Anthony Pagden 2002 The Idea of Europe From Antiquity and The EU
Anthony Pagden 2002 The Idea of Europe From Antiquity and The EU
Anthony Pagden 2002 The Idea of Europe From Antiquity and The EU
WOODROW WILSON
CENTER SERIES
WOODROW WILSON
INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Joseph A. Cari, Jr., Chair; Steven Alan Bennett, Vice Chair. Public Members: James H.
Billington, Librarian of Congress; John W. Carlin, Archivist of the United States; William R.
Ferris, Chair, National Endowment for the Humanities; Roderick R. Paige, U.S. Secretary
of Education; Colin L. Powell, U.S. Secretary of State; Lawrence M. Small, Secretary,
Smithsonian Institution; Tommy G. Thompson, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services. Private Citizen Members: Carol Cartwright, John H. Foster, Jean L. Hennessey, Daniel
L. Lamaute, Doris O. Matsui, Thomas R. Reedy, Nancy M. Zirkin.
WILSON COUNCIL
Steven Kotler, President. B.B. Anderson, Charles S. Ackerman, Cyrus A. Ansary, Charles F.
Barber, Lawrence E. Bathgate II, Joseph C. Bell, Richard E. Berkowitz, Thomas J. Buckholtz,
Conrad Cafritz, Nicola L. Caiola, Raoul L. Carroll, Scott Carter, Albert V. Casey, Peter B.
Clark, William T. Coleman, Jr., Michael D. DiGiacomo, Donald G. Drapkin, F. Samuel
Eberts III, J. David Eller, Sim Farar, Susan R. Farber, Barbara Hackman Franklin, Morton
Funger, Chris G. Gardiner, Eric Garfinkel, Bruce S. Gelb, Alma Gildenhorn, Joseph B.
Gildenhorn, David F. Girard-diCarlo, Michael B. Goldberg, William E. Grayson, Raymond
A. Guenter, Verna R. Harrah, Carla A. Hills, Eric Hotung, Frances Humphrey Howard,
John L. Howard, Darrell E. Issa, Jerry Jasinowski, Brenda LaGrange Johnson, Dennis D.
Jorgensen, Shelly Kamins, Anastasia D. Kelly, Christopher J. Kennan, Michael V. Kostiw,
William H. Kremer, Dennis LeVett, Harold O. Levy, David Link, David S. Mandel, John
P. Manning, Edwin S. Marks, Jay Mazur, Robert McCarthy, C., Stephen G. McConahey,
J. Kenneth Menges, Jr., Philip Merrill, Jeremiah L. Murphy, Martha T. Muse, Della M.
Newman, Paul Hae Park, Gerald L. Parsky, Michael J. Polenske, Donald Robert Quartel,
Jr., J. Steven Rhodes, John L. Richardson, Margaret Milner Richardson, Edwin Robbins,
Philip E. Rollhaus, Otto Ruesch, B. Francis Saul III, Timothy R. Scully, J. Michael Shepherd,
George P. Shultz, Raja W. Sidawi, Deborah Siebert, Thomas L. Siebert, Ron Silver, William
A. Slaughter, Norma Kline Tiefel, Mark C. Treanor, Christine M. Warnke, Pete Wilson,
Deborah Wince-Smith, Herbert S. Winokur, Jr., Joseph Zappala.
ANTHONY PAGDEN
The Johns Hopkins University
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, So Paulo
Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge , United Kingdom
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521791717
Woodrow Wilson Center 2002
This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of
relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place
without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published in print format 2002
-
isbn-13 978-0-511-06723-5 eBook (NetLibrary)
-
isbn-10 0-511-06723-2 eBook (NetLibrary)
-
isbn-13 978-0-521-79171-7 hardback
-
isbn-10 0-521-79171-5 hardback
-
isbn-13 978-0-521-79552-4 paperback
-
isbn-10 0-521-79552-4 paperback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of
s for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not
guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20004-3027
Contents
Acknowledgments
page xi
Introduction
Anthony Pagden
33
55
72
91
116
129
139
171
191
ix
Contents
10
11
12
13
14
15
209
228
260
287
317
331
Contributors
Index
359
363
Acknowledgments
The idea for this book originated with an invitation from James Morris, at
that time with the Woodrow Wilson Center, to present the first in a series
of public lectures on the idea of Europe. What have subsequently become
the chapters by J. G. A. Pocock, James Tully, and Biancamaria Fontana all
began as lectures in the same series. I would like to thank James Morris
not only for this initiative but also for organizing and hosting a conference
at the Center that brought together a number of the other contributors to
discuss the future shape and direction of the volume. This was sponsored
with the generous support of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and the
United States Federal Conference Fund. I owe a special debt of gratitude
to Susan Nugent who has been a constant source of assistance in any
number of ways during the long and often torturous period of the books
gestation, to Joe Brinley for all his patience and encouragement, and to
Patricia Katayama and Barbara de Boinville for their care in preparing the
text for publication. Two anonymous readers for Cambridge University
Press made a number of suggestions that have greatly helped to improve
xi
Introduction
ANTHONY PAGDEN
Today, as the older territorial and national boundaries of the world become increasingly uncertain, the quest for national and transnational
identity has intensified. This, as Talal Asad observes in chapter 10, is a
fairly recent phenomenon, the product of the individuals social locations
and psychological crises in an increasingly uncertain world. Previously,
anxieties about identity tended to afflict only states of relatively recent
creationthe so-called new states in Africa and Asia in particular
and areas of massive and diverse emigration such as the United States.1
The states that made up Europe, however, had supposedly been of such
antiquity and undisputed cultural homogeneity that their members rarely
troubled to ask themselves who they were.2 But the experience of two
world wars, combined with ever-increasing migration for political, economic, or broadly cultural motives across the rapidly dissolving frontiers
of Europe, have forced upon Europeans the uneasy sense that their selfconfidence in knowing just who they are is almost certainly unfounded.
This volume traces from the ancient world to the present the determining features of what might count as a collective idea of Europe as
a political and cultural domain. This is not, of course, a linear history.
No such history could be written. Our objective is rather to identify the
concerns and convictions, the shifting discursive practices and the different languages, political, cultural, and economic, of which all identities
are constituted. The contributors represent different disciplineshistory,
anthropology, political science, the lawas they do different intellectual
styles. Some (J. G. A. Pocock, Talal Asad, and James Tully in particular)
1
On identity in the new states, see Clifford Geertz, After the Revolution: The Fate
of Nationalism in the New States, in The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic
Books, 1973), 23454.
See Thomas Risse and Daniela Engelmann-Martins chapter in this volume.
ANTHONY PAGDEN
look at Europe from beyond Europe, and their gaze is highly critical
of both what Europe has been and what it is now becoming. Others
(Ariane Chebel dAppollonia, Luisa Passerini, Thomas Risse and Daniela
Engelmann-Martin, Biancamaria Fontana), while accepting the obvious
burdens and contradictions of the European past, are cautiously hopeful
about the possibilities of a new and happier European future. The volume
offers no attempt to solve Europes current dilemmas. Its purpose is rather
to add an historical voice to a conversation that has been going on within
Europe and outside for several decades, a conversation that will shape a
new, potentially exciting, potentially threatening, political, cultural, and
social order. Most of us, whether we belong to Europe itself or (like some
of the contributors to this volume) to other parts of the Western world,
which Europe has played such an important role in shaping, will have to
learn to live with this order. It is time we also came to understand it.
For decades there has been within Western Europe an ever-insistent
suspicion that the days of the nation-state are numbered. This, at least for
the foreseeable future, is largely an illusion. Politically and institutionally
the state remains the final term of reference. As the general enthusiasm
for the unification of Germany demonstrated, the state is still capable
of arousing a great deal of popular attachment, even among one of the
most Europhile of Europes peoples.3 In the minds of such East German
politicians as Wolfgang Thierse, former leader of the Eastern SPD and
subsequently speaker of the German parliament, there may be an insoluble
link between unification and Europeanization. But if his position is to
be at all coherent, Thierses vision of the future United States of Europe
must still be one in which the individual states retain a great measure of
their former identity as nations.4
Even if the nation-state is not about to vanish, the erosion of its effective powers within what now constitutes the European Union has been
considerable. As Philip Ruttley explains in his essay on the process of unification after 1945 (chapter 11), the institutions of the Union, the European
Commission, the European Parliament, and the European Court of Justice
have, as the Euroskeptics bitterly complain, greatly diminished the authority of local assemblies and national judiciaries.5 Beyond Europe, too,
3
4
Introduction
globalization has shrunk the operational capacity of the state by transferring a great deal of its previous informal authority to private, and
necessarily multinational, institutions.
All of this is obvious enough. Whether you view it with dismay or
pleasure depends on which side of a number of political and cultural
fences you happen to sit. All people, not only Europeans, must share some
anxiety over whether the successor to this now long-standing political
and social institution will turn out to be a mega-state, a federation of
minor states, or merely a political corporation. In the midst of this shifting
political landscape, most of the peoples of Europe are participants in a
vast and far-ranging political, economic, and cultural experiment. No
one has any clear idea of the outcome. But, as Thomas Risse and Daniela
Engelmann-Martin stress, it will beindeed, if it is to succeed, it must
bedependent upon the image of a newer and better political order, one
that ultimately can replace the older alignment of peoples. This alignment
dates back to the Congress of Vienna, and, as Biancamaria Fontana argues
in chapter 5 on the legacy of the Napoleonic wars, it set the scene for
many of the divergences and contradictions that still beset the attempt
to create a united Europe. Most, too, will recognize that some of the
divisions in Europe established even earlier by the confessional struggles
of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuriesdivisions between Protestants
and Catholics, between an industrialized, capitalist, and predominantly
republican North and a largely agricultural, quasi-feudal if not exactly
monarchical and ultimately backward Southare vanishing and that in
their place a new sense of what it means to be European is slowly and
uncertainly emerging. The very thought that it might be useful to talk of
a European identity, which even those who most abhor the idea do so if
only reactively, has become a source of anxiety.
GOVERNMENT
That there exists such a place as Europe has been evident to those who
inhabit it since the fourth century BCE if not earlier. At first Europe
designated a vague geographical region distinguished less by what it was
than what it was not. In time, however, this sense of difference, of being
unlike the other regions into which the world was divided, became more
distinct. One feature of this difference, which in various ways has remained constant over time, is the belief that Europeans have always pursued roughly similar political ends. The forms of government adopted
by the different peoples of the continent have, of course, varied widely.
A NTHONY P AGDEN
But all of the governments have subscribed to the idea that freedom of
individual choice and protection by a universal system of law was the
necessary condition for what the Greeks defined as the good life. From
the Greek geographer Strabo in the first century CE until Montesquieu in
the eighteenth, observers of the peculiar identity of Europe have fastened
upon some conception of liberty as the defining feature of all the societies
of Europeor at least, as J. G. A. Pocock in his pluralist view of Europe
rightly insistsall the societies of the Christian Latin West.6 This belief
in liberty has been most closely identified with the republican and democratic traditions that originated in ancient Greece. In Europe, claimed
Machiavelli, although there have been some kingdoms, there have been
many republics. The peoples of Asia and Africa, by contrast, had only
ever lived under princely rule. Machiavelli was being unduly optimistic
even at a timethe late fifteenth centurywhen the republican tradition
was still a powerful force within Italy. But even if most of Europe has,
for much of its history, been ruled by monarchs, they have generally
accepted two basic principles: first, that their subjects were free persons,
in the sense of not being their personal property; second, that although
the laws they enacted might be nothing other than the expression of their
will, all rulers were nevertheless bound by a higher legal order. This legal
order was, it is true, held to be derived from God and immanent in nature rather than dependent upon the legislative will of the majority, and
for that reason was infinitely malleable. But since the natural and divine
law provided a court of final appeal that was beyond the reach of even
the mightiest ruler, it constrained the power of kings. In the end these
two principles provided the ideological grounding for the revolution that
would alter the conception and the practice of power within Europe at
the end of the eighteenth century and would bring into being a world that
was and would remain, despite the restorations of the nineteenth century,
fundamentally republican.
There was also the generally shared belief that power, although it derived from God, was conferred upon kings by a contract with the people.
The force of this contract (and its nature) varied greatly. But no European
monarch in theory wielded personalized or unfettered power. The history of social life, and the political realities of most (if not all) European
states since the collapse of the Roman Empire, might suggest that such
conceptions of the sources of authority had very little enduring significance. Freedom, even under the law, was the freedom only of the few.
6
On this point see also my chapter and the one by Biancamaria Fontana.
Introduction
(It excluded in most cases most women and all children.) The existence
of slavery was accepted as part of nature, and even the emphasis of
Christianity on the equality of all human beings in Christ (if not in society)
did little to change this. Martin Luther famously warned Christian slaves
against stealing themselves away from their rightful Muslim masters.
The possibility for self-determination on the part of the vast majority
of the population was further constricted by systems of land tenure and
indenture, and by semisacred hierarchies based on kin and patrimonial
succession. Nevertheless, ideologies associated with a contractualist view
of political association, in particular after the great religious and civil disturbances of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, exerted a constant
pressure on all the European monarchies, which not infrequently led to
open warfare and in some cases the death of the ruler himself. And in
most cases these ideologies drew their inspiration from forms of Greek
and Roman republicanism. Belief in a monarchs divine origins or divine
right was never anything but unstable.
Some kind of republicanism had, therefore, always been a presence
in the politics of early modern Europe. But it was the emergence of the
Dutch republic and its enormous political and commercial success that
led, as Hans Blom explains (chapter 4), to a new kind of political idiom,
one that was essentially modern and commercial. The merchants Pieter
and Johann de la Court, the philosopher Baruch Spinoza, and (in a rather
different idiom) the humanist Hugo Grotius all stressed the need for a
form of government that would not, as the republics of the ancient world
had supposedly done, demand the involvement of the entire citizen body
in the life of the state. Instead, through the rule of law and government
by a representative elite, it would protect the interests, in particular the
economic interests, of the citizen body. In the highly modified shape of
modern liberal democracy, the Dutch reevaluation of the republican creed
has, of course, proved to be triumphantas well as triumphalist.
The history of belief that the constitutional state, based upon representation and universal suffrage, is a determining feature of European
political life began with the emergence, after 1648 in England, of what
Montesquieu identified as a quasi-republican government hidden beneath a monarchy. It then passed through the various republicanisms
of Jefferson, Rousseau, and Kant, to the liberal monarchism of Benjamin
Constant and Tocqueville, Wilhelm von Humboldt, John Stuart Mill, and
Giuseppe Mazzinito name but a few. Today its most powerful defenders are North American, but it has, for the entire Western world,
become normative. Failure to conform to the standards of what the
A NTHONY P AGDEN
See John Dunn, The Identity of the Bourgeois Liberal Republic, in Biancamaria Fontana,
ed., The Invention of the Modern Republic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1994), 20625.
See David McKay, Federalism and the European Union: A Political Economy Perspective
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 336.
Introduction
war with one another, they also actively cooperate for one anothers wellbeing. Thisthe capacity for international cooperationhas become, in
Tullys words, a normative standard against which many people organize and evaluate forms of political association in Europe and throughout
the world. Like so many other regulative ideas, this is at best an illusion. That the democratic states of western Europe have not gone to
war with one another cannot be taken as normative. The democratic
or quasi-democratic republics of Africa, the Indian subcontinent, and
Latin America have rarely shown any reluctance to make ferocious wars
against their neighbors. Nor, of course, have the new democratic and
quasi-democratic states of Eastern Europe.
The obvious empirical weakness of the idea has not detracted from its
great influence in the creation of the idea of modern Europe as a continent that, if it only adheres to the principles of liberal democracy, will
never collapse into internal warfare. The initial and prime objective of
Europe as a political (and economic) conception is to ensure peace
an objective it shares with Kants cosmopolitan order. The founders of
what was to become the European Economic Community sought above
all to suppress the horrors of two world wars, initiated by Europeans and
fought between European states and their overseas dependencies. The
consequences of the second war continue to have a momentous impact
on European consciousness.9 The concern to create a Europe that would
no longer be prey to internal conflict has been the foundation of many
postwar foreign policy objectives. This has sometimes reached apocalyptic levels, as Risse and Englemann-Martin show, in particular among the
Germans, and to a lesser degree the Italians, as the perpetrators of much
of the horrors associated with nationalism in Europe. The German chancellor, Helmut Kohl, went so far as to argue in 1997 that the success of the
European Monetary Union (EMU) was a question of war and peace
and Joschka Fischer, a Green party leader in the Bundestag at the time,
claimed that the only alternative to an early start of the Euro was a return to the European past of power balancing and nationalism.10 Kohl
and presumably Fischer both knew, as had Kant, that a union based solely
upon mutual economic intereststhe commercial society of the eighteenth centuryor a union organized merely for defense would never be
9
10
Alan S. Milward, The European Rescue of the Nation State (London: Routledge, 1994),
4.
Risse and Engelmann-Martin observe that in Germany the new Europe is seen primarily as a stable peace order in almost Kantian terms of a pacific federation combining
cooperation with external partners with liberal democracy internally.
A NTHONY P AGDEN
Romano Prodi, Unidea dellEurope. Il valore Europe per modernizzare lItalia (Bologna:
Il Mulino, 1999), 8.
Introduction
power and influence reached into most parts of the continent, and an
Empire whose emperor was only the first among equals (primus inter
pares). But the modern nation-state, as a concept, emerged out of the
sixteenth-century ambition to define, in William Chester Jordans words,
a national essence, never actually lost but hidden sometimes under the
debris of anarchy and, at other times, under Catholic and Imperial universalism (chapter 3). It emerged, too, from an increasing need to establish
a world of security after the confessional conflicts that devastated much
of the continent between 1562 and 1648. This could be achieved only
by limitingand consolidatingthe sovereignty of national rulers. As
J. G. A. Pocock observes (chapter 2), the familiar Enlightened narrative
that makes gunpowder, the printing press, and the compass seminal inventions tends to be associated with the discovery of America, but for
Voltaire and Hume and Robertson, they had a prior importancetheir
role in the creation of powerful military monarchies controlling their own
resources, pursuing their own policies, and capable of acting independently of the papal Church.
Although most of the new military states were feudal or semifeudal
monarchies, they had to be ruled by monarchs who were, in principle,
impersonal. Only a supreme and impersonal state could guarantee not
merely independence from the papal Church but continuing stability in the
face of the new ideological threats produced by the division of Christendom into two antagonistic camps.12 This simultaneous centralization and
impersonalization of political power distinguished the European states
from such non-European sovereign bodies as the Ottoman or Ming
empires.
The independence of the new states reinforced by this form of power
created a far greater fragmentation of the continentpolitically, religiously, economically, and ultimately culturallythan had been the case.
The persistent localism that had characterized the European world in
the Middle Ages at a nonelite level was now buttressed by a political ideology endorsed by all but a few. Since the days of the Emperor Augustuss
new Rome, there has been a vision of a future in which Europe would
acquire some kind of unity. Paradoxically, one of the most distinctive political features of the continentthe modern stateresulted in what was,
and in certain respects still remains, the main obstacle to its unification.
12
See Quentin Skinner, The State, in Terence Ball, James Farr, and Russell L. Hanson,
eds., Political Innovation and Conceptual Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1989), 90131.
10
A NTHONY P AGDEN
THE LEGACY OF EMPIRE
Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (New York: Macmillan, 1987),
1489.
Introduction
11
that were unique or so, at least, it seemed. That it was the Europeans who
had seen this most clearly meant that it was the Europeans who had, in
a quite specific sense, inherited the earth. Others might know how to live
on it, but only Europe possessed the Faustian power to reconstruct it
in its own image. This, too, has become a regulative idea, and it, too,
is founded on very shaky empirical and historical foundations. Before the
first decade or so of the nineteenth century, the European powers had very
little superiority either intellectually or technologically over the peoples of
Asia, even when measured by their own criteria.14 Yet the association of
science with philosophyor, to put it more crudely, with reasonhas contributed more than any other conception to bringing Europe together as a
unity, in the words of the German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer.15
This, too, has a history, as I try to explain in chapter 1. It is a history that
acquires its most compelling and enduring modern form in the eighteenthcentury Enlightenment, in a project that linked the quest for individual
autonomy and secularization with the most sustained bid to understand,
and through science to control, the external world of nature. At one level
the Enlightenment project can be read as another extension of the universalist ambitions of the ancient world. Just as the Romans had exported
a concept of civilization and the Christians a concept of Christianity
(as the belief not only in the redemptive power of Christ but also the way
of life to be lived by St. Pauls homo renatus), so the secular thinkers of
the Enlightenment and their heirs exported an idea of humanity as individual, transformative, and property-owningan idea that inevitably
involved a large measure of concern for the burdens of history. In the link
between philosophy and science, reaching out to othersalbeit with
the ambition to transform them into ourselveshas been as much a part
of the European colonial inheritance as the exploitation and enslavement
of others.
This has created a double imposition for most modern European states:
the need to repudiate their imperial past while clinging resolutely to the
belief that there can be no alternative to the essentially European liberal democratic state. Any attempt at something different is either (like
Marxism) doomed to economic failure or (like the various forms of religious fundamentalism) ultimately tyrannical. Talal Asad (chapter 10) is
14
15
See, in particular, Jack Goody, The East in the West (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996).
Hans-Georg Gadamer, The Diversity of Europe: Inheritance and Future [Die Vielfalt
Europas, Erbe und Zukunft] in Hans-Georg Gadamer, Education, Poetry and History:
Applied Hermeneutics, trans. Lawrence Schmidt and Monica Reuss (New York: State of
New York Press, 1992), 224. See also Luisa Passerinis chapter in this volume.
12
A NTHONY P AGDEN
surely right in saying that Europes colonial past is not merely an epoch
of overseas power that is now decisively over. It is the beginning of an irreversible global transformation that remains an intrinsic part of European
experience and is part of the reason that Europe has become what it is today. His relative pessimism about the possibility of Muslims finding any
place for themselves within European societies that claim to be pluralist
(and at many levels clearly are) is not unfounded. A true European Union,
that is, may need not only compelling cultural symbols and representative
political forms in order to persuade the Danes and the British that what
they are being asked to identify with is as much their Europe as it is the
Europe of the French or the Germans; it also may need sufficient adaptability to provide a common patria for Algerians and Malays, Muslims
and Hindus.
