitung) zur Verfügung gestellt. Redistribution - no modifications). We grant a non-exclusive, non- Gewährt wird ein nicht exklusives, nicht übertragbares, transferable, individual and limited right to using this document. persönliches und beschränktes Recht auf Nutzung dieses This document is solely intended for your personal, non- Dokuments. Dieses Dokument ist ausschließlich für commercial use. All of the copies of this documents must retain den persönlichen, nicht-kommerziellen Gebrauch bestimmt. all copyright information and other information regarding legal Auf sämtlichen Kopien dieses Dokuments müssen alle protection. You are not allowed to alter this document in any Urheberrechtshinweise und sonstigen Hinweise auf gesetzlichen way, to copy it for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the Schutz beibehalten werden. Sie dürfen dieses Dokument document in public, to perform, distribute or otherwise use the nicht in irgendeiner Weise abändern, noch dürfen Sie document in public. dieses Dokument für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke By using this particular document, you accept the above-stated vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, aufführen, vertreiben oder conditions of use. anderweitig nutzen. Mit der Verwendung dieses Dokuments erkennen Sie die Nutzungsbedingungen an. Jussi P. Laine, Martin van der Velde: Spiritually Ours, Factually Yours: Karelia and Russia in Finnish Public Consciousness

Spiritually Ours, Factually Yours: Karelia and Russia in Finnish - Public Consciousness Jussi P. Laine, Martin van der Velde: Spiritually Ours, Factual ly Yours: Karelia and Russia in Finnish Public Consciousness Jussi P. Laine and Martin van der Velde

Abstract Zusammenfassung Hels- Spiritually Ours, Factually Yours: Karelien und Russland im ingin Sanomat finnischen öffentlichen Bewusstsein Based on an analysis of the leading Finnish newspaper, - , this paper explores Finnish attitudes towards Helsingin and understandings of Russia. It pays special attention to the Diese Veröffentlichung erforscht auf der Grundlage einer Un Sanomat so-called Karelia Question and the way it has shaped public tersuchung der führenden finnischen Tageszeitung discussion in . The article seeks to investigate human die Einstellungen und das Verständnis der Finnen zu - signifying practices in the region’s specific social and cultural Russland. Sie beschäftigt sich besonders mit der sogenannten - - circumstances and explains meaning-making as a social prac Karelien-Frage und die Art und Weise, wie diese die öffentliche tice. It evaluates how public opinion, as expressed in the let Diskussion in Finnland geprägt hat. Der Artikel versucht, mei ters page of the newspaper, has evolved and been affected by nungsbildende Verhaltensweisen in den spezifischen sozialen - the broader changes that have occurred at the border. There und kulturellen Verhältnissen zu untersuchen und erläutert die - are clear changes over time, both in a quantitative and qualita Meinungsbildung als gesellschaftliches Verhalten. Er bewertet, - tive sense. This may be summarised as representing a trend wie sich die öffentliche Meinung, wie sie sich auf der Leserbrief of general fading into history, but also as a more cyclical effect seite der Zeitung ausdrückt, entwickelt hat und von den größe - and as the interplay between bilateral relations and broader ren Veränderungen beeinflusst worden ist, die an der Grenze geopolitical changes. stattgefunden haben. Es gibt im Laufe der Zeit eindeutige Ver Karelia Question; Public opinion; Newspaper; Finland; Russia; änderungen sowohl in quantitativem als auch qualitativen Sinn. Social semiotics Dies lässt sich als Darstellung eines Trends zum allgemeinen - Verschwinden in der Geschichte zusammenfassen, aber auch - als periodisch auftretender Effekt und als Zusammenspiel zwi schen bilateralen Beziehungen und allgemeineren geopoliti scher Veränderungen. Karelien-Frage; öffentliche Meinung; Tageszeitung; Finnland; Russland; Sozialsemiotik

65 Europa Regional 24, 2016 (2017) I 1-2

Introduction Karelia and the Finnish-Russian borderland

The Karelia Question refers to a dispute SWEDEN in Finland over whether Finland should attempt to regain sovereignty over the territories that it was forced to cede to White Sea the Soviet1 Union after the , fought during the Second World - War. Officially, there is no question, as Gulf of - Bothnia both governments agree that no open ter REPUBLIC of ritorial dispute exists between the coun KARELIA tries; however, the reacquisition of ceded - territories and a potential adjustment of - the borderline remain a topic that con NORTH KARELIA tinues to arouse strong feelings in Finn FINLAND ish public debate. The Russian leadership - Joensuu has indicated on several occasions that it BORDER KARELIA has no intention of participating in dis Lake - Petroza- Onega vodsk cussions concerning the matter, while SOUTH Areas ceded to KARELIA the USSR after Finland’s official stance is that the bor World War II Lappeenranta ders may be changed through peaceful KARELIAN Lake - ISTHMUS Ladoga negotiation, but that there is no need to Helsinki RUSSIA open talks, as Russia has shown no inten tion of discussing this (Fig. 1). St. Petersburg

Although the case of Karelia may be 0 100 200 km IfL 2017 national border seen in retrospect as a positive case of a Authors: J. Laine, M. van der Velde - Cartography: T. Balcke Republic of Karelia scale 1 : 8 000 000 mutual rediscovery and exploitation of historical commonalities, common land Fig. 1: Karelia and the Finnish-Russian borderland scapes, and regional traditions (Scott - 2013, p. 88), it has not been and is not - immune to the wider fluctuations of Finn - ish/EU–Russian relations. This paper During the study period significant chang meaning-making as a social practice - - - goes behind the mere historical and in es have occurred at the Finnish-Russian bound to the context in which it occurs, - ternational relations perspectives and as interface. In 1990 the world was still di whereby tying our analysis on a histori - sumes a more semiotic angle on opinion vided into two camps and the 1948 Agree cal newspaper record helps us to situate Helsingin Sanomat - pieces published in the Finnish national ment of Friendship, Cooperation and Mu the debate in the context it originally - newspaper, (HS), ana tual Assistance between Finland and the took place in, diminishing thus the risk lysing how the argumentation behind the was in effect. However, in the of hindsight bias. Following this intro Karelia Question has evolved from 1990 following year the Soviet Union collapsed, duction we will describe the role Karelia to 2015 and how the image of Karelia the came to an end, and Finland plays in Finnish-Russian relations, and has been formed. It argues that while the was quick to apply for European Union newspapers’ function as a platform for - Helsingin Sanomat Finnish relation with Russia have become (EU) membership. When Finland then public debate. Building on the material - clearly less loaded than what they were joined in 1995, previously bilateral bor collected from , the - earlier with the Soviet Union, they still der issues were suddenly framed as part next chapter will describe the develop cannot be reduced to mere forms of prag of broader EU-Russia relations. All these ment of the Karelia Question and shed matism, interdependencies or the simple shifts are very clearly reflected in public light on the role the newspaper has - equations between supply and demand, opinion as expressed in the newspaper. played in this process. The collected - but there are also subtler discursive and This article investigates the develop material is discussed by connecting the symbolic forces at play (cf. Paasi 1996; ment of the debate in these quite spe changes in the foci of the debate with - Laine 2015). cific social and cultural circumstances the broader changes that have occurred - 1 The Continuation War involved hostilities between and aims for a better understanding of at the border. The second empirical sec Finland and the Soviet Union between 1941 and - 1944. It began shortly after the end of the , the development of public opinion vis- tion, before the conclusions, uses read during which the Soviet Union had attempted to invade Finland. à-vis broader geopolitical changes and ers’ contributions to analyse the devel international relations. We understand opment of public opinion concerning the 66 Jussi P. Laine, Martin van der Velde: Spiritually Ours, Factually Yours: Karelia and Russia in Finnish Public Consciousness

