Nationalism and Transnationalism in the Context of the European Union

4 April 2017

Nationalism and Transnationalism In the context of the European Union (…) History says, ‘Don’t hope On this side of the grave. ’ But then, once in a lifetime The longed-for tidal wave Of justice can rise up, And hope and history rhyme. So hope for a great sea-change On the far side of revenge. Believe that a further shore Is reachable from here. Believe in miracles And cures and healing wells…. If there’s fire on the mountain Or lightning and storm And a god speaks from the sky

That means someone is hearing The outcry and the birth-cry Of new life at its term (… ) The Cure at Troy Seamus Heaney, 1996 Table of Contents: Introduction3 Structure and Methods6 1. Nationalism: Definitions, Concepts and Theories8 1. 1. Defining “Nation”9 1. 2. Concepts and Theories of Nationalism13 2. The New Europe: Nationalism reframed? 22 2. 1. History and Ideology23 2. 2. The Emerge of the European Union32 3. European Nationalism: Transnational Integration36 3. 1.

Nationalism and Transnationalism in the Context of the European Union Essay Example

International Relations perspectives36 3. 2. Nationalism and Transnationalism40 4. The future of Europe: National debates46 4. 1. The EU: State of Nations or Nation-State? 47 4. 2. The European Union and its Citizens61 4. 3. Constitution for the European Union? 67 Conclusions72 Bibliography76 APPENDIX82 Introduction The twentieth century bears tragic scars left by the First and Second World Wars. Fifty million soldiers and civilians lost their lives in conflicts that left Europe in ruins. 1] In 1945 Europe faced the task to rebuild the European countries destroyed in war conflagration as well as reconstruct the peaceful relationships between the European states. People in different parts of Europe began to dream about a different kind of Europe. Konrad Adenauer, the first Chancellor of post-war Germany, claimed that Europeans must break the habits of thinking in terms of national states, and look beyond the borders of their own countries, to be able to work in cooperation with other nations for true aims of humanity. 2] That was the dream of one of the founding fathers of the European Community. As president Vaclav Havel said: We must not be afraid to dream of the seemingly impossible if we want the seemingly impossible to become a reality. Without dreaming of a better Europe we shall never build a better Europe. [3] And reality it became. A few years later, the first step to unification, with the aspiration to create a workable guarantee of peace on the old continent, took place. The process, which began over fifty years ago, resulted in emerging the European Union in 1992. 4] The building of a united Europe is undoubtedly one of the greatest historical undertakings of the century. That process, though, has not yet come to an end. There are many challenges facing the European Union, and one of the most vital issues is the question of national sovereignty and the persistence of nationalism. It is also influential in the context of the European Union, which faces the discourse about the shape of the EU members’ domestic policies as well as relation between states.

Nowadays Europe is facing the question: To what extent will assimilation of the European states emerge? Will the Europe of the future will be a Europe of institutional networks governed by sovereign states or will it constitute a common European State? The ongoing debates about the future shape of the Union are concentrating on the form of constitution that the organization will adopt. [5] The prospects of that organization influence unquestionably the discussion on the role and position of nation states in the European Union, their legitimacy and their future.

Aims and objectives During the First and the Second World Wars Europe had to witness nationalist rivalries, which led the continent to the catastrophe. For many, those wars meant the beginning of the end of the European civilization. Others, a minority, drew from that the conclusion that the European capability to overcome aggressive nationalism which caused those tragedies, is achievable by adopting the idea of the united and peaceful continent as a common project. [6] That inspiration was to be insured by a share of common, European distinctiveness.

However, this process implies the necessity to consider the impact of nationalism and the role of national states in a growing trend for a united Europe. As Anthony D. Smith predicts: The Europe of the future, if it should ever emerge, will be one of the mass identification and loyalty to the European ideal, alongside or even in place of national allegiances and identities, such that large numbers of the inhabitants of the European continent will not only consider themselves to be first and foremost ‘Europeans’ but will be prepared to make sacrifices for that ideal. [7]

We can assume that a common European identity should construct a parallel between the Union’s institutions and the citizens, making them feel that the economic and administrative regulations of the Union are something that have to do with their rights and duties, with their identity. As the president of the European Commission, Romano Prodi in his speech: “The Road to Europe’s Future” in Brussels, 7th November 2000 insisted, the further development of the Union has to be based on gradually building a shared feeling of belonging among “peacefully united Europe embracing all its diverse peoples. [8] From the perspective of public opinion, it seems as though the European integration process is taking place apart from citizens, who are sometimes not very well informed and confused about that course of action. [9] It could be said that the European unification can be perceived as purely political will, in conjunction with the rule: “Think and act in terms of interest defined as power” [10] to quote Hans J. Morgenthau. The European Union working as one organism will definitely accumulate more power then single European states.

Therefore, the enquiry, which would lead the survey of that paper contains the question whether the European Nation is possible to emerge or not. This is the main focus of this paper, however to get to the heart of the matter some additional questions are essential. Therefore, I will look into the ideology and history of the European Union and try to find out whether the idea of the United Europe with the European Nation is an entirely politically stimulated. Hence, when exploring these issues, I would like to look into the way that ideology influences the history of the process of the European Integration.

That process can be thought to challenge the concept of sovereignty of the EU member states and the absolute power of the nation state. The new situation will not automatically abolish states or nations as ”politico-cultural” communities, or will the nationalism attached to those communities be eliminated. [11] Perhaps, those circumstances may as well create a space for a new form of nationalism, adequate to the process of European Integration. The discussion about the need to re-define the concept of nationalism in the context of the Union will be also essential.

Structure and Methods The objectives presented above will be analysed in the theoretical and empirical sections of this paper. This includes a theoretical discussion and an analysis of discourse as found in secondary data such as public opinion surveys, governmental documents, various official documents of the European Union and media archives. [12] Use of that method based on the secondary data has some drawbacks,[13] however, it seems to be sufficient for the purpose of this paper. This paper is organized in four parts.

