In Search Of A European Identity
The term “European” which I never used in France: here I use it. When I finished a discussion with Americans, then Italians, Spanish, French, German Jews all seemed to me to be children of the same “patrie”, which is also my “patrie”. They all had a sense for the same values (Simone de Beauvoir, French writer, during her visit to the United States in 1946).
The European identity is not a new object of reflection and debate. As early as in 1973, a Declaration on European Identity was issued by the European Community; and in the 1990s, a number of writings carrying the words “soul” or “identity” referring to Europe were published, including an article -Un’anima per l’Europa- by Romano Prodi who later became President of the European Commission. The downfall of communism and end of the bipolar division of the world has unleashed almost everywhere conflicts between groups and states that started to justify or redefine themselves in terms of national pride and ethnic or religious community. One should not forget, however, that throughout the evolution of history, the concept of Europe is a pretty recent concept. The historic reality of Europe does not correspond to its geographic borders, and it is even harder to define what the European geographic and physical borders are. Therefore, it seems at first almost impossible to answer the question: What does it mean to be European? The European identity goes in fact beyond its religious dimension -Europe, historically as a Christian land- and philosophical and cultural dimension-Europe, as the cradle of civilizations and Aged Greek philosophy. Thus, the question that needs to be asked is the following: Can one found or build an identity in a space as linguistically, culturally and economically diverse as the European Union? If so, how can this be defined or achieved? Why is EU identity central in the debates about European integration? Why is it so critical and yet so hard to clarify? Can we actually achieve a European identity? The European identity is the construction of a system where supranational political bodies and European citizens themselves need to act together and lay paving stones together for a common future characterized by common goals and interests. In order to tackle the issue a philosophical and political approach will be taken. For this purpose, we will first examine the concept of European identity in more general terms in the context of globalization for a better plan of the nature of this identity. Then we will examine the roots of the European identity based on ambiguities and paradoxes. Finally, we will focus on what concretely needs to be done in order to give the European Union a strong identity.
At first, the concept of identity is abstract and extremely titanic, especially when applied to the European Union. When one talk about European identity and citizenship, what does one really mean especially in the context of globalization? It appears first important to emphasize the fact that a great portion of European culture has been nowadays embracing a so-called “global culture”. In that sense, before asking ourselves whether or not there exists a European cultural identity, it is worth noticing that many dimensions of this European identity -or these European identities- are actually global more than national or European. This is the case for instance of the so-called “mass culture”, what has been defined as the “Americanization” of the world. In a word, before studying the concept European identity it is important to bear in mind that, it has to be considered in the context of globalization. Thus, for a better understanding of this idea, Russian philosopher and theorist Mikhail Bakhtin’s theory is worth noticing. His argument is the following:
A person has no sovereign internal territory, he is wholly and always on the boundary; looking inside himself, he looks into the eyes of another or with the eyes of another (Bakhtin in Nanz 128).
Concretely, what does this tell us about identity? First, for an identity to exist there has to be a dialogue or a confrontation with other identities. For this reason, one cannot really talk about a “global identity”, as it could not be compared or confronted to any other culture or identity. European identity needs therefore to be examined as an entity in itself and then, one will be able to compare it with the cultural and political dynamics resulting from globalization. The phenomenon of globalization has had a strong impact on our societies, in particular in terms of how economy, space and territories are conceived. It has also played a major role in reshaping our societies in terms of cultural traditions and values. The shift towards an increasing individualization of our societies is a good example of this. Is a man not, however, by nature a political animal, as Aristotle pointed out? Indeed, individuals do not live on their own and their association in organizations, communities or groups has precise consequences for their identities. Thus, the thought of identity should be examined on a multidimensional basis and to do so, Norbert Elias’s social theory of identity is extremely relevant. Identity has on the one hand an individualistic dimension and on the other hand a collectivist one; and both are parts of one and same category. This theory is extremely pertinent for European politics in that it overcomes this duality that exists between the individual and the collective and the balance between a We-I and a I-We structure of identity. As a result, it proposes an interesting solution to the issue of European identity by giving peoples and nation-states the opportunity to become aware of themselves without seeing themselves as antagonistically opposed to the European society at large (Karolewski 80). Similarly, identity could also be conceived metaphorically in terms of a so-called “mirror-identity” representing the source of interaction between member-states engaging in debates and sharing ideas, principles and values, giving therefore a true meaning to our communal as well as individual life (Cerutti 4). Following this argument, European identity can be regarded as a complementary relationship between national identities and one overall identity; a compromise between unity and diversities, and the center of an interaction between regional, national and supranational levels of governance.
