Reconsidering otherness: constructing Estonian identity n PILLE PETERSOO Institute of International and Social Studies, Tallinn University, Estonia ABSTRACT. The concept of the Other is increasingly popular in nationalism and ethnicity literature, which usually proposes the existence of one significant Other for any national Self, and that this Other is usually threatening and negative. This approach is one-sided and in need of revision. I suggest that any nation may have many simultaneously existing Others, and more importantly, these Others need not be negative – they may also be positive. By exploring how (1) ‘the Other’ matters in identity construction; (2) there can be several Others at any one time; (3) the Other can be positive as well as negative; (4) the role of any given Other can change during various phases of national identity construction and maintenance; and (5) the particular ‘otherness’ of the Other has social and political consequences, this article will reconsider the role of otherness in the construction, transformation and main- tenance of Estonian national identity. Identity and Otherness The word ‘identity’, writes Richard Jenkins, comes from the Latin identitas, from idem, meaning ‘the same’. The Oxford English Dictionary gives two basic meanings to ‘identity’: The first is a concept of absolute sameness: this is identical to that. The second is a concept of distinctiveness which presumes consistency or continuity over time. Approaching the idea of sameness from two different angles, the notion of identity simultaneously establishes two possible relations of comparison between persons or things: similarity, on the one hand, and difference, on the other (Jenkins 1996: 4). This definition indicates that identity is ‘operative only dialectically, i.e. in connection with its opposite, otherness’ (Therborn 1995: 229). Similarity and difference are implicit in one another – Therborn even suggests that ‘there is a primacy of otherness over sameness in the making of identity’, that ‘Alter is primary to Ego’(ibid.). Indeed, a number of recent nationalism theories have Nations and Nationalism 13 (1), 2007, 117–133. r The author 2007. Journal compilation r ASEN/Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2007 n I would like to thank Professor David McCrone and Dr Michael Rosie from the University of Edinburgh, and Dr Vello Pettai from the University of Tartu, as well as the anonymous referees for their helpful comments on the earlier drafts of this paper. I also wish to thank the ESRC for their post-doctoral fellowship PTA-026-27-0446 that enabled me to write up this article.