On Estonian «elitarist communication crisis» and overly low esteem of self and state in hearts of inhabitants.
Editorial: let’s hear a healthy whine
Please note that the article is more than five years old and belongs to our archive. We do not update the content of the archives, so it may be necessary to consult newer sources.
Surely the line between whining and (constructive) criticism is not all that fine. In a free society, telling the difference amounts to good taste. What’s more, it’s the issue of what we really want. Not having to, we are still free to tell the difference – and to team up for best solutions for our troubles.
Whining comes at various levels. One such created by critical media, the Toompea at times diving for trenches (to duck communication?), and our own friends whether at birthday party or social network. «Hopping from newspapers to social media and back, one gets the impression that, in our public space, there dwell two opposing descriptions of Estonia, distancing from one another at the speed of light,» Ilmar Raag, this year crowned by a top Postimees award, wrote two years back in an influential essay The Law of Conservation of Sufferings? Simply put, it’s a story on how the government and the elite influential in written space/other media talk across each other.
The other level is much more essential. The Estonian Human Development Report (of 2012/2013) glaringly reveals that, on the average, our self-esteem is lower than suggested by other indicators measurable and comparable with the rest of the world – we’re like the sportsman, always in the top ten, yet feeling a failure for never winning an Olympic gold. Please do consider reading chapter 3.3, Subjective Well-Being, by Mati Heidmets in said report, available also in English at www.kogu.ee. This is no delusion penned by current government, president or some political party, neither a PR-trick.
Definitely, it’s also not that the gap between our actual position and assessments would only affect support towards incumbent government. Firstly, as hinted by definition, subjective well-being is a measurement whereby it is judged how many feel «well» – which ought to be the very aim of good state management. Secondly, via all kinds of models it is possible to prove that how people feel (stress level, perceived control over one’s live etc etc), clearly and measurably affects our health – and lifespan, as its supreme measurement.
Obviously, Estonia is faced with a host of unsolved social and other kinds of problems – answers to these would boost well-being. As obviously, it surfaces that we have lots of people whose lives aren’t objectively bad at all, yet they perceive the opposite. Anyone could curse our dark and muddy autumns; still, while living here, why not try – in the name of our own well-being – enjoy the beauty and sports-delights offered by both summers and winters.
P.S. Also: a noise not offering a solution yet drawing attention to trouble may be constructive as well. When blackout hits, who in their right mind would try to send «constructive proposals» to the electric company on how exactly to fix a substation – you just announce the lights are out, an act absolutely relevant.