2 - - Karelia Question. The task here is to look mounting Karelianism, led Finland to at impression for many was of a land that beyond the specific texts to the systems tempt to undo its post-Winter War con suffered from economic stagnation, - of functional distinction operating within cessions to the Soviet Union regarding backwardness, and that had been largely them and to identify the underlying con Karelia and to launch an offensive deep Russified (Browning & Joenniemi 2014, ventions and significant differences. into Soviet territory to fulfil the national p. 22). This was perhaps most famously Karelia in Transition Lebensraum mission and fight for Finland’s perceived captured by Gustav Hägglund, a member - ; i.e. to reincorporate Karelia of the Finnish military leadership, in his Finland’s post-Second World War rela into Finland. Ultimately, however, Finland 1992 statement that for serious reasons - tionship with the Soviet Union, and more lost the war – and most of Karelia, which of national defence Finland would not 3 - recently with Russia, has been both close became subsequently systematically So wish to have Karelia returned “even if it and distant – at times concurrently (Laine vietised. was offered on a golden plate” – a state 2015). It has been shaped by a common While the region has seen many wars ment whose significance was underlined history, Cold War realities, pragmatism, and has often been subject to military by the fact that General Hägglund himself - interdependencies, and the lessons incursions, after the Second World War had been born in Vyborg, a city ceded to - learned from devastating armed con Karelia’s role as a source of tension in the Soviet Union in the Second World War. flicts. A particularly long lasting dispute Finnish-Soviet/Russian relations less It became increasingly clear that there - has concerned the contested territory of ened (Browning & Joenniemi 2014, p. 2). was no motivation amongst the Finnish Karelia, a region that extends across the Nevertheless, the debate on the potential political leadership to reopen the ques border between Finland and Russia. In return of ceded territories has remained tion, a reflection of the realisation that - its historical development Karelia may be an important matter of public debate, reigniting a territorial dispute with Russia - understood as a zone of transition, politi and has on occasion been endorsed at would only undermine Finland’s bid for - co-religious division and, most recently, of the highest levels. During the Cold War EU membership (Medvedev 1998; Joen a Finnish–Russian rapprochement and re- Finland developed what was widely per niemi 1998). - evaluation of common experience (Scott ceived as a mutually beneficial, if in many Karelia is thus not only emblematic of 2013, p. 88). ways lopsided and forced, relationship the post-Cold War political change in Eu The two countries in question view with its former enemy, the Soviet Union. rope but also affords an example of how - the region somewhat differently. For Politically, the USSR’s proximate military a reframing of historical experiences - Finland – or for some Finns, to be more power resulted in a preconditioned pru and relationships has served to develop precise – Karelia plays an important role dence to avoid causing offence, a new sense of cross-border “neighbour - as a cradle of the nation, and even as a which was manifested in conscious and liness” (Belokurova 2010). Karelian - - holy territory, and hence as central to any unconscious self-censorship and exces issues are often coloured by historical - understanding of the essence of Finnish sively responsible journalism. Any open memory and the various aspects of na realpolitik- - ness (cf. Browning & Joenniemi 2014, debate regarding Karelia was largely sup tional symbolisms (Scott 2013, p. 81). p. 1). For Russians Karelia has a clearly pressed by the era’s al slant, The cultural landscape thus has a con less emotional place. Instead, Russia has which to an extent only further helped stitutive element in the construction of - - traditionally drawn a close link between to mythologise the position of Karelia in Karelian history, as has become evident - - territory and security that has seen con Finnish nationalist narratives. The dis in the alternating, and often conflicting, - trol of Karelia as very important for impe solution of the Soviet Union freed public projects of nation-building – or “nation - rial thinking, geostrategic reasoning, and debate, which, in conjunction with its suc alisation” (Paasi & Raivo 1998; Raivo territorial defence (Hirsch 2005; Kang cessor’s subsequent flexibility, brought 2004; Heikkinen & Liikanen 2008). A aspuro 2000; Liikanen 1999; cf. Laine the Karelia Question back to the table major Karelian narrative has been that 2002). and allowed a more direct formulation of of its Finnish “essence” and its depiction - - Although Finland gained independence opinions in public. as a liminal space (Shields 1991), an - in 1917, there was a general dissatisfac The more open border also allowed indeterminate but highly symbolic re tion with the perceived lack of congruence Finns to visit the areas that had been gion charged with meaning for the for between Finland’s national and territorial lost. However, what they discovered was mation of the Finnish national identity borders (Browning & Joenniemi 2014, not a “Promised Land”; the overriding and with powerful nostalgic significance p. 13). Geographers claimed that the 1918 2 Karelianism began as a cultural phenomenon involving (Häyrynen 2008; Fingerroos 2008). borders were “artificial” and identified – writers, painters, poets, and sculptors curious about - the Karelian heritage and landscape. It portrayed Kare- in the spirit of the times – the nation’s lia as a refuge for the authentic essence of „Finnish- ness”. Later, as WWII approached, these ideas fuelled expanded “natural” borders as encom an irredentist movement aspiring to create a , a single state encompassing many, if not all, passing Karelian territory (Paasi 1996, Finnic peoples. 3 Dagens Nyheter, 6 March 1992. pp. 182–183). These ideas, supported by 67 Europa Regional 24, 2016 (2017) I 1-2

Newspapers as a Vent for Public - Opinion letters page as a forum is influenced by an of the public opinion proper, the col - editorial agenda; instead of serving as a lected empirical material consisting of History often seems clear because it is representative barometer of public opin the letters to the editor (indicated as ‘L’), - written after the event. Newspapers, ion, it provides a “hazy reflection of public but also editorials (E) and op-eds (OE) in - - however, provide us with a valuable his opinion” (Grey & Brown 1970, p. 450). cases where they were clearly linked with torical record which daily details every Letter writers tend to be demographi the discussion taking place in the letters, day life in a text’s original context (Laine cally and politically unrepresentative of is elucidated as to demonstrate how the - 2015). Newspapers are products of their the general public (Sigelman & Walkosz debate on Karelia has evolved and been - culture, which means that culture-specific 1992, p. 944) – typically middle-aged impacted by broader national and re values are almost unavoidably encoded or older, male, well educated, well em gional developments as well as changes in - in their text (Reah 1998; Fowler 1991). ployed, and conservative (Singletary & prominent geopolitical context since the - develop- Language therefore becomes “loaded”; it Cowling 1979, p. 165). However, as we early 1990s. A total of 5,089 opinion ar ment carries with it more or less obvious con are especially interested in the ticles that discussed the Finnish-Russian notations that render the message either of public opinion, this bias presents border or relations more in general were limited or biased. A newspaper’s slant no problems if it remains4 stable over the collected from the years 1990–2015, yet is the result of a screening process; the years of our analysis. only the articles focusing on Karelia were selected Helsingin Sanomat reader of a newspaper is the recipient of The material used for this research has included in this analysis. The aim here is , information (Richardson 2007). been collected from to situate what has been discussed in the - What is published is not only a reflection (HS) which is the largest subscription context in which it has occurred in order Päivälehti - of events’ importance, but it also reveals newspaper in Finland. The paper was to investigate the discursive field of signi - - a complex and artificial set of criteria for founded as in 1889, when Fin fying practices, explain meaning-making selection (Fowler 1991, p. 2). The gate land was a Grand Duchy under the Tsar of as a social practice and describe the po - keeping function of editors especially Russia, to serve as an organ of the Young tential changes in the foci of the debates affects the contents of the letters page, Finnish Party. As the paper opposed Rus by interlinking them with the broader used in the second empirical section of sification and advocated greater Finnish changes that have occurred at the border. - - The Karelia Question in/and this analysis, and thus the composition freedom and even full independence, it ­Helsingin Sanomat of voices in the public debate (Wahl Jor was often forced to suspend publication. - gensen 2001, p. 304; cf. Grey & Brown During its history HS has established itself - 1970; Renfro 1979). When such mate as a significant player in Finnish society. Two significant external events during - rial is used in analysis, it is important to The paper has been politically independ the study period stand out: the collapse - keep in mind that in choosing what to ent and non-aligned since the 1930s. The of the Soviet Union in late 1991 and Fin - - publish editors tend to prefer emotion opinion page was published for the first land’s accession to the EU in early 1995. ally charged, personal stories, and look time on 30 November 1977. The propor Both allowed new interpretations of Fin for an aesthetic authenticity that shows tion of letters published to those received land’s position, but also provided a new the writer’s words “come from the heart”, has fluctuated over the years. The record framework for the Karelia Question. By forging emotional bonds between readers was set in 2010, when there were more 1990 the situation in the Soviet Union had - and writers (Ibid.). than 24,000 letters to the editor (Fig. 2). deteriorated to the point that debates in In many cases the letters page forms On average the recent publication/ac Finland about the future of Finno-Soviet - - one of the most popular, and one of the ceptance rate has been around 25 per relations had begun to intensify. Although most important, elements of a newspa cent. Although the large quantity of let the Finns were now more confident about - per; to a large extent the public is often ters makes the selection process difficult, diverging from official policy as compared - more interested in the views of other the editors of the HS opinion pages main with previous decades, in practice official readers than in those of the professionals tain that their main purpose remains to foreign policy and public opinion contin (Romanov et al. 1969). The letters page is “reflect the entire spectrum of the Finnish ued to largely coincide. Polls suggested - also widely celebrated as one of the few opinion climate as closely as possible” (HS that 80 per cent of Finns believed that - arenas for ordinary citizens to engage in 10. 1. 1993; also 31. 12. 2010). the 1948 Agreement of Friendship, Coop public discussion, making it a key insti In the following, prior to proceeding to eration and Mutual Assistance had been tution of the public sphere. Rather than the analysis of the tone and orientation necessary (HS 23. 12. 1990), and that no being an aggregate of individual opinions, fewer than 75 percent believed that the - 4 This analysis of public opinion confines itself to letters Habermas (1997, p. 59) suggests, public to the editor. We are aware of the importance of social treaty would remain in force until 2000. - media, but have chosen not to include this, mainly opinion is something people arrive at to because our analysis starts in the early 90s of the It was therefore no surprise that nearly previous century, when social media as we now know gether through communicative public ac it did not really exist (see: boyd & Ellison 2008). 70 percent of Finns also agreed with the tion – public discussion and debate. The official government position that the 68 Jussi P. Laine, Martin van der Velde: Spiritually Ours, Factually Yours: Karelia and Russia in Finnish Public Consciousness

