European Identity

In this section of my research paper, I make outline of theoretical development of

the ‘European identity’ concept.
In the book European Identity edited by Jeffrey T. Checkel and Peter J.
Katzenstein consider the phenomenon of identity from position of being European
as a project and process within some historical context.
It is crucial how the authors discover the identification of identified cases of
identification of institutions. Dario Castidglione suggests that “Рolitical identity is
both a social and a historical construct”. As a social construct, it reflects the
institutional nature of the political commune. In addition, the historical construct is
manifested in existing narratives and ideologies, covering the self-perception of
community members. The author makes a difference by introduction the functional
element of political identity by highlighting an important role of citizen’s
allegiance and loyalty to their political community. It could be implemented driven
by several incentives as cultural and psychological constructions (29).
Dario Castidglione discusses different sides of political identity as an idea. First, he
refers to political institutions and actions that contribute to processes of individual
and collective identification and differentiation. Second, provides consideration on
how political identification lay as aground for political allegiance within the
community (31).
The scholar argue that political and social roles do not have to be contradicted in a
sense. However, different roles are presented in layer of identification of self
within several subjects of belonging. As for European political identification there
is no opposition within national and regional identification. The author from
normative point of view touched upon a debate between traditional statists and post
nationalists. Ones consider the European Union as a nation writ large while others
see the EU as a new form of state. Since Maastricht the issue of political form of
the European Union has become a part of wide debate. The aspect of EU being
between international organization and full-grown political community remains
controversial and unsolved. Scholar’s debate concerning existed issue of the
discourse of European finalité which reveals European uncertainty. For instance,
what comes first in a layer of identity – European political identity or the
consolidation of the EU as a political community.
Recent perception of European identity as supranational political structure has
become valuable in a sense of functional integration of European institutions. It
gives very little importance to political identity as an “exclusionary” identity. “The
allegiance we may have to the system of laws and rights developed by the EU
(even against our own government/ country) comes from the universality of the
principles upheld by that system, or by the efficiency-driven imperatives of the
market and of bureaucratic administration.” (39)
When it comes to European identity, ideas of Habermas take place to be
mentioned. Habermasian position on European political identity attracts the
attention of scholars because of normative turn and consideration of socio-
psychological basis. His argument focused not only on integration process but also
estimate the value of belonging and attachment created by universal principles and
constitutional values. According to Habermas’s analysis of value convergence,
European values tend to constrain the diversity of Europe.
Considering Europe as a political community – community of strangers – we found
that political community as it is remains linked to those others with inclusiveness
to familiar reality of identification. Authors define the modern form of political
community which includes coexistence of different nations and stay stable.
Referring to Weber’s categorization the collectivity of people (49) we witness that
the aspects of modern political community creation has changed.
Integration
Douglas R. Holmes in his paper on Experimental Identities considers European
integralism. The key point here is that “identity” emerges not as an idiosyncratic
psychological reflex or residual collective sensibility, but as a phenomenon that
can (or must) be framed in reference to contemporary institutional realities after
Maastricht (57). By its nature, integralism is an unstable phenomenon that is
continually being reinvented, defying easy definitions by blending what appear to
be incompatible elements drawn from the political traditions of the Left and the
Right.
Another interesting point touched by the author is Catholicism within EU. It states
that Catholic political influence is manifested in the current composition of
European Parliament. Owing to ability to sustain pluralism and diversity across an
integrated Europe, the Catholic configuration of identity has since the 1990s had
broad political appeal.
Juan D. Medrano focuses on political identity from the prism of self-understanding
considering its multidimensionality. The author outlines three dimensions as self-
understanding reflected in the documents that shape polity; the political self-
understanding reflected in the actual behavior of those interpreting and
implementing the content of those documents; there is the political self-
understanding that transpires in public discourse. All three dimensions of political
identity as a project are real and have a place to be. From public discourse
perspective, author argues about currently an unbridgeable mismatch between the
national leaders’ conceptions of the EU and those of a significant minority of
citizens and, at the same time, a strong disagreement among the elites about
Europe’s political identity. Moreover, Habermas stated common sense of
belonging what in a sense created incentive to existence or even possibility of
European public sphere. The means of common space of information flow has
generated in some sense “European understanding”. Some authors have given a
negative or pessimistic view on it. Authors like Grimm, Kielmansegg, and Calhoun
invoke linguistic heterogeneity when accounting for this presumed absence of a
European public sphere. Other authors refer to the absence of media with a
European scope (Calhoun 2003; Scharpf 1998). Later a consensus is emerging that
the EU’s problem is not the lack of a European public sphere but rather its small
scale.