Part one presents the theoretical construction, a discussion of the major concepts of nationalism. This theoretical overview focuses on the classical approaches to this matter, and offers also some criticism of those theories. The aim of this section is to display the range of possibilities and the extent of differences among those theoreticians. As mentioned above, the process of the European Integration compels us to redefine those classical approaches. Therefore, in a later section, the working theory of nationalism applicable to the new circumstances will be proposed.

Part two presents a historical context of the genesis and the development of the European Union. This part attempts to show briefly the process of building the European Community from its beginning. The major ideas of that period are introduced, and the following steps on the road to unification and the emergence of the European Union are reviewed. That excursion into the history of that process will be essential to reveal the historical background of this case study. In the third part, the classical concepts of nationalism will be tested in the context of transnational integration.

I will first present the theory of international relations relevant to the regional integration process in order to construct the further discussion upon the correlation between nationalism and transnationalism, understood as a process of repositioning or redefining nationalism in the context of European integration. Thus, the new theory of nationalism will be defined here. Part four attempts to bring those analyses together by highlighting the development of the EU integration and the decline of sovereignty of the member states.

I also focus on perspectives of that process in the future. This section will present a national debate over the prospects for the European Union and the form of constitution that the Union will adopt. Here, the leading question of this paper, which focuses on the possibility of materializing of the European Nation, will be investigated through the empirical data. Finally, there is a concluding section that outlines how far the study has met its theoretical and empirical objectives.

In this part I will try to answer the questions raised in the beginning of the paper. Choice of sources The theoretical section presented in this paper focuses on the theories of nationalism presented by Anthony D. Smith, Benedict Anderson, Eric Hobsbawm, and Ernest Gellner. Those authors are recognized as major theoreticians of this matter. Furthermore, in an attempt to redefine nationalism in the perspective of the transnational integration, additional theories by Rogers Brubaker, Hans J. Morgenthau, P. Jackson and J.

Penrose, are reviewed. This requires a presentation of the historical and contemporary tendencies of the process of European Integration. Being aware of the fact that a literature on that subject has grown significantly in the last few years, I have chosen to concentrate mainly on such authors as: Dusan Sidjanski, John McCormick, Jo Shaw, Brendan P. G. Smith, Heikki Mikkeli, Chris Show, and Joseph Weiler. Along with that, additional authors will be quoted. Furthermore, journal articles and Web site elaborations are used as well.

In a section devoted to the discussion about the future of the European Union, various official documents such as government documents, European Commission, European Parliament and Council of Europe documents, public opinion information’s, newspapers reports and publication concerning that subject, are used to develop the analyses on that matter. 1. Nationalism: Definitions, Concepts and Theories The theoretical framework featuring the classic concept of nationalism will be offered subsequently.

That presentation is given priority, recognising the fact that all research is necessarily theory driven. As said before, the enquiry that would lead the survey of the paper contains the question whether the European Nation as ‘nation’ is possible to emerge or not. Then, it is essential to define the aspects which the paper will explore. 1. 1. Defining “Nation” The history of nation formation is not a closed chapter in world history. Every nation has had different stages and moments of coming to self-awareness and manifesting their national personality.

Looking at the world today and its history one could distinguish the ‘old’ nations from the relatively ‘young’ ones. The theses of the origins of nations and their continuity allowed the countries to define their place in history. Some ‘young’ nations emerged at the end of the era of colonialism; therefore, they can be recognized as relatively recent forms. Some nations’ roots go deeply into the history of mankind; thus, they can be seen as ‘old’ ones. Some future nations are still waiting for their moment in time.

At that point the question emerges: What kind of collectivity can be recognized as a nation? To start the discussion, I will refer to Ernest Renan. That author rejects the static concepts of the nation in order to identify it as a form of morality: A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Only two things, actually, constitute this soul, this spiritual principle. One is the past, the other is the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of remembrances; the other is the actual consent, the desire to live together, the will to continue to value the heritage which all holds in common. 14] As mentioned above, Renan’s theory rejects some very important stable elements. He claims that when a group of people have a common desire to be a nation, despite other differences, such as different race or language, they should be able to form the nation. In his opinion that desire should be based on common glories in the past and a common will in the present. On the other hand, he states that such formation is not something eternal. “They had their beginnings and they will end. A European confederation will very probably replace them. [15] Here, a space for a new European Nation is offered. As this author claims, a common willpower can be a foundation of a new nation. Ernest Renan’s definition of nation is one of the classical ones. Similar to other definitions, that one also has been formed from an individual perspective, and because of that it seems to be not fully representative. In his opinion ‘nation’ is a sense of solidarity sustained by distinctive historical conscience, as a form of referendum. When saying ‘yes’ is enough, then a new nation is born.

I do not wish to disregard the role of will in nation-formation, but when studying history it becomes clear that people need something more that a pure desire to form a nation, and when the nation is formed, it cannot be easily forgotten and replaced by another ‘option’. In the following section I will try to contemplate, if the future Europe will adopt the idea of European Nation, or more probably, to what extend that proposal is applicable to the form of regional integration taken by the European Union. Another definition is presented by Anthony Giddens.

His description of nation concentrates on ‘visible’ elements of that formation. According to this author: “A nation only exists when a state has a unified administrative reach over the territory over which its sovereignty is claimed. ”[16] In his definition, he follows Jones’ approach, which consists of four elements: allocation, delimitation, demarcation, and administration. [17] Allocation refers to the collaborative political decisions taken among states, and about the distribution of territory among them.

Delimitation concerns the identification of specific border sites. Demarcation refers to how borders are actually marked on the physical environment. Administration refers to the level of administrative control over its population, which its governing authorities deem proper and necessary. [18] Referring that theory to the process of European integration, it must be said that Giddens’ approach relates evidently to the classic concept of the nation. Emergence of the European Nation, considering that approach, is rather unlikely to happen.