Total number of letters received and published by Helsingin Sanomat 1977–2015

Number [1000] 25

20

15

10

5

0 1977 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 received published Year

IfL 2017 Draft: J. Laine, M. van der Velde Source: Helsingin Sanomat Design: T. Balcke

Fig. 2: Total number of letters received and published by Helsingin Sanomat, 1977–2015

- - Karelia Question had been settled and it both an open mind and willingness to act “barbarian injustice” and because the in was better not to act on the matter (HS quickly now “that mending the old com vasion had also been considered illegal by - - 10. 12. 1990). munist era errors” was at its peak in the the (HS L 2. 6. 1992). In - While it was understood that the com Soviet Union and all the problems had addition to enabling a fresh start for re plete return of Karelia was an unrealistic been exposed for what they were (HS L lations, the return of Karelia, it was sug - goal, it was suggested that when the time 9. 10. 1991). gested, “would lift the people out of their - was ripe Finns should seize the opportu The collapse of the Soviet Union was spiritual recession” (HS L 28. 6. 1992) nity and seek to “create a normal neigh immediately seen as providing the longed and restore “our spiritual, and perhaps - bourhood through cooperation across the for opportunity to make a move on the eventually even financial, capital” (HS L - eastern border” for this was “certainly Karelia Question. The ongoing prepara 13. 10. 1993). Others acquiesced to the what the masses wish” (HS L 9. 10. 1991). tion of a new treaty to be signed with official view that the Finns could not “re - Only one in four wished the government what was now Russia was also seen as quire the return of Karelia” as it had once - “It is now the eleventh hour if the to take the initiative to restore Karelia. crucial for Karelia’s future: been “given away” (HS L 7. 1. 1992). How matter of Karelia, and in particular However, when President Koivisto (in of ever, no one could dispute that the Finns the new Russia agreement, is to be fice between 1982 and 1994) dismissed had a “moral right to hope for it” (Ibid.). brought to a critical parliamentary the hopes of those who wanted Karelia While in the ideal case scenario the reading. If signed, the agreement will - returned by reminding them that Finland Finnish-Russian border would “shrink to seal the Karelia Question indefinitely, had lost it in two wars (HS L 23. 9. 1991), be like a European border as is the prac because this time the agreement will - discussion about the territory became tice, for example, between the Nordic - be signed of our own free will.” (HS L critical of the Finnish political elite. countries or within the EU”, for the mo - 26. 1. 1992) Continuing to live by the former and in ment there were no signs that this goal troverted political formulas of “sneak could ever be realised (HS L 29. 6. 1992). - ing around and lacking initiative” (HS L Russian President Yeltsin’s (1991–1999) 9. 10. 1991) was deemed to help neither It was directly suggested that Karelia proposal to make the border of ceded Ka Finland nor its neighbour. It was rather should be returned to Finland because it relia “transparent” was greeted positively, suggested that the new situation required had been “annexed by violence” through because it was seen as offering a potential 69 Europa Regional 24, 2016 (2017) I 1-2