Jacques Derrida has argued, a propos of this aspect of the European
Unions future, that there can be no cultural identity that is identical
with itself, for it is in the nature of a culture that it is not identical with
itself.16 Pluralism, the successor to Kants cosmopolitanism, is aimed precisely at making cultures not identical with themselves in this way. But
the difficulty still remains. Even Derridas formulationperhaps, most
especially Derridas formulationbelongs to a European conception of
the self sustained ultimately by an intrinsically European set of political
values. Any claim that constitutional equality necessarily implies a form
of difference blindness cannot be other than a reflection of the values
of one particular, and in this case hegemonic, culture.17
That pluralism, like most other generalized conceptions, is the product of a specifically European intellectual environment must be especially
obvious to Muslims, who now constitute the largest single immigrant
group in Europe. As William Jordan makes clear in chapter 3, modern
pluralismhowever secularized the conception might be in most Enlightenment thinkersdepends, as does any idea of the unity of European
culture, upon a continuing Christian tradition. Add to this the fact that
from the tenth century until the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire in
the nineteenth, Islam had been Europes most constant other, in terms of
religion, and politically and culturally, as the expression of various kinds
of oriental despotism, it is easy to see how a European Muslim might
appear to be virtually an oxymoron. As Asad says in his chapter, in the
contemporary European suspicion of Turkey, Christian history, enshrined
16
17
Introduction
13
Europes first modern overseas empires came into being at the moment
when a series of predominantly civil wars had divided it along confessional lines. From the beginning of the Wars of Religion in France in
1562 until the end of the Thirty Years War in 1648, the whole continent was engaged in almost ceaseless conflict. The Treaty of Westphalia
of 1648 achieved an albeit precarious balance of power between the various national states of Europe. It established that religion would henceforth be not a papal but a national issue, and it put a final end to the
Churchs role as arbiter in international affairs. It also set up a division, which has survived to this day, between an increasingly wealthy
Protestant North and an increasingly impoverished Catholic South. Before the reformation, as Henri de Saint-Simon lamented, at a time (1815)
when the Congress of Vienna was seeking to create a new equilibrium
among the European powers, Europe shared a common culture and a
common set of institutions; after Westphalia it became two huge federations permanently at odds with one another.18 One of the objectives
of the projects to unify Europe that emerged in the post-Napoleonic
era was to undo the deleterious effect of Westphalia while preserving
the peace that a Europe of Treaties had been able to achieve, if only
precariously.
The confessional wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were
the first modern conflicts in which the belligerents were dividedif not
always consistentlyalong broadly ideological lines. They were also the
first wars to be fought, as were all subsequent European conflicts, both
within and beyond Europe. The Dutch struggle for independence from
Spainthe Eighty Years War, as the Dutch called itinvolved at one time
or another most of the major European powers, and it was conducted not
only in Europe, but also in the Americas and in Asia. As the historian
Charles Boxer has said, it was the first world war, and it ensured that
all subsequent rivalries between the European states would be played out
in a global arena. As Talal Asad (chapter 10) nicely remarks, although in
18
14
A NTHONY P AGDEN
another context, Europe did not simply expand overseas; it made itself
through that expansion.
The Treaty of Westphalia put an end to the confessional sources of conflict between the European powers and in a sense ensured the triumph of
the secular state in the international arena. The Treaty of Utrecht of 1713,
however, achieved (in J. G. A. Pococks words) a Europe that had outgrown barbarism, fanaticism, and conquest and in its place established
a republic or confederation of states held together by treaties to which
wars were merely auxiliary, and by a common system of civilized manner
communicated everywhere by commerce. Until 1945 at least, Europeans
may have been one of the most consistently belligerent groups of peoples
anywhere in the world. But, as with many of the general aspects of modern European history, the opposite was true as well: a perennial quest for
an ideal of eternal universal peace, based upon what the Leiden philosopher Franco Burgersdijk in the sixteenth century called an Imperium
Oecumenicuman ecumenical empire.
The desire for world peace was, of course, nothing new. It had been one
of the major objectives of the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century humanists,
of Erasmus and Juan Lus Vives. But before the seventeenth century it had
never been pursued with quite such insistence and with such possibilities of
ultimate success, or so it seemed to contemporaries. This desire for world
peace resulted in a series of ambitious projects: the Duc de Sullys Grand
Design of 1620, Emeric Cruces Le Nouveau Cynee of 1623, the Abbe
de St. Pierres Projet pour rendre la paix perpetuelle en Europe of 1712,
and Immanuel Kants Perpetual Peace of 1795. None of these projects,
except Kants, which as I have said was always a condition of future time,
were understood, even by their authors, as serious political objectives. As
Voltaire complained of the Abbe de St. Pierres Projet, it could no more
exist among princes than it could among elephants and rhinoceroses,
or between wolves and dogs. But like Kants ius cosmopoliticum, they
were regulative ideas, ideas that kept the conception of a possible peace
among nations alive during periods of seemingly interminable warfare.
Even the persistent belief that a war between commercial nations could
only ever be, in Diderots telling phrase, a fire that destroys them all19
could not achieve the kind of world desired by champions of the commercial society from Montesquieu to Benjamin Constant. Neither could
the Treaty of Paris of 1763 that brought to an end the Seven Years
19
From one of the passages that Diderot wrote for the Abbe Guillaume Raynals Histoire
philosophique et politique des etablissemens et du commerce des Europeens dans les
deux Indes, 10 vols. (Geneva, 1781), III, 205.
Introduction
15
21
Edmund Burke, First Letter on a Regicide Peace, ed. R. B. McDowell, in Paul Langford,
ed., The Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1991), 9:250. On Burkes invocation in this context of the Roman law of vicinity, see
Jennifer M. Welsh, Edmund Burke and the Commonwealth of Europe: The Cultural
Bases of International Order, in Ian Clark and Iver B. Neumann, eds., Classical Theories
of International Relations (London: Macmillan Press, 1996), 17392.
See Anthony Pagden, Lords of All the World: Ideologies of Empire in Spain, Britain, and
France, c. 1500c. 1800 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1995), 15677.
16
A NTHONY P AGDEN
Marquis de Mirabeau, LAmi des hommes, ou traite de la population (The Hague, 1758),
3:1767.
The Metaphysics of Morals, ed. Mary Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1991), 158. See also Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch, in Kant Political Writings, ed. Hans Reiss (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 1067.
Introduction
17
Mullers
words, wearing German colours.25
Napoleonic and Proto-Germanic imperialism were not, however, the
only discourses of unity offered. Nationalism, which became the single
most powerful language in the postrevolutionary world (and has remained
so until this day), could also be harnessed to the older belief in the civilizing and unifying power of commerce. In nineteenth-century Europe, in
the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars, a new pluralism arose. It was based
less on the kind of annihilation of the historical memory that the French
Revolution has supposedly effected and which Ernest Renan believed necessary for the new nationalism, than on a reworking of the Enlightenment
vision of a cosmopolitan order sustained by commerce.26
Benjamin Constant gave the most powerful expression to this new pluralism. In Constants view, as Biancamaria Fontana explains (and Edmund
Burke had understood), the revolutionaries, and their ideologues from
Rousseau to Saint Just, had attempted to destroy the very real freedom
that eighteenth-century commercial society had achieved. In its place they
24
25
26
Adam Muller,
Die Elemente der Staatskunst (WienLeipzig: Wiener lierarische anstalt,
1922), 269.
Ernest Renan, Loubli et je dirais meme, lerreur historique sont un facteur essentiel de
la creation dune nation, in Quest-ce quune nation? (Paris, 1882).
18
A NTHONY P AGDEN
had installed the fiction of a society based upon virtue and a common
will. They had sought to replace a sense of the nation as a patria (as, in
Constants words, a vivid attachment to the interests, the way of life,
the customs of some locality) with a factitious passion for an abstract
being, a general idea stripped of all that can engage the imagination and
speak to the memory.27 Constants vision was of an identity based upon
loyalty to a common place, where the ties were ones of friendship and kin,
and of a shared way of life, rather than the empty abstraction that the Revolution had created. Beyond that men should be true only to their moral
objectives. This vision was by no means consistent. But Constants larger
ambition was always, in Fontanas words, for a Europe of commerce and
freedomwhere money fled from the constraints of national frontiers,
and individuals refused to fight for a cause they did not understand or left
their country in search of a better lifestyle or more liberal government.28
Like Montesquieu before them (and to some degree Kant), the postrevolution liberals in France hoped that commerce would do what conquest had tried and failed to do: bring homogeneity out of diversity yet
without destroying diversity itself. Like Montesquieu, they stressed the
variety of the peoples, cultures, and traditions that existed side by side in
Europe.29 The same was true of the Italians Giuseppe Mazzini and Carlo
Cattaneo, the Greek Rhigas Velestinlis (as Ariane Chebel dAppollonia
explains in chapter 8), and the Albanian Teofan Noli. This was to be a
nationalism based not upon exclusion, but upon a community of cooperative states with strong national identities.
The possibility, at least, of a union with a difference has remained
one of the main objectives of all subsequent pan-European projects. If
the excesses of the Jacobins ruptured the earlier Enlightenment ambitions for a cosmopolitan world ruled by the interests of commerce, the
two world wars performed a similar operation on the post-Napoleonic
liberal vision of a community of peaceful, commerce-oriented European
nations united against despotism.30 When the European Economic Community was created in 1958, it also sought to establish peace, and a security against Europes all-too-obvious tendencies toward illiberal politics, through a commercial union. Europe, wrote Altiero Spinelli in 1947,
27
28
29
30
In addition to Fontanas chapter in this volume, see Fontana, The Shaping of Modern
Liberty: Commerce and Civilisation in the Writings of Benjamin Constant, Annales
Benjamin Constant 5 (1985): 215.
See Fontanas chapter in this volume.
See Fontanas chapter; see also Montesquieu, De lEsprit des Lois, Bk. VI, chap. 1.
See Fontanas chapter in this volume.
Introduction
19
Altiero Spinelli, Gli Stati Uniti dEuropa, in Sergio Pistone, ed., Una Strategia per gli
Stati Uniti dEuropa (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1989), 41.
K. N. Chaudhuri, The Trading World of Asia and the English East-India Company,
16601760 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978); and P. J. Marshall, Trade
and Conquest: Studies in the Rise of British Dominance (Aldershot: Variorum, 1993).
20
A NTHONY P AGDEN
Europeans, therefore, have more than a shared past; they have a shared
history of antagonisms to overcome. The present attempt to fabricate a
modern European identity must be able to obliterate not only the now
remote struggles for control of Europe or for empire overseas, but also
the more immediate experience of two world wars, in particular of World
War II. For the exiled members of the German Social Democrats and
the Christian Democrats in the 1930s and 1940s, as well as for countless other liberals across Europe at that time, Europes other was Nazi
Germany.33 Now, for the first time, western Europeans are confronted
by a need to create for themselves a new postwar political culture. It now
matters what being European is and is not.
The European Union, and any future federalized United States of
Europe (should such a thing come to be), cannot survive unless, as Ariane
Chebel dAppollonia (chapter 8) argues, it can generate some level of
attachment to itself as a new political project. More than a vision of a
just political and social order, in Risse and Engelmann-Martins words,
is needed. What is required is a vision of a political and social order that
is more just and economically, culturally, intellectually, and aesthetically
more compelling than the order currently prevailing in any of the independent nation-states. Peoples, in short, do not willingly surrender their
cultural and normative allegiances to their nation or their political system
in order to exchange it for one that is neither better nor worse. They do
so only in the hope of a brighter future. As Philip Ruttley explains in
chapter 11 on the juridical development of the Union, the original EEC
treaty, the Merger Treaty of 1965, made this plain in stressing the intention
of the Community to promote a harmonious and balanced development
of economic activities with a view to raising the standard of living and
the quality of life.
To say that people are likely to endorse the conception of a new Europe
only if that can provide an improved quality of life is not to conflate
33
See Risse and Engelmann-Martins chapter as well as Tony Judt, The Past is Another
Country: Myth and Memory in Post-war Europe, Daedalus 121 (1992): 4.
Introduction
21
(in Friedrich Meineckes old but still serviceable distinction) the Staatsnation with the Kulturnation.34 One of the basic tenets of European nationalism was (and in many places still is) that the boundaries of the state
must correspond to those of the nation (Talal Asads words). Nationbuilding, particularly in the postcolonial world, has been conceived as
striving to make culture and polity congruent, to endow a culture with its
own political roof, and not more than one roof at that.35 But it is not necessarily so. Shocked by the Terror and faced with the prospect of nascent
German nationalism at the end of the eighteenth century, Goethe urged
upon his countrymen the salutary image of a culture of many voices
with many political centres in place of a single nation-state. This vision was
35
22
A NTHONY P AGDEN
Introduction
23
Despite this porousness, despite the learning in the past two decades
of the kind of differences that create antagonism and impede recognition,
some sense of national identity remains a significant part of the lives
of most Europeans. Christine Korsgaards definition of identity as a description under which you value yourself suggests that cultures possess
the same capacity for autonomous self-reflection as citizenship is supposed to possess.38 But it is hard to see how this can be case. Belonging
to a culture, having an identity of any kind, necessitates limiting choice
in ways that can only be partly voluntary. In all cultural exchanges there
is always more than one actor. I do not choose my culture or even have it
thrust upon me. I choose it, or I accept it, in the presence of a third party,
in the gaze of someone. This is the point of Rousseau and Kants roughly
similar accounts of the origins of all society. It is our desire for recognition
by all those whom, in Kants words, we cannot bear, yet cannot bear
to leave, which first drove our ancestors to form societies and which
continues to constitute our place within them.39 A similar difficulty arises
with Tullys hope that a citizen or a people will be the bearer of more
than one culture, of multiple cultural identities (chapter 15). To have a
cultural identity in the first place is to pledge allegiance to the power of
cultural imposition. A citizen who could literally elect to be, say, German
or Portuguese, or who could choose to be some mixture of Portuguese
and German, would first have to have some position from which he or
she could make such a choice. She would have to be a cosmopolitan in the
most literal sense. And having been that, it is hard to see why such a person
would wish to become either Portuguese or German. It is equally difficult to see by what route she would realize that choice. Of course, many
peopleinternational monetary agents and merchant banks are largely
staffed by themspeak several languages with equal ease and share several cultural features. But that, at least for the purposes of building a new
European identity, is not the same thing as being a bearer of more than
one culture.
To create a genuinely transnational identity, a genuinely European
culture, means blending the features of existing European cultures into
a new whole. To claim, as Agnes Heller has done, that there is not now,
and by implication never can be, a European culturethat there is
Italian and German music, there is Florentine and Venetian painting, but
38
39
24
A NTHONY P AGDEN
Agnes Heller, Europe: An Epilogue? in Brian Nelson, David Roberts, and Walter Veit,
eds., The Idea of Europe: Problems of National and Transnational Identity (New York
and London: Berg, 1992), 234.
Introduction
25
26
A NTHONY P AGDEN
are, as Jurgen
Habermas has argued, always components of intersubjectively shared traditions, and because of this the revision of the values used to interpret needs and wants cannot be a matter for individuals to handle monologically.42 If, as the European Court of Justice has
ruled, the Union is a Community not only of States but also of peoples and persons equally subject to a common rule of law, then what
must eventually be required is a new mode of citizenship.43 And this can
be achieved only in the course of a dialogue between those involved. As
Thomas Risse and Daniela Engelmann-Martin (chapter 13) and Elie Cohen
(chapter 12) stress, the difficulty in actual practice is that all the attempts
to construct Europe, and with it a notion of European citizenship, have
been the work of eliteselites composed of experts whose work has
generally been conducted behind closed doors.
Philip Ruttley (chapter 11) demonstrates just how much of the process
of integration has been a juridical one. In this, too, the Union is unlike
any previous political creation. Whereas all the former colonial states
were constitutional creations (as is the EU), their constitutions were a
general expression of identity among the people. In the United States the
constitution has acquired sacral status. In some casesgun control, for
instancethis has led to a degree of fetishization that has impeded the
development of the community for which it was written. In parts of Africa
42
43
Introduction
27
and Asia constitutions written by one ethnic group have been used to
tyrannize another. But nowhere, except in Europe, has the constitution
been the creation of a series of treaties that, by their sheer complexity,
have been made inaccessible to the bulk of the population in whose name
they have been drafted.
In chapter 12 Elie Cohen traces the history, and vicissitudes, of the
Single European Currency, perhaps the most contentious, and potentially
most hazardous, attempt to create a new European social and political
community. Here what Herzfeld calls the capacity of ordinary social actors to recast and reconfigure received orthodoxies is severely restricted.
What the ordinary social actor does (informed or more often misinformed by his or her national press) is to recast the received orthodoxy
as a form of conspiracy. The institutions of the Union, and the increasingly complex languages that sustain them, are beyond the range of most
of the peoples of the various nation-states. Public debate on the question of Europe is lamentably restricted in most European countries and
virtually nonexistent in some such as Britain. This is due not only to public apathy fueled by the habitual secrecy of all state bureaucracies. It is
also due to the complexity, and the unfamiliarity, of much of the current
political structure of the Union. Structurally, at least, the European Parliament bears little resemblance to national parliaments anywhere in the
world. The European Court of Justice is primarily an institution whose
purpose is to adjudicate decisions made by functionaries who are not
subject to democratic accountability. This is because, as Philip Ruttley
explains, they come from bureaucratic cultures in which efficiency is valued over accountability, and because they have no equivalents in any
existing democratic society. The European Court of Justice is far closer
to the U.S. Supreme Court than to any European judicial body. It has
the essentially political power to extend the power of community institutions, most specifically that of the European Parliament, and, staffed
largely by judges with marked federalist sympathies, it has been responsible, in Ruttleys words, for nudging forward the process of European
unification.
If Europe is to become the location of political as well as cultural
allegiance, it will need to be far better understood than it is. It will need, as
Habermas has insisted, the kind of dialogue that exists, if sometimes only
fitfully, within most democratic statesnamely, the dialogue between the
citizens and the institutions of the state and among the citizens themselves.
That this is also an objective shared by most of the builders of Europe is, as
Ruttley argues, evident from the terms of the treaties of Maastricht (1992)
28
A NTHONY P AGDEN
and Amsterdam (1997). These require that all decisions taken within the
Union be made as openly as possible. They call for the advancement
of freedom, security, and justice, and they have committed the Union to
a struggle against discrimination on grounds of sex, race, ethnic origin,
religion, belief, disability, or sexual orientation. The treaties have made,
in Ruttleys word, the ever closer union among the peoples of Europe an
integrative process flowing in only one (federalist) direction. As yet, however, despite these good intentions, the dialogue, when it does occur, tends
to be between the representatives of the member states, rather than
between the rulershowever definedand the peoplehowever
understoodof the Union.
What will finally come about if any wider dialogical situation does
emerge is still uncertain. It must surely be not just another political identity, but a new kind of identity, as nationalism was in the nineteenth
century. Already, in the words of the European Court of Justice, the
European Union constitutes a new legal order within international law.
If the Union is to make that legal order into something with which all those
who live by it can identify, it will have to learn to do without local heroes
and without an historical narrative based upon significant moments of
creation. It will, in short, have to be capable of transforming internationalism and cosmopolitanism from the vague yearnings they currently are into more concrete, more persuasive modes of civil and political
association.
To do that, the peoples of Europe will have to abandon the ancient
concept of sovereignty as, in Hobbess phrase incommunicable and
inseparable.44 They will need to be able to accept that a parliament
composed of representatives of various nationalities does indeed represent
each of those nationalities and is not, as some seem to think, an organ
of a federation run in the interests of a single national group. Parliamentary representation has always been limited and fragmentary, and few
national parliaments have been a source of enduring national awareness,
except perhaps in the imagination of those who live by them. But they
can provide a focus of political concern and political loyalties. Therefore, there is no obvious reason why, as Chebel dAppollonia suggests,
a European Parliament should not come to represent a distinctive
Europeanness shared by Greeks, Germans, and French alike. In order to
do that, however, it would have to be something rather more distinctive
44
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. Richard Tuck (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1991), 127.
Introduction
29
See the comments by Tony Judt, A Grand Illusion? An Essay on Europe (New York:
Penguin Books, 1996), 115.
30
A NTHONY P AGDEN
distinguish between the private person, the private citizen, and the
public actor.46 Modern liberty was not like the ancient liberty that
Rousseau had imagined and Robespierre and St. Just had tried to make
a reality. That was a liberty in which the citizen was obliged to subsume
hisand it was always hisprivate person into the collective identity
of the state. With hindsight it is obvious that what Constant in 1819 believed the modern states of Europe (and the United States of America) were
on the verge of becoming has still to be realized fully. True, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, there are no longer any Rousseauian republics
left in Europe. But nationalism, various forms of modern communitarianism, and the resurgence in some places of a new kind of republicanism
as a substitute for the old Marxism still carry with them traces of what
Bernard Williams has called St. Justs illusion.47
It is by no means clear that the European Union has the possibilityor
the collective willto create for itself a new kind of federalism. But by
insisting that persons from various cultural backgrounds can represent
each other, by emptying (as far as possible) most kinds of political discourse of moral or religious referent, and by severing culture from the
nation, the European Union has established principles upon which Constants modern republic could finally be built. J. G. A. Pocock may well
be right in saying that the Union must inevitably transform individuals
from citizens into consumers, and that Europe, the cradle of the state,
may be about to discover what it is like to do without italthough not
perhaps in the way he intends.
Doing without the state may sound sinister to those who have every
reason to be content with belonging to large, powerful, and centralized
political societies. But there are those, and they are by no means culturally insignificant, who have everything to gain from total immersion in a
new European sense of self. As Luisa Passerini (chapter 9) explains, for
feminists such a Rosi Braidotti or Ursula Hirschmann being European
can mean turning the historical contradictions of a European identity
into spaces of critical resistance to hegemonic identities of all kinds.48
What is true at the personal level may be true at the community level
although here the benefits to be gained are far less certain. Attempts at
46
47
48
The Liberty of the Ancients Compared to that of the Moderns, a speech delivered to
the Athenee Royale in Paris in 1819, in Benjamin Constant, Political Writings, ed.
Biancamaria Fontana (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 30928.
Bernard Williams, Making Sense of Humanity and Other Philosophical Papers,
19821993 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 13550.
Quoted in Luisa Passerinis chapter.
Introduction
31
32
A NTHONY P AGDEN
Michael Walzer, On Toleration (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997),
49.
Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits, trans. R. J.
Hollingdale (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 1745.
1
Europe: Conceptualizing a Continent
ANTHONY PAGDEN
Francis Bacon quoted in John Hale, The Civilization of Europe in the Renaissance
(London: HarperCollins, 1993), 3.
33
34
ANTHONY PAGDEN
Histories, I, 34.
35
(as gods do) taken different sides in the struggles between the invading
Trojans and the native Latins, decide to bring the war to an end. Juno,
who has supported the Latins, finally agrees to allow the two peoples to
intermarry and thereby create a new race. But she insists that his new race
will look like the Latins, will dress like the Latins, will speak like the
Latins, and their customstheir moreswill be Latin. All they will preserve of their oriental ancestors will be their gods, for those gods were also
the gods of the Greeks, and the common patrimony of all humankind.3
Europe, which will fashion itself for generations in opposition to Asia,
has always owed to Asia its historical origins.