According to Anthony Giddens, a nation-state is a kind of ‘bordered power-container’ in which a set of institutional forms of governance can maintain an administrative monopoly over the territory, but which cannot necessarily be recognized as a nation. [19] That tendency to equate nation with state has to be reconsidered, because two of the very important elements for a nation such as self-awareness and self- definition are disregarded. A different perception of ‘nation’ is presented by Anthony D. Smith, who claims that:

A nation is a named community of history and culture, possessing a unified territory, economy, mass education system and common legal rights. [20] He places the nation in history as a form which has always been present; a part of a national order, even when it has been only submerged in the hearts of its members. Smith’s definition presents the ‘ideal’ type of a nation, which seems to be most relevant nowadays. His approach can be seen as a sociological one, evidenced by the way that he stresses the emotional ties of ethnic solidarity in every nation.

Smith views a nation as a historical formation, which embodies a number of analytically separable processes. According to him, this construction is not a once-for-all, all-or-nothing concept. [21] As an ongoing process, it can be sometimes slow in its development and some other times faster. What should be also emphasized at this point is the fact that Smith rejects the modernists’ view on nation, which will be presented subsequently as a fifth and the last one. One of the last concepts of a nation as a modern formation is suggested by the ideas of Ernest Gellner and Eric Hobsbawm.

They claim that the nation is a relatively modern form which has been established by nationalism. According to Gellner “It is nationalism which engenders nations”[22]. Eric Hobsbawm agrees with him, seeing that “Nations do not make states and nationalism, but the other way round. ”[23] In my opinion, some nations are far from being modern because the roots of some nation’s history are going much further. The discussion of the subject of interrelationship between nation and nationalism will continue in the following sections of this paper, which are devoted to the concept of nationalism.

Ernest Gellner’s definition claims furthermore, that because of the stress and uncertainty of the early industrialization process, people were seeking comfort in common identity and language. That state of mind made it possible for intellectuals to draw members of their language group behind the project of creating the nation. [24] Those three approaches to the definition of “nation” offered by Anthony D. Smith, Ernest Gellner and Eric Hobsbawm are developed in the following section of the chapter. There, the various concepts of nationalism will be presented.

I will also attempt to highlight the aspects of those approaches in connection to the process of European Integration. The discussion over the need for redefining the concept of nationalism in the context of the Union will continue in the part three of the paper. To conclude the discussion of the definition of the nation, a final one will be presented. According to the Dictionary of International Relations, a nation is: A social group which shares a common ideology, common institutions and customs, and a sense of homogeneity. Nation’ is difficult to define so precisely as to differentiate the term from such other groups as religious sects, which exhibit some of the same characteristics. In the nation, however, there is also present a strong group sense of belonging associated with a particular territory considered to be peculiarly its own. [25] When presenting the discourses of these definitions, I was aware of the fact that none of them captures the whole picture of that issue because they concentrate on various aspects.

Ernest Renan’s characterization focuses on the conscious choice of human beings to define or redefine themselves as members of nations. He defines nation building as a consciousness-raising process. Another description presented was that of Anthony Giddens, who pictures a nation as a static form, centralized, professionalized and territorialized. His definition stresses the political aspects of the nation, and equates nation with state as an administrative power over the cultural sense of sovereignty. In Anthony D.

Smith’s opinion, a nation is a permanent form in the history of mankind. His approach focuses on subjective symbolic and socio-cultural elements, such as ethnicity, myth, identity and memory which provide the nation with their essential ‘core’. The last definitions presented in this section are from the modernist’s perspective. Such approach states that past is something irrelevant and nation is a modern form, a product of ideology of nationalism, which is an expression of the modern, industrial society itself.

According to modernists’ ideology there is no need for ethnic heritage, since nations – despite being attached to history – exist here and now. The aim of this presentation was to show the various approaches to the concept of “nation”, how they differ from each other, and how difficult it is to define the essence of that. But these definitions of nation, in the context of the European Union, and the idea of creation the European Nation, seem not to suggest an organized framework for the new situation. Therefore, the proposal for the new approach is essential, and will be offered in the part three of this paper. . 2. Concepts and Theories of Nationalism What is nationalism? According to Albert Einstein, “Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. ”[26] Going further, Danilo Kis describes nationalism as paranoia, a collective and individual paranoia. [27] These opinions clearly concentrate on its negative aspects. When looking at its positive side, nationalism can be seen as a sense of identity with the nation. It is similar to tribalism, and, like family, is held together by the sense of kinship.

According to Liah Greenfeld’s theory, nationalism can be defined as “an image of social order, which involves the people as a sovereign elite and a community of equals. ” [28] To show a different approach to this case, I want to refer to a classical definition by the historian Elie Kedourie: Nationalism is a doctrine (…), which pretends to supply a criterion for the determination of the unit of population proper to enjoy a government exclusively its own, for the legitimate exercise of power in the state, and for right organization of a society of states.

Briefly, the doctrine holds that humanity is naturally divided into nations, that nations are known by certain characteristics, which can be ascertained, and that the only legitimate type of government is national self-government. [29] This division limits nationalism simply to a political doctrine, narrowing our understanding of it. However, because that definition stresses the role of political principle, it might be applicable to the concept of the European Nation since such a structure, if it ever emerges, will be mostly politically created.

Some of the approaches I will present in this section tend to define nationalism in a restricted way, as an extreme phenomenon in human history. Others tend to explain it as a feeling of loyalty towards a nation, a particular kind of attachment to society. The theories I will refer to, that is, those by Anthony D. Smith, Benedict Anderson, Eric Hobsbawm, and Ernest Gellner, can be categorized into three approaches: ethno-symbolic, constructional and socio-cultural, which aim to define dominant forces in society responsible for the creation of nationalism.

