Europe and Culture

Anthropological Perspectives on
the Process of European Integration
1
HANA HORKOV
ABSTRACT
Altcr thc lall ol thc Iron Curtain a ncw conccpt ol Europc as
a socially rclcvant objcct ol study cmcrgcd in thc social sci-
cnccs challcnging thc modcl ol Europc as historical cntity, or
a philosophical or litcrary conccpt. This conccpt provokcd an
upsurgc ol intcrcst in thc study ol Europcan idcntity among
anthropologists who bcgan to study how Europcanncss is
constructcd and articulatcd both by thc architccts ol thc EU
thcmsclvcs and at a grass-root lcvcl. Drawing on notions ol
Europcan culturc and idcntity, this tcxt cxamincs thc imagc
ol Europc/thc EU in post-communist Europc, particularly in
thc Czcch Rcpublic, lrom two dillcrcnt pcrspcctivcs. Eirst,
how thc institutionalisation ol Europc as a cultural idca is
vicwcd by somc ol thc Czcch political commcntators, and
sccond, lrom an cthnographically groundcd anthropological
pcrspcctivc, locusing on how and at what lcvcls a Czcch lo-
cal community idcnti!cs with Europc and thc EU. Drawing
on a broad rangc ol data, thc tcxt attcmpts to providc ncw
insights into thc pitlalls ol collcctivc Europcan idcntity in
thc making, with thc cmphasis on its cultural dimcnsion in
thc post-communist Czcch Rcpublic.
KEYWORDS
anthropology ol Europc, cultural intcgration, cultural dc!-
cit, culturc, Czcch local community, Europcan idcntity,
Europcanisation
Introduction
In this articlc I will !rst attcmpt to analysc kcy tcrms - Europc and culturc
- and thcir rclation with rcgard to anthropology ol Europc. Thcn I will out-
linc kcy thcscs conccrning thc ncwly cmcrging cultural politics and policics
Anthropological Journal of European Cultures Volume 18(2), 2009: 627 Berghahn Journals
doi: 10.3167/ajec.2009.180202 ISSN 0960-0604 (Print)
EUROPE AND CULTURE
7
within thc Europcan Union [EU) and thcir application to national agcndas
on Europcan cultural intcgration in Ccntral and Eastcrn Europc. Thc ncxt
part ol thc tcxt will bc dcvotcd to thc analysis ol sclcctcd studics ol Europcan
cultural intcgration by Czcch political commcntators and social scicntists,
which will bc comparcd with thc outcomcs ol anthropological rcscarch on
Europcan idcntity-in-thc-making in a Czcch local community. It will con-
cludc with a critiquc ol thc currcnt Europcan idcntity projcct.
Europe as an Anthropological Concept:
Theoretical and Methodological Implications
Thc conccpt ol Europc has rcccntly undcrgonc a prolound scrutiny in thc
social scicnccs and humanitics. In thc !cld ol socio-cultural anthropology
thcrc has bccn a shilt lrom anthropology in Europc to anthropology of Eu-
ropc. A landmark in thc dcvclopmcnt ol an anthropology ol Europc was thc
'invcntion' ol thc Mcditcrrancan in thc 1960s [Goddard ct al. 1996: !). Thcsc
studics locuscd primarily on rural communitics and on thc valucs ol honour
and shamc.
Thc 1970s arc associatcd with thc cmcrgcncc ol 'Europc' as a distinctivc
catcgory ol anthropological inquiry [scc Wallacc 1990). This cra can bc said
to commcncc with Boisscvain's cssay 'Towards a Social Anthropology ol Eu-
ropc' [1976), which was thc !rst systcmatic attcmpt to dc!nc an agcnda lor
thc ncwly cmcrging sub-disciplinc. Boisscvain rcjcctcd thc community modcl
and proposcd a ncw lramcwork lor situating local cvcnts and proccsscs in a
widcr rcgional, national and historical contcxt. Hc cqually rcluscd any attcmpts
to rcily Europc as a particular culturc arca [Goddard ct al. 1996: 13-15).
Thc 1980s witncsscd a turn in social anthropology with rcspcct to thcory
and mcthodology - anthropology rcturncd homc [cl. Colc 1977). Thc urgc
to do rcscarch in onc's own culturc lound its cxprcssion in onc ol thc ASA
monographs, Ant/ropology ot Homc []ackson 1985). Old 'positivist' approachcs
[structural-lunctionalism, structuralism, nco-Marxism) wcrc largcly on thc
wanc, and ncw paradigms cmcrgcd undcr thc rubric ol postmodcrnism, lcm-
inism and 'thirdworldism'. 'Culturc' in thc lorm ol collcctivc idcntity mcrgcd
with politics and produccd idcntity politics and thc politics ol rccognition,
inlormcd by multiculturalist discoursc. Thc idca ol an anthropology ol Mcdi-
tcrrancan Europc conccivcd as a singlc, unilorm cultural arca was rctrcating,
bcing rcplaccd by thc conccpt ol Europc as a unitcd wholc. Thc modcl ol
HANA HORKOV
8
Europc as a unit sui gcncris - in its plurality and divcrsity - provokcd a ncw
scicnti!c qucst lor thc roots ol 'Europcanncss' in history, rcligious studics
and social scicnccs [Shorc and Black 1996).
Anthropologists wcrc laccd with two scts ol tasks. Eirstly, thcy nccdcd
to conccptualisc Europc, and sccondly, thcy aimcd to sct up Europc as a
mcaninglul objcct ol anthropological cnquiry [Goddard 1996: 23). Thc lor-
mcr task is whcrc thc troublc starts sincc thc qucstion 'What is Europc?'
incvitably lcads to problcmatic issucs ol classi!cation. Eundamcntally am-
bivalcnt discoursc on Europc contains both inclusion and cxclusion: both
unity and thc construction ol dillcrcncc. Thc dichotomy bctwccn Scll and
Othcr has bccn pivotal in thc making ol Europcan idcntity. Il thc conccpt ol
collcctivc idcntity cntails inclusion, somcbody must bc cxcludcd and classi-
!cd as an outsidcr. Europcan culturc, cquatcd with 'Wcstcrn Civilisation', is
quitc commonly opposcd to 'Alrican barbarism' [cl. Chabal and Daloz 1999),
or 'Oricntal dcspotism', comparcd to which thc idca ol Europc bccamc a
univcrsalistic notion ol Civilisation, constructcd in opposition to thc Oricnt
[Dclanty 1995: 1!).
As many anthropologists asscrt, Europc mcans dillcrcnt things to dillcr-
cnt pcoplc in dillcrcnt contcxts [Dclanty 1995: 3). How many dc!nitions ol
Europc can onc havc at onc's disposal? Instcad ol a conscnsus, thc rcccnt dc-
batc ovcr thc naturc ol Europc was controvcrsial. On thc onc hand, primordi-
alists arguc about Europcan unity in tcrms ol its cultural and rcligious roots
stcmming lrom thc common ]udco-Christian basc. Thc primordialist stancc
locuscd on cultural cxclusivity is vcry closc to thc 'Eortrcss Europc' projcct
that was cxamincd by Dclanty [1995). On thc othcr hand, lor modcrnists
contcmplating Europc as a wholc, Europcan idcntity is an activc proccss in
thc making that takcs placc through a scrics ol cncountcrs, dialogucs and nc-
gotiations that arc rclatcd to thc 'outcomc', namcly Europcan idcntity. Such
a rclational idcntity docs not assumc thc cxistcncc ol a rcady-madc Europcan
community, morc likcly, it conccntratcs on rccon!guration and rcdc!ning
proccsscs that can bc callcd Common Europc [Novotna 2005: 177).
Thc 1990s brought ncw challcngcs that havc spurrcd lurthcr anthropolo-
gical inquiry into thc mcaning ol Europc. Ncw cxtcrnal conditions brought
about radical, unprcccdcntcd changcs. Thc Europcan Commission and Far-
liamcnt's turn towards 'culturc' was bornc lrom thc nccd to addrcss lunda-
mcntal problcms ol lcgitimacy, including thc dcplorcd Europcan dcmocratic
dc!cit, growing distancc bctwccn EU institutions/clitcs and thc citizcns ol
EUROPE AND CULTURE
9
Europc, and thc lack ol a Europcan dcmos and public spacc [cl. Wcilcr 2002,
Shorc 2006). In 1993, thc Trcaty ol Maastricht, which brought a notion ol Citi-
zcns' Europc as a lcgal conccpt, camc into lorcc, and provokcd an upsurgc ol
intcrcst in thc study ol collcctivc Europcan idcntity among anthropologists.