- basis for solving the Karelia Question (HS afraid of the big bad wolf?”. The editorial opportunity because the borders could L 22. 7. 1992). The proposal suggested went on to question the rectitude and ex now “be restored under bilateral peace that Karelia would continue to belong ceptionality of the basic premises of the agreements” (HS L 9. 7. 1998). to Russia, but that a transparent border debate and to suggest that EU-Europe, the For the most part public debate about would allow closer interaction. In Finland new frame of reference for Finland, was Karelia remained focused on whether the proposal was interpreted as meaning the wrong place for such revanchism (HS the ceded areas should be returned to the facilitation of border crossings and E 20. 1. 1998). Finland. Simply put, Finland was deemed - even visa-free travel, the latter of which If the aim of the editorial had been to to have “a right to demand the return was rejected outright by the Finnish Pres de-escalate the debate, it failed terribly. It of Karelia” (HS L 28. 7. 1998) as it had ident Koivisto (HS L 22. 7. 1992). sparked an intense dispute not just about been annexed illegally by Stalin (e. g. HS However, the debate about Karelia soon the reasons for and against the return of L 31. 7. 1998, 21. 11. 1998, 28. 11. 1998) - receded as the focus of the political elite Karelia to Finland, but also about how the and because it rightly “belongs to us” (HS had already shifted westward. A new co topic should be discussed. Mr. Pennanen L 30. 7. 1998) and would have to be “saved - operation treaty was now signed with was accused of siding with Russia; his from them [the current Russian residents - Russia, replacing the 1948 Friendship, writing was attacked for using “variants of the area]” (HS L 2. 6. 1999). The mat Cooperation and Mutual Assistance trea of expressions used by Russians” and for ter was thus a “question of basic rights” ty and the special relations it had framed. distinguishing the Karelians from the (HS 26. 8. 1998) and about nullifying the Only a few weeks later Finland applied Finns “in an orthodox Russian manner” “aggressor’s rewards” (HS L 3. 2. 1998). - for membership of the EU. Prime Minister (HS L 29. 1. 1998). After all, the Karelia Returning the divested areas would not Paavo Lipponen’s (1995–2003) “inadvert Question “should be a matter for Finns only be “beneficial for Finland over time”, - ently cynical” announcement that Finland and not just Karelians” (HS L 2. 6. 1999). It but also of “great political and economic Helsingin Sanomat had no interest in taking back the ceded was argued that Mr. Pennanen and hence benefit to Russia” (HS L 30. 8. 1998), be areas, even if they were offered, because and the Russians were cause both countries would benefit from - Finland could not afford it, was taken as bound together in that they both saw the a more prosperous Karelia. - an “unfortunate example of our ever-sec restoration of Karelia as an issue not for Those against the return of Karelia per se ularising world” (HS L 27. 8. 1995). The the entire Finnish people, but only for the wrote more descriptively, striking a pes - debate focused less on the EU , and Karelians, which facilitated the issue’s simistic note and depicting Karelia as - more on the implications of EU member trivialisation. However, agreement on undesirable, usually because of its large ship for the Finnish-Russian relationship. the issue was hardly helped when a pro non-Finnish population and the costs - The threatening Soviet Union had become ponent of the return of Karelia referred its return to Finland would entail. While an unpredictable Russia, and few knew to those “who think they are highly intel those who advocated the return of Karelia what to expect. ligent when they refuse to countenance were more active in writing to the paper, - The Russian 1998 financial crisis fuelled the Karelia’s return” as “non-people” (HS the majority of the Finnish population - the Karelia debate yet again. The Finn5 L 5. 7. 1998). was however said to “stand behind the ish media was accused of being cowardly The premise of Mr. Pennanen’s refer current border both geopolitically and - - and “the last fortress of Finlandisation” ence to a wider European framework was otherwise” (HS L 1. 8. 1998) and to concur - for not taking an active part and posi criticised because not everyone compre with the idea that “the future [of Finland] - tion in the debate. This prompted the HS hended “[w]hy the eastern border of Fin does not need Karelia” (HS L 29. 8. 1998). editorial reporter Erkki Pennanen finally land, in particular, should be sanctified At the beginning of the new millen to address the issue by arguing that to and eternal, while the ‘European order’ is nium, with Vladimir Putin (2000–2008; - - jump aboard the revanchist spirit, which in this respect the result of an agreement 2012-present) in power in Russia, a “new had strengthened in some circles as a re between those [Hitler and Stalin] who era of intense interaction” began in Finn - sponse to Russia’s perceived weakness carried out two massacres in 1939” (HS ish-Russian relations (HS E 2. 3. 2002). - arising from its worsening financial situ L 1. 2. 1998). The idea that the “image Relations were seen to be grounded in, - ation, would lead to “daydream journal of Finland [was] as a manager of others’ and enabled by, Finland’s strengthened ism” and a Karelia debate which might things all around the world” to be “pol status as an EU member, Mr. Putin’s be characterised as being about “who’s ished” at the same time as “we have our earlier connections to Finland, and the - - 5 Finlandisation, a term coined in 1961 by German poli- own chickens waiting to be plucked” (HS new possibilities opened by his reform tical scientist Richard Löwenthal, can be defined as L 2. 6. 1999) was thus deemed incoher policies. However, euphoria about Pu a process by which a powerful country strongly influ- - ences the policies of a smaller neighbouring country, ent and misguided. Others felt that the tin quickly evaporated. Whereas events while allowing it to keep its independence and its own - political system. It originally refers to the influence of fact that Finns now lived in an EU-Europe in Russia had been central to the inter the Soviet Union on Finland’s policies during the Cold War. did not mean an end to the hopes for Ka national news-flow in the previous 15 relia’s restoration, but presented a new years, Russia was suddenly now almost 70 Jussi P. Laine, Martin van der Velde: Spiritually Ours, Factually Yours: Karelia and Russia in Finnish Public Consciousness

- forgotten. “Nothing of special interest” The fact that the HS editorial board spread a map of political memory around took place in Russia, the country’s influ yet again took a position on the Karelia Karelia as well as by the unfortunate - ence was judged to have diminished in Question (HS E 27. 6. 2006) only fuelled trauma the failed military operation had - international politics, and few seemed to the debate further. It argued that specu caused. The bitterness of loss, it argued, know what was happening there (HS OE lation about the recovery of the area lost had been reproduced ever since in mem 16. 4. 2002). No news was not, however, in the wars was unrealistic hankering. oirs and reminiscences. - simply good news from either Russia’s or It was suggested that while it was easy The article touched a nerve among its Western partners’ perspective. to understand the longing for Karelia, the many. As it acknowledged before re - Those longing for the return of the reality was that Finland had accepted the sponses began to come in, even today it - - ceded territories, it was suggested, were existing border in international agree was “unacceptable to discuss deficiencies, - a marginal phenomenon. Instead, the mis ments. Changing it by voluntary arrange such as financial hardship, the civil war, erable state of Karelia was threatening to ment seemed no more likely than it ever the ill treatment of Russians, or the hu - “poison” Finns’ attitude towards Russia in had. The editorial received its anticipated man inequality of the lost societies at the a completely different way. The terrifying response. It was accused of being mistak same time as memories of Karelia” (HS OE image of the parlous situation in Karelia en in several matters, and it was averred 4. 8. 2009). The debate would, however, that had come to light during the recent that there was no denying that ceded be normalised, because with the passage - severe frost, the editorial column (HS E Karelia was an essential part of Finnish of time even those who had had to leave - - - 9. 2. 2003) suggested, served unmistak national history (HS L 21. 7. 2006). While their homes and who saw such questions ably to corroborate the realistic-pessimis some felt the Finnish leadership’s passiv as taboo would be seen from a less emo - tic view of the older generation of Finns. ity had been wise because “foreign policy tional and more realistic perspective. The - - - The blunter debate about Karelia was, should not be made according to nostal image of modern Karelia portrayed by the however, a clear sign of more open condi gic emotional criteria, but based on real researchers, for all its realism, was incom - - tions and a less restricted use of language. istic cool calculations of benefits” (HS L patible with the “politically oriented or - - Nevertheless, although Karelia was dis 28. 7. 2006; cf. HS L 11. 8. 2006) and that emotional love for Karelia”. The integra cussed more openly and many visits there the return of Karelia today was indeed un tion of the two lenses of analysis, howev - were made, a growing majority of Finns realistic (HS L 21. 8. 2006), others argued er, was expected to make contemporary rejected the idea of its return. An HS Gal that its return would benefit both Finland travel across the border more enriching - - lup poll revealed that nearly two-thirds of and Russia (HS L 30. 7. 2006). than it had been when it was to “meander - Finns saw the return of Karelia as unde In the second half of the 2000s the de in the ruins of the Finnish houses in the - - sirable, a third saw it as completely un bate became increasingly realistic. The border area” (Ibid.). desirable, whereas only one in ten saw it romantic image of lost Karelia was de As might have been expected, many Ka - as desirable. These figures were taken to scribed as “skewed and imaginary” (HS relians and their descendants struggled to - reflect Finnish pragmatism rather than OE 4. 8. 2009). It was evident that sev recognise themselves in this somewhat - - sentiment. No one had forgotten that “the eral people still had a personal, national, simplistic and disparaging generalisa - areas were unjustly seized from Finland” or ideological bond with the border re tion presented as an academic perspec “A zeal for Karelianism springs into (HS E 22. 8. 2005), but there was neither gion, but this bond was superficial: tive. A representative of the Finnish Ka - life in most cases only during the a place nor a politically fertile spiritual relian League wrote (HS L 7. 8. 2009) to summer. It belongs to the summer in ground for a mood for revenge in con reclaim the Karelians’ right to reminisce the same way as the Midsummer fes- - temporary Europe, and especially not in by asserting that they were not seeking - tival, flies, and barbecue. During the Finland. Accordingly, the Finnish Karelian traces of their Finnishness, but of them winter Karelia is not wanted – Rus- League, which had once directly advocat selves, their families, and their ancestry. sian Karelia does not exist in the win- ed the return of Karelia, now focused its They had lived in Karelia for hundreds ter for the Finns.” (HS OE 4. 8. 2009) - work on the preservation of the history, of years, and their search was for traces - traditions, and culture of the Karelia that of their Karelian culture. Such herit had been lost. However, in an interview age tourism was thus a key part of Kare with HS the following day the chairman The article went on to fan the flames by lian identity, which had traditionally been - of the Finnish Karelian League not only asserting that contemporary tourism strongly place-specific and geographically - claimed that “Karelianism is alive and was politically framed: Russian Karelia bound, and it also gave the young de - well, even if the state border is at its pre was made more Finnish by being “over scendants of Karelian immigrants “many - sent location”, but insisted that “[a]fter all, there”. It also touched on a sacred topic meanings, social capital, and in particu - spiritually we own Karelia, even if it is not by suggesting that in addition to the hu lar a great sense of solidarity” (Ibid.). This part of the Finnish state” (HS 23. 8. 2005). man tragedy, the yearning for lost Kare cross-border travel could also be seen as lia could be explained as an attempt to the first form of cross-border interaction, 71 Europa Regional 24, 2016 (2017) I 1-2