My focus here is on some of the ways in which social scientists have projected and defined nationalism. Ethno-symbolic concept The concept developed by Anthony D. Smith emphasizes the importance of ethnic identity in the rise and expansion of nationalism. This author claims that: By relating national identities to prior ethnic ties, and showing the influence of the subjective dimensions of shared symbols, myths and memories, ethno-symbolism throws light on the continuing hold exercised by modern nations over so many people today. [30]

This approach focuses on the cultural or ethnic elements of nationalism which are perceived as the basis of nationalism. Those components of the ideology are recognized as the engine of nationalism. He claims further that nationalism should be seen as: An ideological movement for attaining and maintaining the autonomy, unity and identity for a population which some of its members deem to constitute an actual or potential nation. [31] What seems to be very significant in this theory is that the author highlights the importance of the nation in any kind of nationalism.

The phrase ‘potential nation’ refers to the minorities with some particular possessions in the area of culture and self-identity. Smith also underlines the role of the intelligentsia in the creation of the nation, and the interrelation between various elites and lower strata, which make possible to rediscover an ethnic past and common identity and create a collective will for an ‘actual’ or ‘potential’ nation. [32] He states that elites play an important role in formulating an ideology of nationalism and mobilizing people to reveal their feelings.

Concerning the relevance of that concept in the case of the European Union, I would like to highlight two aspects of Smith’s theory. The first one is the role of ethnic identity which attributes the nation with certain amount of shared symbols, myths and memories;[33] and the second one, is the role of widely respected intelligentsia in the creation of the nation. [34] What should be also noticed is that Anthony D. Smith generally rejects the modernist approach to the theory of the nation and nationalism.

He does not agree with modernist theoreticians who claim that both nations and nationalisms ought to be considered as phenomena of the nineteenth and early twentieth century. He states “that there never was an age without its nations and nationalisms, even if the doctrine of self- determination was born in the modern epoch. ”[35] Nevertheless, he partly agrees with the modernist’s view that nationalism as an ideology and movement dates back only from the late eighteenth century. Yet, Smith argues that the ethnic origins of nations are much older. 36] So, to achieve the common goals -autonomy, unity and identity and generate the nation- some kind of ‘ethnic core’ is essential. [37] Nationalism, according to Smith, does not require that members of a nation should all be alike, only that they should feel an intense bond of solidarity to the nation and other members of their nation. [38] A sense of nationalism can be shaped from whatever dominant ideology existing in a given location. That is the principal factor which creates the capacity to construct a nation from as a set of pre-existing kinship, religious and belief systems. 39] Anthony D. Smith’s theory is based on ‘ethno–symbolism’, the essential role of memories, values, myths and symbols. [40] These elements fully explain the phenomenon of nationalism from the perspective of culture, history, and traditions. When observed from the international perspective, this ideology of nationalism is generally accepted, but still seems to be too unilateral. What Smith strongly emphasizes is the role of culture and shared number of symbols in the process of nation-formation.

But what he does not take into account is the political reality which plays also an important role. Some nationalistic feelings will never be exposed and some ‘potential nations’ will never be able to claim their independence, because of the brutal reality of the political and economical relations. Whether that theory will serve the purpose of this paper, which attempts to determine the possibility of materialization of the European Nation, will be the focus of debate in the subsequent chapters. For most people, nations – especially their own – appear to be immortal.

The following three theories of nationalism by Benedict Anderson, Eric Hobsbawm and Ernest Gellner offer a modernist, constructivist approach to this matter. They claim that the idea of nation is a recent creation, or even a construction of elites. Despite that fact, they differ in designing the baseline for nationalism. I have chosen those theoreticians to show a variety of views about the subject and how they differ from each other. Constructional concept This approach to the idea of nationalism assumes that nations and nationalisms are wholly modern and socially constructed forms.

Two theoreticians of that concept Benedict Anderson and Eric Hobsbawm will be presented in this section. Benedict Anderson in his book “Imagined Communities: Reflection on the Origin and the Spread of Nationalism” presents some interesting hypotheses. According to him, nationalism is the result of the fusion of the decline of state religion, human diversity, and the development of capitalism and the technology of print. [41] One of Anderson’s claims is that one of the major sources for the emergence of nationalism was vernacular shared language. 42] He argues that before nationalism great religiously ‘imagined communities’, such as Christendom existed. Those communities’ basis was a shared language, such as Latin. With the expansion of the world in the age of exploration and the possibilities which the technology of print, called ‘print capitalism’ by Anderson brought with it, those communities came to realize the insularity of their concepts of existence. The common language of the Church, not shared by many, was beginning to decline, and was eventually replaced by the vernacular. [43] That fact contributed directly to the rise of national consciousness.

The spreading of particular vernaculars as instruments of administrative centralization by certain monarchs was also a very important factor in the process of building the national awareness. After the monopoly of print in Latin was lost, new works published in vernacular languages gave the readers a sense of national consciousness, made it possible to communicate with the people in one linguistically defined community. Books, newspapers, and novels in vernacular languages created a new way of performance for nations, a sense of diversity from other nations, and a feeling of unity among one language group.

Anderson’s modern view on the theory of nationalism, as ‘the invention’ of the eighteenth century,[44] stands with clear opposition to his arguments presented above. According to him, the effect of the multiplication of books allowed people to picture themselves as members of a community as large as a nation only just from the eighteenth century. However, the technology of print was the invention of the late fifteenth century[45], universalised in the sixteenth century, what resulted in significant numerical growth of books at that time.

At that point might be questioned: Why the effect of that technology occurred only recently, in the eighteenth century? In Anderson’s opinion ‘print capitalism’, as he named the time when considerable growth in publication in national languages occurred, was the engine which moved social community’s from homogenous, empty forms to a self-aware nations. [46] It seems flawed, though. The role of vernacular publications on shaping the conscious of national identity is undoubtedly enormous. But to be precise, only some people could read at that time, the technology of print was not accessible everywhere.

