Many readers will be familiar with images of protests during the Phosphorus War and crowds chanting against the policies of foreign rule. The activism of the 1980s is known for the demonstrations that took to the streets. Dissent against the occupying power in Estonia and Estonian environmentalism converged, and both focused on nature conservation and environmental protection.

There has been anger and resistance to several ongoing attempts to take Estonia's land or create high-risk sites: for example, a plan in the 1970s to drain swamps or build a nuclear power plant near Lake Võrtsjärv.

Aet Annist, a researcher on the development and history of Estonian environmental movements, said that early Estonian environmental activism was a double-edged sword. On one hand, active environmentalism protected nature from the destructive, exhausting, and environmentally irresponsible centralized economy of big industry. Political dissidents, on the other hand, saw in active environmentalism an opportunity to challenge an otherwise immune power under the guise of conservation messages.

A behind-the-scenes look at the golden age of environmental activism in Estonia

"During the time of the Singing Revolution, environmental activism was both a way to unite people concerned about nature and to unite the nation, and a way to justify the focus on the environment in terms of national goals. More importantly, the system itself held the key to its destruction. The socialist clubs and other activities expected of citizens during the Soviet era created a platform for constant communication, often in an anti-state manner," Annist said. For her current research topic she investigates how the climate and environmental crisis affects people's social interactions.

For instance, formal regulations, rules, and controls externally framed all the existing clubs or circles organized in cultural centers. But the participants were there to work in secret on issues that were important to them. They also met like-minded people and had the chance to express their dissatisfaction with the power.

This social environment, according to Annist, sustained, spread, and enabled the anti-Soviet attitudes that, over time, shaped the activism of the Singing Revolution. "Decades of criticism of the Soviet regime, in addition to kitchen-table discussions in clubs and associations, were the glue that held the various events together. This provided an opportunity to take action when it arose," the researcher explained.

When independence came, Estonians ran out of energy to protest

Despite the long history of activism and protest, as well as the significant accomplishments of the 1980s, Annist said that Estonians reached their peak in activism after achieving independence. What was missing was a powerful unifying force to confront together. Upon achieving independence, local environmental protests effortlessly transformed into a widespread concern for the preservation of Estonia's natural environment and state.

"Successful protests are generally those that can elevate a specific problem to a more general moral level. Resistance to a seemingly minor change becomes a matter of right and wrong or even life and death. The phosphorite deposits were not just a colonization of a place but a sign of the nature of the occupying power. With freedom, the possibility of making this connection disappeared," she said.

More importantly, Annist said that changes in human relations and forms of interaction influenced the development of activism. Although civil society flourished in the following decades, it always suffered from a lack of money and relatively low status. This was particularly true in the 1990s and early 2000s, when business and financial success were critical. During this period, new hierarchies and a general rapid erosion of people-to-people relationships and ties undermined community life.

Rapid individualization followed suit. The disappearance of labor collectives, large farms and industries left chaos in their wake. Judgments of success and failure became increasingly personal. A rapidly changing society failed to recognize the structural and systemic causes of poverty and decline. It was as if the victim was entirely to blame for his or her situation. This did not encourage people to communicate closely with each other.

According to Annist, the shame and contempt unleashed by these processes and new hierarchies made it increasingly difficult to come together for a common cause. "I have referred to this shift as social exclusion. It describes the way in which the new neoliberal capitalist system was created at the expense not only of some people's economic capital, but, more importantly, of their social capital, their ability to participate in society and interact with others as equals," the researcher explained.

The media often portrayed the troubled in a harsh light, and in the 1990s, there was an acute sense of contempt for them. This allowed us, in Annist's view, to paint a picture of the opposite of dysfunctional: the individualistic and successful achiever. People held up this imaginary figure as a standard for others, disregarding the fortunate circumstances and supportive environment that typically led these individuals to success. "The emergence of a society with a similar mentality makes it very difficult to come together." The researcher added that the young, emerging society viewed any criticism as a betrayal.