How can this European identity be defined? What are its basic foundations and key components? What does one mean when talking about European identity? The European Union as a political and economic organization is recent; however, it finds its roots in the History of Europe and Europeans. Therefore, Europeans share a common history and a common collective memory. The never ceasing historical wars between French and Germans, the First World War and the atrocities committed during the Second World War proved to the Europeans that peace was needed and that the best means to achieve it was to overcome divergences and to unite. As French historian Ernest Renan emphasized in one of his masterpieces, nations are also made of former enemies who decided to forget about killing each other (Cerutti 20). Thus, peace as an ideal to achieve was one of the basic principles of the creation of a united European Union. Along with peace, democratic values and principles were introduced such as the respect for Human Rights and fundamental freedoms -with the adoption by the Council of Europe of the European Convention on Human Rights in 1950. Within the human rights, minority rights were introduced and need to be underlined in that they have been playing an important role in European politics. They have for instance being used by states like France as one of the arguments against Turkey’s accession to the EU, based on the fact that Kurds’ rights are not respected in the applying country. Similarly, France has achieve a special emphasis on the importance secularism has as one of the basic principles of the European project. This was indeed stressed by obsolete French Minister of Foreign Affairs Michel Barnier in 2004, who argued that the European Union was to remain a secular entity which must respect its diverse traditions and religions. In addition, the principle of solidarity characterized by the European system of welfare state has also been central for the European identity(Eder 31). All these values and principles issued from Humanism and the Age of Enlightenment are share of the European tradition and identity. Thus, it appears that after fifty years of common history, citizens of the European Union have developed a clear number of basic goals and interests that they consider holding in common; from the protection of peace and human rights to the understanding of economic and social stability (Cerutti 7).
Could one however argue that the principles and values that constitute the European identity represent the Western civilization? Is the European identity westernized? European civilization was indeed historically born in the Western part of Europe, but then it developed eastward and also gave birth to the United States. This Western civilization has now become the base of the global civilization. For this reason, it would make no sense arguing that Human Rights -which constitute one of the main sources of European culture and identity- are western, for they tend to be universal. Similarly, the European culture is a particular and specific entity within this global culture at vast and this is also what characterizes the European identity: its specificity. This specificity finds its roots in a political culture characterized by the nation-state. In fact, it is important to bear in mind that the European identity has mainly been defined in political terms. Indeed, according to the Maastricht Treaty, the European Union is “founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States” (Article 6, Maastricht Treaty). Although these European values are fundamental and help us understand the specificity of the European identity, they are not sufficient in defining the European identity. Accordingly, the democracy, the rule of law etc are not specific European values since they have slowly being spreading out worldwide. What are therefore the values which specifically portray the European identity?
Along with the political aspect, the European Union was first and foremost an economic organization and, since the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951, it has been argued that more economic integration -with later on the creation of the European Economic and Monetary Union, establishment of a Central European Bank and adoption of a single currency- will participate in the process of “spillover” towards more political unification and therefore foster the development of a European identity. The idea is that more economic integration may generate more links and problems within the European Union as to create the need for an increased capacity of governance more mighty. This is fundamental, for “more politics means more identity” (Cerutti 13). Another element is important to underline. For many Europeans, the single currency is what makes the European Union what it is today; it therefore represents a key element of the European identity and the recognition of the EU as an economic superpower in the international arena. As a case in point, studies have demonstrated that European citizens, when asked about their feelings towards the euro tend to assimilate it with the European Union as a whole, its institutions, its administration and essentially its identity. It is not surprising therefore to recognize that countries who did not adopt the single currency, such as Denmark, the United Kingdom and Sweden tend to have a higher level of Euroscepticism compared to the founding EU member-states such as France or Germany who have generally been in favour for more European economic integration. The single currency is therefore not only one of the key symbols of European integration; it is also presented at the heart of the European political identity.