But those ‘disadvantages’ did not stop the nationalizing effect. Therefore Anderson’s ‘Babel Tower’ result does not hold. Anderson’s approach ignores the function of culture in the process of building a national identity. The importance of a national feeling, common history and heritage passed down by prior generations, cannot be disregarded in the discussion upon the idea of nationalism. Therefore, his theory is characterised by an absence of concern and scope for the role of collective will and emotions.

When we go through that theory in the perspective of potential European Nation, it is quite understandable that it does not have the capability to explain the state of affairs under the new circumstances of the process of integration. Eric Hobsbawm presents another constructivist approach. In his book “Nations and Nationalisms since 1780”, the author claims that the discussion upon the subject of nationalism in pre 1780 term is ‘pointless’. According to him, nationalism has its roots in the Enlightment and French Revolution. 47] At this point it should be stressed that Hobsbawm differentiates between European and non–European nationalisms: The first, which flourished from 1830-1870, is a democratic mass political nationalism of the ‘great nations’ stemming from the citizenship idea of the French Revolution. The second, characteristic for the period from 1870-1914, by contrast, is a narrow ethnic or linguistic nationalism, a small-nationality reaction to the obsolete policies of the Ottoman, Habsburg and Tsarist empires among mainly peripheral peoples in often-backward areas. 48] Hobsbawm’s constructivist approach to the theory of nationalism suggests that a nation is the result of the manipulation by elites, who ‘invented’ it, as well as other traditions in order to divert potential opposition by the masses in the age of democracy. [49] Hobsbawm suggests that nationalism is a founded or invented form, reproduced from above in at least equal measure as from below. “It is a sense of ideological instrument of the ruling class, a means of socializing and controlling a fragmented citizenry. [50] As noticed before, one of the Hobsbawm’s main points is that nationalism is a product constructed by cultural and political elites who used it to legitimate their position in the era of revolution. [51] He also states that symbolism, which some of the theoreticians attach to that idea of nationalism as its main ingredient, is up to a large extent invented and is not necessarily historically shaped. [52] Furthermore, as he declares: “cultural nationalism and political nationalism are not only separate phenomena, but actually unrelated to each other. [53] This statement eliminates the essence and the key element of the power of nationalism. Such idea cannot be reduced to the principle of uniformity; the cultural unit has to be congruent with the political unit. Nationalism is not just an ideological tool of the ruling class, a means of socialising and controlling fragmented citizenry; it also has its cultural and historical factors, which cannot be disregarded. When studying this theory of nationalism, I do not wish to dispute either the rapid spread of nationalist ideology presented by Hobsbawm, or his modern approach to that subject.

But in his book “Nations and Nationalisms since 1780”, the author wrote the history of nineteenth and twentieth century nationalism, and not the history of nationalism. That ‘reduction’ resulted in the oversimplification of that subject for the period of the last 200 years. Moreover, in Hobsbawm’s theory, which is similar to that of Anderson’s, there is no room for emotions or moral will. That theory concentrates only on the constructional side of nationalism when describe a nation as the result of ‘technological invention’. The two aspects of Hobsbawm? theory I would like to concentrate on, when testing its relevance in the perspective of the European Nation, are the role of the ruling class in construction of the nation and the thesis that nations, as well as nationalisms are founded on ‘invented traditions’[54] Socio-cultural concept Ernest Gellner presents a socio-cultural approach to the theory of nationalism. His hypotheses are generally considered to be some of the most modernity-oriented and controversial. He defines nationalism as “a political principle, which holds that the political and national unit should be congruent. [55] That statement, seen from the perspective of a potential, future European Nation, seems to legitimate that idea. Whether the political standards of that structure will harmonize with its national component in the future is still a matter of prediction. This author states, further, that it is the need of modern societies for cultural homogeneity which creates or generates nationalism. Gellner distinguishes three stages of human history: [56] • The hunter-gatherer • The agro literate • The industrial

According to him nationalism appeared in the transition from agro-literate to the industrial stage of human history. Uncertainty and widespread social changes connected to that process forced communities to search for comfort in common identity and language. Under feudalism, social structure determined life paths, making cultural identity less important. When under industrialism, social structure eroded with an increasing importance of culture, which as a permanent form was used to legitimate the state and establish the potency of nationalism. 57] Therefore, agrarian civilizations did not engender nationalism, but industrialism and industrial societies did. [58] Another reason why nationalism appeared in the modern period is because the industrial societies, unlike the agrarian ones, needed common languages and cultural homogeneity in order to work more efficiently. [59] This statement emphasizes the role of economic socio-factors in the process of raising the national sentiments. Gellner’s nationalism is not the one that most people recognize: a form of identity, unity and autonomy for its nation.

For this author nationalism seems to be a cultural form, taken by industrialism. From the cultural approach, nationalisms are the consequence of a new form of social organization, based on deeply internalised, education-dependent high cultures, each one protected by its own state. But while culture and social organizations are universal and perennial, states and nationalisms are not, because they are not found universally. [60] Ernest Gellner’s theory might be seen as quite controversial and limited to the materialistic side of nationalism.

This author claims that nationalism is a result of the industrial society, but what he does not seem to account for is the occurrence of that ideology in non-industrial and post-industrial societies. What this theory does not explain either is the passion generated by nationalism, and the power which makes people ready to fight and to die for one’s nation. In my opinion Gellner’s theory lacks accounting for ‘subjective’ elements of nationalism when concentrating mainly its functional side.

His theory explains nationalism from the rather domestic perspective, and does not integrate the trans- or inter- national dimensions. That tendency appears in all presented theories. Further discussion over that problem will continue in later sections of that paper. A few conclusions thus far The various theories of nationalism briefly presented in this chapter aimed to show a distinct range of interpretation in that subject. Most scholars agree that nationalism is a particularly modern phenomenon; owever, they differ in their explanations of its roots, course of action and its relationship to modernization and political power. The theory by Anthony D. Smith partly accepts the modernist’s view, as it was presented before. But as he calls himself an ethno-symbolist, he states that nation and nationalism can only be understood through the analysis of collective cultural identities. The other theories presented specify a modernist approach to the theory of nationalism, and the diversity in that school.

