Europe and Identity

Table of content

Introduction

Definition of key concepts

Identity

Europe

Approaches on European identity in the EU

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The course “European Society: individuals, groups and institutions” has shown me different perspectives on Europe and its "members”. Being “European” is often used in the context of EU citizens (Europe Today, 2019) or associated with the European Union as a political and economic institution or even as a union of states guided by values (Europe Today, 2019); (Pascale Joannin, 2022).

That's why I started thinking about myself and what do I understand by “European”. Why do I feel “European”? Listening to the voices of young people in the video “What does it mean to be European?” from the Erasmus Student Network AISBL (Erasmus Student Network AISBL, 2019) as well as reading the arguments from our course discussion (Tetiana Havlin and course participants of "European Society: Institutions, Groups, Individuals", 2021), have revealed that beneath my idea of Europe and my feeling of being European raised with German, Catalan and Spanish cultural and linguistic influence, exist parallelly many other ideas originated by other influences.

According to the special Eurobarometer survey from 2020, in general, “56% of respondents across the EU indicate identifying with being European, [...].” (Kantar Brussels, 2021, p. 30). Therefore, I asked myself: What does (being) “European” actually mean? What does “identity” mean?

Arnold Labrie, my former professor from Maastricht University, tried to approach the term “identity” and asserts: “To be conscious of identity is already halfway to have lost it. Awareness of identity inevitable implies a sense of non-identity, i.e. of otherness.” (Arnold Labrie, 2014, p. 9). But is he right?

In my opinion, but also in the general opinion of the scientific community, regarding this dynamic time full of changes in our modern world, it is relevant to try to understand the meaning of identity - also concerning the rises of extremists, right-winged parties (Pascale Joannin, 2022) (Tetiana Havlin and course participants of "European Society: Institutions, Groups, Individuals", 2021) or even the identarian movement (Deutsche Welle (www.dw.com), 2022). Mainly all of these mentioned groups misuse the term identity which is also the reason for their attempts to “defend” their identity, culture and way of life (Deutsche Welle (www.dw.com), 2022). According to Joannin (2022), the revival of populism and extremism are strong symptoms of the identity crisis that is affecting many of the EU's member states. But as many affected states are part of the European Union which's Maastricht treaty's article 2 proclaims the EU to be

“founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.” (European Union, p. 17) - shouldn't these countries and their people share (mostly) then a common European identity?

This essay examines: To what extent exists a European Identity?

First, the terms “identity” and “Europe” will be defined with the help of thoughts from nationalism, essentialism and social constructivism. In the main part, I will discuss the research question, using the resulting understandings of “identity” and “Europe”, from different approaches, e.g. etymological, geographical, historical, political and conceptual, to examine, to what extent exists a European identity in the EU. This essay will conclude with an attempt of answering to the research question.

“Attempt”, because looking at the argumentative structure of this analysis a core problem concerning the concept of identity has been sidestepped: the operationalization or methods of measuring “identity”. Identity is not a scientific phenomenon that can be easily measured. Identity is a socially constructed, subjectively perceptible good. It is therefore also difficult to measure identity and the sense of belonging to a certain identity, being part of a certain identity. To reflect at this point Anthony D. Smith, it is possible and there is plenty of historical evidence for the coexistence of concentric circles of allegiance (Then & Now, 2022). I am able to feel German, Spanish, Catalan but also European identity at the same time.

It is therefore almost impossible to establish identity empirically. As already mentioned in this introduction, some surveys ask about concrete, individual identification with certain values, communities or other aspects, but the interpretation of the data - usually from 1: “not at all identifying” to 10: “strong identification” - is based on and referred to pure quasi metric variables¹, which are therefore not so easy to compare and examine.

Because of this, I do not rely on surveys in this work, but on social scientific theories and criteria related to identity formation.