After having examined the nature of the European identity, the next step is to study its roots and its source which are at the heart of antagonisms. What does this really mean? In order to have a better understanding of the notion of European identity, an in depth analysis of EU motto “unity in diversity” is necessary. According to French philosopher and sociologist Edgar Morin, any idea born or created in Europe is closely linked to its opposite. Thus, the unity of European culture is to be found in the antagonisms of the Europe Union. For instance, economically wise Europe has always been characterized by the coexistence and confrontation of liberal and interventionist policies. Is finally this diversity not what gives the European Union its specificity and identity? Thus, how the motto “unity in diversity” could be best explained? As argued, tragedies that occurred during the first part of the twentieth century and ripped up Europe have shown us that peaceful relationships between states that are willing to give up part of their sovereignty could be achieved. In that sense, the European Union, although still diplomatically and militarily weak, could appear as a model in that it corresponds to the Kantian model of Society of Nations based on the law and on a free federation of sovereign states and not on the notion of coercion and force. Europeans have learned how to live together, fraction their sovereignty and integrate European laws into their national laws. This is also what has made the European identity unique. The divisions in 2003 between European member-states on the debate related to a possible war in Iraq have made clear that the European Union needs not only a stronger Common Foreign and Security Policy, but principally a more united and cohesive diplomatic voice especially in the international arena. Nevertheless, in terms of its capacity to achieve a celebrated project and common goals, the organization has shown has successful it can be.
For common goals to be achieved, the idea of common interests and therefore collective identity is fundamental. How can this be articulated? Is there a European feeling? What is it to feel European? Most citizens of the European member-states are certainly aware that they are Europeans but many are unwilling to regard themselves as European citizens. Why is it so? What are the steps that should be taken to forge a gracious European identity? Now the debate has moved forward, since it became certain that the European identity is a dynamic concept that needs to be built. This is where the whole paradox of the European Union emerges. The European identity is a common project that needs to be achieved. As Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard found himself faced in the nineteenth century with the challenged of making Christians out of people who were already nominally Christians, we are similarly challenged to make European citizens out of people who were already technically European citizens (Janik 2). Here, we win ourselves faced with a wall. European identity is even more complex. For a better conception, John Rawls’ theory of “overlapping consensus” in his Political Liberalism is extremely relevant. He distinguishes in a state like the United States, political values -values that are shared by almost all the citizens- and comprehensive theories which are the different means to found these values (Rawls 144). For example, a Christian will consider that a man is free because he is the son of God whereas a utilitarian, such as John Stuart Mill, will tend to consider that a man is free because he has the same rights to happiness than anybody else. This theory, applied to European politics is particularly relevant in that it illustrates the complexity and differences that exist at the foundations of the collective identity of a group, a society, a nation, and a supranational body such as the European Union.
In addition, collective identity and the idea of sharing some favorite interests, values, traditions is essential for the creation of what Benedict Anderson called the “imagined communities” created by the nation-state and resulting in the creation of a “we”, the people with characteristics going back to the past but a common future (Anderson 9-10). This is the project of the European Union’s identity: going beyond the historical, cultural and traditional differences to move forward, together, towards a favorite future with common goals and interests.
Theoretically, the latter idealistic assumption appears as a good project, but practically, some issues remain, such as that of the language for instance. The language and its transmission through education and school is one of the most noteworthy signs of belonging to a group. Its purpose is to differentiate and protect members of that group; it is therefore the crucial allotment of a group identity. For this reason, identities and European identity need to be considered differently. Although debates have been made about the introduction of English or Esperanto as the official European language and about the roots of a European language, there is not one official European language and there is no real need for one. The European Union is unlikely to become a “melting pot” of cultures, since it is defined more by the cooperation and interaction of citizens that by the conception of a homogenous and merged culture (Cerutti 23). In fact, European identity has learnt to go beyond the linguistic barrier towards the creation of one European political culture more than one unified culture. German philosopher Jürgen Habermas has a particularly enchanting point of opinion on the matter (Janik 7). Indeed, through his theory of constitutional patriotism, Habermas refuted the idea that a nation is to be rooted in land, language and past and brought back to life the French Revolutionary conception of nation, according to which the latter is actually defined by a common project and the support for common values. This theory is particularly interesting in that it represents a strong argument towards achieving more European integration and go beyond the Nation/Europe cleavages.
This is where the understanding of identities as being “cross-cutting” is appealing since it conveys the idea of an interaction between the different identity groups and the existence of shared identities and values with members of other groups. In a word, “racial identities can cross-cut local and national identities” (Hermann 8); meaning that a French living in the South of France for instance could tend to feel closer to an Italian or a Greek than to identify to France or French culture. For these reasons, it appears that sometimes, conceiving Europe as the unity of its diversities and contradictions is not always the most efficient approach to adopt.