Eric Hobsbawm’s and Benedict Anderson’s theories represent a constructivist approach to that subject; the idea that a nation is a ‘socially constructed’ form. They differ in defining that construction: Hobsbawm claims that nations are the products of social engineering and they are created to serve the interests of ruling elites. Anderson views nations as imagined political communities, which rose from the decline of religious and monarchies with a great and decisive influence from ‘print capitalism’.

Ernest Gellner’s theory is a mixture of sociological and cultural aspects. Nations and nationalisms, according to him, are sociologically necessary phenomena of the modern, industrial epoch, supported by high culture, which shapes them. In a later section of this paper, devoted to the problem of transnationalism, those concepts will be examined in terms of their ability to explain the development and reconstruction of nationalism under changing conditions of the European Integration.

Therefore, in the following chapter the concept of New Europe, its historical and ideological components, are reviewed. The era of ‘Cold War’ dominated the political agenda in the late 80s. With the end of that system in the early 1990s, the “state elites of Western Europe set about revitalizing the transnational ‘European Union’ ”. [61] The next section will briefly present the genesis of that process, its history and main ideas. This will be followed by a look at the first level of European Integration with the Maastricht Treaty signed in 1992.

That crucial turning point in the modern history of the Old Continent initiates the discussion about the future of Europe and emphasizes the necessity to reconsider the concept of nationalism from an utterly different perspective. 2. The New Europe: Nationalism reframed? The European Continent has seldom been peaceful, nor has it been homogeneous. Indeed, looking at the map of Europe, it is difficult to define its physical and cultural boundaries, and specify what makes that place distinctive. Quoting John McCormick:

Europeans have much that unites them, but much more that divides them They lack a common history, they speak many different languages, they have different social values, their views on their place in the world often differ, they have gone to war with each other with tragic regularity, they often redefined their allegiance and their identity, and they frequently redrawn their internal frontiers in response to changes in political affiliation. [62] All those facts are true up to a certain extent. Yet the thought of a united Europe has inspired many, from visionaries and poets to monarchs and cultural and political elites.

The idea of European Integration has roots deep in the history of that subcontinent. Different parts of Europe have been brought together for different reasons, beginning with Roman times, through Franks, Habsburgs, Napoleon or Hitler. [63] That aspiration of unification gathered particular power after the Second World War, when Europeans, marked by the tragic experiences of the two probably most catastrophic episodes in human history, began to seek a means to avoid that in the future. For the first time in European history almost the entire subcontinent indicated its interest in creating a regional cooperation.

The political leaders of Europe with their ideas encouraged the Europeans to rise above their domestic nationalisms and picture themselves as a part of a broader culture. That would permit them to abolish bases for previous conflicts and to create a workable guarantee of peace on the Old Continent. In the next section of this chapter I will briefly present the history and major ideas of that process. 2. 1. History and Ideology As mentioned before, the idea of the European unification is not a modern one. The concept of ‘United States of Europe’ was developed in eighteenth century.

In 1848 one of its promoters, Victor Hugo, declared that: The nations of Europe, without losing [their] distinctive qualities or … glorious individuality will merge closely into the higher unity and will form the fraternity of Europe … Two huge groups will be seen, the united States of America, and the United States of Europe, holding out their hands to one another across the ocean. [64] However, those ideas about European unification adopted a real form decades later. In early twentieth century various movements and projects with the aim to amalgamate the European continent came into existence.

I will refer only to the most spectacular ones. The first traces of transition from pure ideas to action can be found in the Pan-European Manifesto which set the foundation for the Pan-European Movement. In this statement its author, Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, claimed that because European global supremacy was over, to avoid the decline of Europe on the World political map, five ‘global power fields’ should be created. One of them should be Paneurope,[65] which would include Europe’s colonies in Africa and southern Asia. 66] The creation of the Paneurope should be achieved in four stage process: first, by the conference of representatives from European countries; second, by economic agreement; third, the development of customs union; and finally fourth, a common European constitution based on federal frames. [67] At this point the distinction between a federation and confederation approach should be clarified. A federal system indicates that states or provinces are given considerable self-rule, usually through their own legislatures, and that the constitution divides governmental power between a powerful central government and states. 68] A confederation system, on the other hand, denotes a form of government in which the states within a nation have the most control over their own laws. It is generally accepted that in a confederacy, the federal government exists only to discuss what actions the country in general should take, to organize the military forces of the states, to discuss state and federal borders, and create a close alliance between states. The individual states create their own laws, militias, and governments. 69] I will return to the discussion concerning the federal and confederal approaches in part four of this paper. The Congress of Vienna The next step on the way to European integration was taken at the Congress of Vienna in 1926,[70] where the Pan-European Manifesto was approved and further initiatives such as guaranties of equality, security, military alliance and the progressive creation of a customs union, to list just a few, were taken to establish the outline for the European unification,[71] and to create the bond for cooperation between Europe and other states of the League of Nations. 72] The Pan-European Manifesto was an inspiration for a first official government proposal, known as the Briand’s Project. Its creator, Adriste Briand, the honorary president of the Pan-European Union and the president of the French government in his powerful speech to the League of Nation Assembly in 1929 called for the people of Europe to create a form of ‘federal bond’. [73] The Memorandum, published in May 1930 by the French government, followed that speech. This document presented Briand’s ideas.

In his proposal he stressed the need for “a permanent regime of solidarity based on international agreement for a rational organization of Europe. ”[74] Furthermore, using such terms as ‘common market’, a ‘European union’ he called for cooperation in the field of social and economical arrangements. [75] Briand’s project was innovative for various reasons. The expressions used in his memorandum, such as supranational federative organization, common market, custom union, to present a few, became common in Euro-specialists’ jargon. 76] That project belongs to the long tradition of the idea of unification, and although it was unsuccessful, those ideas were an inspiration for the way people thought and talked about Europe. The major reason for the failure of that concept might be laid on the shoulders of the then current international situation. A few years later the shadows of war covered the ? old continent? and spread over the world.