'Europcan culturc' as an objcct ol anthropological study cmcrgcd in thc in"u-
cntial articlc by Colc [1977). Latcr works includcd Dclanty [1995), Goddard
ct al. [1996), Shorc [2000), and Skalnk [1999, 2005b), also morc history-
oricntcd and scmiotic pcrspcctivcs, such as Malmborg and Strath [2002),
and institution-oricntcd rcscarch by, lor cxamplc, Bcllicr and Wilson [2000).
Shorc's Building Europc: 1/c Culturol Politics of Europcon Intcgrotion [2000)
was dcvotcd to thc cultural dimcnsion ol thc EU cnlargcmcnt, particularly to
thc cultural politics aimcd at lorging Europcan awarcncss among thc public
in thc mcmbcr statcs. It rc"cctcd thc rcccnt EU rcsolution aimcd at ccmcnt-
ing thc loyalty bctwccn Europc and thc mcmbcr statcs with an awarcncss
ol common Europcan culturc and idcntity. As Shorc pointcd out, sincc thc
1980s Europcan intcgration has bccn prcdominantly sccn as a cultural pro-
ccss. Culturc is to scrvc as a political instrumcnt lor lurthcring thc construc-
tion proccss [Shorc 2000: 1). Il Europc is a cultural construct, social scicntists
havc to ask who constructs it and lor what purposcs. According to Shorc,
cultural intcgration can takc placc in two ways: it can bc cithcr a spontancous
transition which will 'pay wcll', or it can takc an activc lorm through intcrvcn-
tion which supports thc Europcan idca by mcans ol advcrtising campaigns
to strcngthcn Europcan idcntity, valucs and its cultural hcritagc. According
to thc nco-lunctionalist thcory thcrc was a prcsumption ol spontancous, dy-
namic transition to intcgration, 'an irrcsistiblc wavc ol Europcanisation' was
dcbatcd [Shorc 2000). Morcovcr, thc tcrm 'Europcanisation' was also anthro-
pologically asscsscd in an articlc ol Borncman and Eowlcr lrom 1997. As
Shorc showcd in his book, ncw lorms ol thc support ol thc idca ol Europc
cmcrgcd - ranging lrom 'Fcoplc's Europc' Campaign locuscd on invcnting
ncw symbols, ncw Europcan logo, "ag and anthcm, to attcmpts to cstablish
Europcan passports and rcorganisc a calcndar with thc aim ol cnclosing
thcmatic 'Europcan Ycars', and organising local lcstivals ol thc 'Europcan
Wcck', or thc annual holiday 'Europc Day' [on 9 May). Among othcr activi-
tics lcaturcd, 'Tclcvision without Eronticrs Dircctivc' aimcd at sctting up pan-
Europcan tclcvision as a mcans to support political intcgration, last but not
lcast, thcrc appcarcd ncw awards lor litcraturc, architccturc, sports and so on,
sponsorcd by thc EU.
HANA HORKOV
10
Onc ol thc most signi!cant initiativcs looking at thc study ol Europc
prcdominantly lrom an anthropological pcrspcctivc is Barrcra-Gonzalcz's
projcct 'Towards an Anthropology ol Europc' [2005), which attcmptcd to in-
troducc a tcaching coursc and co-ordinatcd rcscarch agcnda on thc Anthro-
pology of Europc. Thcrc wcrc two intcrnational mcctings ol anthropologists
that provcd invaluablc lor thc cmcrgcncc ol Barrcra-Gonzalcz's projcct: thc
workshop 'Anthropology ol Europc: Tcaching and Rcscarch' that took placc
in thc East Bohcmian villagc ol Doln Rovc, 17-19 Octobcr 200!, and thc
workshop 'Towards an Anthropology ol Europc' sponsorcd by thc Europcan
Scicncc Eoundation that took placc on 1-5 Scptcmbcr 200! in Litomysl, a
picturcsquc town in castcrn Bohcmia [both Czcch Rcpublic). Thc !rst cvcnt
lcd to thc publication ol thc book cditcd by Fctcr Skalnk, Ant/ropology of
Europc: 1coc/ing ond Rcscorc/ [2005b), thc Litomysl papcrs still await publica-
tion [Barrcra-Gonzalcz and Skalnk, l.c.). Dcaling with thc csscntial qucstion
- what is Europc? - Barrcra-Gonzalcz's projcct covcrs a wholc host ol ap-
proachcs, ranging lrom Europc as a mctaphysical rcality via a gcographical
cntity to an imagincd, cultural rcality cpitomiscd in onc ol thc itcms ol his
proposal, 'Thc ncw Europc in thc making: thc cultural dimcnsion' [Barrcra-
Gonzalcz 2005: 21-22). Conccrning thc othcr kcy issuc whcthcr Europc can
bccomc an adcquatc objcct lor anthropological study, hc claims that thcrc is
'sul!cicnt ground lor Anthropology ol Europc' [ibid.: 17) on condition that
such a study is bascd on a broad, opcn-cndcd, comparativc projcct in which
othcr social scicnccs and humanitics can participatc [history, sociology or po-
litical scicncc), and providcd that a thcmatic, problcm-oricntcd approach is
prclcrrcd to Europc as a 'culturc arca' [Nicdcrmllcr and Stocklund 2001).
Rcccnt timcs arc charactcristic ol thc EU's incrcasing activitics in thc arca
ol promotion and advcrtising ol 'Europc': Europc is coming closc to pcoplc.
Eor cxamplc, in 200!, thc Europcan Commission publishcd a lca"ct cntitlcd
Mony 1ongucs, 0nc Fomily undcr thc motto Europc on t/c Mooc: Longuogcs in t/c
EU. Similarly, thc rcccnt initiativc cntitlcd Unitcd in Diocrsity, rcscmbling thc
Amcrican E plurilus Unum, or thc South Alrican Unity in Diocrsity, commu-
nicatcs thc mcssagc that though [cultural) unity is an obvious political goal
ol thc EU, it should not qucstion cxisting cultural divcrsity within Europc's
nation-statcs. Rcadcrs arc assurcd that although thc EU has committcd itscll
to intcgration, it ncvcrthclcss supports languagc and cultural divcrsity ol all
citizcns in thc mcmbcr statcs. Hcncc, contcmporary ambitions ol thc EU arc
radically dillcrcnt lrom thc past cllorts, which locuscd on thc EU as a guaran-
EUROPE AND CULTURE
11
tor ol csscntial valucs such as pcacc and solidarity. What mattcrs today is a
proccss ol building Europc that rcspccts thc lrccdom and idcntity ol all pco-
plc who arc its part. Thc mcssagc is put in no unccrtain tcrms: only through
thc uni!cation ol its cntirc pcoplc will Europc bc ablc to control its latc and
dcvclop its positivc rolc in thc world. Fcoplc should lccl at homc in Europc
['Europcan Homc') whilc thcy can prcscrvc thcir spcci!c valucs, customs
and languagcs. Anothcr illustrativc casc in point is a campaign towards 'cvcr
closcr Europc'. Inlormation lca"cts 1c lioc, uork ond study in onot/cr country of
t/c EU [publishcd by thc Europcan Commission), containing an ovcrvicw
ol rights in thc EU, arc niccly wrappcd up in thc product callcd Your Europc,
which includcs rclcrcnccs in all thc languagcs ol thc EU.
This brings us to thc qucstion: is thc intcgration proccss within thc Eu-
ropcan Union mcant to scrvc as a catalyst to grcatcr cultural homogcncity
within Europc? Can Europc cvcr bccomc a distinctivc cultural cntity unitcd
by sharcd valucs, culturc and idcntity? In this rcspcct, it is appropriatc to
mcntion Llobcra's intcrcsting rcmark on thc univcrsalism ol thc Enlightcn-
mcnt and thc idca ol univcrsal lratcrnity that rcquircs thc homogcnisation
ol languagcs, rcligions, political systcms and so on, with rcspcct to thc rcccnt
attcmpts ol thc EU burcaucrats to lorgc thc idca ol sharcd Europcan culturc.
Hc poignantly rclcrs to van Gcnncp's asscrtion that only an cvil cmpirc can
succcsslully accomplish such a task - thc Bolshcviks wcrc thc idcal candi-
datcs to try to achicvc it [Llobcra 1996: 98). Equally, Goody rcminds us that
Europc as a valid unit ol study should bc challcngcd and assumptions ol its
uniqucncss avoidcd [Goody 1991). Hann [2006) lollows Goody and suggcsts
studying Eurasia instcad. Europc must bc studicd as a cultural construction,
it cannot bc rcgardcd as a scll-cvidcnt cntity. That mcans it is a highly ambi-
tious task to placc Europcan socictics within a widcr contcxt ol study whilc
'bringing Europc into thc anthropological univcrsc' [Goddard 1996: 86).