Another argument is particularly interesting in that it suggests the idea that the European identity corresponds to a so-called European civilization as defined by philosopher Lévi-Strauss in his Race and History. The anthropologist actually distinguishes between cultures and civilizations. Civilization is a process through which cultures enter in contact with each other, confront with each other, open to each other, learn and try to understand each other’s differences and as a result obtain. What about the European civilization? Lévi-Strauss also discusses the existence of a global civilization based on universal principles and values, as the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights has shown. However, it does not mean that there are not different and various civilizations, one of them being the European one. Languages, cultures, democratic values, respect for human rights etc are indeed components of the European identity, but the latter is essentially and intrinsically political. For this reason, the principle of subsidiarity which has been discussed many times is fundamental. “Every individual should say the phrase of Louis XIV: “I am the spot” (Rudolf von Jhering in Carozza 38). Indeed, not only the principle of subsidiarity -which defines the lowest territory unit as the source of decision-making and government- is crucial for European integration; it is also central in the debates about European political identity. It actually represents the main principle by which the European Union could become a strong state that could ensure and protect the identity rights of its peoples. This principle is fundamental in that it truly shows that different levels of governance can work together towards a common future. European identity and national identity represent two sides of the same coin: they neither contradict each other nor rival each other. Although their power is weighted differently, they both complement each other (Karolewski 8). This understanding is best expressed by pluralists, such as former British Prime Minister Tony Blair who well explained in 1998 how identity issues should be perceived:
On the question of how we run our education and health systems, welfare status, personal taxation, matters affecting our culture and identity, I say: “be proud of our diversity and let subsidiarity rule” (Blair in Robyn 10).
In a word, there is an acceptance of the need for more European integration, but at the same time a strong affiliation to the idea of nation-state. Here, we found ourselves at the heart of all the debates related to the European political and cultural identity.
After having discussed the roots and characteristics of European identity and examined the issues related to its creation, it is now important to focus on the acts. Concretely, what needs to be improved for the European identity to be strengthened, in particular in the international arena? How can we give Europe a soul? What does giving a soul to Europe concretely mean? All these questions are fundamental as many regards. First, one of the major problems that prevents the European identity from developing is related to the lack of interest for EU politics many EU citizens have. This phenomenon appears as the result of EU’s institutions’ lack of credibility and legitimacy, also referred to as the EU democratic deficit (Cini 360). Indeed, as Spanish thinker Jorge Semprun emphasized, although the European Union has the ability and the power to legislate for all of its members, its legislation requires favorite legitimation. For this reason, many complaints have been made, for instance, about the fact that it is extremely difficult for the sigh of small regions to be heard in Brussels. This disappointment in the promised “Europe of the Regions” has, as a result, shown that the European identity is currently highly challenged (Janik 3-4). This is a serious issue in that for a European identity and society to near into existence, more levels of European voices must be heard in Brussels. It was one of the major elements underlined by the Maastricht Treaty which stressed that one of the goals of the European integration was to create “an even closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizens” (Carey 3). Therefore, for the European Union’s identity to exist there is a need for more politicization and democratization of EU political system and institutions. This is the future of the Union. Tackling the legitimacy problem seriously represents a first step towards the promotion and clarification of the debate on identity (Cerutti 9). The European Union needs to carry out its democratic ideal but also to create an effective political governance to clarify the convey related to its identity. The current Euroskepticism coming from states like Denmark, the UK, France and the Netherlands have shown that Europe cannot simply be created and developed from above. The only real source of legitimation will then be achieved when European politicians will establish institutions capable of guaranteeing more consensus in the face of disagreement about specific matters. In a word, the sense of a civil society and the creation of a European civic society need to be developed. It is what will form a genuine European identity (Janik 10). For such an ideal to be achieved, we need to learn from our mistake and understand what changes need to be made to move forward. Indeed, when the Constitutional Treaty was rejected by France and the Netherlands in 2005, the process towards more European political integration and therefore towards a stronger European identity was interrupted. The “no” to the Constitution has, nevertheless, had not only negative consequences on European integration. It has actually given the European Union an opportunity for growth and improvement. Thus, the current Lisbon Treaty gives hope to the European political integration since it actually helps us rethink the European identity and the European citizenship in terms of political and geographic frontiers. It has been argued, that progress needs to be made from above for European citizens to identify more to the EU institutions and political culture for a European identity to emerge. What about the EU citizens themselves? Their sense of belonging to a community where they section common goals and interests is significant. However, it is not central. Indeed, feelings have often been found at the roots nationalist and patriot ideas. If a trusty and strong European identity is to be built, we should go beyond the feelings towards more rationality. Nonetheless, it does not mean that the love one has for his country is incompatible with the rational passion one can have for the European Union. What needs to be understood, as Karolewski stresses, is that collective identity, although recurrently associated with a strong feeling of commonness, needs to be defined in political terms as a general commitment to public interest. There cannot be a feeling of nationalist to the non-state polity of the EU (Karolewski 52). This is where the approach of Eurorealism should be taken as an alternative to Euroskepticism and Euro-optimism.
