Translation: Aare Pilv - Silent or a Deaf Era?

EPL: Vaikiv või kurt ajastu?

For a while, already for several years, it has seemed to me that there is a certain similarity in the way the society developed during the First Estonian Republic and is developing now. That we are in a danger of repeating the same mistakes only that we do not see the similarities.

I have thought every now and then that I would like to call the current period a “silent era”, but the parallel with the 1930ties does not hold up completely – anything can be said, the elections are free, there is no fear of repressions from the state etc. Yet Ahto Lobjakas' article “Riik kuu peal”¹ opens up the modern nature of that silence: not that it is impossible to speak, but rather the state itself remains silent and pretends as if the people were silent too.

The abuse of power is evident to everyone, it is even spoken publicly. Even the state partly admits this (e.g. the treacherous statement of the prime minister when the funding scandal begun that the “actual situation” should be legitimatized), but there lacks what would make communication truly communication: the actual part of the speech act – the speech act accomplishes nothing, i.e. there is no real action. (I refer here to the J. L. Austin's and J. Searle's theory of speech acts according to which the speech act is not merely limited to the uttering of a sentence. The purpose of any meaningful speech act is to do something, to act somehow, even if mentally.)

But what we see here is in essence a complete simulation of communication: some form of discussion does seem to take place, but this discussion has no connection with the realm of actions. Essentially, there is an interruption in the chain of communication: we see that the funding of one party (and other parties, probably) does not create trust (therefore it is in principle very hard to consider party politics trustworthy at all, because we simply do not know, what political influences are coming with the money), but we are essentially laughed at and said: “This can very well be so, although we do not admit it, and there is nothing you can do about it.”

Core of the silent era

We are not said “shush!”, nobody can say that our freedom of speech has been repressed. We simply are not heard until we reach that Wittgenstenian conclusion that what cannot be said, need be kept silent. And it is exactly in this sense that we have drifted to the core of a new silent era where we do not remain silent just because it is forbidden to speak, but rather constantly talk, because we are free to speak about anything, but the speech act has lost its central aspect – to be an action.

If the speech acts in public discussion on politics no longer have an influence to political actions, then it means that politics itself no longer remains in the public sphere. And this – political actions leaving from the grasp of public discussion – is exactly what also characterized the previous silent era. It is hard to call this democracy.

But there is a new kind of silence which is modern. A comparison would be like communicating with a computer. Probably all of us have given in to the illusion as though it were possible to communicate with a computer. We have angered at the computer when it seems to us that it is harassing us, as if there was some conscious process taking place inside the computer. No, the computer is merely a machine where certain processes operate when we enter the corresponding commands. And when we say to the computer for example “Well hurry up already,” we have a completely real and communicative relationship with the computer, only that the computer will not become faster because of what we said. Our speech act has no actual dimension for the computer. In reality we are silent, because the computer does not participate in the communication at all. Communication does not consist solely of saying something – the inevitable part of the speech act is the presumption of being heard.

This is also the situation with the state right now. Sometimes it feels as if a robot revolution, akin to science fiction, has already taken place, only not through robots becoming human (as it is always depicted – robots achieve self-awareness etc), but through people becoming robotic. And it makes sense that the state should act in a way that treats the country and the society as a mere machine that needs to be kept operational as economically as possible. It manages the country according to its own nature. Those currently in power are so thanks to free elections – but they have been chosen in a way one would choose between different computer brands in a store. They have been chosen by people who have failed to understand that the computer has no brain or heart, but a processor and a hard drive.

Deafness of the state

My previous sentences of course hint that the problem is not merely in the confrontation between the state and “us” - it is in some distorted “tiger leap” that includes the entire society, in a way “we” deserve what rules us. The question is, when was it that this robotized silent relationship between the people and the state fixated. Was it perhaps the spring of 2007² – it can be imagined that, at that time, the Russian population probably experienced something similar to what the society is now feeling as a whole? Or was it sometime earlier? But if so, when is that point in time when the choice fell in favor of the current situation. I do not say I know this – I am asking.

A friend of mine asked me whether it would be better to call this not silent but a deaf era. I think rather not. To describe this merely as a deafness of the state would mean that all responsibility lies on a malignant state unwilling to listen. I feel that the state's deafness is based on something in the society which could be described as the loss action from speech acts – that the inner strength of the speech act – which is what makes speaking a speech act – has faded somewhere, meaning that we are actually silent, even though we speak.

I wish to point out the paradox that even in the case of complete freedom of speech (Estonia is, after all, at the top of any free speech index) it can nonetheless happen that this freedom does not guarantee what it is established for – that the truth would be possible at all times.

The state's deafness is actually a symptom of something else – that the ties and connections inside the community which give the speech act its strength are lacking. And that is why it is important not only the fact that the state is deaf, but also that this deafness mirrors a certain silence. Because the kind of state we have now did not, after all, spring from a empty place, it corresponds to the society. Maybe it is not enough to just sadly admit that the state is a robot, but also necessary to ask if the reason behind it is the society's habit to speak with the state like a robot, without hoping any meaningful reply, merely inserting some line of command once every four years³ andconsidering it natural that the state will effectively carry out the process.

The people in power too are concrete individuals, so in that sense as well I would not want to strictly separate people speaking and a state being deaf – the logical conclusion of this would lead to an inner exile: “let's not communicate with the state at all, just between ourselves and then we'll show them!” We have a right to expect an response from those in power, because they are people too and should also belong to “our” circle and we should start thinking, what to do when a part of this circle no longer behaves like human beings. Because there is no escape from the state, let it at least be then as human as possible. We need to think how our speech acts would regain that presumption of being heard which gives meaning to speech.

I have no answers. What I say is a question intently waiting for answers.

1Postimees 17.10

2The author refers to the tensions culminating with the Bronze Night riots in April 2007.

3As in "just going to elections once every four years".