This sense of double ambiguity survives even the collapse of the political structures of the Graeco-Roman world and the dominance of GraecoRoman origin myths. Christianity was to provide Europe with much of
its subsequent sense of both internal cohesion and its relationship with
the rest of the world, and Christianity began as an Asian religion. Jesus
Christ, who is the way the truth and the life, has long since given the Bill
of Divorce to ingrateful Asia where he was born and of Africa the place
of his flight and refuge, and has become almost wholly European, wrote
Samuel Purchas, the English propagandist for the settlement of America,
in 1625 in an attempt to secure the glory of Christs apostolate, and of
the overseas mission, exclusively for Europe.4 Almost wholly because
not even Purchas could entirely discount the existence of the Greek and
Russian Churches and their failure to submit to the authority of the Papacy
or, as the English fitfully hoped, convert to Protestantism. The fact that the
undeniably Christian adherents of Greek Orthodoxy had for long been
under Ottoman rule, and thus fully absorbed into Asia, remained an additional reminder of the alien origin of Christianity. Greek and Russian
Christianity, as J. G. A Pocock reminds us in this volume, would always be
a threat to any sustained attempt to fabricate a single European identity
with a single origin.
Thus an abducted Asian woman gave Europe her name; a vagrant
Asian exile gave Europe its political and finally it cultural identity; and
an Asian prophet gave Europe its religion. As Hegel was later to observe,
Europe was the centre and end of History, but History had begun in
Asia: characteristically the Orient quarter of the globethe region of
3
4
Aeneid, XII, 80842. I would like to thank Maurizio Bettini for drawing this passage, and
its significance, to my attention.
Samuel Purchas, Hakluytus Posthumus or Purchas his Pilgrimes, Contayning a History of
the World, in Sea Voyages and Lande-Travells by Englishmen & Others, 5 vols. (London,
1625), I, 45.
36
ANTHONY PAGDEN
origination.5 The course of civilization, like that of empire and the sun
itself, moves inexorably from East to West.
In the beginning, however, the world was divided not into two but
three: Europe, Asia, and Libya, as Africa was generally called (although
as Herodotus, the first to travel well beyond the limits of his own home
and who reveled in the oddities of the behavior of those he found there,
complained, with characteristic Greek misogyny, he could not conceive
why three names, and womens names at that, should have been given
to a tract which is in reality one).6 For most Greeks the difference between what they called Europeby which they frequently if not consistently meant Hellas, the lands around the Aegean Seaand Asia or
Africa would remain, as it had been for Aeschylus, one not only of climate and disposition, but also of race (ethnos). Herodotus, however, had
understood that Europe had no natural frontiers and that, as most
subsequent cosmopolitans came to realize through experience, cultures
are never so incommensurable as their members often like to suppose. If
Europe had come to acquire an identity, it was always one that had
to accommodate the uneasy realization that not only were the origins of
Europe non-European, but that no one could establish with any precision
where Europe stopped and Asia and Africa began.
If this geographical uncertainty meant that the landmass of Europe
could not be said to be at the center of the world, it still could be placed
at the center of some other conceptualization of the environment. For the
Greeks and their Roman heirs, the means of establishing a relationship
between them and the rest of humanity frequently rested upon a complex theory of climate and physical environment. The northern parts of
the world, according to this theory, were inhabited by peoples whose inhospitable climates had made them brave and warlike, but also uncouth,
unthinking, andto use the Latinized term that will become central to all
modes of European self-fashioninguncivilized. Those who lived in
the Souththe Asianswere, by contrast, quick-witted, intelligent, but
also lethargic, slow to act, and ultimately corrupta claim that became
in time another enduring stereotype of the Oriental. Europeans (then
the peoples of the Mediterranean), living as they did midway between
these extremes, are the mean. This conception of Europe, much modified
it is true, but still insistent on the radical distinction between North and
South, retained its imaginative force until at least the nineteenth century.
5
6
G. W. F. Hegel, The Philosophy of History, trans. J. Sibree (New York: Dover Publications,
1956), 99101.
Histories, VII, 104.
37
(The current use of the terms by the United Nations and international aid
agencies to mean, roughly, the developed and the developing worlds
is perhaps unintentionally a continuation of the same distinction.) Even
Hegel, writing in the 1830s from the viewpoint of an intellectually and
culturally emergent North, could still speak confidently of the Mediterranean as the uniting element of three quarters of the globe and the
centre of World-Historyonce, that is, he had relegated America firmly
to the domain of the future, where in the ages that lie before us, the burden of the Worlds History shall reveal itself.7 As late as the 1960s, the
great French historian Fernand Braudel was able to refer (with no trace
of irony) to the Mediterranean as the radiant centre of the entire globe,
whose light grows less as one moves away from it, without ones being
able to define the exact boundary between light and shade.8
Europe, wrote the first-century Greek geographer Strabo, in the earliest surviving attempt to demonstrate and explain the continents perception of its superiority over all others, is both varied in form and
admirably adapted by nature for the development of excellence in men
and governments. The two instincts in man (the peaceable, which Strabo
significantly called the agricultural and the civilized, and the warlike)
live in Europe side by side, and the one that is peace-loving is more
numerous and thus keeps control over the whole body.9 In Strabos account the Greek dialectic between the world of nature (physis) and that
of men (nomos, a term that relates to law and custom or as we would say
culture) has been resolved in Europe and only in Europe.
Because of this harmony, Europe becomesin another image that has
survived unbroken to this daythe home of liberty and of true government. The Greeks, Herodotus tells us, are the most free of peoples, because, unlike the Asians, they are subject, not to the will of an individual,
but only to the law. European society might have had many forms of government, some of them decidedly less liberal than others, but centuries
later Voltaire echoed an enduring commonplace when he claimed that
the continent constituted a kind of great republic divided into several
states, all of which were united in having the same principle of public
law and politics, unknown in other parts of the world.10 As Montesquieu
7
8
9
10
38
ANTHONY PAGDEN
had remarked some years earlier, most of Europe (he was a little uncertain
about Spain) is ruled by custom (les moeurs); Asia, and the still darker
regions of Africa and America, by despots.11
The rule of law, restraint through custom rather than will, was responsible for the fashioning of societies that provided a space for individual human action, while at the same time ensuring that such action
was rarely capable of reducing society to a state of simple anarchy. From
this we will see the descent of the notion that all human improvement depends upon conflict, that human beings are, by their nature, competitive
creatures, and that only those societies that know how to harness what
Kant in the late eighteenth century called mans unsocial sociability
instead of attempting to suppress it will flourish.12 As Machiavelli noted,
the power of the Roman Republic had derived from the opposition between the Senate and the plebians and not from the exercise of a common will, as so many had supposed.13 There was from the beginning
the conviction, which the modern democratic societies of the West have
inherited, that this vision of the world was in the longif not always
in the shortrun suitable for all peoples everywhere and that its cultural power was irresistible. This assumption could have emerged only
within a collection of societies, which, while being in many significant
respects very different from one another, shared the sense of a common
identity.
How the highly chauvinist Greeks could speak of themselves as members of a larger grouping of peoples, which must have included non-Greek
speakers and thus, in the Greek understanding of the term, barbarians,
is probably impossible to determine. The Greeks, however, had always
been peoples on the move (poluplanes)extreme travellers. Some time
in the fifth century BCE, Herodotus traveled to Egypt and Libya, to Babylon
and the Phoenician city of Tyre, even to southern Russia, and reported
extensively on what he had found there. Phythagoras, the great sixthcentury mathematician, journeyed from his native Samos to Egypt and
Crete before settling finally in Croton in southern Italy, and the earliest
of the ancient geographers, Hecateus of Miletus, visited Egypt even before Herodotus had. By the third century, the rhetorician Isocrates could
11
12
13
De lesprit des lois, VIII, 8, Oeuvres compl`etes de Montesquieu, ed. Roger Caillois (Paris:
Gallimard, 1951), 2 vols., II, 356.
Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose, in Hans Reiss, ed., Kant:
Political Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), 445.
See Quentin Skinner, Machiavellis Discorsi and the Pre-humanist Origins of Republican Ideas, in Gisela Bock, Quentin Skinner, and Maurizo Viroli, eds., Machiavelli and
Republicanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 12141.
39
This political culture was centered upon a unique form of life: the city.
Of course, as in most other civilizations, the vast majority of the populations of Europe actually lived and worked in the countryside until well
into the nineteenth century. For most of the rural peoples of Europe, and
the illiterate majority in the cities themselves, identity was a question of
attachment to microcommunities: the parish, the village, the guild, sometimes the country, the pays (or what the Castilians aptly called the patria
14
15
16
Francois Hartogth, Memoires dUlysse: Recits sur la fronti`ere en Gr`ece ancienne (Paris:
Gallimard, 1996), 1213.
Strabo, Geography, 2.5, 26.
Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. David
Wormersley (London: Penguin Books, 1995), I, 106.
40
ANTHONY PAGDEN
chica, the small homeland), only rarely the nation, and never, one suspects, such an abstract cultural grouping as Europe. But for the literate, intellectual elites who had far more in common with similar groups
from other nations than they did with their own peasantry, the spaces
beyond the city walls were, until they became sentimentalized in the mideighteenth century, largely invisible. What Voltaire mockingly called the
supposed savages of America were in his view indistinguishable from
those savages one met every day in the countryside, living in huts with
their mates and a few animals ceaselessly exposed to all the intemperance
of the seasons.17
Despite its dependence upon agriculture, despite the real distribution
of its populations, Europe, as a collection of social and political groups
with a shared and historically-determined culture, was conceived as overwhelmingly urban. Our entire political and social vocabulary derives from
this fact. Politics and polity have their root in the Greek term polis.
Similarly, civil, civility, and civilization have their origins in the
Latin word civitas, which describes the same spatial, political, and cultural entity. Both polis and civitas became, in time, abstract nouns, sometimes translatable as the state or the commonwealth, and definable
in abstract terms. But originally they belonged to a semantic field that
described the urban space itself, and a close association between urban
ways of life and true civility persists to this day. Cities were, of course,
by no means unique to Europe. Like all else that defines European culture,
the walled, largely self-governing urban space had originated in Asia.
With the rise of Athens after the sixth century, an association in the
European political imaginaire began to form between an urban environment and a particular way of life. Man, said Aristotle, was zoon
politikonquite literally an animal made for life in the polis. True,
he was not the only such animal. Bears and ants were observed to be
similarly sociable. But hisand in the Greek world it was always his
way of being in the world was for him not merely the best attainable
existence. It was what the Greeks called the good life, the only life in
which it was possible for man to achieve his ends as a man, to achieve
that elusive goal that Aristotle termed eudaimonia, his Latin, Christian
translators, blessedness, and later writers rendered as happiness, or
by the clumsy term employed by many modern philosophers, human
flourishing.
17
Voltaire, Essai sur les moeurs et lesprit des nations, ed. R. Pomeau (Paris: Classiques
Garnier, 1990), 2 vols., I, 23.
41
Furthermore, true politeiai were like the persons who inhabited them,
autonomous entities. They were places of autarkeia, or self-sufficiency,
self-governing, autonomous; they were what in the Latin Aristotelian tradition came to be called perfect communities. This is also the moral
force behind Strabos claim that Europe was, unlike Asia, self-sufficient
in foodstuffs since the ability to provide for ones own material needs suggests a high degree of personal autonomy. Little wonder that for Aristotle
there could be no life beyond the limits of the city but that of beasts and
Gods.18 Because humans, unlike both beasts and Gods, were guided by
rules, by laws and customs, the city was also the source of law. Those who
lived within it had to abide by its rules. Beyond was the wilderness, what
later writers would describe as the state of nature. All humans began
in this condition, and all humans are constantly threatened by it. In the
Greek worldview, and in the conceptions of generations of Europeans,
to live in the state of nature, to live like a barbarian or a savage,
meant living as something less than human. The polis was, in this way,
a bounded space. But it was also conceived as a community that could
even transform all those who entered it. Aristotleto whom we owe much
of what we now know about the place of the polis in Greek life, although
he celebrated the city of Athens and wrote her political historywas an
outsider by birth.
This identification of a distinctive European communal life with a specific environment reached its peak with the effective domination of the
whole of what we now call Europe, and much of Asia, by the greatest
city of them all: Rome. Like the Greek cities to which it was heir, Rome
was the source of law, the place of custom, mores, which in the poet
Virgils punning vision was now encircled and protected by its massive
walls (moenia).19 Unlike the Greek city-states, Rome (particularly after
the collapse of the Republic) depended heavily for its political identity and
continuing survival on the vast areas of Europe and Asia over which it exercised authority. Thus, to a far greater degree than its Greek antecedents,
it welcomed outsiders within its walls, andat least during the periods
when this particular civic community offered stability, security, and the
access to world powerit proved to be enormously attractive. It might
be said, wrote James Wilson as he reflected upon the possible future
of the United States as a new Rome in the West, not that the Romans
18
19
42
ANTHONY PAGDEN
extended themselves over the whole globe, but that the inhabitants of the
globe poured themselves upon the Romans.20
It is, therefore, unsurprising that by the first century CE, this Roman
Empire, which was merely an extension in space of the city of Rome, the
poet Horaces Prince among Cities (princeps urbium), had come to be
identified simply with the world, the orbis terrarum.21 After the establishment of the Emperor Augustuss new regime in 27 BCE, these imperial longings became formally expansionist to the point where Rome was
transformedimaginatively at leastinto a world-state, bounded in
Virgils words only by Oceanus.22 This did not mean that the Romans
ignored the actual existence of the rest of the globe, nor that they ever
seriously aspired to full domination over it. Indeed, they possessed a lively
and sophisticated ethnographical curiosity about the peoples who inhabited the lands beyond the frontiers of the empire. It meant that, for the
Romans, the peoples of these other worlds, the Syrians, for instance, or
the Chinese, had no separate identity as communitiesmuch less as political powersas the Romans conceived such things. When, in the second
century, the Emperor Antonius Pius was addressed as Lord of all the
World (dominus totius orbis), this merely gave legal expression to longheld Roman belief that, whether those who lived beyond their borders
recognized it or not, the political realm of Rome and the human genus
had been made one.23
Rome, however, was not only a political realm. It was also the embodiment of the Stoic belief in the possibility of a single law for all humanity. If
the Greeks gave Europe the philosophy and the mathematics that made
possible its subsequent scientific development, the Romans gave it its legislative habits. Although the concept of Europeans as law-governed peoples originated in Greece, it was the Romans who elevated the law to
the place it still holds todayas the sole guarantor of the continuity of
civilization, however we choose to define that emotive term. Much of
this was swept away during the Gothic invasions that followed the collapse of the Roman Empire. In the outer fringes of the empire, Germanic
customary law came to replace Roman law. But despite these changes,
that law remained, and remains, the single most unifying feature of the
20
21
23
43
25
Edmund Burke, Two Letters Addressed to a Member of the Present Parliament on the
Proposals for Peace with the Regicide Directory of France [hereafter, Letters on the
Regicide Peace], in The Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke, ed. Paul Langford et al.
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 19811991), IX, 2489.
Ecrits
sur labbe de Saint Pierre, in Oeuvres compl`etes de Jean-Jacques Rousseau, ed.
Bernard Gagnebin and Marcel Raymond (Paris: Biblioth`eque de la Pleiade, 1964),
III, 566.
44
ANTHONY PAGDEN
features: the power of the former imperial authority, the Roman Law,
Christianity, and the Latin language.26
Latin, however, was almost wholly a written language, and even then it
was largely confined to the clergy and the lay intelligentsia. Few could, or
did, actually speak it. Even the professoriat, who were bound by statute in
most of the universities of early-modern Europe to deliver their lectures in
Latin, spoke for the most part in a curious hybrid version of the language
and when excited frequently lapsed for long periods into the vernacular.
Diplomatic Latin became restricted after the 1520s to polite formulae,
and writers on the increasingly important science of diplomacy, such as
Ottaviano Maggi, stressed the need for living languagesalthough in his
De Legato of 1566 he did so in Latin. Most of educated Europe before
the eighteenth century was multilingual. Rulers, such as the Holy Roman
Emperors, governed peoples speaking a bewildering number of languages.
Charles V was said to have spoken Spanish to God, French to his mistress,
and German to his horse. Many European languagesBreton, Provencal,
Arrogance, Walloon, Piedmonteseare now minority tongues that have
long been made subservient to a national vernacular. But throughout most
of the early-modern period, these were the dominant and in some cases
the official languages of the regions in which they were spoken. Making
oneself understood as one passed from one territory to another was of
crucial importance.
Since few could hope to speak all the major languages of Europe, most
educated Europeans shared the conviction that there should exist a spoken
tongue that, if not as universal as Latin had once been, should be widely
understood. In the sixteenth century this became Italian, the language in
which Dante, two centuries before had, in a self-conscious break with
tradition, decided to write his great poem. Italian was the language of
literature and as such as familiar to the learned elite as English is today.
Michael de Montaigne learned Italian, although his father had brought
him up in an entirely Latin-speaking household, and when he crossed the
Alps, he changed the language of his journal from French to Italian. On
returning through the Mon Cernis pass, he noted, in French, here French
is spoken, so I leave this foreign language in which I feel competent but
ill-grounded.27 By the late seventeenth century, because of Louis XIVs
effective political domination of mainland Europe, French had become
the language of diplomacy and the courts, and the language in which
26
27
Carlo Cattaneo, Sulle Interdizioni israelitiche, ed. G. A. Belloni (Rome: Sestante, 1944),
568.
Michel de Montaigne, quoted in Hale, The Civilization of Europe, 162.
45
46
ANTHONY PAGDEN
31
47
33
34
Quoted in Jennifer Welsh, Edmund Burke and International Relations: The Commonwealth of Europe and the Crusade against the French Revolution (New York: Macmillan,
1995), 78.
See W. H. Parker, Europe: How Far? in The Geographical Journal 126 (1960): 27897.
De Maizi`ere quoted by Risse and Engelmann-Martin in chapter 13.
48
ANTHONY PAGDEN
with ownership. Citizenship in Europe has long been restricted to property owners. (Until very recently jury service in Britainthe obligation
of the citizen to participate in the judiciary processwas restricted to
house owners.) Even the French Revolution could be conceived by some,
Tocqueville and Taine among others, as the product rather than the source
of modern property relations.35 The right to property could be established
in a number of ways: by autochthony, by inheritance, by purchase, or by
what in Roman law was called prescriptionthat is, prolonged and unchallenged possession. But the question for most early-modern theorists
was how to establish property rights as a feature not only of the civil law,
but also of the law of nature. One of the basic claims of the latter was that
all humankind had been granted an equal share in the earth. Inequality
was a feature of the divisions of the races of the world into different peoples and thereafter of the creation of political societies. How then had the
first men acquired the right to divide up Gods earth among themselves?
The answer to this question, which still plays a significant role in the
European definitions of land rights, drew on the Greek conception of the
potentiality of nature.
In a celebrated passage in the Second Treatise on Government, John
Locke argued that mankind had acquired possession of the earth by laying out something upon it that was his own, his labour. So that he
thereby annexed to it something that was his Property, which another
had not Title, nor could without injury take from him.36 It was thus
mans labourprecisely, that is, his techne (skills)that established
his right to secure for his personal use alone a portion of what was significantly called Adams plenty. In Emeric de Vattels Le Droit des gens,
ou principes de la loi naturelle appliques a` la conduite et aux affaires des
nations et des souverains of 1758, which became a textbook on the natural
law in the late eighteenth century, the disposition to acquire property in
this way is turned into a definition of what it is to be humanthe imposition, in Hegels understanding, of the subjective will on the objective
world of nature. The cultivation of the soil, wrote Vattel,
is an obligation imposed upon man by nature [emphasis added]. Every nation
is therefore bound by natural law to cultivate the land which has fallen to its
share. . . . Those peoples such as the Ancient Germans and certain modern Tartars
who, though dwelling in fertile countries, disdain the cultivation of the soil and
35
36
49
prefer to live by plunder, fail in their duty to themselves, injuring their neighbours
and deserve to be exterminated like wild beasts of prey.37
38
39
40
41
a` la conduite et aux
Le Droit des gens ou principes de la loi naturelle appliques
affaires des nations et des souverains [1758], ed. James Brown Scott (Washington:
Carnegie Foundation, 1916), 3 vols., III, 378.
Adam Ferguson, An Essay on the History of Civil Society, ed. Fania Oz-Salzberger (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 12.
Purchas, Hakluytus Posthumus or Purchas his Pilgrimes, I, 17.
Herodotus, Histories, IX, 61.
See James Hankins, Renaissance Crusaders: Humanist Crusade Literature in the Age of
Mehmed II, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 49 (1995): 111207.
50
ANTHONY PAGDEN
upon their rulers to bury their differences and mount a crusade against
the Turk, the claim was always that European, Christian, science could
never fail against Asian ignorance. And when, beginning in the thirteenth
century, Europeans set out to persuade the world of the truth of their
religion, they assumed a self-evident association between knowledge and
belief. The European capacity to span an open space using an arch was
said to have instantly persuaded one Peruvian chieftain of the truth of
Christianity. The Jesuits who traveled to China in the late sixteenth century took with them clocks, astrolabes, telescopes, clavichords, Venetian
prisms, and suction pumps. If, the argument went, the European God had
taught the Europeans how to devise such ingenious things, the European
God must be the true one. The Chinese, however, had other conceptions of
the necessary relationship between technology and religious belief. While
grateful for the clocks, they declined the offer of the Gospel. This refusal
to accept the obvious led the most famous of the Jesuits, Matteo Ricci, to
declare that they have no logic and the Chinese to accuse the missionaries of indulging in countless incomprehensible lines of reasoning.42
After Columbuss discovery of America and the rounding of the Cape
of Good Hope (famously declared by Adam Smith to be the two greatest
and most important events recorded in the history of mankind),43 the
European belief in the capacity of European science to dominate the world
became even more assertive. Both these oceanic journeys had been made
possible by the use of the compass and the skill of European navigators and
cartographers. Only those whom Purchas described as we in the West
had been able to achieve such triumphs. Asians and Africans had been
capable of limited navigational feats. But only the Europeans had managed to cross oceans, to settle and to colonize. Only the Europeans had
civilized peoples from distant and inferior worlds. In a famous engraving by Johannes Stradanus of 1589, Amerigo Vespucci is shown drawing
aside a curtain to reveal the America whom he will have named, and
thus in some sense created. In this image of the first moment of contact,
Vespucci is represented with an astrolabe, the symbol of his empowering knowledge in his hand. America, in recumbent allusion to Vespuccis
own image of the continent as an ever-available female, is raising herself
half-naked from the long sleep of her ignorance.
42
43
Jacques Gernet, China and the Christian Impact: A Conflict of Cultures, trans. Janet
Lloyd (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 2423.
Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, ed.
R. H. Campbell, A. S. Skinner, and W. B. Todd (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976),
2 vols., II, 626.