Europe and Culture
Thc othcr kcyword ol this articlc - culturc - is cvcn morc challcnging than
'Europc', both thcorctically and mcthodologically. A tcrminological hotch-
potch is wcll known among social scicntists, including anthropologists. Eor
somc, culturc mcans valucs, motivcs and cthical rulcs that arc part ol a
social systcm. Eor othcrs, such a dc!nition is not cnough, thcy vicw culturc
as thc wholc sct ol institutions by which pcoplc livc. Somc anthropologists
HANA HORKOV
12
conccivc ol culturc as a sct ol lcarncd ways ol thinking and bchaving, whilc
othcrs strcss gcnctic in"ucnccs on cultural traits. Anothcr contradiction rc-
sidcs in thc qucstion whcrc culturc is 'storcd': lor somc, culturc is locatcd
in thc minds ol human bcings [idcational pcrspcctivc), whcrcas othcrs arc
dissatis!cd with such a narrow limitation and add thc ingrcdicnt ol human
bchaviour [phcnomcnal conccption ol culturc). Thc abscncc ol conscnsus
has lar-rcaching conscqucnccs lor both thc ctic and cmic conccptualisation ol
culturc in and ol Europc. As lor thc lormcr approach, thcrc arc divcrsc ways
ol studying 'culturc', ranging lrom thosc dclying thc scicnti!c approach, to
thosc that support it. Thc lattcr pcrspcctivc is cqually ambiguous.
What idca ol culturc do thc Europcan politicians havc in mind whcn
spcaking about cultural intcgration: thc normativc vicw ol culturc as a stan-
dard ol pcrlcction [Arnold 1971), or a classic anthropological conccption ol
culturc as a particular way ol lilc ol a pcoplc? Onc has to admit thc prclcrcncc
lor thc continuing mcaning ol culturc as a 'way ol lilc' dcrivcd lrom colonial
contcxts cvcn though thcrc is a ccrtain movc away lrom thc vicw that culturcs
can bc dcscribcd as !xcd and scparatc cntitics - apparcnt in tcrms such as
cultural hybridity, transculturation, cross-cultural dialoguc and cultural in-
bctwccnncss [Bcnnctt 2005: 68) - cvcn in thc lolk modcls. Such notions, how-
cvcr, makc a scicnti!c cnquiry cvcn morc dil!cult as thcy cxprcss thc "uidity
ol cultural distinctions and rclationships.
Thc rclation bctwccn Europc and 'culturc' is cvcn morc complcx than thc
inquiry into cach ol thcsc tcrms scparatcly. Throughout its modcrn history,
Europc always cmcrgcd as a product ol 'culturc', whcthcr scicnti!c-tcchno-
logical, bourgcois high culturc or thc prcscnt-day Europcan ol!cial culturc.
As Dclanty [1995) pointcd out, Europc can bc vicwcd as both an cxclusivist
notion and normativc spacc ol univcrsal validity in which a privilcgcd 'Wc'
matchcs a bclicl in thc univcrsality ol Wcstcrn norms and valucs [Dclanty
1995: 13). Europc has bccomc a mirror lor thc intcrprctation ol thc world.
Europcan modcrnity is sccn as thc culmination ol history and thc apothcosis
ol civilisation. Europcan idcntity is vcry closcly linkcd with racial myths ol
civilisational supcriority [Dclanty 1995: 1!). An ovcrlap bctwccn culturc and
civilisation is cvidcnt bccausc thc logic ol culturc is boundcd and limitcd to
thc Wcst: lormcrly, thc Wcst had civilisation, and culturc was al!liatcd to thc
Othcr who lackcd civilisation.
It is no coincidcncc that thc EU clitcs in Brusscls startcd to 'think Europc'
in cultural dimcnsions only in postmodcrn timcs whcn thc tcrm 'culturc'
EUROPE AND CULTURE
13
rcgaincd its intcllcctual currcncy, and thc notion ol cultural dillcrcncc was
cndowcd with moral and political valucs. Culturc has cntcrcd thc political
projcct ol Europc. Morcovcr, thc attcmpts to institutionalisc Europc as a
cultural idca arc madc into a polity that is primarily shapcd by cconomic
intcrcsts.
The Image of Europe/the EU in Post-communist Europe
Thc rcdc!nition ol Europc compcllcd by thc cnd ol a bipolar world and
thc subscqucnt lormation ol thc gcopolitical vacuum in which cx-communist
countrics ol Eastcrn and Ccntral Europc cxistcd altcr 1989 brought about
ncw dc!nitions and conccptions ol Europc. A cultural rclcrcncc modcl ol thc
Wcst was abandoncd and rcplaccd by an incrcascd cmphasis on 'Europc' in
thc post-Cold War pcriod. Ncw thcmatic options cmcrgcd [cl. Dclanty 1995,
Skalnk 1999, Barrcra-Gonzalcz 2005), such as thc rcvival ol Ccntral Europc
[so-callcd Mittclcuropa) as a political programmc and idcal, ncw conccptions
ol Europcanism in thc lormcr Eastcrn Europc, a ncw polarity bctwccn North
and South, a rcncwcd notion ol 'Eortrcss Europc', this timc aimcd against
Islam and thc Third World, and thc likc.
Thc rcbirth ol thc conccpt ol Mittclcuropa is associatcd with thc collapsc
ol thc idca ol Europc. It is prcdominantly conccptualiscd as a rival, or anti-
thcsis to Europc, namcly to thc EU. Dclanty argucs that bchind this notion
ol Europcanism, dillcrcnt lrom that ol thc EU, is a dclcnsivc projcct bascd
on thc dcmand that Thcy [Wcstcrncrs) should takc Us [Eastcrncrs) scriously
[Dclanty 1995: 131). Hc claims that Mittclcuropa is a mcrc utopia lor thc
luturc, a nostalgia lor an imagincd past. Morcovcr, it can havc a potcntially
dangcrous ambition, manilcsting itscll in 'nationalist and obscurantist un-
dcrcurrcnts that scck to distort dcmocratic rclormism' [Dclanty 1995: 137).
Thc tcrm 'Ccntral Europc' is widcly uscd today, but until 1989 it was cm-
ploycd vcry littlc outsidc thc rcgion itscll. As thc Czcch-Italian philosophcr
Vaclav Blohradsk rcmarks [1991), this conccpt gaincd world-widc rccogni-
tion thanks to thc Czcch-Ercnch writcr Milan Kundcra. Hc uscd it to !ght
against thc allcgcd arrogancc and lazy narrow-mindcdncss ol Wcstcrn rcad-
crs who placcd his works in 'Eastcrn Europc' and rcad thcm 'politically' as
an account ol lilc 'bchind thc Iron Curtain undcr Communism'. Kundcra
told thc Wcstcrn rcadcrship that Eastcrn Europc is mcrcly a military conccpt
and has no historical lcgitimacy. In thc articlc cntitlcd 'Milan Kundcra jako
HANA HORKOV
14
Homo Foliticus' [Milan Kundcra as Homo Foliticus|, Czcch journalist Karcl
Hvzala [200!) argucs that Kundcra's Ccntral Europc rcminds onc ol a kid-
nappcd Wcst [Kundcra 198!a). Kundcra [198!b) makcs an attcmpt to givc a
vivid picturc ol this tcrm, and to asscrt a political and intcllcctual altcrnativc
to thc 'grcy' Sovict Eastcrn Europc by placing cmphasis on its uniqucncss,
dillcrcncc and ambivalcncc. Howcvcr, as Hvzala asscrts, such a Europc cx-
istcd only bclorc thc Grcat War. In thc wakc ol thc Sccond World War, altcr
thc bordcrs ol Foland wcrc altcrcd, thc dcstruction ol ]cws in thc Holocaust
and thc mass dcportation ol Gcrmans and Hungarians lrom thc East to Gcr-
many, thc imagc ol Europc radically changcd.
What mcaning do thc ncw conccptions ol Europcanism havc lor thc lor-
mcr Eastcrn Europcans? Thc Europc thcy largcly aspirc to is that ol thc mct-
ropolitan corcs ol Wcstcrn Europc, which is, as Dclanty argucs, 'an idcalizcd
kind ol Europc' [1995: 135). Thc promulgatcd idcal to catch up with thc most
advanccd Wcstcrn countrics has bccn aircd in thc Eastcrn Europcan public
spacc by politicians and thc mass mcdia sincc thc lall ol communism. How cvcr,
as thc cx-communist countrics still visibly 'lag bchind' mcasurablc dcvclopmcnt
in thc Wcst, thc idca ol Eastcrn Europc as a 'disadvantagcd pcriphcry ol thc
Wcst' gaincd ground in thc 1990s [Dclanty 1995: 1!0). A chancc to upgradc
thcir positions within Europc camc with thc invitation ol thc EU lor thcm to
bccomc mcmbcr-statcs. Again, motivations to bc part ol thc EU varicd as Eu-
ropc docs not mcan thc samc lor cvcryonc. Whilc thc Ccntral Europc projcct
was vicwcd as a mcans ol 'rc-Europcanisation' and rcintroducing somc ol
thc valucs climinatcd by thc communist Sovict systcm [Dclanty 1995: 137),
castcrn Europcans, lor cxamplc lormcr Czcchoslovak and Czcch Frcsidcnt
Vaclav Havcl, largcly chcrishcd thc idca ol a 'Rcturn to Europc.'
