We here in America like to think we know what's going on over there. Somewhere along the line, Europeans all decided it was high time they got a little cozier with their neighbors, trade in their currencies, and open their borders to each other... because they're just one continent of small car-driving, social welfare-loving people after all, right?
These are of course stereotypes and broad oversimplifications; ones that my American colleagues would likely agree dominate our sometimes critical and mostly romanticized notion of the European continent and those who live there. But who are they really-- and perhaps the better question is-- is there even a "they" to speak of?
The question of European identity is not just interesting to consider from a social or anthropological standpoint; in Europe the question is decidedly political and absolutely relevant to the future of the European Union and its stakeholders as a polity. The question is not new; conceiving of the limits of European integration and of shifting sovereignties has been of special interest to EU bureaucrats since the late 1980s and early 1990s, when European institutions took on many new areas of competency and the European Union began to be considered as something greater than an inner market. The anxiety-inducing topic of discussion in Brussels is that the European Union will-- if it hasn't already-- encounter its political and economic limits unless people start feeling European.
These are of course stereotypes and broad oversimplifications; ones that my American colleagues would likely agree dominate our sometimes critical and mostly romanticized notion of the European continent and those who live there. But who are they really-- and perhaps the better question is-- is there even a "they" to speak of?
The question of European identity is not just interesting to consider from a social or anthropological standpoint; in Europe the question is decidedly political and absolutely relevant to the future of the European Union and its stakeholders as a polity. The question is not new; conceiving of the limits of European integration and of shifting sovereignties has been of special interest to EU bureaucrats since the late 1980s and early 1990s, when European institutions took on many new areas of competency and the European Union began to be considered as something greater than an inner market. The anxiety-inducing topic of discussion in Brussels is that the European Union will-- if it hasn't already-- encounter its political and economic limits unless people start feeling European.
What's going on in Europe is a largely elite-driven experiment to see if truly, post-nationalism is possible. Some things are generally agreed upon-- the merits of an open and competitive European market, ease of travel, a common currency-- but where the EU stands on unstable ground is its ability to touch social issues. Of course, EU leadership is careful not to purposely step on any toes too soon, emphasizing in most Commission documents that edge in on aspects of social policy that core competencies are still delegated to the Member States under the principle of subsidiarity. It might surprise most Americans that most of the things Europeans can't seem to agree on have to do with state-run welfare, but on the other hand this makes sense: national welfare programs are expensive, politically sensitive, and vary widely.
The focus in most of the research and in the EU’s own attempts to monitor questions of identity and support for integration has been on a national basis in each Member State. Since 1973, the Eurobarometer surveys have been administered by the Commission twice a year in each Member State to examine trends in attitudes towards integration, looking at both shifting attitudes over time and differences between Member States in terms of their level of support. Drawing from a large body of data on attitudes towards the EU, European scholars and the EU institutions alike have shown considerable interest in identifying the national identity considerations factoring into support (or lack thereof) for the European project. Characterizing each nation by their level of support has been conceptualized in much of the literature as distinguishing between the nations of “Euroskeptics” and the nations of “Europhiles.”
But what is it that makes them quintessentially European nonetheless? Popular notions of Europe being a physical place is certainly troubled by its misty division from Asia and the EU's possible expansion to places that aren't really all that much on the European continent. The Roman empire itself included much of North Africa-- what makes some of the former empire popularly Europe and some of it decidedly not? There are debates that "Europe" exists along other lines such as the linguisitic, political, religious and cultural, but no theory really proves European identity to be a tangible, definable thing. Surely, democracy and the rule of law are important binding characteristics of the Member States of the European Union, but these exist elsewhere in the world and it's probably reasonable to suggest that the U.S. will not be offered EU membership anytime soon.
The focus in most of the research and in the EU’s own attempts to monitor questions of identity and support for integration has been on a national basis in each Member State. Since 1973, the Eurobarometer surveys have been administered by the Commission twice a year in each Member State to examine trends in attitudes towards integration, looking at both shifting attitudes over time and differences between Member States in terms of their level of support. Drawing from a large body of data on attitudes towards the EU, European scholars and the EU institutions alike have shown considerable interest in identifying the national identity considerations factoring into support (or lack thereof) for the European project. Characterizing each nation by their level of support has been conceptualized in much of the literature as distinguishing between the nations of “Euroskeptics” and the nations of “Europhiles.”
But what is it that makes them quintessentially European nonetheless? Popular notions of Europe being a physical place is certainly troubled by its misty division from Asia and the EU's possible expansion to places that aren't really all that much on the European continent. The Roman empire itself included much of North Africa-- what makes some of the former empire popularly Europe and some of it decidedly not? There are debates that "Europe" exists along other lines such as the linguisitic, political, religious and cultural, but no theory really proves European identity to be a tangible, definable thing. Surely, democracy and the rule of law are important binding characteristics of the Member States of the European Union, but these exist elsewhere in the world and it's probably reasonable to suggest that the U.S. will not be offered EU membership anytime soon.
So. Europe doesn't exist. Close down the blog. Debate over.
Unfortunately, this answer doesn't help anyone. The EU exists-- and exercises growing global economic clout-- even if the notions of Europe and what it means to be European are elusive concepts. There is something that makes them work together on a great number of things that are undeniably key to peace and stability among them. Even if we don't know what this is, in the U.S., it's crucial that we understand as much as we can about what's working and what isn't within its multi-level governance structure, what the Member States agree on and what they don't; only in this way will we really know what's going on over there... and be better prepared to 'meet the Europeans' on the foreign policy playing field.
Michelle Melton is a contributor to U.S. Watch on Europe and is a 2010 Master's degree recipient from James Madison University's European Union Policy Studies program based in Florence, Italy.
Unfortunately, this answer doesn't help anyone. The EU exists-- and exercises growing global economic clout-- even if the notions of Europe and what it means to be European are elusive concepts. There is something that makes them work together on a great number of things that are undeniably key to peace and stability among them. Even if we don't know what this is, in the U.S., it's crucial that we understand as much as we can about what's working and what isn't within its multi-level governance structure, what the Member States agree on and what they don't; only in this way will we really know what's going on over there... and be better prepared to 'meet the Europeans' on the foreign policy playing field.
Michelle Melton is a contributor to U.S. Watch on Europe and is a 2010 Master's degree recipient from James Madison University's European Union Policy Studies program based in Florence, Italy.
No comments:
Post a Comment