51
From the early sixteenth to the late eighteenth century images of the
four continents appeared in the most unlikely places. They were reminders
both of the newly acquired vision of a vastly enlarged world and of
Europes triumph over so much of it, a triumph that only the sciences and
the arts had made possible. Take one striking but representative example. On the ceiling of the stairway hall of the Trappenhaus, the residence
of the Prince-Bishops of Wurzburg, a princely family in no way associated with transoceanic navigation, the great eighteenth-century Venetian
artist Giambattista Tiepolo depicted in lavish detail each of the four continents. They are so arranged that no matter where the viewer stands,
Asia, Africa, and America can only be seen in relation to Europe. The
allegorical figure of Asia is shown seated on an elephant, Africa on a
camel, and America on a crocodilemenacing, languid, and amphibious.
Only Europe sits on a throne instead of an animal, and only Europe is
surrounded, not by the natural produce of the continent she represents,
but by what its peoples have created, by the attributes of the arts, of music
and painting, the sciences, and the technology of warfare. Furthermore,
Europe is the point from which all the other figures must be viewed. As
Svetlana Alpers and Michael Baxandall wrote, to look at Europe one
should look from Europe for Asia, Africa and America are depicted in
their relation to Europe. Europe is the rubric, the initial code.44 This is
why in Cesare Ripas Iconologia of 1603, a work that provided artists with
a easy set of iconographic rules, readers were instructed to depict
Europe wearing a crown to show that Europe has always been the
leader and queen of the whole.45 Thus an abducted Asian princess had
Svetlana Alpers and Michael Baxandall, Tiepolo and the Pictorial Imagination
(New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1994), 154.
` vitij, Afetti; Passione humane, Corpi
Iconologia overo Decrittione dimagini delle virtu,
celesti, Mondo e sue parti (Padua, 1611), 356.
52
ANTHONY PAGDEN
particular, the awareness of the diversity of the world beyond Europe did
much to shatter the idea that that law of nature was more or less identical
with the customs practiced by the peoples of Europe. Even the information that was available by the end of the seventeenth century on such
an advanced and complex civilization as China did little to shake the
belief that, taken as a whole, European civilization was not doing very
much better than any of the available alternatives. To believe otherwise
is to mistake the force of Montaignes irony for approval. Similarly, the
uses to which Voltaire put the Chinese sacred historieswhich seemed
to demonstrate that there were centuries that the biblical narrative of the
creation could not account forwere largely directed against the absurd
claims of the Christian Church rather than at the broader cultural worlds
that have always sustained it.
What Burke called the great vicinage of Europe might no longer be
the source of natures laws, but for most Europeans it remained the only
place of true civility, of free men living in secure urban communities under
the rule of law. The rest of humanity served out its days under tyrannies
governed according to the caprice of individual rulers, or in nomadic
or seminomadic groups never far from the primordial state of nature.
By the late seventeenth century this sense of exceptionality had found
expression in a stadial theory of history. In this universal narrative all human societies begin as hunter-gatherers. They then become pastoralists,
less mobile than their predecessors but still, as Montesquieu phrased it,
unable to unite.46 Finally, they invent agriculture, and this in time transforms them into city dwellers and traders, into modern, civilized, social
beings. For all the great social theorists of the seventeenth and eighteenth
centurieswhich in this volume James Tully subjects to such searching
criticismthe final stage (commercial society) represented the highest
possible human attainment on a trajectory through which all the peoples
on the globe were bound to pass. The commercial society was one that
had forsaken ancient violence (or so it was hoped) for benevolent, enlightened communication, for the transaction not only of goods but also of
beliefs, habits, and ideas. The commercial society was one, or so its proponents believed, that could finally dispense with colonization in favor
of harmonious transnational cooperation, one in which the less civilized
peoples of the world would welcome the civilizersnot as conquerors
and despoilers but as intellectual and moral liberators. The peoples of
America, Africa, Asia, and other distant countries seem to be waiting
46
Montesquieu, De lesprit des lois, XVIII, 11, Oeuvres Compl`etes de Montesquieu, II, 537.
53
only to be civilized and to receive from us the means to be so, and find
brothers among the Europeans to become their friends and disciples,
enthused the Marquis de Condorcet in 1793, at the very moment that the
order he was celebrating was about to vanish.47
The ability, whether the consequence of environment or divine will,
to control the resources of the natural world, to make them work for
the greater good of humankind, had given Europe its assumed superiority
among the peoples of the world. This is the origin of the belief, which is still
shared by many, that Europe or The West or The North is somehow
exceptional. As much as we all may regret it, for long periods of its recent
history, the West has exercised technological and political mastery over
much of the rest of the world. Just as the ability to do this derived substantially from a specific set of convictions embedded in particular ways
of lifefrom a specific cultureso the record of those achievements has
served to define that culture.
Europeans are, I suspect, unusual in sharing in this way a sense that it
might be possible to belong to something larger than the family, the tribe,
the community, or the nation yet smaller and more culturally specific than
humanity. If the Chinese, the Japanese, the Koreans, or the Singhalese
now sometimes choose to identify themselves as Asians, this is because
European notions of ethnicity, and the domination of the world economy
by European concepts of exchange, have compelled them to do so. Similarly, the peoples of, say, Uganda and Congothemselves the products of
European impositionsare highly conscious of belonging to a continent
called Africa largely because European colonization, and the marks of
European racism, have obliged them, for motives of economic and political survival, to speak of Africa, from Libya to the Transvaal, as if it were
the bearer of a common cultural identity. Yet being African in Africa or
Asian in Asia provides only the loosest cultural or political cohesion and
at most levels no cohesion at all.
I am not endorsing any kind of European exceptionalism. All the peoples of the world are the outcome of the combination, dispersal, and recombination, through warfare and the pursuit of subsistence, of myriad
diverse groups of peoples. China, which is larger than Europe, was not inhabited by one ethnic group either. Nor was Assyria, Elam, Urartu, Persia,
ancient Mexico, or Inka Peru. But these were ethnic states. They invited
(or compelled) the outsiders whom they conquered into their homelands
47
Marquis de Condorcet, Esquisse dun tableau historique des progres de lesprit humain,
ed. Alain Pons (Paris, 1988), 269.
54
ANTHONY PAGDEN
and absorbed them into the dominant ethnic community. What is unusual
about Europe is that it has for long possessed an identity as a cultural
space where there have been and continue to be frequent political unions.
It has never, however, constituted a single state, much less a single ethnic
group.
The modern European Union has, in one sense, changed all that. The
notion that Europe might become not merely a loose association of
communities sharing an indeterminate common culture, but instead a political union of states is hardly new. From the Duc de Sullys Grand Design
of 1620 to the fitful projects, which begin to appear after the 1840s, for
a United States of Europe, there has existed a continuous objective to
create a European federation that would finally put an end to intracontinental warfare and enhance the welfare of all the peoples of the region.
Only since 1945, after what the Spanish writer and statesman Salvador
de Madariaga once described as Europes two great civil wars, has this
project had any chance of being realized.48 Despite the single market and
the single currency, despite ever-increasing convergent political and legal
institutions, the vagaries and uncertainties that once hung over the notion of a single European identity hang there still. Europe will never be
an ethnic community, nor even the mega-state that the opponents of the
Union so fear it might become. But the European Union andshould it
ever come aboutthe United States of Europe will surely come closer
than any political order has ever done before to establishing just what it
means to be a European. When it does it will be the embodiment of a
vision that reaches back nearly three millennia.
48
Portrait of Europe [Bosquejo de Europa] (New York: Roy Publishers, 1955), 23.
2
Some Europes in Their History
J. G. A. POCOCK
56
J. G. A. P OCOCK
Let us start with some geography. The word suggests land, and human
beings, of course, are land animals. But for some thousands of years they
have been seafaring animals as well, and if, like me, you come from an
island group situated in the vast distances of the Pacific Ocean, you know
that the seas are bigger than the continents, and that what we call the
Planet Earth could just as well be called the Planet Water. It should come
as no surprise, then, that the invention of continents was the work of
humans who had left the land and were looking back at it from the sea.
The original distinction took shape in a saltwater area of very limited
size, with land masses all around it. I refer, of course, to the Aegean Sea,
the part of the Mediterranean that today lies between Greece and Turkey.
The ancient peoples who used that sea and lived around it became aware
of what we call the Bosphorus, the narrow waterway that connects the
Aegean with the larger and, to them, less-known Euxine or Black Sea.
They developed myths and folktales that had the effect of giving the name
Europa to lands lying West of the Bosphorus and the name Asia to
lands lying East of it. At the same distant time, a third name, or rather
a pair of names, appeared to denote another coast and its hinterlands
lying well to the South of the Aegean. One of these, Egypt, was the
Greek Aegean term for the peoples of the Nile valley and its delta, an
57
immensely ancient and literate people who could give their own accounts
of who they were and where they came from. The other word, Africa,
tended to move westward, away from the Egyptians, and adhere to other
coastlandsalso known as Libya, Mauritania, and so onwith which the
Aegean Greeks and Phoenicians came in contact as their ships explored
the Mediterranean basin.
Once we start talking about the movement of words from one coastland
and hinterland to another, we have begun talking about geography and
cartography: the description of configurations of land and water and their
reduction to spoken and written words and image. Over many centuries
perhaps more than twenty from start to finish of the mapping process
the Aegean words Europe, Asia, and Africa moved outward from
the coastlines to which they had originally been applied and traveled
deeper and deeper into the hinterlands behind them until finally they
reached the opposite seacoasts of these hinterlands and became the names
of what were by then called continents. There is a process in the history of
geography by which the word continent comes to denote a landmass of
very great size, possessing a well-defined maritime perimeter, and linked to
other continents either by a single narrow isthmusas Africa is joined to
Asia and the two Americas to one anotheror not at all, as in the cases
of Australia and Antarctica, the two island continents in the southern
hemisphere.
The anomaly in our typology of continentsan anomaly that shows
how Aegean and Mediterranean concepts still dominate our thinking
consists in our persistent habit of listing Europe as one of the seven continents, when it does not comply with the above definition at all precisely.
There is a disjunction between the ancient and medieval practice of distinguishing the parts into which the earth was divided and the modern
postnavigational practice of mapping and listing the continents. The
continent of Europe is a product of the Mediterranean need of a term
to describe the lands West of the Bosphorus. It is also the product of the
exceptionally self-centered and world-dominating outlook developed by
a civilization that took place in those lands. The notion of a continent
was formed in that civilization but does not fit its own self-description as
the continent of Europe.
In the sixteenth century there were in circulation many copies of a
map and image of Europe, the first part of the earth in the form of a
virgin. It was shaped by the rule of the Habsburg family over Spain, the
Netherlands, the German Empire, and Austria, and showed Europe
as a crowned woman, whose head was the Iberian Peninsula and whose
58
J. G. A. P OCOCK
heart was situated at Prague. Her left arm was the peninsula of Denmark,
and she held a scepter ruling over the Baltic and the North Sea; her right
arm was the peninsula of Italy, with which she grasped the island of Sicily,
as an imperial orb giving power over the Mediterranean. The skirts of her
robe floated freely over vast and indeterminate regions, between the Black
Sea and the Baltic, to which the draftsman affixed such names as Scythia,
Muscovy, and Tartary.
One can see that the mapmakers have been pushing the Baltic as far
East and the Black Sea as far North as they dare, hoping to bring them
close enough to each other to justify the description of Europe as a continent, but it is not possible to link Europe to Asia by a narrow isthmus
with sea on either hand. Europe is not linked to Asia so much as it is
an extension of it, a peninsula or subcontinent like that of India. Even
then there is no huge mountain barrier like that of the Himalaya, separating the peninsula from the rest of the continent that we might call
Eurasia. The skirts of the imperial robe float over an enormous plain in
which there are neither seas nor mountains, nor any natural frontier at
all. Subsequently, there arose the habit of terminating Europe at the Ural
Mountains, which marked no important climactic or cultural or political
characteristics. It is another characteristic of the Habsburg map that it
can touch only the coasts of Scandinavia North of the Baltic, as of Africa
South of the Mediterranean. One might almost say that Scandinavia is a
separate peninsula of the Eurasian continent and that Europe is another.
When Scandinavia came to be considered part of Europe is a historical
question.
The formation of Europe was not quite complete in 1760 when
Voltaire, who though a great historian was not a great scholar, wrote his
History of Russia under Peter the Great. Certainly, he wrote to celebrate
the work of Peter and his successors in bringing Russia into the civilization he thought of as European; but at the same time he is inclined to
include Sweden, Baltic Germany, Poland, and Russia in an area he called
simply the north (le nord) and did not consider fully European. And
what is more, Voltaire remarks that if you situate yourself imaginatively
about the Sea of Azov, just East of the Crimean, you cannot tell where
Europe leaves off and Asia begins. It would probably be better to abandon
both terms, expanding the term le nord into terres boreales or terres arctiques, corresponding (he says) to the terres australes and antarctiques
which we use in speaking of the great continent we believe to exist in
the southern hemisphere. Very soon after Voltaire wrote this, European
navigators in the Pacific dissolved the southern continent into the two
island continents called Australia and Antarctica, perhaps confirming the
59
60
J. G. A. P OCOCK
61
62
J. G. A. P OCOCK
I now return to the history we all know, more or less, and describe as
the history of Europe. When did it begin to be said that Europe
had a history, and when did it begin to be implied that all history was
the history of Europe? A good answerthough like all good answers an
oversimplificationcan be given by fastening on the great historians of the
eighteenth century, the Age of Enlightenment: on Voltaire, Gibbon, Hume,
Robertson, and the extraordinary partnership of Raynal and Diderot. They
were the ones who set about defining Europe as a secular civilization
and supplying it with a secular history and an age of modernity.
Writing history for them was a weapon against the Church, Protestant
as well as Catholic, and in consequence they wrote a history of the Church
designed to reduce it to secular history. The weakness of the Roman empire, for them, had coincided with the rise of the Church, and there was
a polemic against the history of Greek philosophy, because the Christian
theology that gave the Church authority had been shaped in the old Greek
East, in Alexandria and Antioch and Constantinople. Islam, which the
Enlightened historians rather admired, had progressively destroyed that
Greek world. But in the far western provinces lost to the Franks, Saxons,
and Normans, a new Latin theology had arisen, designed to buttress the
universal jurisdiction of the Pope and to make the Latin church the greatest enemy ever faced by the authority of human society over itself. Gibbon
wrote that the beginnings of modern history should be sought in the eighth
century A.D., when the papacy allied itself with the Frankish kingdom that
became the empire of Charlemagne. Notice that he is using modern to
mean not ancient (and therefore Christian). He has not reached the
point of using it to mean not medieval (and therefore no longer wholly
Christian). For all of these historians there had followed a long struggle
between the empire and the papacy, each created by the other. A climax
occurred about 1300, when the papacy called in the French Angevins
to defeat the Hohenstaufen in Italy, and the French kings defeated Pope
Boniface VIII and removed the papacy from Rome to Avignon. History
as seen by French scholars and publicists now removed its center from
the Church Universal to the kingdom of France, not universal but
hegemonic.
63
64
J. G. A. P OCOCK
threaten Europe with a new universal empire but, in fact, ushered in the
age of reason of state, when the French monarchy, resisting the Habsburg
dynasty, and the English monarchy, adapting itself to this struggle, began
educating Europe in the conduct of secular power. The balance of power
was Europe, and Europe was the balance of power. It was Spanish
and French, English and Burgundian, German within the structure of
the Holy Roman Empire. It was seldom Polish and never really Central
European at all. Its energies were turned inward on the problems of Latin
civilization, and the explosion of that civilization into Mexico and Peru
belonged, said Robertson, in a history that would have to be written
separately.
In 1780, in their great Philosophical and Political History of the Two
Indies, Raynal and Diderot had already begun to write the history of the
Europeans conquest: first, of the planetary ocean, which had brought
them in contact with all the cultures in the world simultaneously, and,
second, of the two American continents, which was leading to the creation of European societies existing beyond Europe. The discovery of
America, said Hume, marked the true beginning of modern history.
Robertson, however, confined his history to the first half of the sixteenth
century and did not continue it through the seventeenth. Unlike Voltaire
and Hume, he chose to avoid the Wars of Religion. The Enlightened mind
saw Lutheranism, Calvinism, and Anabaptism as the reverse side of the
medal to the papacy they sought to destroy: religious fanaticism threatening civil authority in a new way. Voltaire and Hume did not see the
Wars of Religion as ending at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648; they were
preoccupied with their after-effects, the Wars of the Fronde in France, the
Wars of the Three Kingdoms in the British islands.
These wars carried the story into Voltaires Age of Louis XIV, the first
and most central of his historical writings. Voltaire saw Europe emerging from the last phase of religious fanaticism into an age of Enlightened
sociability fostered by both courtly monarchy and commercial refinement.
A peripheral debate was carried on by those who held that Louis XIV
had threatened Europe with another universal empire like that of the
Romans. In their view the states-system constituting Europe was achieved
only when his adversaries brought him to terms (or he them) at the
Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. French and Scottish historians could agree that
Utrecht had achieved a Europe that had outgrown barbarism, fanaticism, and conquest. It was a republic or confederation of states held
together by treaties to which wars were merely auxiliary, and by a common
system of civilized manners communicated everywhere by commerce; a
65
66
J. G. A. P OCOCK
67
to have quite suddenly entered an alien and archaic world of vast distances, enserfed peasantries, and brutal petty officialsa world that corresponded all too easily to their received notions of oriental despotism.
This last concept was not exclusively an invention of maritime imperialism, though of course it was that. It also reflects the encounter of Europe
on its open eastern frontier with forms of government derived from the
Ottoman or Mongol empire or shaped by these empires as they withdrew;
it was a problem for the British in India whether they were going to join
the family of military empires or attempt something different. The indeterminacy of Europe in the East, however, may help explain the rather
strange way in which Larry Wolffs pages are pervaded by the notion
that western Europeans ought not to have evaluated central and eastern
Europe as they did, that it is not for Europeans to decide who is
European and who is not. This reflects the deeply confused way in
which we now think about cultural identity, but it also reflects the fact
that the decision is difficult to make or to avoid. Should we say that the
affairs of former Yugoslavia ought to be arranged by Europe because
they are part of it? Or should we say that this area is a barbaric frontier
(or rather a collision of archaic frontiers in a world still barbaric), which
it is better to avoid trying to control? Should an empire seek to assimilate
its barbarians or to exclude them? If we reply that it should not have
defined them as barbarians in the first place, the question arises of the
terms in which it ought to have understood them. The lands originally
called Europa are those in which Europe experiences a continuing
problem in defining itself.
ANOTHER EUROPE IN HISTORY
But this is to anticipate the history of Europe since the end of the
Enlightened settlement. That was succeeded by the transitory if spectacular Napoleonic interlude, when the revolutionary empire of France over
Latin Europe proved itself very nearly capable of dominating the three
military monarchies of Europes eastward expansion. The resistance of
Austria, Russia, and the maritime empire of Britain over the Atlantic and
Mediterranean led the French empire to overreach itself, collapse, and be
succeeded by an attempt to restore that Europe of several states linked
by treaty and trade in which Enlightened thinkers had seen the security of
civilization. But this Concert of Europe, heir to the early-modern statessystem, had to be guaranteed by, and therefore had to include, the eastward military monarchies themselves: Prussia, Austria, Russia (but not
68
J. G. A. P OCOCK
69
North American Free Trade Agreement was being mooted. When I hear
it said that the separate histories of the Irish or British, French or Spanish,
German or Scandinavian (but not yet Polish or Hungarian and certainly
not, for the foreseeable future, Russian) merge in the history of something
called Europe, which has not been written yet, I wonder what this indeterminacy means, and I think we had better set about writing that history
and seeing how it comes out when we do. There are numerous ways of
writing it, and none will be final.
Second, the institutionalization, and the creation of a mystique, that
went with the idea of a union to be called Europe went on in the
era of the Cold War, the Iron Curtain, and the partition of Europe. This
partition, by which the Soviet Union hoped to protect its domination of
the Heartland, and its own unity, ran well west of the indeterminacies
of that region and cut deep into Latin Europe. It separated Lutheran
East Germany from Catholic West Germany, and Catholic Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia from the western Europe of which they might
be considered extensions. In the era of partition, Europe was far from
clear what it intended to do about the central and eastern Europes, apparently lost to Soviet domination. Its ideology was never in practice what
it was in principle: an affirmation of Catholic-Protestant-Enlightened
Europe against the Orthodox-Muslim Europes and Eurasia now
ruled by a semi-Enlightened Russia. Turned westward, the ideology of
Europe became the instrument of a dispute with its other protector:
France and Germany, the losers in the Second World War, against the
United States as the principal victor, and also against Britain while that
state continued to belong to the maritime world of the British Commonwealth and the special relation. A sense of defeat in that set of relationships led the United Kingdom to accede Europe. Since Europe
has not allayed that sense of defeat, the British relationship to it remains
deeply ambivalent. I speak, of course, as a citizen of the former Commonwealth, but I do so without hesitation. Europe must see itself as a new
Norman Conquest, the Channel Tunnel as a revival of the camp at
Boulogne in 1805. The power of the Napoleonic bureaucracies, now serving the international market, seeks to extend itself over the British Isles.
If Europe was a product of the partition of Europe, it has had
to survive the end of that partition and the downfall, not only of the
Soviet Union, but perhaps also of the Russian state created by Peter
and Catherine and their successors. The door is wider open than at any
time in recent history toward those areas where Europe has no frontiers, and any attempt to withdraw them or extend them must be equally
70
J. G. A. P OCOCK
71
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
3
Europe in the Middle Ages
WILLIAM CHESTER JORDAN
72
73
For what we know of the career of Thomas Aquinas, see The Life of Saint Thomas
Aquinas: Biographical Documents, ed. and trans. Kenelm Foster (London: Longman,
Green and Co., 1959); on Anselm, see G. R. Evans, Anselm (London: Chapman, 1989).
74
Normandy governing a major monastery and ended his career as the greatest churchman in England as archbishop of Canterbury. His career was
extraordinary in his own time but almost unthinkable in the late Middle
Ages, say, after 1350 or so.3 Overextension by the papacy and the feudal
states of northern Europe would reveal the systemic weaknesses of both.
And the shocks of war, famine, and plague destabilized the entire array
of European political, economic, and, indeed, cultural systems. Nonetheless, an ideal of unity survived along with vestiges of the old cosmopolitanism. It has never died, and now many hope it is irreversibly in the
ascendant.
No theme, even one as comprehensive as the tension between the local
and the cosmopolitan, can adequately cover three hundred years of history
in Europe, but this one is perhaps better than most. It includes the continuing role played in Europe by the Scandinavians through their diplomatic
alliances, military contributions to the crusades, active engagement in
Baltic and North Sea trade with Scotland, England, the Hanse towns, and
among themselves, long after the Viking invasions were over, the only time
a reader ordinarily encounters Scandinavians in any general consideration
of the Middle Ages. Spain (or, more properly, the Spains), if there were
more space in this chapter, would come in and out of the story in a way
that this region rarely does in traditional pictures of medieval development. Focusing on the recruitment and attraction of soldiers and settlers
from North of the Pyrenees to reconquer territories from the Muslims and
to resettle the conquered land stresses Spains ties to Europe as a whole. In
the same way the diplomatic and marriage alliances of Spanish aristocrats
and the activities of Iberian merchants (Portuguese and Castilian traders
in England; Catalonian throughout the Mediterranean) point to Spains
integration into a manifestly European civilization.