Hcncc, Europcanism has bccomc onc ol thc undcrlying issucs on thc
political agcnda ol most ol thc lormcr communist countrics. In thc Czcch
Rcpublic, thc issuc ccntrcd round a host ol topics. I shall bric"y commcnt
upon somc ol thosc that havc bccn rc"cctcd in ncwspapcr articlcs, public dc-
batcs and acadcmic circlcs. Thc sclcction is rathcr arbitrary, and it covcrs thc
timc pcriod 2003 to 2008, varying in intcnsity ol intcrcst. Drawing on Fhilip
Schlcsingcr's thcorctical notion ol Europc as 'ncw cultural battlc!cld' [199!),
I would likc to dcvclop thc argumcnt that Europcanisation is an un!nishcd
busincss whosc !nal trajcctory is unknown.
'Going back to Europc' bccamc thc major topic on thc political and public
agcnda dcbatcd in thc mass mcdia. Numcrous articlcs dcalt with thc ncw
EUROPE AND CULTURE
15
proccss ol scll-idcnti!cation. Europc was bcing intcrprctcd as thc EU. A
unitcd Europcan community was promotcd in ordcr to bring about changcs
in public attitudcs towards Europc and Europcanncss. Thc EU cmcrgcd as
thc panacca lor thc ailing Czcch cconomy and wcllarc, and a young, undcr-
dcvclopcd libcral dcmocracy. Czcchs wcrc portraycd in Wcstcrn Europc as
'poor cousins'. Thc idca ol bclonging to Europc also scrvcd as a mcans ol
distinguishing thc Czcch Rcpublic lrom Slovakia, illustratcd by Czcch Frcsi-
dcnt Klaus's initiativc to bring thc country into thc EU sooncr than Slovakia,
Foland and Hungary. It wcnt hand in hand with his unwillingncss to promotc
thc Viscgrad projcct.
2
Hc cvcn withdrcw lunds lrom thc Ccntral Europcan
Univcrsity [CEU) in Fraguc so that thc univcrsity had to movc to Warsaw and
Budapcst.
And what docs thc tcrm Europcanisation mcan in thc Czcch contcxt?
Thcrc arc two undcrlying myths: Czcchs will cithcr mclt in thc EU likc a
lump ol sugar in tca, or thc EU will bring law and ordcr at last. Hcncc, Brus-
scls and thc EU arc sccn as a cargo cult [scc Skalnk 2000), sincc Czcchs
[and also Folcs) bclicvc in thc cultivation ol public culturc, cllcctivc judiciary
and thc likc. Both myths givc cvidcncc ol vcry low national and civic scll-
con!dcncc. Howcvcr, as Vladimr Kucra asscrtcd in ncwspapcr articlc cn-
titlcd 'Co jsou csi za? Takov vosci Evropy' [What arc Czcchs likc? Such
Mongrcls ol Europc| [2003), Czcchs wcrc ablc to avoid thc two obstaclcs. In
thcir approach to thc EU thcy havc shown a grcat dcal ol rationality cpito-
miscd by thcir !rmly cntrcnchcd passivc positions oisoois public lilc [also
visiblc in rclation to domcstic politics). An ovcrwhclmingly pragmatic Czcch
vicw ol thc EU is illustratcd in thc political scicntist Bohumil Dolczal's ncws-
papcr articlc [200!) cntitlcd ']alovc nadscn ani brblan nad osudcm ncsta'
[Ncithcr Stcrilc Enthusiasm nor Grumbling about Bad Luck is Enough|. Hc
claims that Czcchs sccm to bc cxtrcmcly rcalistic in that thcy do not cxpcct
anything grcat, thus thcy do not risk disappointmcnt, unlikc thc Folcs who
cxpcct thc improvcmcnt ol moral valucs and standards. Thc approach to thc
EU ol a typical Czcch, as mcdia and domcstic politics construct him/hcr,
is as lollows: thc EU is no miraclc, it is a powcrlul bloc with a considcrablc
dcmocratic dc!cit in dccision-making proccsscs. Howcvcr, mcmbcrship ol
thc Czcch Rcpublic in thc EU cnablcs it to tap thc wcalth ol thc EU. What is
not bcing cmphasiscd, claims Dolczal, is thc lact that no human socicty has
cvcr got rich by thc mcrc acccssion to a ccrtain institution, no mattcr how
wcll-oll it may bc.
HANA HORKOV
16
Idcnti!cation with Europc only on thc rational lcvcl is at thc corc ol thc
ncwspapcr articlc 'Hlcda sc politick narod' [In Scarch lor Folitical Nation|
[2005) by Alcxandr Vondra, thc lormcr Czcch Vicc-Ministcr lor Europcan
Allairs. Hc claims that a proccss ol intcnsilying intcgration corrcsponds with
a ccrtain countcr-rcaction. Europc is not a political nation, lor this rcquircs
cmotional idcnti!cation. Thcrc is no rcason to think that it will bccomc onc
in thc ncar luturc. Thus, pcoplc rcgard thc EU as il it was a corporation
- thcy arc intcrcstcd in it, and by bccoming mcmbcrs statcs arc buying its
sharcs.
Thc common vicw that Czcchs arc Europcans only partially, 'quartcr-
hcartcdly, and what is morc, according to momcntary nccds' [Kucra 2003)
has givcn risc to numcrous survcys and polls cxamining thc rclationship ol
Czcchs to thc EU. Onc ycar altcr thc acccssion ol thc Czcch Rcpublic to
thc EU, a survcy undcr thc titlc 'Kdo jscm' [Who am I| was prcscntcd by
thc Czcch daily MF Dncs [2005). As onc ol thc MF Dncs rcportcrs Robcrt
ascnsk shows in thc homonymous articlc [2005), somc scvcn thousand
Czcchs wcrc askcd about thcir allcgiancc to thc statc, thcir town or villagc,
or to Europc. According to thc survcy, only cvcry scvcnth Czcch lclt morc
Europcan than Czcch or local patriot.
A growing gap bctwccn oox populi and thc discoursc ol thc political clitcs
was a topic ol a Czcch political scicntist Vaclav Nckvapil's ncwspapcr articlc
'Vccjnc mnn tva v tva rozscn' [Fublic Opinion oisoois thc EU En-
largcmcnt| [200!). Hc commcntcd on anothcr public opinion poll carricd out
by thc sociologist Ivan Gabal that invcstigatcd thc allcgcd costs and bcnc!ts
associatcd with cntry to thc EU among thc Czcchs. Thc rcsulting conccpt ol
'Euro-lactor' rcvcalcd a spcci!c mixturc ol opinions and cmotions, involving
anguish, hopc and cxpcctations ol systcmic changcs, a bcttcr lilc, and also lcar
ol lorcigncrs. Nckvapil asscrtcd that thc outcomcs wcrc not grcatly dillcrcnt
lrom thc answcrs ol othcr Europcans who 'likc thcir Europc' but do not lccl
that thcy arc Europcans. By acccntuating similar roots among all Europcan
nations, thcy do lccl a grcat dcgrcc ol al!liation with so-callcd Europcan cul-
tural spacc. A morc distrcssing intcrprctation ol thc rcscarch outcomcs, how-
cvcr, suggcsts both cchocs ol thc cargo cult and thc idca ol Eortrcss Europc.

It
is intcrcsting to comparc thc 'Czcch' symbolic map ol Europc with thc rcsults
ol Bulgarian anthropologist Magdalcna Elchinova's study among Bulgarian
studcnts, which shows that, lor instancc, it is prcdominantly thc countrics
lrom thc cx-Sovict bloc that arc outsidc 'Europc'. Hcr rcscarch has shown
EUROPE AND CULTURE
17
that Europc is still morc about cxclusion and division than about inclusion
and unity. A 'Bcrlin wall' still cxists in thc minds, pcrccptions, cvaluations
and bchaviour ol thc inhabitants in Europc [Elchinova 2005).
Nckvapil also claboratcd on thc collcction ol studics by groups ol political
scicntists and sociologists, Lcs Europccns focc o l'clorgisscmcnt [Europcans Eacing
thc Enlargcmcnt| cditcd by thc wcll-known Ercnch political scicntist ]acqucs
Rupnik [200!a), which providcd plcnty ol data lrom thc polls on Europcan
public opinion [particularly Euro-baromctcr). Nckvapil docs not commcnt
on thc rcsults bccausc hc claims that thcy arc only truc lor thosc who arc
rcsponsiblc lor building Europc, and thcy givc littlc cvidcncc about thc rcal
possibilitics or aspirations ol thc pcoplc ol thc EU to bccomc Europcans.