During the Second World War the idea of unification become stronger, when several movements for uniting the Europe in resistance to Nazism threat appeared. [77] In many cases, after the war, these movements played a crucial part in a process of formulating a common European policy. Representing a great variety of political approaches to the process of the European Integration, they played the role of pressure groups lobbying national governments, parliaments and European institutions, towards that course of action. [78] The Congress of Hague

A successive important step on the road to integration was made at the Hague Congress in 1948,[79] where the European political and cultural elite gathered to deliberate upon the future of Europe and to lay the foundation for the unification process. The congress’ program concentrated on three aspects – political, socio-economic, and cultural assimilation. [80] Despite the differences of opinions concerning the political feature of integration, this congress arranged very important proposals and reaffirmed the essential values of European democracy.

The visual and concrete effects emerging from that meeting were the European Convention of Human Rights, the European Court of Justice, and the Council of Europe. The last organization played a particularly important role in formulating the basic principles of the future of the European Union such as “respect for human rights, and democratic rules, and the representation of peoples. ”[81] Those principles were to become major characteristics of creating the idea of common European Nation. Therefore, that symposium proved that European unification process came a long way from lofty ideas to reality.

The Spring of Europe With the impetus given by The Hague Conference, advanced action towards integration was taken. On 9th of May 1950, Schuman’s plan was presented. [82] On that memorable day in Paris, against the background of the Second World War overwhelming the whole of Europe, the French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman read to the international press a declaration calling France, Germany and other European countries to pool together their coal and steel production as “the first concrete foundation of a European federation”. 83] He proposed the creation of a supranational European Institution, charged with the management of the coal and steel industry, the very sector which, at that time, was the basis of all military power, and had caused so much damage during two deadly wars in Europe during the previous decades. Looking at that moment from the perspective of that time it can be said that the whole thing began on that day. This unique process of integration in Europe, however, did not take place in one day or a few decades.

The project, which had began after the Second World War still seemed very young. Nonetheless, its ambitions were great: to build a Europe that respects freedom and the identity of all of the European citizens that make up its numbers. While keeping their own specific values, customs and language, European citizens will probably start to feel at ease in the European home. As co-architect of this project, a visionary Jean Monnet said: “We are not making a coalition of States, but are uniting people. [84] At that point it should be stressed that regardless of the fact that the aim of that declaration was to create a common economic cooperation, the long-term principle was to “create the foundations for the European federation”,[85] as the guarantee of preservation of peace. The Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg warmly received the French proposal. The treaty establishing first European Community, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was eventually signed in April 1951,[86] opening up the door to a Europe of practical achievements.

The offspring of the Schuman’s plan was a community with a dimension of responsibilities limited to economic cooperation. From today’s perspective the founding of ECSC was a small achievement, but remarkable in that it was the first time Europe’s governments gave up a significant power to a supranational organization. [87] The European Defence Community (EDC) Treaty followed this development. That agreement objective was to create a European army, to promote Western European cooperation on defence and to attach West Germany into the European defence system. 88] Six ECSC members signed a draft treaty in 1952, but the French Assembly vetoed that initiative. [89] The major reason for that the French public opinion, as well as French politicians were very nervous about the idea of re-arming the West German army so soon after the war. [90] At that time more advanced incorporation of Europe was still the utopian objective. It became evident that economic integration was the only practical way achievable at that time, and further steps would be possible to be accomplished only after a long period of time. The above-mentioned projects of European defence structure have a long and complicated history.

After the EDC failure, a series of subsequent initiatives came to nothing. Few years later, the Fouchet Project (1960-62), which implied far fewer ambitious propositions, was rejected. [91] However, the same kind of military cooperation was accomplished when the Western European Union (WEU) [92] was established. Great Britain, France, West Germany, Italy, and the Benelux States became founding members of that organization, which came into life in October 1954, with the aim “to promote the unity and to encourage the progressive integration of Europe. [93] It took over forty years for a WEU to become a part of European Union,[94] as an organ responsible for the EU in the field of defence. [95] Along with European Defence Community, efforts to create the project of European Political Community were on their way. That plan assumed that the European Union was based on “the parallel development of economic and political structures. ”[96] With the failure of the European Defence Community, all hope for a successful cooperation in the political field was lost, at least temporarily.

The Treaties of Rome Although the two ambitious ‘experiments’ in the field of integration presented above failed, the European Coal and Steel Community turned out to be a solid achievement. Therefore, further action was taken to give the momentum to the cause of integration. The six ECSC member states at the meeting in Messina, Italy, in June 1955 decided to ‘relaunch’ the European idea by setting up a common market. [97] As they state in the preamble of that treaty, the purpose was “to lay the foundation of even closer union among peoples of Europe. [98] Hence, the process which begun with purely economic objectives, started to embrace a wilder spectrum- the European Union, which would include not only member states, but also its citizens. Whether the concept of European Nation was considered at that time is questionable, but some type of community of European people was intended. The Treaty of Rome signed on March 25th, 1957, established two new communities: The European Economic Community (EEC), and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). [99] The EEC treaty bonded the Six to “the creation of a common market and the harmonization of their economic policies. [100] The creation of the common market was set for 12 years hence, during which time the member’s states were obligated to gradually remove all restrictions and barriers. Between 1958 and 1970, the following changes took place: the abolition of customs duties, creation of a common external tariff, provisions for the free movement of people, services and capital among the member states, development of common agriculture and transport policies, and the creation of the European Social Found and the European Investment Bank.