National Identity
Holy Case in her essay investigates the meaning of being European within East
and West fragmentation. There are several narratives concerning European identity
such as Old Europe, Eastern question, Core Europe etc. ‘Modern conceptions of
European identity formed while wars, revolutions, and utopian political projects
that both “halves” of Europe experienced and interpreted in very localized ways,
increasingly within national historical frameworks.’ (111) This evolution made for
disagreements regarding the nature of “universal” European values and projects
between “East” and “West.” Author implies historical context to explain
development of such diversity within unite European perception. The interesting
point discussed by Case is memory creation, ability of “remembering and
forgetting”. According to scholar, selectivity of human being memory creates
strategic forgetfulness. The most notable convergence of selective memory was of
wartime resistance, which both “halves” of Europe clung to in one form or another.
The two extreme examples are France and Yugoslavia, where resistance to Nazism
during the war was given cult status, and the heroes of the resistance became the
postwar presidents of both countries, Charles de Gaulle, and Josip Broz Tito. In a
sense, the concept of political identity as a process managed by different narratives
and engaged with memory policy.
The scholar Neil Fligstein provides empirical evidence to shape the idea ‘Who are
the Europeans’. According to him, collective identity framed as a construction of
an ‘other’ group. Nevertheless, collective identities are anchored in sets of
conscious and unconscious meanings that people share. People grow up in families
and communities, and they come to identify with the groups in which they are
socially located. Gender, ethnicity, religion, nationality, social class, and age have
all been the basis of people’s main identities and their central relationships to
various communities (134). Author states that national identity is as form of
collective identity. Deutsch defined nationality as “a people striving to equip itself
with power, with some machinery of compulsion strong enough to make the
enforcement of its commands probable in order to aid in the spread of habits of
voluntary compliance with them” (1953, p. 104). It helps to deepen in the
conceptualization of nationalism and supranational identity.
At the same time Julian Aichholzer, Sylvia Kritzinger, Carolina Plescia represents
different national identity profiles which could be used to estimate level of EU
support. Authors consider different dimensions of national identity such as
patriotism, chauvinism, ethnic and civic conceptions of nationhood and their
relevance to study EU support. Scholars made three main conclusions after
empirical research.
First, national identity represents a multi-dimensional concept composed of four
main different components and the level of these components in relation to each
other is fundamentally linked to support for the EU. They acknowledge that
affective components of one’s national identity shape assessments of the
performance and functioning of the EU as a political institution. Second, while
these results reveal the complex and heterogeneous nature of the national identity
dimensions of European citizens in their relation to the EU, they found that the
Moderate Supporters group is the most common type of Europeans. In
summarizing, while for certain groups of European citizens identity-related factors
will not necessarily undermine the support for the EU, and hence its legitimacy, for
large parts of European citizens their national identity is, however, putting the
brakes on EU support. Third, the results point towards conspicuous variation
across countries. In terms of cross-country variation, the differentiation between
Eastern and Western Europe is very telling, especially regarding ethnic
differentiation, and help explain recent events in the EU. Fourth, we found that
certain demographic groups are more likely to be alienated from the EU project
with sometimes strong, exclusive attachments (Nationalists), namely older, less
well-educated respondents, and working-class citizens. Younger, highly educated
people, and people having migration background are, in turn, more likely to exhibit
a Patriotic Supporter or at least a Moderate Supporter profile (Aichholzer et al.
2021, 310).
Nicholas J Clark and Robert Rohrschneider focus on the relationship between
national identity and European Union evaluations over a period from 1993 to 2017.
They note a clear increase in the strength of the relationship between individual
national identity and EU evaluations. While the recent turmoil in the EU fortified
the linkage, the upsurge in the strength of the linkage began in the early 1990s long
before the recent problems unfolded (Hooghe and Marks, 2009). The strengthening
occurs within each of the five ideological groups in Europe, to a point where the
relationship is nowadays stronger within the ideologically moderate camp than it
was in the early 1990s within the right-extreme group (Clark and Rohrschneider
2019, 401).
Sophie Duchesne and André-Paul Frognier in their article National And European
Identifications try to evaluate the relation between national and European
identities. Over time perception of these layers of self-identification have changed
within academia. Authors confirm that identification with Europe is directly and
yet paradoxically related to national identifications.
The relationship between identities is interpreted because of the dual process of
identification. It takes place when people identify with a territorially based
community. More important is the way in which the people of Europe become
European. In the subjective sense, develop a feeling of belonging to the EU –
depends on what the EU means to them.
Authors highlight the process which sociologically and politically determines
individual disposition to feel like a member of a community rather than an isolated
individual. Sense of belonging reveals individual’s perception and attachment to
certain territory borders. For authors it is cumulative as far as identification with
nations and with Europe is concerned.
On the contrary, the other dimension is exclusive. Sophie Duchesne and André-
Paul Frognier pointed the results from the sociological and political process of
community building which is made easier by the delimitation of the community
and is hence fueled by providing some significant ―other such as the European
Union. These processes interact in such a way that the relationship between the
two levels of identification is often difficult to identify. This explains why there is
considerable debate about whether a strong sense of national identity leads to or
hinders European identity (Duchesne and Frognier 2014).