Similarly, Rupnik claimcd in his ncwspapcr articlc 'Stcjnc vrazy, rznc vz-
namy' [Samc Tcrms, Dillcrcnt Mcanings| [200!b) that politicians in Europc
havc cmancipatcd thcmsclvcs lrom thcir votcrs.
Hcncc, Europcan public opinion rcvcals thc clcavagcs not among Euro-
pcan citizcns but among political clitcs. What arc thc issucs that unitc Euro-
pcans, and which issucs tcnd to dividc thcm? To lacilitatc thc contcmporary
proccss ol Europcan uni!cation, thcrc havc bccn many attcmpts to idcntily
common cultural dcnominators which might scrvc both as a basis to dc!nc
common Europcan idcntity, and as an cxclusion principlc supporting arbi-
trary dccision-making conccrning lurthcr cnlargcmcnt [Novotna 2005: 177).
As Katcina Salakova, a Czcch rcportcr bascd in Brusscls, argucs in thc
tcxt 'Novodobm Adcnaucrm ncpcjc doba' [Our Timc Docs not Eavour
Modcrn Adcnaucrs| [2007), thc slight intcrcst in Europcan allairs among thc
public is associatcd with thc abscncc ol common dcnominators. Europc lacks
a strong topic that would bc sharcd by thc public. Morcovcr, today's Europc
lacks strong lcadcrs such as Churchill, Adcnaucr, Monnct or Schuman. Thc
EU stars would nccd lcgitimacy at homc and rcspcct outsidc. Thcrc is no
sharcd conscnsus on what thc most important narrativc ol Europc should
bc: indccd thc vcry nccd ol such narrativc is a mattcr ol dcbatc. Eor instancc,
Sharon Macdonald [2000) claims that in ordcr not to rcpcat thc mistakcs ol
nation-statcs, thc EU should avoid a uni!catory narrativc. Similarly, Luisa
Fasscrini [2002) maintains that thcrc should bc an 'ironic idcntity' lor Europc
- a postmodcrn onc as opposcd to modcrn national idcntitics.
Thc Czcch ]cwish writcr, journalist and diplomat Lco Favlat raiscs thc is-
suc ol an cxclusivist notion ol Europc. In his articlc 'Radji chmury tc, ncz
pozd' [Glooms Rathcr Now than Latc| [200!), hc warns against thc tcmpta-
HANA HORKOV
18
tion to dc!nc a ncw idcntity lor Europc on thc basis ol anti-Amcricanism and
anti-Israclism: this would bc a stcp towards Europcan dcstruction. Hc claims
that most ol Europc is blind to its own history and unwilling to sacri!cc its
illusionary good, and sccs a contradiction bctwccn humanistic proclamations
ol ol!cial EU documcnts and pathctic appcals ol thcir rcprcscntativcs to !ght
tcrrorism on thc onc hand, and thc concrctc attitudcs and bchaviour ol most
thc EU countrics on thc othcr. Today's intcrnally lragmcntiscd Europc lacing
a gravc valuc crisis and inncr spiritual and political crosion is thus prcdis-
poscd to thc growth ol anti-Scmitism among young whitc Europcans. Morc-
ovcr, a Europc susccptiblc to dclcatist attitudcs is an casy prcy lor cxtcrnal
and intcrnal totalitarian-lundamcntalist tcndcncics.
Dcspitc thc proclamations and wishcs ol many Europhilcs, thc unity ol thc
EU still rcsts on a national basis, argucs thc Czcch journalist Viliam Buchcrt
in thc articlc 'Nas hlas by ml znt v EU hlasitji' [Our Voicc Should bc Hcard
Loudcr in thc EU| [2005). Hc rcminds his rcadcrs that thc EU as a product
ol Ercnch-Gcrman rcconciliation camc to tcrms with thc outcomc ol thc
Sccond World War, and that its driving lorcc was thc nccd to ovcrcomc thc
dcstructivc aspirations ol nation-statcs. Altcr thc cnlargcmcnt ol thc EU in
200!, ncw zoncs cmcrgcd: Folish-Gcrman, Gcrman-Czcch and thc likc. Buch-
crt raiscs qucstions about whcthcr intcgration will rcsult in rcconciliation, as
in thc post-war phasc. Hc doubts it lor many rcasons. Eirst, thc EU still uscs
thc tcrms and notions that wcrc in usc whcn nation-statcs wcrc cmcrging in
thc ninctccnth ccntury - nationality, nation - which havc dillcrcnt mcanings
in dillcrcnt contcxts. Thcrclorc thcrc arc divcrsc idcas and imagcs ol thc EU
in Wcstcrn, Ccntral and Eastcrn Europc.
Thc prcscnt Czcch Frcsidcnt Vaclav Klaus, thc most vocilcrous critic ol thc
'undcmocratic' principlcs ol thc EU who in Novcmbcr 2008 turncd into an
ovcrt disscntcr altcr hc mct with thc instigator ol thc Irish 'no' to thc Trcaty
ol Lisbon, Dcclan Ganlcy. Klaus cxprcsscd his doubts as to thc cxistcncc
ol a Europcan idcntity that transccnds thc national idcntity ol thc mcmbcr
statcs ol thc EU or is dircctly supcrior to it in thc ncwspapcr articlc 'Kdc stoj
Unic pcd summitcm. skal cvropskc idcntity' [Whcrc is thc Union bclorc
its Summit: Thc Fitlalls ol Europcan Idcntity| [2005). Obscrving that Euro-
pcan idcntity is undcrstood cithcr in a normativc scnsc [what kind ol idcntity
thcrc should bc) or in a dcscriptivc scnsc [Europcan idcntity simply is), Klaus
points out that thcrc is no cmpirical cvidcncc that such idcntity cvcr cxistcd
in thc past, nor that anything likc Europcan idcntity cxists today. As lor thc
EUROPE AND CULTURE
19
luturc, hc is sccptical about thc nccd to havc onc. Anothcr issuc hc raiscs
is whcthcr Europcan idcntity can bc cnlorccd out ol thc abstract doctrinc
ol human rights and othcr abstract valucs, which hc considcrs impossiblc.
Idcntity is, hc argucs, thc outcomc ol history, it is not a product ol laboratory
cxpcrimcnts, complicatcd intcrnational agrccmcnts and Brusscls scminars.
On thc othcr hand, thc ncw initiativcs ol Brusscls burcaucrats in thc !cld ol
culturc and idcntity bring about irrcsolvablc dilcmmas that can cvcn damagc
thc wholc Europcan projcct bccausc thc wcakcning ol national idcntitics and
thc lack ol mcaninglul substitutcs crcatcs a statc without idcntity. It is bad
lor so-callcd old-timcrs, it is cvcn worsc and dc!nitcly morc dangcrous lor
immigrants who [will) comc to livc in Europc, concludcs Klaus.
Thc abovc ncwspapcr articlcs and sociological survcys conccrning thc rc-
lation bctwccn thc Czcchs and Europc/thc EU support, among othcr things,
thc anthropological assumption that Europc - just likc 'thc 'Wcst', 'Mittcl-
curopa', 'thc Oricnt', or 'thc Third World' - is a cultural construct, dc!ncd
symbolically. Europc is an imagincd arca cmcrging in pcoplc's minds, opin-
ions and bclicls [Nicdcrmllcr and Stocklund 2001). Such a statcmcnt has
clcar implications lor social scicntists, particularly anthropologists. Il Europc
is a cultural construct, thcy should study who or what stands bchind its 'crc-
ation' [Shorc 2000), and how Europcanncss is undcrstood at a grass-root
lcvcl. Thcrclorc, thc last part ol thc tcxt will prcscnt somc ol thc outcomcs ol
thc rcscarch that took placc bctwccn 2002 and 2007 in thc Czcch rural com-
munity ol Doln Rovc.
Emic Conceptualisation of the Process of Europeanisation:
An Anthropological Perspective
This rcscarch is part ol thc rcccnt cndcavour ol social anthropologists to rc-
study thc communitics that havc alrcady bccn invcstigatcd at othcr timcs
[Skalnk 2005c). It aims to cxplorc what acccssion to thc Europcan Union
mcans lor thc communitics undcr study. Thc undcrlying mcthodological
assumption is that social anthropology through participant obscrvation is a
prcrcquisitc lor an in-dcpth analysis ol social proccsscs in numcrically limitcd
communitics whcrc a rcscarchcr can makc scvcral rclationships with both
ordinary and cxccptional individuals. Hcncc, thc aim ol anthropology ol Eu-
ropc is to look lor dillcrcnccs and similaritics [common dcnominators) in a
ncwly cmcrging Europcan political, cconomic and socio-cultural spacc bascd
HANA HORKOV
20
on thc rcscarch ol gcnuinc rclations. It mcans that a rcscarchcr must not
build his or hcr hypothcscs on thc assumption that thc rclationship to Europc
is automatically givcn.