EUROPE
For Lanfrancs career, see Margaret Gibson, Lanfranc of Bec (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1978).
Benjamin Braude, The Sons of Noah and the Construction of Ethnic and Geographical
Identities in the Medieval and Early Modern Periods, William and Mary Quarterly, 3d
series, 54 (1997): 109.
75
among the dominant groups in society, at least from the eleventh century
on, was Christianitas (Christendom). We may learn a great deal from this
fact. Europe was where Latin ChristiansRoman Catholic Christians
dominated the political and demographic landscape.5 A profound divide,
symbolized by the mutual excommunication of pope and patriarch of
Constantinople in 1054 and made unbridgeable by westerners occupation of Constantinople (120461) following the Fourth Crusade, separated Catholics from Greek or Orthodox Christians in Russia, the Balkans,
and the Greek peninsula and archipelago. Regions in North Africa and the
Near East, once ruled by Christians and still having substantial sectarian
Christian populations (Copts in Egypt, for example), had come under the
political and demographic dominance of Muslims. Even when Palestine
and its environs temporarily succumbed to Christian political control and
military occupation in the aftermath of the First Crusade (10961100),
Catholic Christians remained a demographic minority among other
Christians in the Near East.
When people spoke of Christendom geographically in, say, the year
1250, they meant the totality of regions we would now call Iceland,
Scandinavia, the British Isles, France, most of Spain and Portugal, all of
Italy, the Low Countries, Germany, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Bohemia,
Moravia, Slovakia, and Croatia. In all these regions the dominant political power was vested in avowed Roman Catholic Christians, and the
clear demographic edge lay with this Glaubensvolk.6 Within these regions
Jews constituted numerically, if not symbolically, an insignificant minority.
The number of Muslims was dwindling (even in the Christian kingdoms
of Spain and in southern Italy and Sicily where the Muslim population
was largest). The political power of Muslims was negligible. Pagans were
being subjugated in the Northeast (what we would now call Finland,
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) by Catholic Christians, although the process was not entirely successful. The resistance of the Lithuanians was
especially spectacular and, for a very long time, effective; in 1387, though
under significant military pressure, their ruler would accept Catholic
Christianity voluntarily for diplomatic reasons, not because of any crushing
5
6
See Gerard Delanty, Inventing Europe: Idea, Identity, Reality (London: Macmillan, 1995),
10, 1617, 346, 3842.
The term Glaubensvolk, used in the way I have used it, is an adaptation of Ulrich
Haarmanns terminology. His comparative treatment of Christendom and Islam in the
Middle Ages and the tensions between cosmopolitanism and nationalism is highly
recommended; Glaubensvolk und Nation im islamischen und lateinischen Mittelalter,
Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Berichte und Abhandlungen
(Berlin: Academie Verlag, 1996), 2:16199.
76
military defeat or demonstration of insurmountable western technological and logistical superiority. He would acquire the throne of Catholic
Poland in the bargain.7
POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS
Since the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when scholars began the
serious study of the Middle Ages, the rise of the state or attempts to discern the peculiar genius of the nation have been at the center of their
concerns. Seeking after Eternal Francethe essence of Francewas, for
example, largely a sixteenth-century innovation.8 This centrality of concern about the state and nation in medieval studies arose because of an
almost manic preoccupation with the balance of power among states.
Scholars wondered how the political units that negotiated the balance of
power had come about. What were their so-called natural borders? Did
a people who constituted a nation have to be one in religion or sect, language, traditions, and in some way lineage?9 Out of a preoccupation with
these questions came patriotic ideologies that, in the case of France, for
example, might sustain people even in the worst of timescivil war, invasion, social revolution.10
To a degree, the surviving sources seemed to point in this direction for
research. Royal clerks had created the greatest archives of documentary
sources, but the church was not far behind with its zealously preserved
and voluminous documentary and chronicle sources.11 The editing of the
ecclesiastical sources usually had less to do with a disinterested wish to
7
8
9
10
11
Although it does not deal with the later phases of the struggle, S. C. Rowells wonderful
book (Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire within East-Central Europe, 12951345
[Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994]) describes the pagan Lithuanians greatest successes.
Ernst Kantorowicz, The Kings Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology
(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1957), 79, n. 89.
See Colette Beaune, The Birth of an Ideology: Myths and Symbols of Nation in LateMedieval France, trans. Susan Huston, ed. Frederic Cheyette (Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 1991), 31025, for an adept summary.
See Robert Mandrou, Introduction to Modern France, 15001640: An Essay in Historical
Psychology, trans. R. E. Hallmark (New York: Holmes and Meier, 1976), 1256. For a
slightly earlier period, see Beaune, Birth of an Ideology, 3028.
France led the way here with the two massive collections (the first of royal documents,
the second of ecclesiastical records). See Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France,
24 vols., ed. Martin Bouquet and others (Paris: 17341904); the Imprimerie has varied
in its publishing history, depending on the nature of the regime (Imprimerie Royale,
Imprimerie Imperiale, Imprimerie Nationale). On the church see Gallia christiana in
provincias ecclesiasticas distributa, 16 vols. (Paris: 17151865). Its editor and publisher
was the Congregation de Saint-Maur.
77
investigate church history than with a desire to show that the distinctive
form that ecclesiastical history took in this country or that one had much
to do with the irreducible national essence of its people, language, and
culture. The history of the church was a purposive handmaiden to the
history of the state.
In seeking the roots of Frenchness or whatever national essence the
scholars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were seeking, they
discovered something quite unsettling and called it feudalism. The term
now is under attack: historians question whether they should apply a word
coined by seventeenth-century controversialists to a world like Europe
in the High Middle Ages.12 What they called feudalism reflected their
recognition of the intense fragmentation of loyalties around the rulers of
great fiefs or other large units of property in the medieval past. Given their
teleological concerns with how kingdoms developed, they searched for
keys to explain how great rulers domesticated feudalism and its plethora
of lords by transforming it into a tight and neatly hierarchical system of
government. It was this system of government under a powerful king,
they believed, that allowed the national essence (never actually lost but
hidden sometimes under the debris of anarchy and, at other times, under
Catholic and Imperial universalism) to blossom in their own age.
Despite their teleologies, these controversialists and early scholars were
right about many things. They were right in discerning a tension between
the multiplicity of governing units (like castellanies, viscounties, counties,
and duchies) and the idealistic universalism of the political theorists and
theologians of the Middle Ages. For many of the great intellectuals of the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries, there was never much doubt that there
should be and eventually would be only one faith and only one Imperium.
Below the level of the great thinkers and the great lords of kingdoms,
duchies, and counties, there was a bewildering variety of local cultures.13
They might be clan-based, as in Scotland and Ireland, or caste-like, as
in Wales, or male-dominated but otherwise far more egalitarian, as in
Scandinavia. Most people would have expressed their deepest loyalties
in a vocabulary dominated by these local realities. But the sources most
accessible to sixteenth- and seventeenth-century scholars spoke hardly a
word about these multiple worlds. Despite present-day sensitivity in the
historical profession to the plight of the lowly and the desire to fill the
12
13
Susan Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1994).
For a useful overview, see Susan Reynolds, Kingdoms and Communities in Western
Europe, 9001300 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984).
78
silences, the lack of sources remains the great barrier to any simple reconstruction of the so-called authentic voices of subordinate groups in the
European Middle Ages.
The diversity of material life among the various groups that occupied
the landscape in the High Middle Ages underscores the fragmentation endemic in society.14 Basic facts of medieval demography suggest widely disparate densities of population and a great unevenness in the incidence of
towns. Agricultural technologies varied because of the many different soil
types, not to mention the gross differences in the topography and hydrography between northern Europe (well-watered and cold) and southern
Europe (dry and hot).
Still the attraction of and adherence to an ideal of universalism stimulated an arresting cosmopolitanism that transcended the narrow loyalties
of village and town and even the wider loyalties of lordship and kingdom.
It ripped boys and men (and girls and women, although to a far lesser extent) out of their parochial networks and transformed their lives and the
life of society at large. A girl from Domremy, a tiny village on the Saone
far from anyones heartland, would think thoughts about France and
England and the church of God that would change the world. We know
of her, of course, as Joan of Arc.15 Economic developments were crucial
to this possibility.
THE ECONOMY
15
16
For a brief introduction to this subject, see Hans-Werner Goetz, Life in the Middle Ages
from the Seventh to the Thirteenth Century, ed. Steven Rowan, trans. Albert Wimmer
(Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1993), 923.
For a readable biographical study, see Marina Warner, Joan of Arc: The Image of Female
Heroism (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1981).
Philippe Contamine and others, LEconomie medievale (Paris: Armand Colin, 1993),
1416, 21114.
79
Roman Empire drifted in and out of civil war over and over again, and
partly because of the repercussions in Italy of the German emperors disputes with the popes over their respective political and spiritual powers,
it is not easy to see why the peninsulas population grew significantly.
It is possible, of course, that unusual spells of mild weather in the
growing season improved harvests and nutrition and encouraged or at
least permitted larger families. It is possible, too, that changes in field
systems, the diffusion of established technologies like the heavy plow in
the North, new methods of crop rotation, and the introduction of new
crops, especially beans and peas, or their diffusion on a grand scale, had
similar effects. These positions have been strenuously argued by generations of scholars, but they remain largely conjectures. What is fact is
simply the take-off in population. Gross estimates see a rise from about
25 million Europeans in the year 1100 to 80 million or more by the year
1300.17
The growth of population, most of it in the countryside, stimulated
the spread of rural markets. Recent estimates see a peak in the creation
of periodic markets in the thirteenth century throughout the British Isles
and in region after region on the continent. Some of these regions, like
Germany, had ten times as many markets in 1300 as thay had in the
eleventh century. This expansion permitted the movement of labor, goods,
and money more efficiently and in a more widely flung network or series
of economic networks than had ever existed in the North of Europe before
or had been in existence in southern Europe since the fall of the Roman
Empire.
Southern Europe led the way, especially in the growth and sophistication of towns.18 Northern Italy, particularly Lombardy and Tuscany, were
to provide Europe a cradle for bourgeois values. By the end of the thirteenth century, Florence, Milan, Genoa, and Venice had populations close
to 100,000. Only Paris and perhaps London, in the North, were comparable. The demand for provisions created by these urban agglomerations
in Italy and unevenly elsewhere (along the Baltic Coast, in Flanders, on
the eastern shore of the Iberian peninsula, to name the most important
places where towns flourished) stimulated food production and industry
in all their hinterlands.
17
18
Unless otherwise noted, the information in this paragraph and the next several on the
structures of society, the role of technology, the influence of markets, and other aspects
of the economy is from my book The Great Famine: Northern Europe in the Early
Fourteenth Century (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996), 438, 8796,
12734.
In general, see Contamine, Economie medievale, 18594.
80
Jonathan Riley-Smith, Early Crusaders to the East and the Costs of Crusading, 1095
1130, in Cross Cultural Convergences in the Crusader Period: Essays Presented to
Aryeh Grabois on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Michael Goodich and others (New York:
Peter Lang, 1995), 23757.
81
necessarily love the United States. But, like Peter Saracen of Auvergne,
they know they are part of a wider world.20
THE ECCLESIASTICAL WORLD
21
22
The real Petrus Sarraceni of Auvergne may be encountered in a judicial action recorded
in the thirteenth-century Enquetes administratives dAlfonse de Poitiers, ed. PierreFrancois Fournier and Pascal Guebin (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1959), 154.
For a breathtaking evocation of the period, see Peter Brown, The Rise of Western
Christendom: Triumph and Diversity, A.D. 2001000 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1996).
For a reasoned evaluation of the subject, with due emphasis on German developments,
see C. H. Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism: Forms of Religious Life in Western Europe
in the Middle Ages (London and New York: Longman, 1984), 8092.
82
This transformation occurred in the late eleventh and twelfth centuries and was seemingly secure in the thirteenth. A 1994 book on Pope
Innocent III, the pope who reigned at the turn of the twelfth/thirteenth
century, can use the subtitle Leader of Europe without apparent irony.23
The achievement of papal monarchy came at a great price, however.
Violence resulted from the attack on extreme forms of sacred kingship.
Hitherto, the dominant theory had vested power over the church and
churchmen in the king or emperor. In the eleventh century ecclesiastical
reformers contested the theory. The struggle between emperor and pope
that ensued, usually referred to as the Investiture Controversy, turned on
the alleged right of the former to confer the staff and ring on newly elected
bishops.24
The staff and ring were the symbols of spiritual, not secular, authority.
The staff represented the bishops right to bring the errant sheep back
into the fold. In other words, it meant the bishop could exercise the
magisteriumto say what the Catholic faith wasand to enforce his
view against heretics. The staff also represented the power to beat away
wild dogs and wolves, enemies of the Christian faith from outside the
fold, and to sanction the use of force for the protection of the Christian
faithful. The ring symbolized the marriage of the bishop to his diocese,
his unbreakable union with the people whom he protected, served, and
loved.
No king or emperor, the radical reformers argued, had any right to
bestow such authority. The church rested firmly on the foundation of the
apostles and their successors, the bishops. (Thou art Peter and upon this
rock I will build my church.) Only bishops ought to bestow the powers
symbolized by the staff and ring on bishops-elect.
The problem was that, for centuries, customs had grown up contrary
to this view. The reform movement of the eleventh century challenged
these entrenched customs. As the leader of the reform party pointed out,
Christ did not say I am custom, but I am Truth. Civil wars in Germany
and confrontations in other countries resulted in hard-fought victories for
the ecclesiastical reformers position. But they also undermined political
universalism. As a result of this struggle, the claim of the Holy Roman
Emperor to universal secular rule eroded. The weakening of Imperial
23
24
Jane Sayers, Innocent III: Leader of Europe, 11981216 (London and New York:
Longman, 1994).
Uta-Renate Blumenthal, Investiture Controversy: Church and Monarchy from the Ninth
to the Twelfth Century (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988). On the
parameters of reform, see Giles Constable, The Reformation of the Twelfth Century
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
83
control in northern Italy where it had once been strong is the clearest
example of this reality.
One can characterize the discourse of those who debated problems of
the internal organization of the church, church-state relations, and doctrinal and legal matters as scholastic. Scholasticism was supranational,
like the language of its expression, Latin. The adjective scholastic, of
course, covers many sins and obscures many nuances, but to some extent the word is a good one, for it emphasizes the general role of schools
and, most important for our purposes, the specific role of the schools of
higher learning as institutional sites for the production and exchange of
knowledge.25
The number of universities even by the year 1250 was very small:
Bologna in northern Italy, Montpellier in southern France, Paris in northern France, Oxford in England, and a handful of others. Although the
number of universities or places of general studies (studia generalia) was
small, or perhaps because their number was small, they were truly international institutions.26 They were also valuable in providing training for
future administrators of churches and principalities. Therefore, there was
a vested interest over time for individual princes and towns to have their
own local universities. The late Middle Ages would see a profound undermining of early university cosmopolitanism.27 Although pretensions
to cosmopolitanism never vanished, localism began to prevail toward the
end of the fourteenth century. I am tempted to see a parallel in my home
institution, Princeton. Scholars there talk often of their contributions and
loyalty to the world of learning, but the university motto is Princeton in
the nations service.
25
26
27
84
Latin was the universal language of the higher schools and of university life in general.28 In castles and towns men who were enemies of
Peter Abelard said of his books, they replace light with darkness. They
perceived his books to be dangerous not only for their content but also for
their reach: they pass from one race to another, and from one kingdom to
another. They cross the oceans, they leap over the Alps . . . they spread
through the provinces and the kingdoms.29 In many places this structure
of diffusion remained intact in the universities until the eighteenth century. When Christian Thomasius started to lecture in German instead of
Latin at the University of Leipzig in 1687, the event, the first of its kind,
was a shock and caused a scandal.30 It also sounded the death knell
the inevitable collapseof Latin as the universal language of university
instruction.
To be sure, even in the thirteenth century, when Latin was providing a glue binding the intellectual elite in universities and the universal church, the vernaculars were providing a basis for a countervailing
localism.31 The early influence of churchmen in newly Christianized,
northern European governments had made Latin the official language
of record in many courts and administrative bureaus. In the thirteenth
century this monopoly collapsed; in the fourteenth, Latin was in retreat
except as tradition and prestige required it in certain kinds of records and
transactions. In the fourteenth century and later, however, the languages of
pleading in the hundreds of new courts across Europe and the languages
of recording the decisions were vernacular.
As literatures began to emerge or re-emerge in vernaculars in the twelfth
and with a vengeance in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, distinctive regional or national traditions and genres emerged. Latin literature
became learned literature, the literature of high theology, ethics, political
theory, jurisprudence, and natural philosophy. It was somewhat remote,
28
29
30
31
For perceptive brief analyses of the use of Latin in the Middle Ages, see the essays on the
Varieties of Medieval Latinity, in Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographic
Guide, ed. F. A. C. Mantello and A. G. Rigg (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University
Press, 1996).
Quoted in C. Stephen Jaeger, The Envy of Angels: Cathedral Schools and Social Ideals
in Medieval Europe, 9501200 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994),
239. For other examples of scholastic cosmopolitanism, see 16.
On Christian Thomasius, sometimes characterized as the author of the second German
Reformation, see Werner Schmidt, Ein vergessener Rebell: Leben und Wirken des
Christian Thomasius (Munich: Eugen Diederichs Verlag, 1995).
On the problematic status of the vernacular in France, see Gabrielle Spiegel, Romancing
the Past: The Rise of Vernacular Prose Historiography in Thirteenth-Century France
(Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1993), 667.
85
at best, if not absolutely divorced from everyday life, except when schoolboys forced to learn it wrote scurrilous screeds.
Stilus nam et tabule
sunt feriales epule,
et Nasonis carmina
vel aliorum pagina.
(Pen and ink and copy-book,
How funereal they look;
Ovids songs, how dull with age,
Still more any others page.)32
The lively literature of stories and novellas, love poetry and satires, and
personal letters among middling people found expression in the vernacular. It is true that one vernacular enjoyed a privileged status and, with
that, a certain cosmopolitan flair. This was French.33 Many people spoke
versions of it as a native language across what we would call northern
France, as did the nobility and gentry in England and the administrative
elite in southern France. Many commercial and military types throughout
the Mediterranean spoke a lingua franca that built itself on the skeletal
structure of the language of Paris, a fact that owes much to the prominence of northern Frenchmen and women in the crusades. In an Italian
jail at the end of the thirteenth century, Marco Polo dictated the famous
tale of his Asian travels in a form of merchants Franco-Italian that literate
upper-class persons living almost anywhere on the northern shores of the
Mediterranean might have puzzled out.34
Among the upper classes, facility in French continued to be common
long after the Middle Ages; among those who aspire to Culture with a
capital C, a French word or phrase, properly pronounced in conversation, seldom hurts even now. But otherwise regional and national vernaculars steadily displaced Latin and French in the late Middle Ages,
ultimately reducing Latin to a dead language (the phrase is common
in English from the Enlightenment on) and leaving French in Europe to
the French and some of their Belgian, Swiss, and (a few isolated) Italian
neighbors.
32
33
34
Goliard Poets, 223. The reference to Ovids songs is explained by the fact that students
improved their Latin by memorizing and imitating a very sanitized version of the poems.
R. A. Lodge, Language Attitudes and Linguistic Norms in France and England in
the Thirteenth Century, in Thirteenth Century England, IV, ed. P. Coss and S. Lloyd
(Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1992), 78.
The manuscript history of Marco Polos Travels is complex. The most likely linguistic circle of the original was a variety of French. See The Travels of Marco Polo, ed.
M. Komroff (New York and London: Liveright, 1953), xxv.
86
36
37
For a precise exposition of the differences among these offices, see Richard Schmutz,
Medieval Papal Representatives: Legates, Nuncios, and Judges-Delegate, Studia Gratiana 15 (1972): 44163. The differences do not affect the point I am making in the
text.
Nicholas Vincent, The Election of Pandulph Verracclo as Bishop of Norwich (1215),
in Historical Research: The Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 68 (1995):
1545.
On the examples I cite, see Christopher Ocker, Johannes Klenkok: A Friars Life, c. 1310
1374 (transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 83, pt. 5; Philadelphia,
1993), 5, n. 9. Parallel examples may be found in the foreign appointments to the Scottish
prelacy in the High Middle Ages. See Bruce Webster, Medieval Scotland: The Making of
an Identity (London: St. Martins Press, 1997), 11331.
87
The opposite kind of career, one that would make a native cleric into
a papal legate in his native land, was still rare. By the fourteenth century
this pattern became more common and eventually came to dominate.
The archbishop of Canterbury, to give one example, would have legatine
powers bestowed on him because of his office and rank in the English
church in the late Middle Ages. The problem was that a system originally designed to bring the disparate parts of the Catholic church into
obedience with Rome was more likely in the Renaissance and on the eve
of the Reformation to reinforce divisions within Christendom and dissent
from the papacy. Instead of men like John of Abbeville and Guala
Bicchieri, the later system produced men like Cardinal Wolsey, the illfated English prelate with the office of legate in England during the reign
of Henry VIII.
Yet even at its heyday in the thirteenth century, the cosmopolitanism
of career patterns and of other linkages in the church was in tension
with the local interests of churchmen with far more restricted outlooks.
There were thousands and thousands of monasteries and priories (small,
dependent houses) in Europe. Most of the administrators of these institutions necessarily focused their attention on events and problems
within about a five- or ten-kilometer radius of their buildings and estates. They often resented the time that they had to spend going to local and provincial councils to report on their activities to the powerful
men, often aliens because of the cosmopolitanism of the church, who
flourished in the network described earlier.38 They even more deeply resented having to pay the taxes and levies that made it possible to sustain the universal church and to carry out transnational, indeed supranational, projects like crusades. To be sure, there were those among
them who looked with envy at the career patterns, the contacts, the
power, and the prestige of the men who claimed to be governing the
world, but envy unfulfilled ate away, like a cankerworm, at the vaunted
unity of the Catholic church. And sometimes anti-alien feeling spilled
38
See Nicholas Vincent, Peter des Roches: An Alien in English Politics, 12051238
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 37. Vincent extends this observation to the consequences of cosmopolitan recruitment to secular governmental offices:
Unfortunately for the aliens themselves, the very fidelity and cosmopolitanism that
earned them gratitude and reward from the crown were the selfsame factors that served
to heighten their unpopularity. More generally on the growth of anti-alien feeling in the
thirteenth century (including the promulgation of legislation against aliens in England,
for example), see D. A. Carpenter, King Henry IIIs Statute against Aliens: July 1263,
in The Reign of Henry III (London and Rio Grande, Ohio: Hambledon Press, 1996),
26180.