The Euratom Treaty, aimed to set a common market for the atomic energy, fulfilled only some of its goals, while focusing mainly on research projects. [101] Following the pattern of the major market operating on a continental scale, such as United States’ market, [102] the frontiers of Western Europe started to open up in the economic interest of the Continent. With the capacities of free market the European dimension had become a reality. The Enlargement process

The European Union is open to any European country which wants to join and is prepared to take on all the commitments made in the founding treaties and subscribe to the same fundamental objectives. Two conditions are, however, required to be fulfilled by a new member. First, the country has to be in Europe, and second, the country applies all the democratic procedures, which characterize a state under the rule of law. [103] The creation of the common market among the ECSC member states appeared to be incredibly successful.

The economic figures spoke for themselves: trade among the six member’ states was growing three time faster then with countries remaining outside, and the GNP (Gross National Product), as well as income and consumption per capita increased significantly. [104] That encouraged other European countries remaining outside to join the organization. The first enlargement from six to nine members, took place in 1973, when Great Britain, Denmark and Ireland were admitted. [105] Later, in 1981 Greece joined the Community, followed by Spain and Portugal in 1986. 106] The third wave of admission, in 1995, changed the number of members from 12 to 15, when Austria, Finland and Sweden were accepted. [107] At the same time as these transformations occurred in the European Union, the political shape of Eastern Europe had been changing as well. The fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 led to the reunification of Germany in October 1990. [108] The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 resulted in the process of democratisation in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. 109] That course of action led to applications for membership in the European Union from former Soviet Block countries: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia; the three Baltic States, the former republics of Soviet Union: Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia; a former Yugoslavian republic: Slovenia; and two Mediterranean countries: Cyprus and Malta. [110] The European Union welcomed this opportunity to help stabilise the European Continent and to extend the benefits of European unification to those young democracies, setting the next enlargement rounds.

By virtue of the decision taken during the Copenhagen Summit on December 2002, the European Union will have 25 members from 1st May, 2004, with further expansion planned for 2007, when Bulgaria and Romania join the organization. [111] Here the question leading this paper takes a new dimension. Previously, the concept of the European Nation embodied fifteen Western European states, more or less similar with each other having analogous history, culture and traditions.

With the next step of enlargement, ten Eastern and Central European countries will join the European Union, with rather different cultures, relatively dissimilar traditions and histories, which often took their course into slightly different directions. The Single European Act The objective of the Treaty of Rome to build a common market was partly achieved in 1960s, but the oil crisis in early 1970s [112] along with the collapse of the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate system in 1971,[113] resulted in worldwide economic recession in the early 1980s.

That situation forced leaders of European Community to come up with the plan “to rewrite the treaties of Paris and Rome (…) with aim to strengthen the community institutions and extend their fields of activity. ”[114] The growing size of the European Community with the consecutive rounds of enlargement, which included states at different stages of economical development, evoked the necessity for change. Therefore, specific actions were taken in order to remove all remaining physical, technical, and fiscal barriers, and to complete a unified economic area with proper single market.

On the 1st of July, 1987 the Single European Act (SEA), after the ratification by the member states, came into force. [115] That document, in assumption, constituted an answer to all the problems which troubled this young organization. It gave the European Commission[116] power over new political areas such as environment, research and development, and regional policy. It also heightened the status of existing European structures or created new ones which were vital to fulfil the aims of SEA. 117] The most important aspect of that treaty was that it set 1st of January 1993 as the date by which a full internal market was to be established. [118] With the Single European Act the European Community made a significant move on the road to federalism. [119] This treaty constituted another important step forward in the integration process of the market issues. By placing a considerable amount of power in the hands of European institutions, the organization indicated its federalist approach. As stated in article 103R of the Single European Act:

The Community acts in the area of the environment to the extent that the objectives set (…) may be better achieved at the Community level then at the level of an individual member state. [120] However, unlike federal states, the European Community was not responsible for a common security system, common monetary or economic areas, or common foreign relations. Those aspects of unification were, to some extent, embodied a few years later in the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties. [121] 2. 2. The Emerge of the European Union Forty years of economic integration opened the way for a political integration.

When the Treaty of European Union, signed in Maastricht on 7th of February 1992, came into force on 1st of November 1993, [122] the dreams and ambitions of many people who dedicated their life to the idea of united Europe, from the founding fathers to the citizens of Europe, had been fulfilled. The draft treaty suggested the formulation of the European Union on the fundamentals of a federation system. That proposition, though, was blocked by Great Britain. Therefore the text of the treaty was changed to: “An even closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen. [123] The treaty of the European Union had several goals to achieve. The main goal was the creation of the next stage of the Union based on three ‘pillars’. The first pillar included the reformed and straightened European Community; the second one, the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP); and third one, Common Home Affairs and Justice. [124] Another aspect of that agreement advocated the creation of a single European currency by the end of January 1999. As in the Single European Act, also in that treaty the necessity to straight out some of the existing structures was formulated. 125] The novum in the history of the European integration was the creation of European Union ‘citizenship’, which gave the EU members the right to travel, work and live anywhere in the Union and to have direct participation in European politics by standing or voting in the local or European elections. [126] The development of the European integration and the extension of the tasks and responsibilities assigned to the common institutions had created the need for a more effective and efficient organization.

The Maastricht Treaty started an integration process on the political track, whose origins refer to unsuccessful European Political Community (1954). The new political dimension, however, was only slowly becoming realized. A Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), for instance, was to a large extent existing mainly on paper; in reality that aspect remained in the control of the states governments rather then being handed to the European Union organs. 127] In the following treaties, the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) and the Treaty of Nice (2001),[128] additional actions were taken to prepare the Organization for further expansion in membership. Several changes were initiated in the field of the Union’s External Relations, when a new position of Commissioner responsible for that sector was created. [129] The most ambitious project undertaken by the EU, the creation of single European currency, was ready to be launched according to the timetable set by the Maastricht Treaty

A limited
time offer!
Save Time On Research and Writing. Hire a Professional to Get Your 100% Plagiarism Free Paper