In the last decades, debates about the existence and the meaning of an European idetity raised all the time more. Some scholars approached the theme, focussing on a “common historical heritage”, which points to a basis for a collective identity (Habermas 2001; Giesen 2003), others based their arguments on political and institutional similarities among European countries like human rights protection, democracy and rule of law (Risse 2001). In other cases, the studies on the topic focussed on the ambivalent employ of the term “identity”, arguing its (ab)-use, above all in EU-Treaties, instead of more obviously expressions as “legitimacy” or “sovereignty” (Bruha/ Rau 2000).
The aim of this paper is to examine the topic from two distinctive perspectives: a post-national and a postmodern. The paper suggests a sort of “back to the roots” of the en-quiry, approaching the subject neither with pre-existent assumptions nor with the goal to order puzzled arguments. The study will not pursue the question about the existence of a collective European identity, but will search for possible ways and circumstances, in which “identity” in Europe (restricting the focus on the European Union) may emerge.
The central question of the paper will be if the development of an European identity is plausible and if a widespread process of socialisation may prevail on the national structures of the member states (hereafter MSs) and lead to the growth of common “procedures” and “functions” among European populations. In order to answer the question the more satisfactory as possible, the dissertation proposes two differing angles for the analysis with the intend to compare the findings resulting from dissimilar criteria of examination.
In a first part the EU will be considered as a post-national political order, deriving from the dissolution of its MSs. After a short explanation on the political nature of the Union from this standpoint, the dissertation will explore the option of an emerging post-national identity in the European Union, adopting the criteria proposed by Anthony Smith in his study of national identities (Smith 1991). The analysis will evaluate if the EU attends the proposed criteria in order to assess the coming out of a post-national form of social identification. [...]
Table of Contents
1. Introduction.
2. Mapping the formation of identity: structures, aspects and dimensions.
3. The post-national perspective.
3.1. The European Union as a post-national form of state.
3.2. Post-national identity formation: setting criteria for the analysis.
3.3. Evaluating the criteria.
3.3.1. Does the EU possess a “collective” proper name?
3.3.2. Can the EU rely on a myth of common ancestry?
3.3.3. Does Europeans share an historical memory?
3.3.4. Are there elements of an European common culture?
3.3.5. Is there an European homeland?
3.3.6. Does solidarity unify Europeans?
3.4. Preliminary conclusions.
4. The Postmodern perspective.
4.1. The European Union as a postmodern form of state.
4.2. Which criteria for a postmodern identity formation?
4.3. How to investigate identity in a postmodern Europe?
4.4. How to characterize European identity from a postmodern standpoint?
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper investigates the potential emergence of a collective European identity by contrasting two distinct analytical frameworks: the post-national perspective and the postmodern perspective. Rather than assuming the existence of such an identity, the study examines the circumstances and conditions under which it might develop within the European Union.
- Theoretical analysis of identity formation through socialisation, procedures, and functions.
- Evaluation of post-national criteria for an emerging European "ethnie" or state-like identity.
- Deconstruction of European identity from a postmodern standpoint, focusing on fluid territoriality and network dynamics.
- Critical assessment of the role of EU institutions in building collective identification.
- Analysis of the interplay between national and supranational identification processes.
Excerpt from the Book
2. Mapping the formation of identity: structures, aspects and dimensions.
Social sciences conduct the studies on identity chiefly focussing on two patterns for analysis: psychodynamic and sociological. Both the approaches seek to find the relationship between the inner and the outer world in distinct modes. Notwithstanding the methodological differences, for both conceptions “the struggle to define the self is linked to the way in which a community constructs conceptions of people and life” (Plummer 2003:281). Accordingly, identity can be conceived as a homogeneity derived from the resistance to an outer and organised in a temporal continuity (Utzinger 2005:240).
Identity is in fact only pursuable when discernible from alterities. A personal identity, for instance, is not given as a transcendent construct (Assmann 1999:132), but is the result of a confrontation with the “Other”, based on the struggle for self-understanding and self-recognition (Delanty 2005:51). Following the same patterns, a social identity, which constitutes the “logos” for a collective identity, is only imaginable in an environment, where other actors move and perform, showing their differences as well as similarities (Gephart 1999:145). In its progression, identity shows a reflexive construction organized in an inclusive and an exclusive structure, which makes possible the growth of a perceivable entity (Utzinger 2005:240).
Therefore a “space”, where identity can expand and get in touch with alterities, is a necessary condition to shape distinctive qualities. The development of identity is to imagine as a twofold process (inclusive and exclusive), ordered in a context, specifically in a “space”, and performing through a “narrative dimension” (Delanty 2005:51), so in a “time”, which is essential to provide it with an history and a memory of itself. Both aspects (time and space) are not separate units, but parts of a dialectical dynamism (Giddens 1991:17). They are not independent, but interdependent. “Time” and “space” subsist under the same conditions in which internal and external structures of identity advance, because of their reflexive mutually reliance.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter defines the scope of the study, which seeks to evaluate the plausibility of an European identity through two competing lenses: post-nationalism and postmodernism.
2. Mapping the formation of identity: structures, aspects and dimensions: This chapter establishes the theoretical foundation by examining the psychodynamic and sociological patterns of identity, emphasizing the necessity of space, time, and social interaction.
3. The post-national perspective: This chapter assesses the EU against traditional state-building criteria, such as common language, historical memory, and shared culture, ultimately finding them insufficient for a singular collective identity.
4. The Postmodern perspective: This chapter argues that a postmodern identity in Europe is not a fixed, state-like construct, but a fluid, heterogeneous, and contested "heteroglossia" that defies linear categorization.
Keywords
European Identity, Post-nationalism, Postmodernism, Socialization, Territoriality, EU Integration, Identity Formation, Collective Memory, European Union, Social Identity, Governance, Europeanization, Political Theory, Heteroglossia, Alterity
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper examines the feasibility and nature of a collective European identity, moving away from binary assumptions of existence or non-existence to analyze the circumstances under which such an identity might emerge.
What are the primary thematic fields covered?
The study covers sociology of identity, integration theories within the European Union, post-national state-building, and postmodern political science.
What is the main research question?
The paper asks whether the development of a European identity is plausible and if widespread socialization processes can shift identification from national structures toward the European Union.
Which scientific methods are utilized?
The author uses a comparative theoretical approach, applying Anthony Smith's criteria for national identities in the first part and postmodern deconstruction in the second, supported by political literature and survey data analysis.
What is the focus of the main body?
The main body is divided into two parts: one testing if the EU meets traditional nation-state criteria (e.g., common heritage, language, symbols), and one exploring the EU as a postmodern organization defined by fluid networks rather than borders.
Which keywords define this work?
Central keywords include European identity, post-nationalism, postmodernism, territoriality, and European integration.
Does the author conclude that a European identity exists?
The author concludes that a monolithic, state-like European identity is not currently present. Instead, it suggests that European identity acts as a "permanent state of betweenness" or "heteroglossia."
How does the author interpret the failed constitutional attempts of the EU?
The failure of the constitutional design is cited as a symbolic indication of the reluctance of national identities to merge into a single post-national entity.
How does the postmodern perspective differ from the post-national one?
The post-national perspective looks for traditional markers like shared culture and sovereignty, whereas the postmodern perspective views identity as an unstable, multiple, and irrational construct based on shifting networks.
- Quote paper
- M.A. Fabrizio Capogrosso (Author), 2008, Which identity for Europe?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/121624