- - - because many had tried to help the el Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 the newspaper, the total number of letters derly and families with children in Kare was a tipping point heralding an unex on this topic sent to the editor is of course - lia in various ways when they visited. The pected change in both official and public much higher. For example, during a two- editorial staff of HS restricted themselves rhetoric. Debate about Karelia was practi month period from mid-September to to replying that a better knowledge of the cally non-existent, although some letters mid-November 1991, no fewer than 225 Swedish and Finnish history of former discussed the potential impact of the letters about the Karelia Question were Finnish Karelia would undoubtedly be Ukraine crisis on Finland and its border sent to the editor, but only 53 of these (24 beneficial for the current population and with Russia. It was only in 2015 that the per cent) were published. Karelia Question an obvious goal for a civilised country. increased influx of refugees refuelled the - This, in turn, would create a more solid discussion about Karelia, as many drew base for relations between Russia and parallels between the contemporary As we are especially interested in the Ka Finland, as well as between Russians and situation and the evacuation of Finnish relia Question, the selected letters were - Finns, which should gradually arrive at Karelians and the ceding of Karelia after first scrutinised to see if the Question a more natural and more mature phase the 1940 Moscow Peace Treaty that had was addressed. This was the case in a lit - (­HS E 11. 11. 2009). ended the Winter War. tle over half the contributions (285). The The Karelia Question in Public Whereas analysis of newspaper ma remainder focused on other aspects of - Opinion terial suggests that the image of Russia Karelia, but made no specific reference to had normalised and become more hon the actual question. The overall picture est by 2010, developments since have The second empirical analysis concerns is one of a generally declining interest in - again reversed this trend and media public opinion as it appears in the letters Karelia in readers’ contributions, and of - coverage has again strongly reinforced to the editor between 1990 and 2015. a fluctuating division over the years be the perception of Russia as the problem An initial simple word search for Karelia tween those that address the question - atic other. Broader geopolitical concerns yielded 525 relevant letters for analysis and those that discuss Karelia in a more - have clearly overshadowed the debate on out of 161,698 published during this pe general sense, which is often sparked by Karelia, reflected in the decreasing num riod. Given that on average only a quarter a particular event or an individual article ber of letters focusing on it (Fig. 3). The of letters make it to the printed version of (Fig. 3). Despite the possible influence Number of letters and the number refering to the Karelia Question 1990–2015

Proportion [%] Number of letters 100 100

90 90

80 80

70 70

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0 91 92 93 94 96 97 98 99 01 02 03 04 06 07 08 09 11 12 13 14 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Karelia Question Karelia in general total number of letters Year

IfL 2017 Draft: J. Laine, M. van der Velde Source: own calculations Design: T. Balcke

Fig. 3: Number of letters and the number refering to the Karelia Question 1990–2015

72 Jussi P. Laine, Martin van der Velde: Spiritually Ours, Factually Yours: Karelia and Russia in Finnish Public Consciousness

- per se Sign as a signifier and signified of editorial policy, the general decline in to seek a readjustment of the border, be the number of letters is still an indication cause the role of borders in Europe - that the Karelia Question is becoming less had fundamentally changed: “In a united signified newsworthy. Europe, [b]orders are no longer insur - The analysis began by focusing on mountable crevasses insulating countries signifier - whether the authors supported or op from each other. They are open” (Ibid.). Signifiers and signified posed reunification. In general, the pro IfL 2017 - Source: adapted from Design: J. Laine, M. van der Velde portion of people in favour of reunification SAUSSURE 1974 Editing: T. Balcke (returning Karelia to Finland) was declin The core of our analysis of people’s ing. In the most recent period there was meaning-making is a combination of a - Fig. 4: Sign as a signifier and signified a slight increase. Within the group that more qualitative social semiotic analysis seemed to be in favour a further distinc and a more quantitative oriented content tion was made between those who were in analysis. While a linguistic analysis of the - favour out of principle (Karelia as a whole newspaper material is beyond the scope the signifier and signified is in a constant - is a “natural” part of Finland), those who of the current research, a semiotic ap state of flux as people connect form and were in favour but wanted to negotiate proach does allow us to see beyond mere meaning in ways deemed apt for the par reunification, and a third group that was words and numbers. We combined this ticular need and occasion (Kress 1997). - basically in favour but was prepared to with a more quantitative approach on On the one hand, the same signifier can - delay it and in the meantime foster close how often the different signifiers were stand for a different signified (constitut - cooperation. Letters showing a resist used over the different periods. The more ing a different sign). A black cat in some ance towards reunification were further qualitative approach based on social se cultures stands for good fortune and in - - divided into a group that was prepared miotics helps us in how these signifiers others for bad. On the other hand, many - to cooperate (without a readjustment of might be interpreted both where it con signifiers can also stand for the same sig the border, “owning” Karelia by being pre cerns the signified and the tone. nified (again forming a different sign). what - sent) and a group that distinctly wished Drawing upon social semiotics enables Russia is at times portrayed as assertive how to ignore the Russian part as a lost cause. us to study not just signs mean (se or even as the aggressive Russian bear, In all, almost three- quarters of the letters mantics), but also to focus on they but also as a dear neighbour. - analysed were in favour of reunification: mean. Semiotics distinguishes between In our case the signified is in all cases - - 38 percent argued that the question was a communication and signification (Saus Karelia (or the question about it) and/or - matter of principle, while 28 percent were sure 1974; Barthes 1988). While com Russia. Drawing upon the work of Eden willing to negotiate the matter with Rus munication is understood as the mere sor (1998; 2002) and Wodak (2004; - sia. Of those against reunification, about transfer of knowledge from sender to 2008), we distinguish five categories - two-thirds were prepared to cooperate. receiver, signification refers to commu of signifiers: activities; objects; events; - When the element of time was added, nicative meaning-making, whereby a text places; and stories. An important deter the analysis revealed that while the prin evokes a process of interpretation in the mining factor of the activities signifier is - - cipal account held true, an increasing receiver. that it can be characterised as being of - proportion regarded cooperation, not Social semiotics builds on the founda longer duration or having a certain per - - readjustment of the borderline, as a so tional work of Ferdinand de Saussure, manence. It concerns, for example, longer - lution to the Karelia Question. This co but takes a step further by emphasis lasting processes and policies. An event, operative approach had overtaken the ing the socially contextualised nature of however, is more or less a one-time occur more extreme voices wishing to ignore signs and meaning-making (signifying) rence. This might be a natural disaster, a - the entire matter. Shifting the border was processes and practices. For Saussure political act, or a historical event. Objects - - no longer perceived as a realistic goal, (1974) the term signification referred to can either be categorised as material cul - signifiant signifié not only because of Russia’s negative at the dyadic relationship between the signi ture or as personifying certain groups. - titude, but also because the current situ fier ( ) and the signified ( ), The category of places is used when a ation was now part of a pan-European which together constituted a sign (Fig. 4). clear reference is made to specific geog - reality and the Finnish-Russian border A sign can be anything as long as someone raphies and landscapes. Finally, stories - was only one among many that had been interprets it as signifying something (Pei point to accounts, narrative, reports, and drawn with the sword after the Second rce 1931; Chandler 2002). As Saussure myths mainly related to (a shared) histo World War. If one were to begin to modify (1974, p. 118) himself puts it, it is not the ry. When it comes to the Karelia Question - - them, “the whole European order would metal in a coin that fixes its value. in general, places, events, and stories can start to be shaken” (HS 12. 6. 2002). Es Signs are not stable, but constantly be seen as discussing this within a tradi sentially, there was therefore no reason made afresh; the relationship between tion of storytelling, often referring to a 73 Europa Regional 24, 2016 (2017) I 1-2

