Practices of remembering and memory making, though firmly rooted in the past, are just as much influenced by the present: The 2008 Russo-Georgian War and Russia’s annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 saw breaches and violations of Georgian and Ukrainian political and territorial sovereignty. Russian involvement in its neighbours’ geopolitical affairs continues even today, as the still inconclusive Donbass War and the deployment of Russian peace keeping forces following the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War between Armenia and Azerbaijan testify. These regional engagements are manifestations of Russia’s interest in areas which are perceived by Moscow to be within its direct sphere of influence. Yet, they also bear a striking resemblance to a more recent past, namely that of the incorporation of the previously independent Baltic states into the Soviet Union in the wake of the Second World War. In the case of Estonia, this familiarity can be said to have become a psychological catalyst, triggering memories of Estonians’ own lived experiences under Soviet rule. In the recent past, fears of a possible repeat of Russian domination over Estonia were revived in popular national narratives, instigating Estonians to work on upholding their nation’s sovereignty in the face of potential Russian advances, which would threaten their nation, people and identity (p. 329).

Against this background, Inge Melchior’s monograph “Guardians of Living History” inquires into contemporary Estonians’ memories, experiences, and understandings of the Soviet past from an ethnographic perspective. Engaging with Estonians from rural areas, former deportees or memory activists, she asks how people belonging to a newly independent state live with their complex and violent past surrounding them, not only within their national society, but also their regional communities and families (p. 20). Melchior intends to achieve this by drawing a relationship between traumatic memory and national identity, assessing how memories of Estonia’s Soviet experience lead to the formation of a contemporary post-Soviet Estonian identity.

“Guardians of Living History” is an enriching contribution to the existing research on memory studies and national identity. By utilizing Foucault’s concept of counter-memories1, the book’s results represent a frontal challenge against popular national narratives over what is perceived as the ‘historical truth’ regarding Estonia’s Soviet period. By analysing Estonians’ different positions in society through the lens of memory, Melchior exposes us not only to less prevalent narratives, but also presents alternative understandings of what – and who – is defined as a minority.

Melchior divides her work into three sections. In Part I, The Making of Estonian History, she presents the broader context of Estonian Soviet memory culture: the main stakeholders involved in the creation of a national history (historians, political and cultural elites) as well as relevant historical circumstances and features of regional memory making from the period of National Awakening in the mid-19th century until today, providing an insight into what constitutes Estonian national history. In Part II, The Meaning of Closure, Melchior highlights the relevance of these narratives to Estonians today, by relating them to their opinions and personal comprehension of the Soviet period, before inquiring how they reflect their own perceived roles within Estonian society. This part of the analysis is largely chronological, tracing key historical experiences of Soviet repression from deportations to everyday life, the Singing Revolution, and the work of civic organizations and memory activists. Finally, in Part III, Closure and a Significant Other, she takes her work beyond the scope of Estonia by comparing the country’s dealing with traumatic experience to other cases from continental Europe, where similar examples of divided opinions on memory exist that added to the creation of a shared identity beyond national borders. Particularly interesting here is the focus on interrelations of memory with emotions – of a perceived Western superiority of memories of the Second World War that clashes with Estonians’ perceived ambiguous and inferior memory culture.

By applying Foucault’s concept of counter-memories, Melchior introduces alternative, more favourable memories of the Soviet period that are often in contradiction with the dominant national narrative, which highlights the “abnormality” of this era (pp. 131-132). By “normalising” the Soviet rule, these alternative narratives challenge the historical validity behind the Estonian national story. This perceived threat also extends towards the “homogeneity of the group and state independence” (p. 31), as it implies to be a stronger claim to historical truth and portrays the contradicting narratives as being “normal”. However, instead of developing two opposing camps, Melchior skillfully brings counter-memories and established national narratives together as different modes of expressing Estonian identities, both of which command loyalty to the Estonian nation and society (pp. 152-154). In her interpretation, these opposing narratives are made distinct by differences in social class and status that compete over representing the “true” Estonia (p. 327).

In addition to counter-memories, Melchior introduces a new definition of minority: that of ethnic Estonian informants with positive narratives of the Soviet Union. Hence, using memory as a medium allows her to broaden the concept of minority beyond conventional categories like religion or ethnicity. Her interviews with these pro-Soviet informants are illuminating, in that they show that this group has similar experiences to that of other minorities, such as being ostracized by the majority population for not being a “good Estonian” (p. 155), or the lack of proper representation of their “authentic and emotional memories” by government elites (p. 332). Melchior’s research thus highlights memory’s importance in academic research by validating its potential for analysing underrepresented groups and opinions in contemporary society.

“Guardians of Living History” engages with an impressive range of circles within Estonian society that provides us with a cohesive picture of the complexity of Estonia’s post-Soviet memory. However, Melchior – consciously – chose to exclude a specific group, the Russian-Estonians. Although this exclusion is justified due to differing cultural, political, and historical trajectories (p. 49), this means that the scope of the study is limited to only one particular group, namely that of ethnic Estonians. A study of Russian-Estonians’ narratives, particularly on their interactions with ethnic Estonians, could have added an interesting domestic focus, rather than one that is mainly based on foreign conflicts and the fear of Soviet/Russian hostility. Such a study would have been a huge divergence from Melchior’s study focus, but it certainly provides us with exciting perspectives for future research.

In closing, Melchior’s book is a brilliant introduction for readers interested in the former Eastern Bloc and its memory cultures, in Estonia as well as other countries with similar transitions from communist regimes to competing discourses on memory and representation. Next to Foucault’s counter-memory, the book brings into conversation many equally important concepts in memory studies, such as nostalgia, lieux de mémoire2, and postmemory.3 Additionally, Melchior’s multi-disciplinary approach that combines anthropological and historical methods will undoubtedly serve as inspiration for academics from various fields. As the former Soviet republics continue to scrutinize the Russian Federation’s political interest in its own perceived backyard, this study will undoubtedly retain its relevance for a time to come.

Notes:
1 Michel Foucault, Language, Counter-Memory, Practice. Selected Essays and Interviews, edited with an introduction by Donald F. Buchard, Ithaca 1977.
2 Pierre Nora, Realms of Memory. The Construction of the French Past, New York 1998.
3 Marianne Hirsch, The Generation of Postmemory. Writing and Visual Culture After the Holocaust, New York 2012.