88
over into violence, pitting alien churchmen against natives and their lay
allies.39
By the end of the Middle Ages, certainly by the fifteenth century, the
faultlines in such unity as there was became major fissures. Heresy was
a serious problem, but one that churchmen confronted continually and
in an urgent way from the twelfth century onward.40 What made dealing
with heresy more difficult in the late Middle Ages was a distressing turn
of events, the so-called Babylonian Captivity of the Church.41 In the early
and mid-fourteenth century (130576), the popes ruled from Avignon
rather than from Rome. Ostensibly papal officials justified their reluctance
to reside in Rome by invoking the appalling political conditions of the
eternal city. But the shift of residence to Avignon, coming as it did in
the wake of a humiliating papal confrontation with the French crown,
contributed to the widespread perception that the popes had come under
the domination of France. It did not help to overcome this perception that
the men chosen as popes in the seventy-odd years of the captivity were
Frenchmen.
The Great Schism (13781417), initiated by an attempted return of
the papacy to Rome, was of equal importance in undermining its moral
authority, a pillar of its claim to universal obedience. The schism produced two lines of popes and thus divided Christians according to those
loyal to the Roman and allegedly more independent line and those who
supported the Avignonese papacy, stigmatized by its enemies as a French
puppet. The dispute would end in compromise, but the legacy of that
compromise was almost as dangerous as the schism itself. The decision to
yield to the judgment of an ecumenical council seemed to some observers
to support the troubling assertion, already debated in the two centuries
before, but now given great urgency, that a council was superior to the
pope.42 Conciliarism, as a movement and an ideology, was not defined by
this radical interpretation of its meaning. Moderate conciliarists merely
argued that in the peculiarly difficult circumstances of the early fifteenth
century, recourse to a council made sense. Moderates did not champion
39
40
41
42
89
the end of universal papal monarchy or the devolution of doctrinal authority, although a century later, because of the Reformation, both came
to be, to some degree, accomplished facts.
CONCLUSION
In the High Middle Ages there was a strong and creative tension between
cosmopolitan values and local concerns, universalism and parochialism.
This chapter has concentrated on the political, economic, and ecclesiastical aspects of medieval life, but others are equally revealing. Recently, for
example, Manlio Bellomo has argued for a commonality (a ius commune)
of legal principles and terminology that existed in a symbiotic relationship
with local legal systems (iura propria) in high medieval Christendom. He
has suggested, too, that this commonality survived the birth of modernity
and persisted until the nineteenth century. In his view scholars have been
remiss in their aberrant fascination with local particularities of the law, a
fascination that has blinded them to the fundamental unity of medieval
European civilization.43
The artistic component of the tension between cosmopolitanism and
localism, another feature of this story, is as fascinating as the political,
economic, religious, and legal components. In the twelfth century there
emerged a distinctively European style in architecture. French in origin,
the Gothic became the cutting-edge style of artistic production in the
twelfth century from northern Britain to the Holy Land and from Spain
and Italy northward to the Baltic Coast. It continued as the exemplary
style for at least two centuries.
Recent research, however, emphasizes two points, First, local conditions put constraints on the international style, thereby stimulating the
birth of new and distinctive regional styles. Second, indigenous styles
sometimes enjoyed a syncretic relationship with the Gothic without being dominated by it. Sometimes these styles continued their lively growth
through the twelfth and thirteenth centuries independent of Gothic influences.44 What was true of architecture was true of styles in painting and
glass that flourished in the Ile-de-France and are sometimes thought to
have swept away everything in their path as they became the European
standard. No such failure or weak-willed retreat occurred, despite a
43
44
Manlio Bellomo, The Common Legal Past of Europe, 1000-1800, trans. Lydia Cochrane
(Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, 1995).
Jean Bony, French Gothic Architecture of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries (Berkeley
and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983), 24950, 41163.
90
46
Meredith Lillich, The Armor of Light: Stained Glass in Western France, 12501325
(Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1994). See her cautionary
remarks on pages 221 and 3212 as well as her views on resistance to and regional
adaptation of Parisian styles in painted and stained glass. Her examples come from
western France.
The bibliography on these problems is immense. In particular, see Europa 1400: Die Krise
des Spatmittelalters,
ed. Ferdinand Seibt and Winfried Eberhard (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta,
1984).
4
The Republican Mirror: The Dutch Idea
of Europe
HANS W. BLOM
92
HANS W. BLOM
merchants. De la Court was not nave about this connection. He did not
believe that there will automatically be a correspondence of interests between rulers and citizens engaged in comparable occupations. His model
was rather that of how best to divide a cake: one party cuts it, the other
chooses first. Rulers must be prevented from the misuse of their power
by being responsible to the law, and to their successors. Free citizens, a
political order geared to further the conscious pursuit of self-interest, and
an adequate macroeconomic structure are de la Courts guarantees for
promoting public well-being.1
In his analysis de la Court seems to take for granted that Holland
represents a coherent economic unity. He emphasizes its natural conditions (lack of local resources and therefore the necessity to trade, maritime location and thence the necessity for maritime occupations) as its
uniform characteristic and the nations boundaries determined by this
characteristic. At the same time, however, de la Court defends the superiority of the republican form of government in a discussion of ancient
and modern political regimes. Monarchies and oligarchic aristocracies for
various reasons are less likely to promote the peoples welfare, whatever
the circumstances. The close connection between market and polity
is thereby subsumed under a more general theory of political efficiency.
It is this combination that suggests itself as an argument against
Machiavellian expansionist republicanism, and indeed there is a very
noticeable irenical tone to the writings of this Dutch merchant and
publicist.
The connection between de la Courts general republicanism and his
understanding of the specific interests of Holland is based on the insight
that national boundaries in general correspond to the unique national
characteristics of each individual market-cum-polity: a notion of the international state-system as an interdependence of individual variety. Peace
should result from each countrys understanding that war is only meant
to satisfy the desire for the glory of monarchs and is always detrimental
to the interests of the people. From this perspective a vision of Europe
ensues that is both realistic and irenical, together allowing for national
differences and peaceful cooperation.
De la Court was a practical man. He was an independent but devout
Protestant, who understood the frailty of man and articulated a political
1
93
See, in particular, Montesquieu, De lesprit des lois, III, 7; IV, 5; VIII, 5; VII, 24; XX, 5.
94
HANS W. BLOM
For a discussion of this line of republican argument in relation to de la Court, see the
introduction to Algernon Sidney, Court Maxims Discussed and Refelled, ed. H. W. Blom,
E. O. G. H. Mulier, and R. Janse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), MS
16634.
See, for example, Quentin Skinner, Liberalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1998); Hans W. Blom, Causality and Morality in Politics: The Rise of Naturalism in Dutch
Seventeenth-Century Political Thought (Rotterdam, 1995).
95
made, on the one hand, to define human nature and, on the other, to
rephrase the value of national distinctions. This allowed for a new, republican understanding of sovereignty as an attribute of the polity or
respublica. It stressed the reality of sovereignty as an adaptive system of
human interaction rather than its legal formality.
A republican understanding of Europe became henceforth an enlargement upon this theme. As Pieter de la Court phrased it:
In a word, all consists in this, Whether they that enter into a League, have a
common Interest to avoid or obtain that which they have both in their Eye. [But if
that common interest is absent,] Words, Hand, and Seal . . . hold no proportion to
preponderate and resist the Ambition, Covetousness, Lust, Rage, and Self-conceit
of great Princes. . . . Ambition exceeds all other Affections . . . [s]o that the best
way is not to trust them, and then we shall not be cheated. . . . Which is quite
contrary in all Republics, where the Rulers and Magistrates being first educated
as common Citizens, must daily converse with their Equals or Superiors, and
learn that which is just, otherwise they would be compelled to their Duty by the
Judge, or other Virtuous and Powerful Civil Rulers. . . . Custom is a second Nature,
which is not easily altered. . . . [A] Republican Government in all Countries of the
World . . . would be much more advantageous to the People than a Government by
a single Person.5
Pieter de la Court, True Interest and Political Maxims of the Republick of Holland and
West-Friesland: Written by John de Witt and Other Great Men in Holland (London:
1702). This is a translation of Aanwysing der heilsame politike gronden en maximen van
de republike van Holland en West-Vriesland (Leiden/Rotterdam: Hakkens, 1669), 258,
259, 262, 375.
See D. J. Roorda, Rond Prins en patriciaat. Verspreide opstellen (Weesp: Fibula, 1984),
172ff.
96
H ANS W. B LOM
10
On Mandeville, see Douglas Den Uyl, Passion, State, and Progress: Spinoza and
Mandeville on the Nature of Human Association, Journal for the History of Ideas
14 (1987): 48198; Hans W. Blom, The Dutch Ideology of Consumption (Paper presented at a conference on The Consumption of Culture/The Culture of Consumption,
Werkgroep Achttiende Eeuw, Rotterdam 2021 November 1997).
See, for example, Memoires de Jean de Witt, grand pensionnaire de Hollande. The Hague,
1709 (translation of de la Courts Aanwysing); A. Ch. Kors, Atheism in France, 1650
1729. II: Naturalism and Disbelief (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995).
Rudiger
Otto, Studien zur Spinozarezeption in Deutschland im 18. Jahrhundert
97
For this history see Jonathan Israel, The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall,
14771806 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).
See J. L. Price, Holland and the Dutch Republic in the Seventeenth Century: The Politics
of Particularism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994).
See Blom, Causality and Morality, ch. 2.
See, for example, Henry Mechoulan, Amsterdam au temps de Spinoza: Argent et liberte
(Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1990).
98
H ANS W. B LOM
For a discussion of van Velthuysen, see Blom, Causality and Morality, chs. 4 and 5.
99
The Leiden philosopher Franco Burgersdijk was well known for his compendia of Aristotelian logic, metaphysics, and moral and political
thought.17 In 1623 he asked his student-readers whether it was reasonable to hope for a universal and eternal peace in this world.18 The answer
was straightforward. We may hope for eternal peace because this follows
from Holy Scripture, human reason and the consensus of all the wise.
The means to achieve this eternal peace is what Burgersdijk calls the
16
17
18
Bernard Mandeville, The Grumbling Hive: or, Knaves Turnd Honest (London: Sam.
Ballard, 1705).
Moti Feingold, The Ultimate Pedagogue: Franco Petri Burgersdijk and the English
Speaking Academic Learning, in Franco Burgersdijk (15901635): Neo-aristotelianism
in Leiden, ed. E. P. Bos and H. A. Krop, vol. 1 of Studies in the History of Ideas in the
Low Countries (Amsterdam/Atlanta, Ga.: Rodopi, 1993), 15165.
Franco Burgersdijk, Idea oeconomicae et politicae doctrinae, 2d ed. (Leiden: H. de
Vogel, 1644); ed. G. Hornius: Idea politica cum annotationibus Georgi Horni, 2d ed.
(Leiden: Felix Lopez de Haro), 1668.
100
H ANS W. B LOM
20 Ibid., 187.
Burgersdijk, Idea oeconomicae, 228.
Ibid., 20925: Superest status ex Monarchia, Aristocratia & Democratia temperatus.
Hic status videtur omnium tutissimus, quia duae reliquae formae, tertiam impediunt, ne
possit Remp. turbare (21819).
101
102
H ANS W. B LOM
suspected Lubbertus of being a Puritan since he claimed the right to convene councils and to appoint ministers for the community of believers.
He did not deny individual church members their right to private convictions. But the public church was the responsibility of the authorities,
and if they abandoned their jurisdiction in this respect, the unity of the
country would be lost.
The political leaders of Holland and therefore of the States General
the pensionary Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, and Grotius himselftried to
soothe the turmoil by a policy of toleration, which for various reasons
tended in practice to support one of the contending parties. The Remonstrants, whose opinions on grace and predestination were less severe than
those of their opponents, the Contraremonstrants, claimed priority in the
public church on the basis of this tolerance. With the help of Grotius and
his party, they gained control of many towns, thereby enraging their opponents still further. Many believed the regenten were working against the
real principles of Calvinism. An opposition coalition developed outside of
Holland, as well as in towns within Holland that had reason to mistrust
the policies of Oldenbarnevelt. In some places regenten were confronted
by orthodox ministers and their followers, attempting to regain their former positions within the public church; in others regenten and orthodox
believers made common cause against regenten elsewhere. Things took a
dramatic turn when Prince Maurits, the Stadhouder, ostentatiously visited
the Contraremonstrant church in The Hague.24
As the main architect and executive of the strategy of Oldenbarnevelt,
Grotius apparently combined a sincere belief in tolerance with an equally
strong belief in power politics. His fundamental conviction was that as
long as the regenten in the towns and the provinces retained their rightful
autonomy, a religious conflict could be prevented. Hence, all his activities were directed at increasing the power of the towns by local militia,
and that of the provinces by claiming their right to resolve the conflict
through the provincial synods. Prince Maurits replied by supporting the
Contraremonstrants and by creating a National Synod of the Reformed Church to overcome the stronghold in Holland.25 This, together
24
25
See H. A. Enno van Gelder, Getemperde vrijheid. Een verhandeling over de verhouding
van kerk en staat in de Republiek der Verenigde Nederlanden en de vrijheid van meningsuiting in zake godsdienst, drukpers en onderwijs, gedurende de 17e eeuw (Groningen:
Wolters-Noordhoff, 1972); H. C. Rogge, Johannes Wtenbogaert en zijn tijd, 3 vols.
(Amsterdam: Y. Rogge, 18746); Jan den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, 5 vols. (Haarlem: Tjeenk
Willenk, 196072).
See A. Th. van Deursen, Oldenbarnevelt en Maurits, in De Hollandse jaren van Hugo
de Groot, 15831621, ed. by H. Nellen and C. Ridderikhof (Amsterdam: Verloren,
1996), 55160.
103
Grotius had played for high stakes, and he had lost. Between the security offered by the long arms of King James, and the implacability of the
heretic hunters, Grotius had attempted to articulate and enforce a church
order for a Protestant republic. Crucial to this model was the responsibility of the ruling elite for the proper functioning of religion in society. The
combination of Erastianism and aristocratic leadership forced tolerance
within the confines of the principles of republican sovereignty. As Spinoza
would later point out, the only solution in an aristocracy is to let the
26
27
Hugo Grotius, Memorie van mijne intentien en notabele bejegeningen, manuscript written in 1621; Ed. R. Fruin: Verhooren en andere bescheiden betreffende het rechtsgeding
van Hugo de Groot (Utrecht: Kemink, 1871), 180.
Grotius, Memorie van mijne intentien, 1112.
104
H ANS W. B LOM
32
33
34
105
36
37
106
H ANS W. B LOM
psychology of his day.38 The result was an interesting handbook for strategies of bourgeois preferment in republics and monarchies alike. Pieter de
la Court pirated this text, when he republished it in 1660, under the different title Politieke consideratien.
Thus, the Dutch use of Clapmarius has a particular purpose: in revealing the hidden agenda of princes, it supports the exclusion of William III
from the office of Stadhouder of Holland in 1654 and explains the theoretical preconditions for a flourishing body politic. In dialogue with
Clapmarius, and hence with Tacitus and Machiavelli, these republicans
forged their weapons against Orangism. They showed the dismal consequences of the supposedly indispensable simulacra imperii. They sought
to achieve this end by demonstrating that only false reason of state reigns,
that flagitia (vice or baseness) and not true reason of state is the first principle of princely or monarchical rule. In other words, since false reason
of state promoted the private interest of the ruler to the detriment of the
public good, under princely rule it is the subject who suffers.
If Orangism was indeed their ideological target, how did the republicans expect to be able to exploit the reason-of-state tradition? The principal objective of that tradition was to demonstrate that true reason of state
is a real, and necessary, option. How can one argue successfully against
reason of state by attempting to demonstrate that history shows the
arcana to be a sure means for the defense of the public good? The more
prudent versions of the classical arguments against reason of state, such
as Lipsiuss, relied heavily on demonstrating precisely the immorality of
the arcana. To admit this, however, would be to go against the grain of
realism that all these authors wished to embrace. De la Court, for one,
was happy to point out the similarity between his own description of man
as selfish and vicious and the Calvinist notion of the sinfulness of man. It
is not a complacent moral attitude they sought to deploy against reason
of state. Rather they were looking for means to demolish monarchy (that
is, Orangism) by demolishing one of its theoretical foundations (that is,
reason of state) by taking it as a limiting case.
In the context of this strategy, the importance of Corvinus is beyond
doubt. The elaborate introduction to his edition of Clapmarius constitutes
a highly significant summary of De arcanis rerumpublicarum. Moreover,
Corvinus sets the tone for Wassenaer. He presents his topic as an ars
regnandi, the art of government, within the limits of trust, honesty, and
38
107
virtue.39 His goal is the longevity and stability of the common weal. The
means to these ends are surely not in the open and following the main
route (via regia), but by means of hidden simulation.40 They follow on
the one hand definitely from the argument of necessity, which rather gives
than obeys the law, on the other hand even from public utility.41 They
should not, however, defy trust or social morality, fidem sive pudorem,
good faith or honor.
Although Corvinus summarizes the contents of De arcanis quite faithfully, on certain points heoffershis own arguments on theoretical and practical origins. Appropriately for a jurist, Corvinus endorses Clapmariuss
foundation of the arcana in the imperii & majestatis jura. If the latter are
in peril, the former should be used. For Corvinus the application of the
arcana has essentially to do with the redress of the process of decay of the
state. The doctrine of Clapmarius provides the reader with an analysis
or diagnosis of the morbi Reipublicae. The Prince of the Peripatetici
(Aristotle), says Corvinus, claimed that diagnosing an illness amounted
to identifying its cure. In the same vein, knowing the causes of the decay
of states is to know how to remedy it. Therefore, in Corvinuss opinion,
Aristotle, who was hostile to the arcana and considered them to be more
fraud than simple false prudence, regarded their use as appropriate in
totally disturbed states where one cannot follow the right procedure,
except at the risk of public injury.42 Corvinus advises the reader to judge
whether this argument is in agreement with Aristotle. The implication
is that the doctrine of arcana is there to be used against flagitia that
threaten the state performed by any of the parties of the body politic: the
prince, the aristocrats, or the people. In particular the people are to be
feared, but wisely Corvinus did not endorse the negative qualification by
Clapmarius (chap. V, 19) of leaders who are prepared to mobilize an
easily excitable mob.
40
41
42
Habet tamen ars simulandi suos limites; fidem, honestatem, virtutem; quos qui egreditur,
nae vafri & nefarii hominis potius, quam politici nomen videtur, Corvinus, Arcanis,
Introduction, 23.
non aperta quidem et via regia, sed per tacta simulacra, Ibid., 1.
tum quidem ex argumenta necessitatis, quae legem potius dat quam accipit . . . tum etiam
publicae utilitatis, Ibid., 26.
[Aristoteles] occultorum usum minus probat. Calliditatem iis inesse potius existimat,
quam veram prudentiam plane perperam, arcana to be used in very disturbed states
where non possis recta incedere via, nisi cum damno publico, Ibid., f2v.
108
H ANS W. B LOM
but also in the Republic. Local interests (privateering from Zeeland) and
factional interests supported the general distrust of a world without war.
Hence the talks were accompanied by a noticeable outpouring of pamphlets arguing for and against the cessation of hostilities. Not surprisingly,
reason of state was prominent in these arguments. Princes, wrote the
author of the 1646 tract Hollandsche Sybille,
vow a solemn pledge to their subjects to protect their preservation, good and
wellbeing, with all the force, wit, and prudence. This is an iron tie that cannot
be disturbed or broken by another or a paper tie. Necessity breaks laws, said
Sybille. It would be better not to conclude treaties, but necessity often obliges
a prince to make them. The same necessity, however, sometimes forces him to
maintain them, and sometimes to break them. As long as the foundation and the
cause lasts on which the alliance was entered, so long will its maintenance last.43
In 1650 the internal use of this Dutch version of reason of state was directed against the prince of Orange. After the princes attempt at
Amsterdam, a pamphleteer wrote, I see now that you Hollanders butcher
the children, while they are given puppets to play with; you enjoy and
adorn yourself with the name of Free Hollanders, while your States are
forced by a young governor.46 This hyperbolic sentence combines a reference to both reason-of-state writing and actual Dutch politics. The
shadows of freedom are the illusions by which cynical princes rule;
43
44
45
46
109
they merely give the people puppets to play. Prince William II, the
young governor, is by implication presented as such a prince.
Clapmarius and Corvinus had maintained that the simulacra could not
change political relations, since the latter are founded on the iura imperii
alone. Yet Wassenaer discussed the theory from the point of view of the
art and ways to achieve political office and status. He emphasizes the
role of fortune and gives a realist analysis of politics in his dissection of
the passions. He stresses the importance of prudence as the middle way
between obstinacy and subservience. Politeness and civility, prognostic
reasoning and artful skill, patience, humility, courage, and experience are
the prerequisites of successful political behavior. In order efficaciously to
control his emotions, the politician should cultivate the virtues of magnanimity, strength, and caution.47 But necessity, he wrote,
should be understood above anything else, and we should try to overcome, in
every way available, with power and force, whatever opposes us, and cannot be
avoided, in the pursuit of our intentions; but first we should consider the value
and importance of the end we are aiming at, and that forces upon us this necessity,
and we should compare its outcome with the labour and costs we will have to
suffer in order to obtain the necessary means. Because if the losses are greater than
the advantages that we can expect, it would be better to attempt something else.
One has (also) to consider whether there are different means that lead to this end.
From these one should choose first the most secure, then the most easy, and lastly
the less indecent. Since necessity has no law, and the end is honest, the means used
to obtain an honest end will be overlooked and excused, although they may not
have been very honest.48
48
Hollandsche Sybille, 168: Furthermore, to arrange our movements [of the soul] in good
order, there is caution, of which the foremost effect is to take away all causes and circumstances that could produce in us intemperate movements, since it is easier to cast these
off, than once introduced to command them; next we survey all good and bad things
that in the pursuit of a matter can possibly happen. As is evident from this quotation,
the Dutch neo-stoic does not shun from introducing Aristotelian elements as well.
Ibid., 1901.
H ANS W. B LOM
110
The core of Pieter de la Courts thought is thus embedded within a particular realist view of politics entrenched in Dutch political debate. In his
well-known claim
the interest of every country consists in the well-being of its rulers and subjects
together, and it is dependent on a good form of government, and therefore that is
the foundation on which the well-being of the commonwealth is built; so one has
to understand, that a good form of government is not where the well- or ill-being
of the subjects depends on the virtue or vice of the rulers, but (and this should be
noted) where the well- and ill-being of the rulers, by necessity follows from, or
depends on, the well- or ill-being of the subjects.49
Aanwysing, 2.
111
112
H ANS W. B LOM
55
The centrality of Spinoza to Dutch political thought can best be seen from the fact that his
political views were hardly contested. He was evidently suspected of being a partisan of
John de Witt. But criticism was directed against his theological position. In other words,
Spinoza underestimated, just as Grotius had done half a century earlier, the wrath of
the theologians when outsiders and laymen meddle in their pristine science.
Ibid., 298.