Rus- siaphoria - mythical history. Activities and objects, The first (1990–1993) was labelled less as a signifier (30 letters). These are, - on the other hand, are used more often , because the collapse of the So of course, analytical distinctions to help - in contemporary discussion and are more viet Union was seen as the long awaited structure the analysis. In practice, cat - subject to the spur of the moment. opportunity to move on the Karelia Ques egories are interrelated as many letters Letters on defence strategies, the pro tion, while at the same time there was referred to more than one. However, in - - cess of Europeanisation, humanitarian uncertainty concerning developments most cases the prime signifier was quite aid, cooperation etc. were labelled as us and what they would mean for the Finn easy to identify. - ing activities (characterised as having a ish-Russian relationship. In the following What is remarkable is that in the most - - longer duration or certain permanence) years (1994–1997) Finnish accession to recent periods the proportion of (his)sto - as signifiers. Those dealing with the evac the EU was seen as a major step in seek ries used as signifiers has increased. The uation of Finnish Karelia after the Win ing protection against an increasingly more contemporary activities and objects EUphoria ter War, a proposition in Finnish politics, unpredictable Russia, causing a state of on the other hand are used less. This may Crisis in Russia or an environmental incident were put . Between 1998 and 2000 the be explained by the fact that Karelia – and - in the event category. Letters discussing financial fuelled debates especially reunification – is becoming a Transitionism - the Finnish leadership, Russia, Ingrians, about Karelia. When Putin came to pow myth. In the most recent period events - Karelians, etc. were regarded as address er, the idea of a period of are the most frequently occurring signi - objects – material culture or personifica gained traction, and there was a period of fiers, again an indication that Karelia and tions of certain groups. This mainly con relative optimism in the Finnish-Russian its question are becoming a thing of the cerned the latter in our analysis. When relationship, which, however, soon faded. past. Of course, we must keep in mind that New Realism - Karelia or specific locations like Vyborg Between 2007 and 2011 we can witness the number of letters in the later periods - were used, the letter was categorised as a state of , in which roman is quite small. The evidence concerning - dealing with places (making a clear ref tic images of Karelia and the relationship letters’ general tone or connotation is in - erence to specific geographies and land with Russia were exchanged for more line with this. The proportion of negative scapes). Finally, stories (as accounts, nar realistic ones that could now be depicted letters declined from 50 to 65 percent - - rative, reports, and myths related mainly less emotionally. In the period from 2012, in earlier years to about 30 percent on to (a shared history)) in our case trans which coincides with Putin’s third presi more recent years. This may also indicate Towards a New Standoff - lated into issues such as the Finnish rights dential term, there is a tendency to work that the rough edges of the Karelian scar - - to Karelia, the (re)drawing of the border, with Russia, al are slowly healing and fading in people’s - personal histories, and the historic ac beit with an uncertain outcome. memory, while the more neutral and posi - tions of Stalin or the USSR. As figure 5 implies, most of the ana tive images remain. When this is linked to Having labelled the letters by content, lysed letters fall under the main signi the signifier categories we can see some - - their general tone was established. We fier categories of activity (82 letters) and marked differences. When the categories confined ourselves here to a simple three story (70 letters). Places (used in 53 let of activities and objects, signalling a more fold categorisation: positive; neutral; or ters) and objects (50 letters) almost tied contemporary and current interpretation - negative. Finally, for analytical purposes for third place, while events were used are employed, most letters have a clearly we also labelled the letters by their at titude towards Karelia as a region and Signifiers per period

Russia in general as the signified. Here 2012–2015: Towards a New Stando again we used the categories of positive, 2007–2011: New realism neutral, and negative. Having established - the coding of the letters, several analyses 2001–2006: Transitionism were performed by confronting the signi 1998–2000: Crisis in Russia - fiers with the tone of the letters in general - 1994–1997: EUphoria and concerning Karelia and Russia. Spe 1990–1993: Russiaphoria cial interest was then paid to the develop ment of both the signifiers used as well as 0102030405060708090100 Percentage the general attitude during the previous - activity event object place story two and a half decades. IfL 2017 Draft: J. Laine, M. van der Velde For analytical purposes we distin Source: own calculations Design: T. Balcke guished six periods. These are based on Hels- the analysis of the development of the ingin Sanomat Fig. 5: Signifiers per period Karelia Question as it appeared in (in the previous section). 74 Jussi P. Laine, Martin van der Velde: Spiritually Ours, Factually Yours: Karelia and Russia in Finnish Public Consciousness

Signifier vs. Connotation negative connotation. Events, places, and stories (indication often a more historical place view) are used more positively. This may also be explained as a mythologisation of event the question. When the latter signifiers story are used, the Karelia Question seems to - be seen increasingly as a thing of the past activity and thus more neutrally and even posi - object tively (Fig. 6). A special note may be made concern 0102030405060708090100 ing the signifier category “place”, which Percentage positive neutral negative was most often used in a positive sense. IfL 2017 Draft: J. Laine, M. van der Velde Almost two-thirds of the letters were Source: own calculations Design: T. Balcke positive. This may be the result of the fact that Karelia was used to an extent with Fig. 6: Signifier vs. Connotation respect to a different signified. In some letters Karelia was approached almost as an internal Finnish issue with little or no - reference to Russia. Tone concerning Karelia When we explicitly examine how Kare - lia is portrayed in the letters, we find that 2012–2015: Towards a New Stando the proportion with a clearly positive at 2007–2011: New realism titude is diminishing with the exception 2001–2006: Transitionism of the final period (Fig. 7). On average this also applies to those with an outspoken 1998–2000: Crisis in Russia negative opinion. Consequently, the issue 1994–1997: EUphoria - is increasingly dealt with quite neutrally, 1990–1993: Russiaphoria or in a more “realist(ic)” and less polar ised way. It has become part of everyday 0102030405060708090100 Percentage life. positive neutral negative Finally, when we examine how Russia is - IfL 2017 Draft: J. Laine, M. van der Velde viewed, the most obvious finding is that Source: own calculations Design: T. Balcke with a single exception there are no let ters exhibiting a positive attitude. As for Fig. 7: Tone concerning Karelia the others, on average it is possible to observe a slight and increasing tendency towards a neutral position. Remarkably, - - the same signifier can stand for more than opinions concerning the Karelia Question and Finland came to share a border with - - one signified, thus constituting a differ have evolved since the 1990s. The start its successor, the Russian Federation, the ent sign. For example, when cross-border ing point of the analysis was the interest rules of the game changed fundamen cooperation is discussed using Karelia ing period when the threat of the Soviet tally. The “end of history” provided a new - as a signified, the tone is often positive, Union lessened, allowing a previously beginning, and the disappearance of a whereas when the signified is Russia, the unseen scope for free public debate. With neighbour to which Finns had grown ac tone is notably more negative. Similarly, the end of the Cold War the previously customed and with which they had traded - - places and stories about Karelia take a stable border concept was transformed resulted in a severe recession, which also - positive, or at least neutral, position no into something broader and more com contributed to the marked opportunism - ticeably more often than those depicting plex, but this also meant that the question of the early years (1990–1993), accompa - Russia as the signified. about a potential adjustment of the bor nied by a somewhat positive vision of the Conclusions der was no longer considered untouch future of Finnish-Russian relations. When Hels- - able. the signs used at that time are examined, ingin Sanomat - This analysis of the public debate in The study period was divided into six all categories are almost equally repre has provided a fascinating shorter periods with a distinctive tone sented, with events slightly underrepre overview of how Finnish attitudes and and focus. As the Soviet Union collapsed sented. Compared with the subsequent 75 Europa Regional 24, 2016 (2017) I 1-2