Definition of key concepts

Identity

What does identity mean? Due to rapid and fundamental changes in the modern world - since in the pre-modern world (societal) change was very slow - searching for “identity” and trying to define the concept of “identity” became a relatively modern and versatile problem that is taken up in various scientific disciplines (Eder, 2009, p. 432). There existed for each individual a fixed position in society due to the station of birth, which ended with the French and Industrial Revolutions. Therefore it was nearly impossible that identity could become a personal problem (Arnold Labrie, 2014, p. 9). Changes in our modern world are strongly linked to our augmenting social, digital and geographical mobility, for which reason the idea of identity, belonging to a certain group or region, becomes essential. Each individual seems to define and carry his own identity - in other words, the culture of an individual becomes its identity.

Labrie explains that the search for identity may be the essence of being modern (Arnold Labrie, 2014, p. 9): The modern world consists of individuals and all of them try to “find their right place in this world of change, where social roles constantly switch” (Arnold Labrie, 2014, p. 10). As society is consisting of individuals, the permanent search for identity becomes as well a collective problem of identity-seeking.

The concept of identity is linked with two theories of social thinking: Essentialism and social constructivism :

Richard L. Cartwright, an American philosopher of language and emeritus professor of philosophy at MIT, defines essentialism as

“[...] the doctrine that among the attributes of a thing some are essential, others merely accidental. Its essential attributes are those it has necessarily, those it could not have lacked. Its accidental attributes are those it has only contingently, those it might not have bad.” (Cartwright, 1968, p. 615).

In other words: certain phenomena seem to be eternal or perennial naturally given, inevitable, and kind of biologically determined. In the context of identity, this means that some characteristics of an individual or collective identity are not depending on human (inter)actions.

The theory of social constructivism has a completely different, opposite, point of view: Social constructivism is historically contingent, depending on the human action(s) in history. The theory understands human reality/society as the product of human (inter)action under specific social and historical conditions and of how humans perceive and conceptualize such (inter)actions (see Bourdieu, Mead, Popitz). These are perceptions and conceptions that again will change with historical circumstances and according to the different (social, cultural) positions of different groups of people under such conditions (e.g. notions of 'race' or 'nation' or 'Europe').

For social constructivists there exist two important aspects which rule the societal system: Sharing the same values and norms, and language in terms of communicating and understanding these values and norms in different situations (Arnold Labrie, 2014, p. 10).

If both theories are brought together, it emerges that collective identity (based on the ideas of nationalism, e.g. Arnold Labrie, 2014) is formed from two components: first, the notion of historical continuity and second, the notion of “the Other” (a marked sense of the difference between the “in-group” and one or more significant others).

First: We “socially construct” history by inventing and reinforcing certain traditions (Eric Hobsbawm, 1983, p. 1) such as anniversaries^{2 3} or commemorations⁴ and by orientating ourselves on the import of collective remembrance (“ Lieux de mémoires”, (Ageron & Nora, 1984)). which we choose and re-choose. Since Ageron and Nora are French, in the book treated symbols are e.g. the tricolour, the Marseillaise, or monuments such as the Pantheon. In the European context, the lieux de mémoires, positive as well as negative, include e.g. plans for a European piece, the congress of Vienna, Greek history and democracy, crusades (11th and 12th century), religious wars, the battle of Verdun, the Shoah, heroes (Vercingétorix or Hermann⁵ ), and more. Whereas positive lieux de mémoires are mostly seen as European commonalities, negative lieux de mémoires are mostly seen as national differences but bonding together the confrontation with a “significant other”.

Summing up: “we” apply selective memory which means that “we” only choose certain facts in the present which explain what we want to hear from the past. “We” are also capable to forget certain lieux de mémoires. If there is no common past, there is no community, no identity.

Second: Labrie (2014) claims that we are not able to perceive ourselves without taking into consideration of others and that “Identity is much more about the borderlines between us and our significant others, […]. […],” and that these “[…] borders are fluid and permeable and can shift over time.”

[...]

¹ Note: I work as a statistics tutor for social scientists at the University of Siegen. 4

² p. 128 (100th anniversary of the Habsburg monarchy); p.129 (100th anniversary of Columbus discovery of America); p. 264 (turning his birthday (Emperor William I) into a genuine national anniversary); etc. (Eric Hobsbawm und Terence Ranger (1983).

³ Eric Hobsbawn (1983, p. 281).

⁴ See David Cannadine (1983, p. 120); David Cannadine (1983, p. 154).

⁵ Arnold Labrie (2014, p. 13).