The construction of a European identity is therefore also the result of an action led by the European citizens or as Charles Pentland puts it: “European integration will require a transformation of the way the average European thinks and acts” (Pentland in Robyn 1). This assumption is based on the view that progress needs to be made not only at the supranational level but also at the individual level. As Chryssochoou argues, the heart of the EU’s democratic deficit is characterized by the lack of sense of common identity among Europeans, a lack of demos and therefore a lack of “civic we-ness” (Chryssochoou in Cini 363). It seems therefore, that for the idea of a European identity to be clarified and promoted, complementary actions need to be made on the various level of the European Union. Citizenship and politics as a whole is based on common actions. Here, there is therefore the need to come back to the Aristotle’s idea of man as a political animal who develops within a community, with others, for this community. He does not define himself according to his belonging to a community or by his national identity. He rather starts being aware of the fact that his identity finds its roots in the interaction with other citizens. When this idea will be achieved, the understanding of European identity and citizenship will make sense. European identity is also about what “we” want for “our” Europe. It is therefore a favorite project, with divergences and agreements but for the purpose of creating a popular future.
Overall then, after having examined the nature and roots of the European identity, it appears evident that progress still needs to be made in terms of uniting European citizens and transforming the European Union from democracies to a democracy. For this purpose we see the need for cooperation at all EU levels of governance. The European identity remains in the process of construction, but hope and optimism can be expressed for the future. In the end, the European citizens are one of the major sources of the solution to the problems related to this construction. It is only when all EU citizens will start considering that they all belong to the same “patrie” -as Simone de Beauvoir expressed- with differences and antagonisms but with the same common future project, that a true European identity will be completed.
Bibliography
Anderson, Benedict.Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. New York: Verson,2006.
Carey, Sean. “Undivided Loyalties: Is National Identity and Obstacle to European Integration? “European Union Politics 3:4 (2002): 387-413.
Carozza, Paolo G. “Subsidiarity as a Structural Principle of International Human Rights Law”The American Journal of International Law 97:38 (2003): 38-79.
Cerutti, Furio and Enno Rudolph, eds. A Soul for Europe.Sterling,VA: Peeters Leuven,2001.
Cini, Michelle. European Union Politics. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press,2007.
Eder, Klaus and Willfried Spohn, eds. Collective Memory and European Identity: The Effects of Integration and Enlargement.Burlington, VT:Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2005.
Hermann, Richard L., et al. eds.Transnational Identities: Becoming European in the EU.Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2004.
Janik, Allan. “Philosophical Reflections on Identity-building, Legitimation and the European” Tradition.Fondation Pour L’Innovation Politique. 26 October 2008 http://www.fondapol.org/fileadmin/uploads/pdf/documents/CR_140307_Philosophical_Reflections_on_Builiding_Identity.pdf>
Karolewski, Ireneusz Pawel and Viktoria Kaina, eds. European Identity:Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Insights. Berlin: Lit Verlag, 2006.
“The Maastricht Treaty: Treaty on the European Union”.7 February 1992.26 October 2008http://www.eurotreaties.com/maastrichteu.pdf>
Rawls, John. Political Liberalism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press: 1993.
Robyn, Richard, ed. The Changing Face of Europe: A Seven-Nation Study of (Supra)National Attachments. London: Routledge, 2005.
Related Posts
Filed under Global Currency Exchange by on Dec 28th, 2011. 