- - - two periods the general tone is relatively becomes more neutral and even positive. of Karelia has been salved by the formula - positive. Karelia itself is regarded much more neu tion of different self-narratives (Brown Between 1994 and 1997 the debate trally. The general tone concerning Russia ing & Joenniemi 2014, p. 2). The repa - - focused increasingly on the EU and the is also largely neutral. The proportion of triation of Karelia, once seen as possible, significance it would have for the Finn clearly negative letters is the smallest in has now become a receding myth, far-re ish-Russian relationship. This period this period. moved from the key political debates of New Realism - shows the highest proportion of letters From 2007 we can observe a state of today. Given the ageing population, direct - in favour of negotiation concerning the , in which the almost roman links to the lost areas have diminished. - - Karelia Question. This is possibly encour tic images of Karelia and the relationship While some Finns may indeed consider aged by the perceived support of the EU. with Russia are exchanged for more real that they “spiritually” own Karelia, it re Compared with other periods, activities istic ones that can now be depicted in less mains very much part of Russia. Debate - - - are used more frequently and the general emotional terms. Although a relatively concerning Karelia stems from the past - tone of the letters becomes more nega large number of letters continues to op and often gets stuck there. Instead of fo - tive, whereas Karelia is talked about more pose the return of Karelia, the proportion cusing on what is happening today, the de neutrally. in favour on principle is also sizeable. bate tends to look back and builds heav In 1998 the financial crisis in Russia This suggests a conflict between a more ily on personal accounts that are difficult - briefly fuelled debates about Karelia. emotional longing for the past and a more to verify. Subjective historical remarks While the older generations’ attitudes realistic academic approach to Karelia. about what once happened are often pre - were guided largely by the emotions, the This is also a period when stories become sented as facts, based on which the “truth” young tended to prefer reason. They ar more important as signifiers. In general, is generated in the form of a story. This gued that Karelia’s fate had already been there is a correlation between the use of supports Raivo’s (2004, p. 71) argument - sealed and that patriotism had its limits. stories and being in favour of the return that in the contemporary context it is no Sentiment concerning the Karelia Ques of Karelia on principle. longer so important to whom the ceded tion increasingly turned against the idea The most outstanding feature of the areas should belong now or in the future, - - of returning the region to Finland. This most recent period is a further increase in but the question is rather about to whom - is also the period when places are most those in favour of the restoration of Kare their past belongs. While there are differ used as a signifier. The general tone re lia on principle. Although some caution is ences of opinion, nowadays both sides at mains somewhat negative. As the most required in drawing conclusions because least realise that there are two parallel - - used signifier often relates to a specific of the relatively small number of letters, narratives associated with the memory - Karelian location or geography, it is un this may itself be explained by a declin and traditions of Karelia: a Finnish past - surprising that the general tone concern ing interest in the Karelia Question itself and a Russian present (Ibid.). - - ing the region is also quite negative com (especially among those who formerly During the study period the national pared with other periods. opposed reunification) and the confir appropriations of Karelia that have es With Vladimir Putin in power a period mation of the possible threat presented pecially characterised the Finnish debate of relative optimism about the Finnish- by contemporary Russia (fuelled by the in the past, particularly until 2014, have - Russian relationship began. Demands for events in the region) and the consequent been transcended by notions of a shared - the restoration of Karelia were softened declining probability of a common solu regional space. Accordingly, the question - as increased interaction was deemed to tion for Karelia retaining the current bor of ownership has been overshadowed by - provide significant benefits and new eco ders. This has been accompanied by an a new rhetoric promoting cross-border - - nomic opportunities to both parties. At increase in the use of (historic) events as cooperation and a reframing of history to - - tempts were made to go beyond the tradi signifiers, the less positive tone of letters, better match with the evolving multifac tional Karelia Question; it was suggested but also a more favourable tone concern eted, and to an extent post-national, re - that instead of painting threats, attention ing Karelia. gional understandings of Karelia. Instead Karelia Question 2.0 - should be paid to exploiting the benefits of understanding Karelia within the tradi - - of globalisation, i.e., enlarged market tional framework of nationalising histori areas, a reduction in the importance of The Karelia Question has become in ographies, these interpretations have de - borders, and the growing importance of creasingly more about principle and less picted Karelia as a borderland – a space of knowledge, cultural enrichment, and di about practice. This should not, however, cultural and historical ambiguity marked - versification. This is demonstrated by the be taken to indicate that Karelia has lost but not dominated by alternating phases fact that the proportion of letters against its evocative role in the Finnish national of Russification, Finnishisation and So reunification but willing to cooperate is identity discourse altogether, but rather vietisation (cf. Scott 2013). The Karelia the largest in this period. Objects are used that the nature of this role has begun to Question thus becomes less of a question relatively often and the tone of letters change. The anxiety generated by the loss and, at least until 2014 when the crisis in 76 Jussi P. Laine, Martin van der Velde: Spiritually Ours, Factually Yours: Karelia and Russia in Finnish Public Consciousness

- References - Ukraine again changed the rhetoric, ap Republic of Karelia 1985–1995. In: Jahn, parent changes in both the high and low Barthes, R. (1988): The Semiotic Chal E. (ed.): Nationalism in Late and Post- - geopolitical context have borne witness lenge. New York. Communist Europe, Vol. 3 − Nationalism - to gestures of Finnish–Russian reconcili Belokurova, E. (2010): Civil Society in National Territorial Units. Baden- - ation rather than to ideological assess Discourses in Russia: The Influence of Baden, pp. 53–72. - - ments of regional history. the European Union and the Role of Hirsch, F. (2005): Empire of Nations: Eth Especially important here is the ap EU–Russia Cooperation. Journal of Eu nic Knowledge and the Making of the - parent acceptance of the loss of Karelia ropean Integration, 32(5), pp. 457–474. Soviet Union. Ithaca. - and the resulting acquirement of a more boyd, D. N. & N. B. Ellison (2008): Social Joenniemi, P. (1998): The Karelian Ques - polyvalent perspective, acknowledging Network Sites: Definition, History, and tion: On the Transformation of a Bor not only various personal reflections but Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Me der Dispute. Cooperation and Conflict, - also the more relational nature of space. diated Communication 13, pp. 210–230. 33(2), pp. 183–206. This is to say that while the symbolic if Browning, C. S. and P. Joenniemi (2014): Kangaspuro, M. (2000): Neuvosto-Karja not mythical role Karelia plays for many Karelia as a Finnish-Russian Issue: Re- lan taistelu itsehallinnosta. Nationalismi - - - Finns remains, its understanding is no negotiating the Relationship between ja suomalaiset punaiset Neuvostoliiton - - longer necessarily tied to a specific ter National Identity, Territory and Sover vallankäytössä 1920–1939 [Soviet-Ka - ritory. Indeed, confronted with the eco eignty, CEURUS EU-Russia Papers, No. 18. relia’s Fight for Independence. National - nomic and social realities of the region it Chandler, D. (2002): Semiotics for Begin ism and the Red Finns in the Soviet Use - seems that the value of Karelia for Finn ners. London. of Power 1920–1939]. Helsinki. - ish national identity has, for many, shifted Edensor, T. (1998): Tourists at the Taj: Kress, G. R. (1997): Before Writing: Re from its location to its status as a mythi Performance and Meaning at a Symbolic thinking the Paths to Literacy. London. - cal and fantastical construct whose actual Site. London. Laine, A. (2002): Rise and Fall of Soviet - - location and bordering are largely irrel Edensor, T. (2002): National Identity, Karelia: Continuity and Change in 20th - evant (Harle & Moisio 2000, p. 115–117; Popular Culture and Everyday Life. Ox Century Russia. In: Laine, A. & M. Ylikan Browning & Joenniemi 2014, p. 23; cf. ford. gas (eds.): Rise and Fall of Soviet Kare - Minkkinen 2012). Fingerroos, O. (2008): Karelia: A Place of lia. People and Power, Helsinki, pp.7–23. - The material we have analysed sug Memories and Utopias. Oral Tradition, Laine, J. (2015): No News is Good News? gests that Karelia’s meaning has evolved 23(2), pp. 235–254. Making the Finnish Public Image of Rus - from a concrete geographical place to a Fowler, R. (1991): Language in the News: sia. GeoJournal 80 (1), pp. 93–112. - more nebulous mythical region, if not a Discourse and Ideology in the Press. Liikanen, I. (1999): The Political Con - state of mind, discussion of which now London. struction of Identity: Reframing Men - serves a therapeutic function more than Grey, D. L. & T. R. Brown (1970): Letters tal Borders in Russian Karelia. In: Es - anything else. The number of people with to the Editor: Hazy Reflections of Pub kelinen, H., I. Liikanen & J. Oksa (eds.): personal reminiscences of lost Karelia lic Opinion. Journalism Quarterly, 47, Curtains of Iron and Gold. Reconstruct - has diminished. Accordingly, what were pp. 450–471. ing: Borders and Scales of Interaction, - - golden memories for some have increas Habermas, J. (1997): Popular Sovereignty Aldershot, pp. 357–377. ingly been replaced by more negative per as Procedure. In: Bohman, J. & W. Rehg Medvedev, S. (1998): Russia as the Sub - ceptions of the border region as a locus (eds.): Deliberative Democracy: Essays consciousness of Finland, Helsinki: UPI of crime, vodka and sex tourism, human on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, Working Papers; Finnish Institute of In trafficking, and other social problems. pp. 35–67. ternational A airs, no. 7. Ques- - Nevertheless, Karelia remains a matter of Harle, V. & S. Moisio (2000): Missä on Minkkinen, P. (2012): Karjala Suomen ja tion - - debate, but the existential Karelia Suomi? Kansallisen identiteettipolitii Venäjän välisissä suhteissa [Karelia in is now far less of a question; it has be kan historia ja geopolitiikka [Where is the Context of the Finnish-Russian Re come one issue among many others and Finland? The History and Geopolitics of lations]. Tallinn. - the tone in which it is now discussed and National Identity Politics]. Tampere. Paasi, A. (1996): Territories, Boundaries - written about has become more neutral. Häyrynen, M. (2008): A Kaleidoscopic and Consciousness: The Changing Geog - Nation: The Finnish National Land raphies of the Finnish-Russian Border. scape Imagery. In: Jones, M. & K. R. Ol London. - wig (eds.): Nordic Landscapes. Region Paasi, A. & P. Raivo (1998): Boundaries and Belonging on the Northern Edge of as barriers and promoters: Construct Europe. Minneapolis, pp. 483–510. ing the tourist landscapes of Finnish Heikkinen, K. & I. Liikanen (2008): Karelia. Visions in Leisure and Business, Ethnic and political nationalism in the 17(3), pp. 30–45. 77 Europa Regional 24, 2016 (2017) I 1-2

