As we have discussed, there is an increasing tendency, rather, urge, for Europeans to distinctly identify themselves as European, rather than, say, just French or German. However, we have also pointed out that the layers of primary identities are ambiguous for some Europeans, in that their Union with the European continental community does not take the place of the nationalism felt for their home country. The question is, then, where do we find nationalism in the layers of European affiliation; is it in contention with pan-Europeanism, or is it in cahoots.
There is a strong case that nationalism will prevent the greater union of Europe. Consider Germany, for example. Germany, as evinced by the 2006 World Cup, projected the image of a welcoming, friendly country dispelling the demons of its past with slogans such as the somewhat rich “Die Welt zu Gast bei Freunden,” (A time to make friends). I find this interesting, considering most of the Germans I know my age harbor a deep sense of nationalist pride that stir up the echoes of a strong and dominant Prussia, often singing Prussian war songs such as “Die Wacht am Rhein” (The watch on the Rhine) in those, dare I say, drunken celebratory moments.
France, another beacon of continental-ism has trouble defining what it is to be French. Is it a strong part of a greater Europe, is it a unique identity enveloping its ties to Africa and the world, or is it strictly Gallic? Recently at a friendly football match in Paris in which the French national team played Tunisia, the French national anthem was booed, whistled and jeered at by the predominantly immigrant spectators. Far right activists such as Jean Marie le Pen point to instances like this as the failure of the liberal French national identity. French sporting officials, declared that when such things happen, 'La Marseillaise' will be immediately stopped so as to withhold the desecration of the national anthem and spirit (my words). Examples as such only highlight what I believe to be a front of unity and national universalism which misses the deep seeded national character of European peoples.
Time will only tell if Europeans can put their identities first as Europeans, then as French, German, Italian, et. al, or if they will continue to harbor such apparent national ties which are not easy to break. Indeed, Postwar illustrates the need that Europeans felt to construct an institution which would facilitate the relationships that had for so long been lacking in European culture. These relationships, one would hope, can mitigate the nationalistic pride that countries face in Europe that, as some argue, drove it to such incredible devastation two times over.
1 comment:
Throughout the week we have been discussing the European Union, its failures and successes. One of the most, if not the most, important questions regarding this topic is whether or not a union is possible. Professor King stipulated that through the economic entity that comprises 1/3 of the world’s trade, is a quasi union, that is neither solely economic nor moving towards a unified state, lies the conflict between nationalism and European nationalism. In order for the EU to become anything more than it is now, there is a need for the 499 million citizens to begin identifying themselves as Europeans first, and their respective identity is to come second.
The supporters of an ever deeper union between the member states would require that individuals begin to see themselves as a part of an entity and not as different, contrasting parts of the whole. When asked when they are from, Americans would say “ United States” regardless of the state—that’s the way it needs to be in Europe. The reading suggests that loyalty to the European community need not replace the nationalism for the citizens’ home country. However, the communal sentiment needs to emerge, and nationalism towards the home country cannot be an impediment to cooperation and interaction. The question lies in whether or not this “ European affiliation” is in direct disputes nationalism.
It is made apparent that nationalism may prevent the greater union of Europe, specially with the smaller nations that have only fairly recently established a self-determining government. The entire concept of the European Union is born out of contradictions and an era of fear that any one nation would be able to disrupt the status quo once more. The European Coal and Steel Community sought to make war not only unthinkable, but virtually impossible knowing that strong feelings of nationalism in the post war period could beget conflict once more. It seems that resentment born out of the war permeates society until the present day. It seems unlikely that countries with diverse histories and priorities will be able to create an identity that encompasses them all—I think that this is what is really needed to establish the basis of any union. It seems that the consideration of affiliation misses the reality that is the deep-rooted national character of each respective people.
As is illustrated in Postwar by Tony Judt, the European Union at the outset recognized that interactions were difficult—it was meant as a facilitator for communication that had been inadequate. It seems unlikely that it will become a union—it is much too hopeful to stipulate that national character can become opaque in the light of collective interests.
Post a Comment