Rcscarch in Doln Rovc locuscd on a comparativc analysis ol global and
local lactors in this rural community in rclation to Europcan idcntity. This rc-
scarch was part ol thc comprchcnsivc study in which a numbcr ol Czcch and
othcr Europcan anthropologists and sociologists participatcd [scc Novotna
200!, Skalnk 200!, 2005a, Kusimba 2005). It was motivatcd by Shorc's book
Building Europc [2000), which cxamincs thc projcct ol constructing Europcan
idcntity within thc EU institutions undcr thc provocativc slogan 'Europc has
bccn crcatcd, now wc must crcatc thc Europcans'. Thc cmphasis was placcd
on thc study ol how cultural dimcnsions ol thc EU cnlargcmcnt arc vicwcd by
thc local pcoplc - in thcir cvcryday livcs, lcisurc timc and in thcir community
lilc. Thc aim was to makc a kind ol 'swot' analysis to idcntily all thc lactors
that cithcr impcdc or promotc thc main objcctivc ol thc EU planncrs, thc
crcation ol Homo Europocus, in thc local sctting [Horakova 2007).
Thc rcscarch rcsults indicatc an ambiguous rclationship to Europc and
thc EU among villagcrs. Frior to thc acccssion ol thc Czcch Rcpublic to thc
EU [200!) and immcdiatcly altcrwards, most villagcrs tcndcd to vicw thc
situation both with modcratc optimism and positivc cxpcctations, and with
anxicty and pcssimism. On thc onc hand, somc villagcrs cxpcctcd cconomic
prospcrity and saw thc Czcch Rcpublic as thc ncxt Ircland [at that timc, Irc-
land scrvcd as a notcd EU succcss story). Thcy lookcd lorward to thc arrival
ol laircr Europcan law which would bc an improvcmcnt ol Czcch law. On thc
othcr hand, othcrs lcarcd cconomic dcclinc and political chaos. Thc prcvail-
ing pcssimistic conccrns dcalt prcdominantly with thc agricultural policics ol
thc Czcch govcrnmcnt that had to bc adaptcd and translormcd to mcct thc
EU rcgulations in this sphcrc. Such conccrns appcarcd rational, givcn that
in thc past Doln Rovc was a community cndowcd with an abovc-avcragc
potcntial lor agricultural prospcrity. Howcvcr, in thc coursc ol timc, largcly
duc to thc lorccd rcmovals ol largc larmcrs [so-callcd kuloks, according to
communist idcology) lrom thc villagc in thc 1950s, thc agricultural potcntial
ol thc villagc had bccn substantially undcrmincd. At prcscnt, its agrarian
sphcrc, oncc thc most salicnt charactcristic ol this rural community, is almost
irrclcvant: in Doln Rovc only 2.7 pcr ccnt arc now activc larmcrs [Skal-
nk 200!). Such a dramatic dcclinc in thc numbcr ol activc villagc larmcrs
docs not, howcvcr, automatically mcan that agriculturc as thc major sourcc
EUROPE AND CULTURE
21
ol lood ccascs to bc an attractivc topic to discuss. As many cthnographic
accounts provc [scc, lor cxamplc, Hall 2003, Fassmorc and Fassmorc 2003),
Czcch lood plays a kcy rolc in national idcntity. Eood lor Czcchs has bccn a
'historical and crcativc discngagcmcnt lrom thc unscttling and ovcrpowcr-
ing movcmcnt ol grcat lorccs that havc shapcd Czcch history', bc that thc
Austro-Hungarian Empirc, Nazi occupation or Sovict domination [Fassmorc
and Fassmorc 2003: !0). With thc advcnt ol thc Europcan Union, many vil-
lagcrs articulatcd lcars, discusscd lrcqucntly in thc mcdia, that thc EU would
outlaw Czcch national dishcs. Guls [goulash), bccr, olomouckc toor`ky [a small
round strong-"avourcd curd chccsc), utopcnci [picklcd sausagcs), nokldony /cr
mcln [bric-typc chccsc marinatcd in oil with othcr "avourings) and sckon
[sliccs ol lorccmcat) wcrc among thosc that wcrc particularly cndangcrcd bc-
causc thc traditional mcthod ol prcparation and storagc might violatc EU
lood salcty standards and rcgulations. Eor instancc, most villagcrs asscrtcd
that to achicvc thc bcst tastc ol goulash onc has to storc it scvcral days bclorc
scrving. Similarly, both marinatcd loods must bc kcpt at room tcmpcraturc,
which violatcs thc EU rcgulation on lood prcscrvation [rclrigcration). Thcsc
'cmblcms ol Czcch national idcntity' [Hall 2003: 109) wcrc vicwcd as csscn-
tial to thc survival ol Czcch culturc oisoois a distant powcr rcprcscntcd by
thc EU. Thus, lor many villagcrs, irrcspcctivc ol thcir socio-cconomic posi-
tions, thc EU rcprcscntcd a potcntial thrcat to onc ol thc kcy pillars ol Czcch
culturc.
Thc EU is prcdominantly vicwcd by thc villagcrs as an cconomic cntity:
'whcrc moncy is sitting, pcrhaps whcrc it is going' - in thc lormcr casc thc
idca is how to obtain moncy lrom thc EU, and thosc who arc capablc ol doing
that arc highly apprcciatcd. This conccrns cvcn thosc who arc ablc to outwit
thc EU institutions, which can bc vicwcd as onc ol thc rcmindcrs ol national
idcology undcr socialism whcn it was a common stratcgy to lool thc statc
with thc aim to cnsurc a bcttcr living standard, or just lor lun, to provc that
it is possiblc [Horakova 2007). Thcsc outcomcs tcnd to provc ].-E. Bayart's
thcsis that thc EU is doomcd to rcmain a political cntcrprisc that is sui gcncris
and incomplctc, cvolving in accord with a scqucncc ol pragmatic compro-
miscs [Bayart 2005: 6!). Hcncc, thc proccss ol Europcanisation cmbcddcd
in thc macro-political conccpt ol Europcan idcntity rcmains a public, highly
rhctoric discoursc, aimcd at achicving a widc Europcan idcntity which would
scrvc as cohcsion in thc political union. It is a normativc projcct which comcs
lrom thc administrativc ccntrc ol thc EU and - idcally - movcs towards thc
HANA HORKOV
22
pcriphcry. As Hans van dcn Brock suggcsts in a spccch on 'Thc Challcngc
ol a Widcr Europc', dclivcrcd to thc Institutc lor Europcan Studics, Brus-
scls, on 17 March 199!, Europcan idcntity has to crystallisc. Europcans havc
to incrcasc thc lccling ol bclonging togcthcr, sharing a dcstiny and thc likc.
Othcrwisc thc thrcat ol dissolution will comc lrom both insidc and outsidc
[Dclgado-Morcira 1997).
What has bccn donc in this rcspcct in Doln Rovc? How was such Euro-
pcan idcntity promotcd or sought? Erom a social constructionist pcrspcctivc,
idcntity is a "uid conccpt that bundlcs togcthcr complcx social proccsscs, and
thc cmphasis is placcd on thc proccss ol making and claiming idcntitics [cl.
Dclanty 2000). In othcr words, idcntitics arc not attributcs that pcoplc havc
but rcsourccs that pcoplc usc []amicson 2002). As is cvidcnt lrom thc cmpi-
rical data, in somc social contcxts and lor somc individuals, bcing or lccling
Europcan is a dcclaration ol a scnsc ol mcmbcrship ol a group, whilc lor
othcrs it rcmains an abstract classi!cation. Thc cmpirical rcality ol thc villa-
gcrs rcvcals both cascs. Europcan idcntity is invokcd only occasionally, undcr
spcci!c social circumstanccs, whilc bcing out-ol-mind in cvcryday intcracti-
ons or having littlc immcdiatc rclcvancc much ol thc timc. Somc young pco-
plc living in thc villagc lccl particularly cnthusiastic about thc opportunitics
thc EU ollcrs in tcrms ol rights to travcl and work across Europc [savc lor
Austria and Gcrmany, which havc not yct liltcd thc strict mcasurcs on work
pcrmits). Howcvcr, lor thosc whosc horizons and ambitions do not go bcyond
thcir local milicu, closc social rclationships rcmain thc most important sourccs
ol idcntity, morc important than bcing Europcan. On thc wholc, most villa-
gcrs do not sharc thc allcgcd cultural dc!cit, vividly rc"cctcd in thc abscncc
ol a Europcan public by Europcan clitcs and scholars [Horakova 2007). Thcy
simply vicw Europc as crotos - powcr, without dcmos - pcoplc, but it docs not
sccm to bc thcir conccrn.