Peirce, C. S. ([1931] 1958): The Collected Shields, R. (1991): Places on The Margin. Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Eds. Alternative Geographies of Modernity. Assistant Professor Dr. Jussi P. Laine - Hartshorne, C., P. Weiss (Vols. 1–6) & London. University of Eastern Finland Burks, A. (Vols. 7–8). Cambridge. Sigelman, L. & B. J. Walkosz (1992): Let Karelian Institute - Raivo, P. J. (2004): Karelia lost or won − ters to the Editor as a Public Opinion Yliopistokatu 2, Aurora (P.O.Box materialization of a landscape of con Thermometer: The Martin Luther King 111) tested and commemorated memory. Holiday Vote in Arizona. Social Science FIN-80101 Joensuu - Fennia, 182(1), pp. 61–72. Quarterly 73 (4), pp. 938–946. Finland Reah, D. (1998): The Language of News Singletary, M. & M. Cowling (1979): [email protected] papers. London. Letters to the Editor of the Non-Daily - Renfro, P. C. (1979): Bias in Selection of Press. Journalism Quarterly 56 (1), Associate professor Dr. Martin van - Letters to the Editor. Journalism Quar pp. 165–168. der Velde - terly 56, pp. 822–826. Wahl Jorgensen, K. (2001): Letters to Radboud University - Richardson, J. E. (2007): Analyzing the Editor as a Forum for Public Delib Nijmegen School of Managment Newspapers: An Approach from Critical eration: Modes of Publicity and Demo Institute of Management Research Discourse Analysis. Basingstoke. cratic Debate. Critical Studies in Media Dep. Of Geography, Planning and - - Romanow, W. I., W. D. Soderlund, R. H. Communication 18 (3), pp. 303–320. Environment Wagenberg & E. D. Briggs (1981): Let Wodak, R. (2004): National and Transna Thomas van Aquinostraat 3 ters to the Editor in a Canadian Federal tional Identities: European and Other NL-6525 GD Nijmegen Election: Hard News, Editors’ Cues and Identities Oriented to in Interviews with The Netherlands - Readers’ Views. Journalism Quarterly EU Officials. In: Hermann, R. K., T. Risse [email protected] 58, pp. 57–68. & M. Brewer (eds.): Transnational Iden - Saussure, F. de ([1916] 1974): Course tities. Lanham, pp. 97–128. in General Linguistics (trans. Wade Wodak, R. (2008): ’Us’ and ‘Them’: In - Baskin). London. clusion/Exclusion – Discrimination via - Scott, J. W. (2013): Constructing Famili Discourse. In: Delanty, G., P. Jones & R. - arity in Finnish–Russian Karelia: Shift Wodak (eds.): Identity, Belonging and ing Uses of History and the Re-Interpre Migration. Liverpool, pp. 54–78. tation of Regions. European Planning Studies, 21:1, pp. 75–92.

78 Jussi P. Laine, Martin van der Velde: Spiritually Ours, Factually Yours: Karelia and Russia in Finnish Public Consciousness

Peзюме Résumé

Карелия и Россия в финском общественном сознании Spirituellement nôtre, factuellement vôtre: Carélie et la Джасси П. Лейн, Мартин ван дер Вельде Jussi P. Laine et Martin van der Velde Russie dans la conscience publique finlandaise - - В статье на основе данных ведущей финской ежедневной - - газеты Helsingin Sanomatdie/Хельсинские новости рассма Basé sur une analyse du principal quotidien finlandais, Helsin тривается отношение финнов к России. Это касается осо gin Sanomat, cet article explore le comportement et la percep - бенно так называемого Карельского вопроса и того, каким tion qu’ont les Finlandais de la Russie. Il accorde une attention - образом это повлияло на общественные дебаты в Финлян particulière à la question dite de la Carélie et comment elle a - дии. В статье предпринята попытка изучения влияющих influé sur le discours public en Finlande. L’article vise à enquê на общественное мнение поведенческих моделей в кон ter sur les pratiques humaines significatives en fonction des кретных социальных и культурных условиях и трактуется circonstances sociales et culturelles spécifiques à la région et - формирование общественного мнения как социального explique que le fait de donner du sens est une pratique sociale. поведения. При этом общественное мнение оценивается Il évalue la manière dont l’opinion publique, telle qu’expri по письмам читателей данной газеты с учётом основных mée dans la page des courriers du journal, a évolué et a été - произошедших на границе изменений. В течение времени influencée par les changements importants qui ont eu lieu à la здесь имеются отчётливые количественные и качествен frontière. Des changements clairs, aussi bien quantitatifs que ные тенденции. Наряду с общим низходящим трендом, qualitatifs, ont eu lieu au fil du temps. Ils peuvent être résumés можно говорить о периодически возникающем эффекте comme représentant une tendance de passage général dans - и взаимодействии между двусторонними отношениями и l’histoire, mais aussi comme un effet plus cyclique et comme общими геополитическими изменениями. l’interaction entre relations bilatérales et changements géopo Карельский вопрос; общественное мнение; ежедневная га- litiques plus importants. зета; Финляндия; Россия; социосемиотика Question Carélie; opinion publique; quotidien; Finlande; Russie; sémiotique sociale

79