Public reactions to protests are offensive

According to Annist, in addition to broader cultural shifts and the dominant ideology's view, public attitudes toward protest movements have changed: "For example, on several occasions in the 1990s, farmers protested against the monopolistic dairy industry, involving pouring milk on the streets. It was branded as a terrible waste. The critique was paradoxical. The demonstration attempted to change the situation in which farmers were continually spilling milk. Usually, they only did it on their farms. The demonstration attempted to bring this painful requirement to the public's attention, but it became bogged down in reflection and interpretation of the action.

Annist said that a negative mindset toward demonstrators is still widespread. To explain this, she suggests comparing the success of the 1980s protest to the 2017 action against tree felling for a road repair project in a Tallinn suburb. On the one hand, the wider public debate did not address whether such a road widening was even essential. On the other hand, the demonstrators were mocked for concentrating on the protection of reed. "The protest was described as a waste of time, for example, because a hard-working citizen cannot be involved in such 'nonsense,'" Annist explained.

The ability to see the bigger picture behind the protests is still very limited, she went on.

Another important change that took place in the 1990s concerned the general attitude toward the environment. In the first decades of independence, the protection of nature lost its connection with the earlier idea of freedom. The neoliberal mindset, which equates freedom with the capacity to generate wealth, received confirmation instead. "The 1990s laid a strong foundation. In the years that followed, the mindset was built on social relations the foundation of which was economic prosperity, not the environment from which the economy draws its resources," she said.

Protesters and those who argue that the economy is itself dependent on natural resources, which must be carefully protected, are labeled "naive," Annist went on. On one side, the businessman is the creator of economic opportunities and conditions. On the other is the demonstrator, who cannot do arithmetic and does not understand that society as a whole must work for the economy. "In those circumstances, protests and demonstrators have little power, and their messages and actions have little credibility," the researcher said.

It is also remarkable, she said, how the neoliberal system has managed to portray social liberalism, particularly its emphasis on the freedom of self-determination, as the enemy of an increasingly critical and angry population, despite not being the primary cause of neoliberalism's global crises.

The protests and mindset of our time

Since 2010, especially after the migration crisis, societies and the world of protest have become significantly polarized. For example, progressive and conservative views clashed over both migration and gay marriage. In 2020, groups of conspirators emerged in light of COVID restrictions.

The media's polarization was one of the factors driving this change. "The right-wing media, which doesn't follow good journalistic practices, has been amazingly successful in convincing its followers that journalism is about telling its own truth, not about bringing different sides together and seeking the truth," the researcher explained.

However, environmental issues have remained on the agenda. According to Annist, one of the most important protests in recent years was the demonstration against the pulp mill in Tartu. Its success and the gathering of 4,500 people in a chain of log cabins along the Emajõgi River showed that it is possible to bring people together and achieve the goals set.

She said that in the case of the climate protests that have taken place since 2018, it is striking how the media initially focused on the young people protesting but not on the issues they were raising. Annist said that the mainstream media's support has not counterbalanced the right-wing media's ridicule. Rather, the latter has remained moderate or added its own critical voices. 

"People often dismiss climate activists as climate-phobic children or indolent students seeking to improve their school experience. Estonian climate activists seem to have figured out that climate change is not a big issue in Estonia. Instead, the number one environmental issue in Estonia is deforestation," the researcher went on.

Annist argued that today's environmental problems are not as easily connected to major issues as they were in the 1990s. Instead, to justify why the environment cannot be addressed, the media and the public at large present other rationale as overpowering.

"But nature will never be protected that way, since the economy that depends on it is more important. Jobs in outdated industries are more important when new green jobs are desperately needed. Or is it that people are just too busy getting by, or don't have the stamina to fight for something bigger?"

Since the 1990s, instead of showing solidarity, Estonians have been comparing themselves with others on the basis of material indicators, she suggested. "It's as if everyone's future is being sacrificed for the sake of material success and the approval of the richest. Such blinders did not limit our thinking in the 1980s; today, very few of us are free of them. Unfortunately, it is difficult for us and for those in power to step back and reflect on whether the goals set in the 1990s are all sustainable," she said.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!