Conclusion: The Cultural Decit of Europe
As many social scicntists, journalists and commcntators asscrt, so lar, thcrc
is no Europcan idcntity or awarcncss that could compctc with nationalism or
cthnicity, or at lcast local idcntitics, and which could ollcr an altcrnativc basc
lor cohcsion and solidarity. Dcspitc its rhctoric ol transnationalism, Europc
only rcinvcnts nationalism that has bccomc rci!cd as Europcan tradition.
Thc way thc Europcan clitc pcrccivc thc tcrm culturc is similar to thc out-
EUROPE AND CULTURE
23
modcd anthropological vicw ol a boundcd unit. Thc problcm is that cultural
lactors such as sharcd history, historical mcmory, rcligion, languagc or myths
arc instrumcntal in scparating lcllow Europcans, rathcr than uniting thcm
[cl. McDonald 1996). And as thcrc arc scrious dc!cicncics in thc cultural
!cld, thcrc arc sccptical voiccs lorccasting a lailurc in crcating Europcan cul-
turc and idcntity. As A. D. Smith [1992) indicatcs, it is a utopian drcam ol in-
tcllcctuals and idcalists with littlc chancc ol mobilising mass consciousncss.
Europcan intcgration has rcmaincd in thc rcalm ol clitc idcology, con-
dcmncd by thc masscs [Horakova 2007: 115). As this papcr has shown, con-
tcmporary dcbatcs ovcr thc conccpts ol Europcan idcntity sccm vcry lar away
lrom thc 'ncw' Europcan dcmos [cl. Novotna 2005, Horakova 2007). How sc-
rious is thc lack ol lcgitimacy in thc !cld ol culturc? Thcrc is a widcly hcld
assumption that rccognition ol sharcd cultural valucs is thc basis ol politi-
cal lcgitimacy and stability [cl. Gcllncr 1997). Europc lacks a sharcd culturc
around which Europcans could unitc, thc sharcd culturc is ncccssary lor lc-
gitimising political ambitions ol thc EU, lor thc scnsc ol cohcsion among
thc dividcd nations ol Europc. Thc EU is a statc without nation, it aspircs
to bccomc a dcmocracy but it docs not havc its dcmos, its pcoplc, who could
idcntily with it.
Anthropological rcscarch into thc actual cxtcnt ol popular idcnti!cation
with thc EU rcmains an urgcnt nccd il wc arc to !nd out whcthcr ]can Mon-
nct's vision ol 'a union among pcoplc' can bc translatcd into a livcd rcality
[Shorc and Black 1996: 295) or, convcrscly, dcconstruct thc myth ol thc unity
ol Europcan culturc [Dclanty 1995: 13). Anthropologists should kccp asking
disturbing qucstions: is a rcal unity ol Europc dcsirablc or is it only thc lan-
tasy ol hypocritical clitcs? Can Europcan idcntity cvcr bc crcatcd? And il so,
is it possiblc to crcatc it via social cnginccring? Thcy should strivc to work on
a ncw dc!nition ol Europcanism that docs not cxcludc thc strangcr, and kccp
on studying what rolc culturc plays in thc proccss ol Europcan intcgration.
Europc should not bc vicwcd as a !xcd, boundcd cntity and culturc but as a
"uid spacc with movcablc boundarics and unccrtain contcnts.

!"#" !%&'(%)' [lormcrly Novotna) is a scnior lccturcr in

social anthropology at thc Univcrsity ol Fardubicc and sc-
nior lccturcr in politics at thc Univcrsity ol Hradcc Kralovc.
Hcr prolcssional intcrcsts includc: anthropology ol Europc,
HANA HORKOV
24
anthropology ol colonialism and post-colonialism, thcorics
ol culturc, cthnicity and nationalism, and anthropology ol
travcl and tourism. Shc has conductcd !cldwork in South
Alrica, cxploring culturc in thc making and thc nation-build-
ing proccss in post-aparthcid South Alrica, and rural !cld-
work in hcr homc country and Foland. Hcr rcccnt rcscarch
includcs rc-studics ol local communitics in thc Europcan
Union. Shc has publishcd and cditcd scvcral works in thc
!clds ol Alrican studics and social anthropology.

Notes
1. This tcxt summariscs rcscarch rcsults rcachcd during thc last dccadc. I thank thc gucst
cditors - Andrcs Barrcra-Gonzalcz and Anna Horolcts - lor thcir usclul rccommcndations,
and Fctcr Skalnk lor his commcnts at two stagcs ol thc prcparation ol thc manuscript. I also
thank Andrcw Robcrts lor thc English languagc rcvision, and two anonymous rcvicwcrs lor
thcir hclplul suggcstions. Thc rcsponsibility lor thc !nal product is howcvcr cntircly minc.
2. Thc Viscgrad Group is a grouping ol lour Ccntral Europcan statcs - thc Czcch Rcpublic,
Slovakia, Foland and Hungary - cstablishcd on 15 Ecbruary 1991 lor thc purposc ol co-
opcration and lurthcring thcir Europcan intcgration. All lour mcmbcrs ol thc Viscgrad
Group bccamc part ol thc EU on 1 May 200!.
References
Arnold, M. [1869| [1971), Culturc ond Anorc/y: An Essoy in Sociol ond Politicol Criticism [Cam-
bridgc: Cambridgc Univcrsity Frcss).
Barrcra-Gonzalcz, A. [2005), 'Towards an Anthropology ol Europc: Outlinc lor a Tcaching
and Rcscarch Agcnda', in F. Skalnk [cd.), Ant/ropology of Europc: 1coc/ing ond Rcscorc/
[Fraguc: Sct Out), 3-25.
Barrcra-Gonzalcz and Skalnk, F. [l.c.), Ant/ropology of Europc: Culturol Diocrsity ond Europcon
Intcgrotion [Mnstcr: LIT).
Bayart, ].-E. [2005), 1/c Illusion of Culturol Idcntity [London: Hurst).
Bcllicr, I. and T. M. Wilson [2000) [cds), An Ant/ropology of t/c Europcon Union: Building, Imogin
ing ond Expcricncing t/c Acu Europc [Oxlord: Bcrg).
Blohradsk, V. [1991), 'Mittclcuropo: Rokousk sc joko mctoforo', in V. Blohradsk [cd.),
Piro.cny sot joko politicky prollcm. Escjc o looku po.dn doly [Fraha: cskoslovcnsk spiso-
vatcl), 39-60.
Bcnnctt, T. [2005), 'Culturc', in T. Bcnnctt, L. Grossbcrg, and M. Morris [cds), Acu Kcyuords:
A Rcoiscd Vocolulory of Culturc ond Socicty [Oxlord: Blackwcll), 63-69.
EUROPE AND CULTURE
25
Boisscvain, ]. [1976), 'Towards a Social Anthropology ol Europc', in ]. Boisscvain and ]. Ericdl
[cds), Bcyond t/c Community: Sociol Proccsscs in Europc [Thc Haguc: Dcpartmcnt ol Education
and Scicncc), 9-17.
Borncman, ]. and N. Eowlcr [1997), 'Europcanization', Annuol Rcoicu of Ant/ropology 26:
!87-51!.
Buchcrt, V. [2005), 'Nas hlas by ml znt v EU hlasitji', Lidooc nooiny, 29 April.
ascnsk, R. [2005), 'Kdo jscm?', MF Dncs, 29 April.
Chabal, F. and ].-F. Daloz [1999), Africo 1orks: Disordcr os Politicol Instrumcnt [London: ]amcs
Currcy).
Colc, ]. [1977), 'Anthropology Comcs Fart-way Homc: Community Studics in Europc', Annuol
Rcoicu of Ant/ropology 6[1): 3!9-378.
Dclanty, G. [1995), Inocnting Europc: Idco, Idcntity, Rcolity [Ncw York: St Martin's).
--- [2000), Citi.cns/ip in o Glolol Agc: Socicty, Culturc, Politics [Buckingham: Opcn Univcrsity
Frcss).
Dclgado-Morcira, ]. M. [1997), 'Cultural Citizcnship and thc Crcation ol Europcan Idcntity',
Elcctronic Journol of Sociology. http://www.sociology.org/contcnt/vol002.003/dclgado.html
[acccsscd 9 Novcmbcr 2009).
Dolczal, B. [200!), ']alovc nadscn ani brblan nad osudcm ncsta', MF Dncs, 29 April.
Elchinova, M. [2005), 'Thc Balkans' Way to Europc', unpublishcd.
Europc on t/c Mooc: Longuogcs in t/c EU http://www.ccdcl.org.au/Fublications/Europc_movc_
lca"ct.pdl [acccsscd 8 Novcmbcr 2008).
