The EU was
founded by Jean Monnet, Robert Schauman, Konrad Adenauer, Paul-Henri Spaak and
Alcide de Gasperi. The main reasoning behind founding the EU was as a response
to the horrors of war that had happened in Europe and the founders thought that
creating this Union would help to prevent another war from happening and could decrease
nationalism in the nation states. The founders of EU were sure that a unified
European Identity could be the outcome of European integration. The founders
saw stable supranational institutions as a way of achieving this goal. (Hooghe
& Marks, 2001, p. 51)
In today’s
Europe the identity has shifted to the left and is not a passive outcome of the
integration process as it was before.
Fritz Scharpf
has said on this matter that “As long as
the democratic legitimacy of European governance must rest primarily on the
agreement of democratically accountable national governments, the citizens of
countries whose governments are outvoted have no reason to consider such decisions
as having democratic legitimation” (Hooghe & Marks, 2001, p. 52)
Some other
scholars have taken a different approach and counter argue that it is not
reasonable to deepen the democratic institutions to oppose the democratic deficit
if a Europe-wide collective identity does not exist. (Hooghe & Marks, 2001,
p. 52)
Karl Deutsch and
Ernst Haase both have said similar things about the European identity and
integration. According to Deutsch the idea would be to move towards a sense of
community in Europe and that the main goal should not only be exclusive
control. Haase like Deutsch believes in the coexistence of national identities
with a European identity and said that one would not replace the other. Haase
also stated that there is a possibility of “tiered multiple loyalties” meaning
that there are multiple overlapping sources of governance that work at
different levels. (Hooghe & Marks,
2001, p. 52-53)
Territorial attachments in
the EU
There are 3
basic types of territorial identity. Two of these types of identity describe an
individual territorial identity and the third one describes a territory with
multiple identities. (Hooghe & Marks, 2001, p.53)
In Figure 1 A represents
a territory with multiple identities, B represents a territory with an
exclusive identity and C represents a territory with little or non territorial
identity. (Hooghe & Marks, 2001, p. 53)
This however does not mean that all territorial
identities fall just into one of the corners of the figure, many or even most
territorial identities are somewhere between the different points of the
triangle. (Hooghe & Marks, 2001, p. 53)
The Unattached territorial
identities
Individuals in
this category don’t have a strong attachment to any territory or territorial
community. There are not many individuals in this category according to studies.
(Hooghe & Marks, 2001, p.56)
Figure 1.
Source: Hooghe & Marks, 2001, p. 54
The Exclusive territorial identity
The individuals
in this category are attached to one or maximum two territories or territorial
identities. According to studies the sample of individuals in this group is
bigger than in the unattached category. (Hooghe & Marks, 2001,p. 57)
The Multiple territorial identities
The individuals
in this category have strong attachments to multiple territories or territorial
communities at three or all four levels. According to studies there are more
individuals in this group than in the previous two. (Hooghe & Marks, 2001,
p.57-58)
Explaining territorial
identity
There are many
reasons why and how territorial identities have changed over time.
1. War
War
and colonies reshaped and reorganizes the territorial attachment of
individuals. Almost all the accounts of rise of nationalism and national states
in Western Europe have a conflict source of identity. Coercive conflicts deepen
the national identity and make it more exclusive. War usually creates an
extreme form of the “us versus them” mentality, especially war between states. On
the other hand, if one looks at history, war has also helped to integrate
diverse groups, like in the cases of USA and the Soviet Union and has helped to
nationalize territories, like with the UK, France and Spain. (Hooghe &
Marks, 2001, p. 60-61)
Although
war shapes identity, that identity also shapes the communities willingness to
go to war by for example strengthening the ethnical community ties. (Hooghe & Marks, 2001, p.61)
2. Culture
Culture
is a very important aspect when talking about shaping identities. The key
elements of culture that shape the territorial attachments are ethnicity,
language and social transactions. When talking about the EU one knows that in
this aspect the EU is very diverse and shall most likely stay diverse. One of
the most pronoun hypothesizes in regards to this was created by Karl Deutsch
saying that territorial identities shaped
as populations integrate socially and economically (p.62)
One
could conclude from this point of view that there is a shift towards an
European identity that comes from the increasing co-operation between the
different nation states. Although there are exceptions to this hypothesis where
an increase in the social interaction can lead to intercommunal hostility. For example
most of the political parties that are far right are very opposed to
integration and campaign on the immigration issues. (Hooghe & Marks, 2001,
p. 62-63)
3.
Economic
Interests
Many
scholars have found that there is a link between territorial identity and the
perceptions of economic prospects. The main idea behind this aspect is the
labour mobility that comes with open markets and less-skilled workers, who have
more to lose with market integration. Although there is freedom of labour
mobility across borders, this freedom is usually limited by the linguistic
barriers. Many studies suggest that there is a link between the economic evaluations
and support for the European integration. (Hooghe & Marks, 2001, p.63-64)
4.
Political
Institutions
Political
institutions such as the parliament, courts, civil services etc can provide a
focus for identity by being symbols for a territorial community. It is
theorized that this link between political institutions and identity is more
subtle than the linkage between identity and the previous aspects. For example
in the EU the institutions are more focused on the outputs of the policies
rather than the democratic output. It is stated in the text that the effects of
political institutions on shaping identity may be dependent on to which extent
shared citizenship becomes meaningful. Although the link is a bit more subtle
one can say that the link does not go only one way. The relations between
identity and political identity seem to be mutually reinforcing. (Hooghe &
Marks, 2001, p.64-65)
Conclusion
Identity is not
something that just happens to individuals but it is rather something that develops
as being a part of communities and socializing within those said communities. In
today’s EU the national and individual identities are diverse and are being
mobilized by political parties, especially by the far right parties that campaign
for nations and against European integration. As for individuals in Europe a
very big group of them has multiple identities by for example feeling attached
to multiple countries, regions or communities. One can say that the EU is a
multi-level polity based on multiple identity. (Hooghe & Marks, 2001,
p.65-66)
Source:
Hooghe, Liesbet
& Marks, Gary “Multi-Level Governance and European Integration”, 2001,
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, inc. USA pages 51-66
Very interesting!
ReplyDelete