Official and Unofficial Histories: The Case of Estonia

AbstractWe argue that in order to understand how and why history is taught and learned, it is necessary to distinguish between "official" and "unofficial" history. Using this distinction, we examine differing historical representations of events in 1940 that resulted in Estonia's becoming part of the Soviet Union. Results from interviews with six ethnic Estonians are reported in an attempt to examine the differences between their understanding of the official and unofficial histories of the 1940 events. A basic distinction emerged between the official Soviet history, with its relatively coherent narrative line, and the unofficial history, which seems to consist of a set of unorganized anecdotal stories. We suggest that the unofficial historical representation can be understood as a set of counterclaims to the basic claims included in official history and that the unofficial history is generated through a kind of "hidden dialogicality" with the official one. (Psychology; Education)