Gcllncr, E. [1997), Aotionolism [Ncw York: Wcidcnlcld and Nicolson).
Goddard, V. A. [1996), 'Erom thc Mcditcrrancan to Europc: Honour, Kinship and Gcndcr',
in V. A. Goddard, ]. R. Llobcra and C. Shorc [cds), 1/c Ant/ropology of Europc: Idcntitics ond
Boundorics in Con!ict [Oxlord: Bcrg), 57-92.
Goddard, V. A., Llobcra, ]. R. and C. Shorc [1996) [cds), 1/c Ant/ropology of Europc: Idcntitics
ond Boundorics in Con!ict [Oxlord: Bcrg).
Goody, ]. [1991), 1/c 0ricntol, t/c Ancicnt ond t/c Primitioc: Systcms of Morriogc ond t/c Fomily in
Prcindustriol Socictics of Eurosio [Cambridgc: Cambridgc Univcrsity Frcss).
Hall, T. M. [2003), 'Thc Social Conditions and Symbolism ol Czcch Bccr-drinking', Ant/ropol
ogy of Eost Europc Rcoicu 17 [1): 109-121.
Hann, C. [2006), 'Aot t/c Horsc 1c 1ontcd!' Postsociolism, Acolilcrolism, ond Eurosio [Mnstcr:
LIT).
Horakova, H. [2007), 'Thc Local and thc Global: In Scarch ol Europcan Idcntity in thc Czcch
Local Community', 1/c Ant/ropology of Eost Europc Rcoicu 25[1): 112-116.
Hvzala, K. [200!), 'Milan Kundcra jako homo politicus', MF Dncs, 1 April.
]ackson, A. [1985) [cd.), Ant/ropology ot Homc [London: Tavistock).
]amicson, L. [2002), 'Thcorizing Idcntity, Nationality and Citizcnship: Implications lor Euro-
pcan Citizcnship and Idcntity', Sloook Sociologicol Rcoicu 6: 506-532.
Klaus, V. [2005), 'Kdc stoj Unic pcd summitcm. skal cvropskc idcntity', Mlod Fronto Dncs,
16 ]unc.
HANA HORKOV
26
Kucra, V. [2003), 'Co jsou csi za? Takov vosci Evropy', MF Dncs, 30 Octobcr.
Kundcra, M. [198!a), 'A Kidnappcd Wcst, or Culturc Bows Out', Gronto 11: 95-118.
--- [198!b), 'Tragcdy ol Ccntral Europc', Acu York Rcoicu of Books, 26 April, 33-38.
Kusimba, Ch. M. [2005), 'Changc and Incrtia in an East Bohcmian Community: A Frc-
milinary Study', in F. Skalnk [cd.), Ant/ropology of Europc: 1coc/ing ond Rcscorc/ [Fraguc:
Sct Out), 187-220.
Llobcra, ]. R. [1996), 'Anthropological Approachcs to thc Study ol Nationalism in Europc:
Thc Work ol Van Gcnncp and Mauss', in V. A. Goddard, ]. R. Llobcra and C. Shorc [cds),
1/c Ant/ropology of Europc: Idcntitics ond Boundorics in Con!ict [Oxlord: Bcrg), 93-112.
Macdonald, S. [2000) [cd.), Approoc/cs to Europcon Historicol Consciousncss: Rc!cctions ond Proooco
tions [Hamburg: Kocrbcr Stiltung).
Malmborg, M. al and B. Strath [2002) [cds), 1/c Mconing of Europc [Oxlord: Bcrg).
McDonald, M. [1996), 'Unity in Divcrsity?' Somc Tcnsions in thc Construction ol Europc,
Sociol Ant/ropology ![1): !7-60.
Nckvapil, V. [200!), 'Vccjnc mnn tva v tva rozscn', MF Dncs, 3 ]uly.
Nicdcrmllcr, F. and B. Stocklund [2001) [cds), Europc: Culturol Construction ond Rcolity [Copcn-
hagcn: Muscum Tusculancum).
Novotna, H. [200!), 'Globaln vcrsus lokaln: podl globaln kultury na kultuc lokalnho
spolccnstv', in F. Skalnk [cd.), Doln Rooc: Poloos oy.kumu [Scicnti!c Fapcrs ol Univcr-
sity ol Fardubicc. Scrics C. Supplcmcnt 8), 179-207.
--- [2005), 'Ethnography ol Fopular Culturc: Froblcms ol Mcthod', in F. Skalnk [cd.), An
t/ropology of Europc: 1coc/ing ond Rcscorc/ [Fraguc: Sct Out), 177-187.
Fasscrini, L. [2002), 'Erom thc Ironics ol Idcntity to thc Idcntitics ol Irony', in A. Fagdcn [cd.),
1/c Idco of Europc: 1/c Politics of Idcntity from Antiuity to t/c Europcon Union [Cambridgc:
Cambridgc Univcrsity Frcss), 191-208.
Fassmorc, B. and S. R. Fassmorc [2003), 'Tastc and Translormation: Ethnographic Encoun-
tcrs with Eood in thc Czcch Rcpublic', Ant/ropology of Eost Europc Rcoicu 17[1): 37-!1.
Favlat, L. [200!), 'Radji chmury tc, ncz pozd', Rcspckt 19, 3-9 May.
Rupnik, ]. [200!a), 'Stcjnc vrazy, rznc vznamy', MF Dncs, 3 ]uly.
--- [200!b), Lcs Europccns focc o l'clorgisscmcnt [Faris: Frcsscs dc Scicncc).
Salakova, K. [2007), 'Novodobm Adcnaucrm ncpcjc doba', Lidooc nooiny, 3 March.
Schlcsingcr, F. [199!), 'Europcanncss: A Ncw Cultural Battlc!cld?', in ]. Hutchinson and
A. D. Smith [cds), Aotionolism [Oxlord and Ncw York: Oxlord Univcrsity Frcss), 316-325.
Shorc, C. [2000), Building Europc: 1/c Culturol Politics of Europcon Intcgrotion [London and Ncw
York: Routlcdgc).
--- [2006), 'In uno plurcs[,) EU Cultural Folicy and thc Govcrnancc ol Europc', Culturol
Anolysis 5: 7-26.
Shorc, C. and A. Black [1996), 'Citizcn's Europc and thc Construction ol Europcan Idcntity',
in V. A. Goddard, ]. R. Llobcra and C. Shorc [cds), 1/c Ant/ropology of Europc: Idcntitics ond
Boundorics in Con!ict [Oxlord: Bcrg), 275-299.
EUROPE AND CULTURE
27
Skalnk, F. [1999), 'Will Europc Work? Dcmocracy undcr thc Conditions ol Globalization',
Humon Affoirs 10[1): 3-11.
--- [2000), 'Foucn z Guincjc', Lidooc nooiny, 17 ]anuary.
--- [200!) [cd.), Doln Rooc: Poloos oy.kumu [Scicnti!c Fapcrs ol Univcrsity ol Fardubicc.
Scrics C. Supplcmcnt 8).
--- [2005a) [cd.), Sociln ontropologic olcc Doln Rooc [Scicnti!c Fapcrs ol Univcrsity ol Far-
dubicc. Scrics C. Supplcmcnt 13).
--- [2005b) [cd.), Ant/ropology of Europc: 1coc/ing ond Rcscorc/ [Fraguc: Sct Out).
--- [2005c), 'Anthropology ol Europc and Community Rc-studics: Froposal lor a Ncw Con-
ccrtcd Rcscarch Initiativc', in T. McCajor Hall and R. Rcad [cds), C/ongcs in t/c Hcort of
Europc: Rcccnt Et/nogrop/ics of C.cc/s, Sloooks, Romo, ond Sorls [Stuttgart: ibidcm-Vcrlag),
313-337.
Smith, A. D. [1992), 'National Idcntity and thc Idca ol Europc', Intcrnotionol Affoirs 68[1):
55-76.
van dcn Brock, H. [199!), Spccch ol Hans van dcn Brock - 30th Annivcrsary ol thc Insti-
tutc lor Europcan Studics http://curopa.cu.int/rapid/sctLanguagc.do?languagccn [ac-
ccsscd 8 Novcmbcr 2008).
Vondra, A. [2005), 'Hlcda sc politick narod', Rcspckt 19, 3-9 May.
Wallacc, W. [1990), 1/c 1ronsformotion of 1cstcrn Europc [London: Fintcr).
Wcilcr, ]. [2002), 'A Constitution lor Europc? Somc Hard Choiccs', Journol of Common Morkct
Studics !0[!): 555-562.
Your Europc http://curopa.cu [acccsscd 8 Novcmbcr 2008).
Reproducedwith permissionof thecopyright owner. Further reproductionprohibited without permission.