An essay by philosopher and translator Tiiu Hallap recently published on ERR's portal at first glance appears to be a polished argument for why "open Estonianness" is impossible and why one can only be Estonian by birth.

Because this isn't a trivial topic, I want to briefly explain why, in my view, Hallap's reasoning rests on flawed assumptions and leads to incorrect conclusions.

First, Hallap's argument hinges on a comparison that is too arbitrary to be convincing. The fictional "Tuaregia" is a deliberately exotic mirror, designed to create the greatest possible experiential distance for the Estonian reader ("desert and camels" vs. "kiln stove and sled rides"). This rhetorical device yields a predictable result: of course it seems absurd to "become a Tuareg."

But the debate is not usually about whether someone from a limestone bluff can understand the life of a nomadic desert people. It's about whether someone living in Estonia who has learned the Estonian language, works here, raises children, pays taxes and sees themselves as part of this society can be considered Estonian. Or conversely, whether a diaspora Estonian is still Estonian even if they weren't born or raised in Estonia.

Second, the argument conflates three distinct levels:

1. Ethnic identity (birthright);
2. Cultural identity (cultural competence);
3. Political identity (citizenship, loyalty).

"Open nationalism" generally argues that a person who knows the language and identifies with Estonia can become part of its cultural space and public life. Hallap, however, shifts the discussion to whether one can fully acquire the nation's entire "tacit knowledge."

That is an unreasonable standard. We don't demand "complete tacit knowledge" even from so-called birthright Estonians (who don't all share the same historical experience, regional background or socioeconomic status, etc.).

Third, the concept of "tacit knowledge" remains a vague criterion in Hallap's argument. If this knowledge is both ineffable and "immeasurably vast," how can one determine who possesses "enough" of it? Who gets to judge: the state, the majority, the experts? If the criterion is, by definition, unmeasurable, it becomes a convenient tool for exclusion ("you don't qualify because you simply don't feel the right way").

Worse still, such immeasurability shifts the power to define identity into the realm of authority and easily creates a hierarchy between "real" and "almost" Estonians — one that cannot be justified by any verifiable standards.

Fourth, Hallap's reasoning assumes that a society's "reasonable order of life" depends primarily on inherited, birth-based memory (e.g., knowledge of Russia), and that a "newcomer" can never be truly competent in this regard.

But political perspectives are not rooted solely in cultural "tradition." They are also shaped by institutions, education, public debate and expert knowledge. If competence is seen not as something learnable and developed over time, but as something inherited at birth, then we are denying the very possibility that a person can acquire new knowledge, process it critically and base decisions on it.

Finally, the claim that "an Estonian can't become a Tuareg and a Tuareg can't become an Estonian" essentially reinforces essentialism — the belief that nationality is an inborn, closed "thing-in-itself," not a historically evolving and culturally learnable sense of belonging. And yet, history shows that Estonian identity has been in constant flux, repeatedly redefined. If nationality is a historical process, then "tacit knowledge" must inevitably change as well and with it, the ways in which Estonianness is acquired and expressed.

If our goal is to protect the Estonian language and cultural space, I see many more convincing and effective ways to do that than appealing to "tacit knowledge": strong Estonian-language education, effective integration policy, Estonian-language visibility in public spaces, trustworthy institutions and loyalty to Estonia's constitutional order. The invisible threshold of "tacit knowledge" doesn't safeguard these goals — it only generates new conflicts and exclusions.

That is why I disagree with Hallap's conclusion that open nationalism is necessarily naive and that one cannot "become" Estonian. I believe one can — not instantly, not just by declaring it, but over time, by learning the language, understanding the customs, taking on responsibility and contributing to society. And if we deny that possibility, we're not protecting Estonianness. We're turning it into a closed club doomed to fade away, guarded by the unspoken barrier of "tacit knowledge."

--

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