113
Bernard Mandeville, Free Thoughts on Religion, the Church and National Happiness
(London: T. Jauncy, 1720).
Ibid., 297.
114
H ANS W. B LOM
From what has been said, it might be apparent that the author of Free
Thoughts on Religions, the Church and National Happiness was Bernard
Mandeville. By 1720 he had come a long way from his youthful involvement with factional conflict, which in the early 1690s had forced him to
flee his native Rotterdam and settle in London.62 As a critic of English
grumbling, he achieved a notoriety he would probably never have attained if the regenten of Rotterdam had exercised some of the public virtue
that Mandeville later came to realize he should never have expected of
them. In England, in the midst of so much ease, and greater plenty than
any empire, state or kingdom now enjoys, Mandeville applied essentially Dutch republican principles to the explanation of man and society.63
And unlike those of his great predecessor, Spinoza, Mandevilles writings
would have a continuous impact on political thought throughout the eighteenth century. When later Adam Smith set out his republican program for
the enhancing wealth of nations, and Jeremy Bentham argued that nature
had given mankind two sovereign masterspleasure and painthey
58
60
62
63
59 Ibid., 335.
Ibid., 303, 307.
61 Ibid., 341.
Ibid., 343.
See Rudolf Dekker, Private Vices, Public Benefits Revisited: The Dutch Background of
Bernard Mandeville, in History of European Ideas 14 (1992): 48198.
Mandeville, Free Thoughts, 334.
115
became the true heirs to this originally Dutch commercial republicanism. It is a program that still reverberates through all the political and
economic moves toward greater European union, a union that is likely to
be the only effective means of undoing the nineteenth-century fiction of
national sovereignty and of making governments more responsive to the
needs and demands of their citizens.64
Montesquieu, it would seem, had been attacking the wrong kind of
republic. Quentin Skinners liberty before liberalism seems to misdirect his argument in a comparable manner, although here the opposition is between classical republicanism and the new liberty apparent in
seventeenth-century England.65 Philip Pettit, on the other hand, has correctly interpreted the program of Dutch republicanism as the institutional
organization of the liberty a citizen has if he is to safeguard himself against
the domination of others.66 This modern articulation of the core of Dutch
republicanism, emphasizing tolerance and freedom from domination as
well as the prerequisite of viable, self-sustaining institutions, might well
provide the link between this early-modern anomaly and the future of
Europe.
The Dutch Republic had mirrored itself in the reason-of-state politics of
the surrounding monarchies and produced a modern, realist, bourgeois,
and republican theory of politics. This new model reflected upon political thinkers like Algernon Sidney and the earl of Shaftesbury in England
and Jean-Jacques Rousseau in France. At the better moments of Dutch
history, the Dutch perspective asserted itself on the forum of European
politics. Even today, when talk of a federalist reformation of the European Union is being heard, the seventeenth-century Republic of the Seven
United Provinces is a model to look to.
64
65
66
It is precisely its disregard for the place of the republican tradition in the formation of
the modern European state system that makes S. F. Finers posthumous magnum opus
so unsatisfactory. See his ad hominem attack on J. G. A. Pocock, The History of
Government. I: Ancient Monarchies and Empires. II: The Intermediate Ages. III: Empires, Monarchies and the Modern State (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 1021.
Quentin Skinner, Liberty before Liberalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1997).
Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1997).
5
The Napoleonic Empire and the
Europe of Nations
BIANCAMARIA FONTANA
In 1824 the Italian musician Gioacchino Rossini, who was at the time at
the height of his reputation, living in golden retirement in Paris, was commissioned to write an opera celebrating the coronation of King Charles
X, the former Comte dArtois, youngest brother of the unfortunate Louis
XVI. Rossini obliged: the opera was called Il Viaggio a Reims (The Journey to Reims); it was performed a few timesapparently with successin
the presence of the royal family, but then, judging it unsuitable for ordinary theatrical repertoire, the author withdrew it, using the score for his
popular opera buffa Le Comte Ory.
The plot of Il Viaggio a Reims is quite thin: a group of travelers of
different nationalities, on their way to Reims to assist in the ceremony of
the coronation, meet in the spa town of Plombi`eres; marooned in a local
auberge by a series of mishaps and unable to pursue their journey, they
decide to celebrate the event on the spot with a banquet and a musical
performance. Each character in the opera impersonates rather comically
a national stereotype: a French countess is a fashion-mad flirt, a Spanish
nobleman clicks his heels and breaks into flamencos, a German baron
is called Trombonok and appears on stage with the accompaniment of
a military brass band, and so on. To emphasize these cultural diversities, the score incorporates appealingly the tunes of national anthems and
traditional folk songs.
The opera ends with the triumph of Harmony in the double sense of
music and of the newly found peace among European nationsa peace
116
117
made possible by the return of the legitimate sovereigns after the disruption caused by the French Revolution and by Napoleons conquests.
Ironically, Il Viaggioa celebration of restored European monarchiesis the work of the son of an Italian Jacobin who in 1797 had
enthusiastically welcomed the troops of General Bonaparte when they
occupied Pesaro on their way to liberate the southern regions of the
peninsula. Yet in the short time of twenty-odd years that had elapsed
since the planting of the liberty tree in Rossinis hometown, the whole
image of Europe, of her identity and collective purpose, had undergone
an unprecedented transformation.
THE ENLIGHTENMENT VIEW
The eighteenth-century reader who wished to acquire some information about the identity of the European continent, and who turned
to the most prestigious reference work of Enlightenment culture, the
Encyclopedie edited by Diderot, would find a disappointingly short and
laconic account of the subject. The article Europe was written by
that extremely prolific contributor to the Encyclopedie, the Chevalier de
Jaucourt. After a few philological remarks on the origins of the name
Europa, Jaucourt stated simply that Europe was one of the four continents, the least important for its dimensions but the richest and most
civilized:
If Europe is the smallest of the four parts of the world for its extension, it is
however the most considerable for its commerce, navigation, fertility, for its enlightenment (lumi`eres) and industry, for its knowledge of the arts, sciences and
trades.1
Encyclopedie, repr. of the 1756 ed., Stuttgart, 19667, 35 vols., vol. 6, 21112.
118
B IANCAMARIA F ONTANA
factors, which were brought into the argument simply to illustrate the
opposition between Europe and other inferior civilizations.2
Already in the Esprit des Lois Montesquieu had identified one important feature that set Europe geographically apart from the rest of the world
and in particular from the Asian continent to which it was connected.
In Asia the presence of immense plains, uninterrupted by mountains or
rivers, favored the establishment of empires, since only despotic power
could control such vast extensions of territory. In Europe, on the other
hand, the existence of natural frontiers that limited the size of nations
to a relatively small scale favored the spirit of independence, the genie
de liberte, making the establishment of empires a difficult and precarious
enterprise.3
In practice, however, it was not clear where the European territory
actually began and ended. The frontiers of the great Western European
powers did not change substantially during the eighteenth century, and
the most significant expansion of the European borders was toward the
East: but observers could not decide whether that space actually counted
as Europe or not. Voltairelike Montesquieu before himhesitated to
classify Russia as European, and the very concept of Eastern Europe
was only beginning to take shape.4
Culturally, it was generally agreed that Europe alone had a legitimate
claim to the inheritance of ancient Greece and Rome (though Voltaire insisted polemically on the priority of the civilizations of the East, India and
China).5 In addition, Europes identity had been decisively shaped by the
advent of the Christian religion and by the unique fusion of Mediterranean
peoples and northern tribes.
It was, again, Montesquieus belief that the unification of the European
peoples under the spiritual influence of Christianity predisposed them to
moderation and humanity and militated against despotic practices.6 These
common features set Europe apart from the rest of the world. Combined
with the superiority of its political and legal institutions, they ensured
the existence of a shared cultural space that favored exchanges within
2
3
4
5
6
119
an enlightened community of educated aristocrats, writers, and scientists. A long-established tradition called this phenomenon the republique
des lettres. Indeed, evidence of this reality could be found in the wide
circulation of books and periodicals within Ancien Regime Europe. Its
geographical boundaries were displayed by the practice of the Grand
Tour.
In spite of the existence of such an intellectual community, European
did not then mean anything other than French, English, Spanish, and so
on. In the collective imagination of the century, European nations were
separate entitites, connected by close commercial and cultural exchanges
but still divided by economic, dynastic, and territorial rivalries.
The relations of European states with one another remained necessarily competitive. Enlightened intellectuals might wish for peace and good
commercial relations, deplore any form of aggressive patriotism, or disapprove of the destructive and ill-conceived military ambitions of kings; but
since international relations were thought to be economically and territorially a zero-sum game, to love ones country meant necessarily to militate
against the success of other nations. As Voltaire stressed, it was part of
the human condition that to wish for the greatness of ones country
meant to wish ill of ones neighbors. He who should not wish to see
his country larger rather than smaller, richer rather than poorer, would
be a citizen of the universe.7
REVOLUTION AND CONQUEST
What happened to this rather vague notion of Europe when the political relations within the European continent were suddenly disrupted,
from 1792, by the French revolutionary wars and by Frances subsequent transformation into an imperial power? When France declared
war against Prussia and Austria in 1792, most people expected a desperate defense of the French national territory against overwhelming
foreign armies. Twenty years later, in 1812 (the moment of greatest expansion of Napoleons empire), France ruled directly over 44 million subjects (the population of France itself being about 28 million) to which
must be added 33 to 35 million people in countries that had become
7
Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique (1764), ed. Etiemble (Paris: Garnier, 1967), article
Patrie. See also Encyclopedie, article Paix; and Istvan Hont, The Permanent Crisis
of a Divided Mankind, in John Dunn, ed., Contemporary Crisis of the Nation State?
Political Studies, vol. XVII, 1994.
120
B IANCAMARIA F ONTANA
121
These universalistic aspirations were expressed by the National Assembly in the Declaration of Rights of 1789. The Declaration never specifically
mentioned France, but it referred to governments (in the plural) and
to any society or any political community. During the extensive debate about the Declaration, it was made clear that the document outlined
the fundamental principles which must provide the ground for all government and that the French people [were] the first of all peoples and
a model for every nation.10
Frances leading role, as originally understood by the National Assembly, was not to impose French rules and French standards on other nations, even less to conquer them by force. As Francois Furet has reminded
us, moderate forces in the National Assembly initiated the war in 1792
for reasons far more connected with domestic problems than with international concerns; in principle, the Jacobins were hostile to the competitive logic that opposed European nations in the Ancien Regime political
tradition.11
The French Constitution of 1791 stated clearly Frances commitment
to respect the freedom and autonomy of other peoples: The French nation will never undertake any war with the aim of conquest and will
never employ her armed forces against the freedom of any country.12
This is why, during the revolution, annexation (in 1791 Avignon, in 1792
the Savoy, in 1793 Nice) was pursued halfheartedly, generally on the
more or less spontaneous solicitation of local patriots rather than by
direct initiative of the Assembly. The notions of natural frontiers, of
the liberation and reunion of sister republics, filled the gap between the practice of occupation and the project of a confederacy of free
states.13
French conquests spread farther under the Directory (Holland in 1795,
northern Italy and Genoa in 1797, Switzerland in 1798). To the ideological uneasiness was added the anxiety of how to rule over peoples and
10
11
12
13
Christine Faure, ed., Les declarations des droits de lhomme de 1789 (Paris: Payot, 1988),
22.
Francois Furet, Les girondins et la guerre: les debuts de lAssemble legislative, in
F. Furet and M. Ozouf, eds., La Gironde et les Girondins (Paris: Payot, 1991); Paul W.
Schroeder, The Transformation of European Politics, 17631848 (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1994).
Montmorin to the National Assembly, 22 May 1790; later embodied in the Constitution,
Titre VI: La Nation francaise renonce a` entreprendre aucune guerre dans la vue de faire
des conquetes et nemploiera jamais ses forces contre la liberte daucun peuple in Jacques
Godechot ed., Les constitutions de la France depuis 1789 (Paris: Flammarion, 1979), 65.
See Denis Richet, Fronti`eres naturelles, in F. Furet and M. Ozouf, eds., Dictionnaire
critique de la Revolution francaise (Paris: Flammarion, 1988).
122
B IANCAMARIA F ONTANA
territories that were far from homogeneous and sympathetic. The lack of
global hegemonic design, the occasional character of military aggression,
and the piecemeal strategy of opportunity and improvisation remained
constant features of French conquest.
Naturally, both the Directory and the Consulate derived very substantial advantages from the politics of conquest, and soon these benefits
became essential to their political and financial survival. Moreover, in realizing some of the cherished military and economic ambitions of the old
monarchy, these governments reproduced to some extent the strategies
and organizational patterns that had been designed for similar purposes
(in some cases by the same people) under the Ancien Regime. In particular, the renewal of army personnel and army ranks, the development
of new technologies for the artillery, the reorganization of transport and
supplies, and above all the introduction of conscription to cut military expenses were projects hatched by Louis XVIs war office, but the faltering
monarchy had been unable to implement them.14
In spite of this continuity postrevolutionary French governments could
never entirely free themselves from the universalistic and, paradoxically,
pacifist postures of the Jacobins. In the long run the empire became the
only viable solution to these contradictions, the only formula that made it
possible for Bonaparte to reconcile French supremacy with the vision of
a peaceful sisterhood of European nations, a sisterhood that would come
fully into being as soon as all perverse resistance and sinister opposition
against it ceased. The attempts at administrative integration of the occupied territories, the imposition of the Code Napoleon, and the creation
of a large bureaucratic class (which in some cases included important
sections of the local e lites) were all part of this design.15
Napoleon regarded this process of modernization and administrative unification as the real strength of his rule and as the self-evident proof
15
On these aspects of the reform of the French army, see Azar Gat, The Origins of Military
Thought from the Enlightenment to Clausewitz (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989),
2553. For further bibliographic references, see Biancamaria Fontana, Politique de
Laclos (Paris: Kime, 1996), 5563.
Stuart Woolf, Napoleons Integration of Europe (London: Routledge, 1991).
123
the results of the greatest victories. What people would submit itself again to an
arbitrary government [that is, Prussia] after having enjoyed the benefits of a wise
and liberal administration?16
It would be only too easy to question the good faith and credibility
of such statements. In some cases the French occupation encountered the
strenuous resistance of the local populationsa resistance that, in the case
of Spain for example, could hardly be described as the product of a reactionary conspiracy. Even in those countries where the French troops were
welcomed at first as liberators by the local patriots, this initial enthusiasm
soon gave way to bitter disappointment when French conquest showed its
true colors in the practice of systematic pillage and repression as well as
in the ruthless surrendering of territories to the enemythe exchange
of Lombardy and Venice sanctioned by the Treaty of Campoformio that
left the Venetian patriots who had supported the French at the mercy of
the Austrians.
Similarly, the integration of local elites in the new French administrations all over Europe had a very limited impact and offered no real
alternative to the straightforward enforcement of French interests. Yet
for all its inadequacies, Napoleons imperial adventure remained inextricably bound with the revolutionary heritage and with the universalistic
tradition of the Enlightenment; it represented a novel, distinctly modern
16
17
Napoleon to Jerome,
15 November 1807; see also his speech to the Corps legislatif of
15 February 1805: It is my task, our task, the task of the most gentle, most enlightened,
most human of peoples to remind to the civilized nations of Europe that they are part
of one family and that the energies they engage in their civil conflicts are a blow to the
common prosperity.
Napoleon to Las Cases, 11 November 1816.
124
B IANCAMARIA F ONTANA
19
20
After the French occupation of 1798, Constants hometown, Lausanne, was detached
from the Bernese territory and became the capital of a new canton established under
French protectorate, the Vaud.
See AAVV Le Groupe de Coppet et lEurope, 17891830, 5`eme Colloque de Coppet
(Lausanne and Paris: Jean Touzot Libraire/Editeur, 1994); Pierre Kholer, Madame de
Stael et la Suisse (Lausanne and Paris: Payot, 1916); Annales Benjamin Constant 1819,
special issue, Les conditions de la vie culturelle et intellectuelle en Suisse Romande au
temps des Lumi`eres (Gen`eve: Slatkine, 1996).
Montesquieu, Esprit des lois, cit., Book VI, ch. 1.
125
23
24
(Paris: Perrin,
Ghislain de Diesbach, Napoleon juge de Corinne, in Madame de Stael
1983), 3735.
On the importance of the fusion between peoples of the North and of the South in shaping
the French nation, see Robert de Montlosier, De la Monarchie francaise (Paris: Gideet
fils, 1814).
On de Stael, see Henri Guillemin, Madame de Stael et Napoleon (Paris: Seuil, 1987);
Simone Balaye, Madame de Stael, Lumi`eres et Liberte (Paris: Klincksieck, 1979).
On the transformation of republican culture in the postrevolutionary period, see
Biancamaria Fontana, ed., The Invention of the Modern Republic (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1994).
126
B IANCAMARIA F ONTANA
Constants idealized picture of a community of peaceful, commerceoriented European nations united against despotism, if justified in the
context of a pamphlet written on the eve of Napoleons defeat, concealed
the most problematic implications of his analysis. The Europe of commerce and freedomwhere money fled from the constraints of national
frontiers, and individuals refused to fight for a cause they did not understand or left their country in search of a better lifestyle or more liberal
governmentwas no less exposed to the risks of instability than had been
25
The Spirit of Conquest, in Biancamaria Fontana, ed., The Political Writings of Benjamin
Constant (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), ch. 16, 734.
127
Bonapartes empire, as the general economic crisis that followed the end
of the French wars in 1815 was soon to show.26
Commerce was at least as effective as war in destroying national identities and local attachments; it turned the population of Europe into a
great mass of human beings, that . . . despite the different names under
which they live and their different forms of social organization, are essentially homogeneous in their nature.27 In this respect the long-term
effects of the development of an international market economy went in
the same direction as imperial conquest, bringing about the creation of a
large, anonymous, potentially disaffected market society.
No doubt Napoleons conquests had alerted European governments to
the dangers of revolution and uncontrolled imperial ambitions. Above all,
however, they proved the inadequacy of the balance-of-power system that
had dominated European international politics throughout the eighteenth
century. This system assumed that European powers, while pursuing their
particular national interests, would achieve a kind of spontaneous equilibrium through commercial and military competition. It was now clear
that this assumption was implausible and unrealisticas utopian, in fact,
as any Enlightenment ideal of universal brotherhood and world peace.
The protracted negotiations that began on the occasion of the peace
of Paris in May 1814 and continued at the Congress of Vienna (between
October 1814 and June 1815) reflected a new vision: European stability
could no longer be left to the operation of spontaneous forces or to opportunistic dynastic alliances; it had to be constructed and closely monitored
at a continental level.
Although the rhetoric of the participants to the Congress advocated
the restoration of legitimate sovereigns and the return to the prerevolutionary status quo, several changes brought about by the Napoleonic
wars to the configuration of European frontiers were implicitly endorsed.
The Congress accepted, for example, the disappearance of a plethora of
small states (the number of German principates was reduced to 38 from
about 300) and promoted the creation of large buffer states to protect the
26
27
On the economic performance of the Napoleonic regime and the 1815 crisis, see the evaluations offered by Thomas Malthus and by Constants Scottish friend James Mackintosh.
They both stress the advantages for France of Napoleons commercial protectionism and
imperialistic policy. T. R. Malthus, The Ground of an Opinion of the Policy of Restricting the Importation of Foreign Corn (London: 1815), footnote p. 12; and S. Hollander,
Malthus and the Post-Napoleonic Depression, History of Political Economy, vol. 1
(1969), 30635; James Mackintosh, France, Edinburgh Review 34 (August 1820):
139.
Spirit of Conquest, ch. 2, cit., 523.
128
B IANCAMARIA F ONTANA
On the balance of powers, the French wars, and the Congress of Vienna, see Schroeder,
The Transformation of European Politics. See also David Thompson, Europe since
Napoleon (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1957); Derek McKay and H. M. Scott, The
Rise of Great Powers, 16481815 (Harlow: Longman, 1983); Jeremy Black, The Rise of
European Powers, 16791793 (London: Edward Arnold, 1990).
6
Homo Politicus and Homo Oeconomicus: The
European Citizen According to Max Weber
WILFRIED NIPPEL
The following abbreviations are used for Webers publications: ASAC for The Agrarian
Sociology of Ancient Civilisations, trans. R. I. Frank (London: New Left Books, 1976)
gabe (Tubingen:
Mohr (Siebeck), 1982); SWG for Gesammelte Aufsatze
zur Sozial- und
Winckelmann (Tubingen:
Mohr (Siebeck), 1976).
Zur Geschichte der Handelsgesellschaften im Mittelalter (Stuttgart: Enke, 1889), and Die
Deininger, 1982.
Enke, 1891) = MWG I/2, ed. by Jurgen
129
130
W ILFRIED N IPPEL
131
132
W ILFRIED N IPPEL
and India a breakthrough in this direction never took place despite certain
tendencies toward city autonomy and the actual, if not legally endorsed,
role of the guilds.
In his view commune-building depends on the ability of the members
133
12
13
und Verbruderung,
in Christian Meier, ed., Die okzidentale Stadt nach Max Weber
134
W ILFRIED N IPPEL
With his comparison of popular magistrates of ancient and Renaissance times and his
allusion to the Myth of Venice, Weber followed a centuries-old tradition of political
thought. See Wilfried Nippel, Ancient and Modern Republicanism: Mixed Constitution and Ephors, in Biancamaria Fontana, ed., The Invention of the Modern Republic
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 626.
135
136
W ILFRIED N IPPEL
inability to build up stable empires. Citizens maintained status distinctions against metics (resident aliens), freedmen, and slaves. This meant
that groups such as metics and freedmen were the only ones truly oriented toward the pursuit of peacefully acquired profit through commerce
and trade. There could be no guilds in the proper sense. The creation of
guilds for the first time during the Middle Ages constituted the organization of labor on the basis of formally free contract, which Weber qualified
as the most productive type of labor organization in history. Thus, citizens
are likely to choose economic rationality only if they have no chance to
acquire material gains by military means or, to put it another way, only
if they are no longer occupied by compulsory military functions. That is
why the foundations for rational capitalism could be laid only in the later
Middle Ages and not in Antiquity.
Missing from this thesis are two crucial test casesnamely, the cities
within the Hellenistic and Roman Empires. Weber himself said that in a
unified and pacified Mediterranean world the ancient city became the
centre of exclusively economic interests.16 Therefore, these structures
would have required a more thorough analysis beyond the statement that
the bureaucratic monarchy, and the shift from coastal to continental civilization, dealt a fatal blow to any dynamic economical development. It is
also a pity that Weber did not expand his argument concerning the preconditions of economic rationalization with respect to the later developments
in early-modern Europe. The Netherlandish and English cities could have
served as test cases. Weber stresses the exceptional status of English cities
(apart from London) whose communal rights in the Middle Ages had
always depended on concessions by the crown.
Since he held that the political structures of Antiquity were responsible for the limits of economical rationalization, Weber was unable to
understand fully the essence of ancient politics, especially in those areas
where it distracted the bulk of the citizenry from rationalized economic
production. This comes out most clearly in Webers rather gloomy and
one-sided picture of Athenian democracy. The political participation of
citizens (service in the political institutions and in military campaigns
of proportions which no other differentiated culture in history has ever
experienced before or since) is seen as an impediment to pacific economic acquisition based on rational and continuous economic activity.
The liturgies, a mixture of compulsory duties and volunteer engagements
by which wealthy citizens contributed to the financing of the fleet and of
16
137
CONCLUSION
138
W ILFRIED N IPPEL
of formal rules for the administration of laws and for the passing of new
laws. Indeed, his analysis opens up comparative approaches that illuminate both the similarities and the differences between the ancient and the
medieval type of citizenry. The fundamental distinction between homo
politicus and homo oeconomicus holds true despite all the objections
that might be raised with respect to specific details. Finally, Webers insistence on the cultural and religious foundations of citizenship cannot be
overrated.20 Again, one may object that his selective treatment of Oriental
cultures (aiming, as it does, at the contrast with the Western world) reveals
a certain Eurocentrism (or Orientalism, the fashionable term). But the
peculiarity of the Western tradition of personal liberty, political participation, and rule of law is not just a projection of cultural prejudice.21 The
notion of Verbruderung,
as an account of the process of individualization
fostered by Christianity, brilliantly captures the fundamental differences
between the West and the various civilizations of the Orient.22 Anyone
who wishes to come to terms with the historical dimensions of this tradition, however it may be constructed, must accept Webers challenge.23
20
21
22
23
7
The European Self: Rethinking an Attitude
MICHAEL HERZFELD
139
140
MICHAEL HERZFELD
5
6
7
8
Richard Handler, Nationalism and the Politics of Culture in Quebec (Madison: University
of Wisconsin Press, 1988).
Bruce Kapferer, Legends of People, Myths of State: Violence, Intolerance, and Political
Culture in Sri Lanka and Australia (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1988),
15861; see also Judith Kapferer, Being All Equal: Identity, Difference and Australian
Cultural Practice (Oxford: Berg, 1996), 231.
James Ferguson, The Anti-Politics Machine: Development, Depoliticization, and
Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), xiii.
See Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism (London: Verso, 1983).
See the discussion in Michael Herzfeld, Cultural Intimacy: Social Poetics in the NationState (New York: Routledge, 1997), 302.
The problem of intentionality is especially acute for studies of nationalism. Psychological explanations do not get us very far. Thus, for example, one might read Andersons
141
9
10
142
M ICHAEL H ERZFELD
THE MENTALITY TRAP
Key to this discussion, then, is the identification of a persistent confusion in the concept of mentality between the object of our analysis
the rhetoric of national and pan-European identityand the instrument
through which we carry it out. All the models of national homogeneity
are grounded in some notion of mentality. This, again, is a concept
of dubious analytic power. Especially significant for this critique is the
fact that mentality has long been a key term of nationalistic discourse,
from which it has filtered into popular usage throughout Europe.11 Its
use in scholarly discussion thus replicates the confusion between analytic
instrument and object of analysis.
Individualism and mentality are both products of a particular kind of
essentializing discourse. Individualism sometimes appears as programs of
political philosophymost notoriously in Margaret Thatchers declaration that there was no such thing as society, only individuals. In Europe
individualism has a long history. In the nineteenth century it was already
used to separate specific kinds of regional mentality into more and
less European versions. Indeed, Dora dIstrias declaration, so pleasant to the ears of the Western-supported Greek elite, that the Greeks had
escaped the somehow communistic influence of the Slavs finely illustrates the role of individualism in the global hierarchy of value that came
into existence in the great colonial empires.12
The political denial of the socialThatchers remark illustrates this
wellmasks the fundamentally social nature of dogmatic forms of individualism, whether methodological or political. In fact, those who write
about the social, especially in an era that emphasizes practice, are more
concerned with the role of individuals in reinterpreting and refashioning
the polity than are their opponents. Anthony Cohen, an early and distinguished practitioner of ethnography in European societies (in Scotland),
has argued that most accounts of nationalism do not explain why people
follow its prescriptions to such an impressive degree. 13 And his plea for
an awareness of the self is specifically couched in terms of a critique of
Thatcherism.14
11
12
13
14
143
Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, eds., The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1983).
Jerome R. Mintz, The Anarchists of Casas Viejas (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1982). Mintz (pp. 2716) takes issue with an earlier argument of Eric Hobsbawms
concerning the causes of the Casas Viejas uprising. His objection is essentially the same
as my disagreement with the later work: Marxist-evolutionary models fail to recognize
the agency and perspectives of local actors in social groups they place at an early point
on the evolutionary scale.
144
M ICHAEL H ERZFELD
with its old nemesis, methodological individualism. But that would exemplify the sort of mischief that Cohen is attacking. Methodological
individualism, in political terms, is precisely the abandonment of the social
that characterizes the philosophy and practice of Thatcherism. Cohens
aim is quite the reverse: to recognize the capacity of ordinary social actors
to recast and reconfigure received orthodoxies. The Thatcherite agenda,
as Cohen notes, was quite different. It was to destroy the very possibility of
agency by emasculating the social in favor of a centralized and centralizing
ideology of personal autonomy.
At the other edge of Europe, and especially during periods of relatively
conservative rule, we find the same tactic in use. Greek politicians claim
that provincial artisans are craftspeople who treasure their originality
and so will not submit to the oriental love of soulless homogeneity, but
that they are indeed so oriental in their willful refusal to standardize
the products of their labor that they must be led bypredictablythese
same politicians. Another and very germane version of this argument is
that Greeks are wonderfully independent people who represent the true
Greek (and therefore European) love of freedom, but that these same
virtues, recast as selfish atomism and familism, are the ineradicable marks
of the Turkish stain on their collective character, which debars them from
the right to collectivize or unionize.17
Cohens argument allows us to work away from generalizations about
individualism and toward a clearer sense of what cultural features such
stereotypes invoke and why they might prove appealing to particular segments of a population. Who has an interest in promoting the idea that
there is a distinctively European self and under what conditions? Which
elements in this stereotype appear to be constant, and which are contested? How do these localized usages articulate with nationalistic and
regional identity politics and ideologies, and how do individual actors
deploy the rhetorics of these ideologies for more immediate practical
ends? I will not try to answer all these questions here. Instead, I will
sketch by example the kind of empirical research that is needed to answer
them.
17
See my article It Takes One to Know One: Collective Resentment and Mutual Recognition among Greeks in Local and Global Contexts, in Richard Fardon, ed., Counterworks: Managing the Diversity of Knowledge (London: Routledge, 1995), 12442;
and The Aesthetics of Individualism: Artisanship, Business, and the State in Greece
(paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association,
Washington, D.C., 1997). The research for these papers was funded by the National
Science Foundation (award # 9307421).
145
19
20
21
22
Federico Chabod, Storia dellidea dellEuropa (Bari: Laterza, edition by Ernesto Sestan
and Armando Saitta, 1964). See also E. E. Evans-Pritchard, Nuer Religion (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1956), 11718, 196.
Jane Nadel-Klein, Reweaving the Fringe: Localism, Tradition, and Representation in
British Ethnography, American Ethnologist 18 (1991): 50017. See also Isidoro Moreno
Navarro, La antropologa en Andalucia: desarollo historico y estado actual de las investigaciones, Ethnica 1 (1971): 10944.
Vassos Argyrou, Keep Cyprus Clean: Littering, Pollution, and Otherness, Cultural
Anthropology 12 (1996): 15978.
It is nevertheless important to avoid becoming entrapped in the hermetic logic of evil
empire scenarios, which are often no less essentialist than the ideologies at which they
are directed. For a sophisticated retrospective view of the Soviet sphere, see especially
Katherine Verdery, Theorizing Socialism: A Prologue to the Transition, American
Ethnologist 18 (1991): 219439; idem, What Was Socialism and What Comes Next?
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995).
Herzfeld, Cultural Intimacy, 778.
146
M ICHAEL H ERZFELD
26
27
28
John Borneman, Belonging in the Two Berlins: Kin, State, Nation (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992), 34.
Stacia E. Zabusky, Launching Europe: An Ethnography of European Cooperation in
Space Science (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995).
The model is provided by Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts
of Pollution and Taboo (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966). See also Michael N.
Barnett, The U.N. Security Council, Indifference, and Genocide in Rwanda, Cultural
Anthropology 12 (1997): 55178; Robert Hayden, Imagined Communities and Real
Victims: Self-Determination and Ethnic Cleansing in Yugoslavia, American Ethnologist
23 (1996): 783801; Michael Herzfeld, The Social Production of Indifference: Exploring
the Symbolic Roots of Western Bureaucracy (Oxford: Berg, 1992). For a comparable use
of Douglass model in an African and international setting, see Liisa Malkki, Purity and
Exile: Violence, Memory, and National Cosmology among Hutu Refugees in Tanzania
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995).
Jacqueline Urla, Cultural Politics in an Age of Statistics: Numbers, Nations, and the
Making of Basque Identity, American Ethnologist 20 (1993): 81842; Jacqueline Urla
and Alan Swedlund, The Anthropometry of Barbie: Unsettling Ideals of the Feminine
Body in Popular Culture, in Jennifer Terry and Jacqueline Urla, eds., Deviant Bodies:
Critical Perspectives on Difference in Science and Popular Culture (Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1995), 278313.
Horace Miner, Body Ritual among the Nacirema, American Anthropologist 58 (1956):
5037.
Some social science discourse curiously essentializes the West in ways that reproduce the fundamentalisms against which they are directed. See especially Samuel P.
Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of Word Order (New York:
147
29
30
31
148
M ICHAEL H ERZFELD
149
in the 1960s to the more recent analyses of George Lakoff and Mark
Johnson, the equation of literalness with European industrial rationality
persists.35
Yet it has also been attacked at its very roots, in a remarkable reexamination of the ancient roots through which European rationalism usually
seeks legitimation. The Classicist G. E. R. Lloyd critically addresses the
concept of mentalite in European thought. He suggests that the distinction between a rational European us and a prelogical, alien them
(which reached its apogee in the writings of Lucien Levy-Bruhl) has its
origins in the litigious practices of the ancient Athenian marketplace.
There, in a fashion not unfamiliar in an election year in modern industrial
democracies, contestants called their own arguments literal and dismissed
those of their opponents as mere metaphor.36
The genius of Lloyds insight is that it shows historically how ideas
can take on the force of logical abstraction even thoughor perhaps
becausethey are grounded in the social environments that their exponents seek to govern. We live in a world in which our own forebears have
shaped relations of power that invest the contingent with the force of
eternal verity. Those who resist are often silenced. I find it revealing that
in Bertrand Russells magisterial History of Western Philosophy, a work
whose hero is surely Rene Descartes, Descartess gadfly Giambattista Vico
does not even rate an entry in the index.37
The Cartesian agenda was adopted as the touchstone of differentiation
between colonizing Europeans and colonized natives. Moreover, as a
motivating and shaping force in the construction of the colonial habitus, it reinforced the self-fulfilling properties of this stereotypical division.
Paul Rabinow has shown how the march of colonial building in French
Morocco adopted Cartesian principles of town planning in contrast to the
native mode of architecture. He has also pointed out the engagement
of social theorists of the Annee sociologique school in this programa
salutary warning of the ever-lurking risk of cooptation.38 Note that these
theorists were founders of the sociocentric tradition that Cohen attacks
in his formulation of personal nationalism.
35
36
37
38
Max Black, Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1962); George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980).
Lucien Levy-Bruhl, Les fonctions mentales dans les societes inferieures (Paris: F. Alcan, 1910); G. E. R. Lloyd, Demystifying Mentalities (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1990).
Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1945).
Paul Rabinow, French Modern: Norms and Forms of the Social Environment (Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press, 1989).
150
M ICHAEL H ERZFELD
THE EVERYDAY USE OF NATIONAL CHARACTER
Julio Caro Baroja, El mito del caracter nacional: meditaciones a contrapelo (Madrid:
Seminarios y Ediciones, 1970).
Herzfeld, Cultural Intimacy, 28.
151
42
43
E. E. Evans-Pritchard, The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940). For quite varied
critiques of this usage, see especially James Clifford, On Ethnographic Authority, Representations 2 (Spring 1983): 11846; Johannes Fabian, Time and the Other: How
Anthropology Makes its Object (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983); Richard
Handler, On Dialogue and Destructive Analysis: Problems in Narrating Nationalism
and Ethnicity, Journal of Anthropological Research 41 (1985): 17182.
See, for example, Luigi Barzini, The Italians, 1st American ed. (New York: Atheneum,
1964) and H.D.F. Kitto, The Greeks (London: Penguin Books, 1951). Kittos book is
exclusively about ancient Greeks. See also A. R. Burn, The Modern Greeks (London:
J. T. Nelson, 1944). Note the significantly different title of Burns book, written by a
classical historian: unless otherwise advised, readers should always assume that Greeks
are ancient!
Cohen, Personal Nationalism, 2.
152
M ICHAEL H ERZFELD
44
45
46
As is, for example, official teleology. See Shaun Kingsley Malarney, The Limits of State
Functionalism and the Reconstruction of Funerary Ritual in Contemporary Northern
Vietnam, American Ethnologist 23 (1996): 54060.
See Michael Herzfeld, Portrait of a Greek Imagination: An Ethnographic Biography of
Andreas Nenedakis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), 84.
Handler, Nationalism and the Politics of Culture; Macpherson, Political Theory of
Possessive Individualism.
153
independence, a stubborn resistance to authority. All these are richly celebrated in poetry, opera, and visual art. They are also part of the historical
indoctrination of every schoolchild. But there a paradox arises, one that
reproduces in mythopoeic terms the paradox underlying the genesis of the
nation-state. As Edmund Leach pointed out, the human race arose from
the incestuous union of Adam and Eve, but thenceforward it was committed to strict rules against incurring such pollution ever again.47 Similarly,
nation-states are created out of a miscegenation the repetition of which
must be debarred by the logic of national purity. The list is extensive:
France, offspring of Germanic Franks and Celtic Gauls; England, crossroads of Saxons and Normans (to name but a few); Greece, where the
constant infusion of Saracen ancestry became the subject of a national
epic created out of a set of songs and medieval manuscripts virtually at
the behest of nationalistic scholars, and where the most hotly denied cultural affinities seem to furnish the most intimate images of typical Greek
culture.48 Italy, more subject to localist sentiment than many countries,
openly paraded the paradox in dAzeglios often-quoted dictum: Now
that Italy has been made, we need to make the Italians.
These parentages, moreover, seem to be reproduced as politics in a
tense marriage of order and disorder in which the side of disorder always
remains a potent presence. The Greek revolution was carried forward by
kleftes, whose contempt for authority provides a model for a continuing disrespect for the national government, successor to the Turks in the
popular imagination; many of the kleftes were speakers of Koutsovlach,
Turkish, and other languages that today mark minority identities that the
bearers of official policy refuse to acknowledge.49 Robin Hoods standing remains so great in England that a decision by a group of Thatcherite
Nottingham promoters to have him unfrocked as the towns official
symbol drew howls of outrage from local residents and the national
media.50 Americans image of themselves as rebels who humiliated the
tax-levying English at the Boston Tea Party is reenacted in every confrontation with the Internal Revenue Servicean everyday social drama that
47
48
49
50
E. R. Leach, Levi-Strauss in the Garden of Eden: An Examination of Some Recent Developments in the Analysis of Myth, in E. N. Hayes and T. Hayes, eds., Claude Levi-Strauss:
The Anthropologist as Hero (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1970), 4760.
See Greenfield, Nationalism, 914; Herzfeld, Ours Once More, 120.
Herzfeld, Ours Once More, 5874.
See especially Andre Pierce, Sheriff of Nottingham Banishes Robin at Last, The
Times (London), March 26, 1996, Home News; Martin Wainwright, Nottingham
Sheriff Springs to Robins Aid, Manchester Guardian Weekly, March 31, 1996, UK
News, 11.
154
M ICHAEL H ERZFELD
52
On social dramas, see Victor Turner, Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action
in Human Society (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974); on their reproduction in
everyday life, see Herzfeld, Cultural Intimacy, 143.
For anthropologists, belief is not an appropriate category of analysis here. The issue is
one of adherence to social convention (a social fact) rather than what people actually
think (a psychological one).
155
54
Thus the Hellenic model, a largely foreign-derived idealization of ancient culture, came
to predominate in official discourse (and to some extent in everyday perceptions) over
the Romeic. Comprised of familiar cultural items, the Romeic model was regarded
as foreign because it was both Roman (an allusion to the status of Byzantium as
the capital of the eastern Roman empire) and, more seriously, Turkish. See Herzfeld,
Ours Once More, and Anthropology through the Looking-Glass.
Martin Bernal, Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, vol. 1 (New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987).
156
M ICHAEL H ERZFELD
they had deduced from the master narrative of Western philosophy, by the
Western powers themselves.55 While the Greek leaders saw this development as a claim on European identity, it provides the historical backdrop
against which they learned to suppress internal self-assertion by local and
minority populations by insisting on the illegality of rebellion but also
of minoritarian politics.56 In other words, the European individualism
and love of freedom entailed in the genesis of the nation-state became
oriental or Turkish whenever it appeared as subsequent rebellion,
cultural or political, from within. To the extent that the Greek leadership could assume a European mantle, it could also deny the European
claims of those who dared disobey its dictates at home.
But there is another side to this proactive stance. Because it entails
standing up to those who would dub the Greeks as fatalists, thereby disproving the charge, it entails actionsfrom the recasting of folklore to
uncooperative acts in international councilsthat serve to confirm the
negative aspects of this Greek individualism for those who wish to force
the country into compliance. At the height of the Macedonian crisis, an
demanded an end to such selfarticle in the Athens daily Eleftherotipia
confirming hegemony: Since, dear friends and allies, the greatest newspapers of England, the U.S.A., but also of France and Germany have used
ad nauseam negative adjectives to dub our tactic on the Skopje issue as
unjustified (!), very often calling our policy by the Greek-derived words
paranoic, hysteric, myopic, we reply to you that when you discover and
incorporate into the vocabulary of your languages words that render the
sense of the Greek words paranoic, hysteric, and myopic, then you will
be able to understand even our curious sensitivity on the matter of the
name of Skopje.57 As a proactive response to international bullying, this
may have made fine copy at home. But it is because Greece is a country
55
56
57
Handler, Nationalism. The folklorists evidently saw their interventions in the content of
texts as a reassertion of agency in the face of Western overlordship. By adhering to the
classicizing conventions of the protectorate powers, however, they found themselves
caught in the usual traps of hegemony. If they failed to adhere to this line, they were
condemned as unpatriotic or un-European.
See Adamantia Pollis, Greek National Identity: Religious Minorities, Rights, and
European Norms, Journal of Modern Greek Studies 10 (1992): 17195; Stephanos
Stavros, The Legal Status of Minorities in Greece Today: The Adequacy of their Protection in the Light of Current Human Rights Perceptions, Journal of Modern Greek
Studies 13 (1995): 132.
Sakis Lefas, I Skopian, i eteri mas, ki i istora mas, Eleftherotipa, March 2, 1994, 46.
This is an example of what A. J. B. Wace and M. S. Thompson called political philology.
See Wace and Thompson, The Nomads of the Balkans (London: Methuen, 1914), 9.
See also Michael Herzfeld, Political Philology: Everyday Consequences of Grandiose
Grammars, Anthropological Linguistics 39 (1997): 35175.
157
taught by tutelary powers (the allies of the article) that its ability to
gain and keep international respect depends on its success in reproducing
the ancient glories, etymology and all. In that larger international context,
however, the article also appears to confirm the stereotype of the Greeks as
unreasoning chauvinists who operate out of a ressentiment much like the
complex attributed by Dundes to the nationalistic folklorists. It thereby
illustrates perfectly the operation of hegemony at the most international
level. For, outside Greece, who would take such an argument seriously?
158
M ICHAEL H ERZFELD
that historically represented the idealized nation but in the context of the
routines of bureaucratic statehood must be excluded from it.
is not a stable concept even in rural communities. For some
Eghosmos
villagers, especially for wealthier farmers, it is a destructive force; for others, notably for shepherds still engaged in competitive forms of masculine
self-aggrandizement (such as reciprocal theft), it is a virtueand one they
can now, with the smattering of education they have received from the
state, turn against the state by reminding its officers that the heroes of the
struggle for freedom were themselves thieves. Some Greek shepherds
also buy into a larger rhetoric by deriding some politicians as Turks,
either explicitly or otherwise. One could hardly wish for a clearer demonstration of the ways in which official ideology can be coopted for causes
quite contrary to the intentions of the state bureaucracy.59
as a positive virtue does not stop with
But the exaltation of eghosmos
these marginal shepherds. Not only do some farmers seem to engage in
than by any values of
actions that seem dictated more by eghosmos
cooperation, but businesspeople, academics, and officials of every kind
act in comparable ways. It is here that the analytic tactic I suggested earlier in this chapter becomes especially useful: to use the unfamiliar patterns
discerned in relatively remote rural communities heuristically as a way of
identifying modulations of the same values in social contexts in which
these patterns are more discrete or diffuse. James Faubion has done just
that. He uses a Weberian gloss of sovereignty to explain the persistence
in modern Athenian literary circlesprecisely, that is, in
of eghosmos
the spaces where, as he argues, a distinctively Greek modernity is being
forged.60
That Faubions effort was not appreciated by most Athenian intellectuals may be a measure of its perspicacity.61 It may well be the case that they
felt that their sovereignty was actually impugned by its being linked to
the values reported by ethnographers from the countryside rather than to
those of the cosmopolitan centers of Europe. Yet it is hard not to recognize
in accounts of academic, parliamentary, and business disputes some of the
same rhetorical devices, and much of the same concern with individual
59
60
61
In a Cretan highland village just before the 1981 elections, a villager who supported
the soon-to-be-victorious socialists told me that the people had already had 400 years
of the conservativesa clear allusion to the Turks and reminiscent of the bitter jibe
of Greeces first president, Capodistrias, at the uncooperative wealthy landowners as
Christian Turks.
See James Faubion, Modern Greek Lessons: A Primer in Historical Constructivism
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 12238.
To Vma, November 6, 1994, B 6.
V. Pesmazoglou, Me kremmdhia, parakalo,
159
reputation, that one meets among shepherds and farmers. The ideology
that views the countryside as the repository of the national quintessence,
representative as it is of a larger pattern of West European romanticism,62
does not happily face the key consequence of that pedigree: Greek modernity may in some respects be radically different from the very models in
Western Europe with which its advocates most eagerly claim kinship.
of the rural population is a form of conIn one sense the eghosmos
formity. As the driving force of social contest, it can beand often is
assimilated to a capitalist ethos of competition.63 Competition differentiates individuals only insofar as it lures them with the promise of distinction; the fact that they are competing to acquire a commonly esteemed
advantage belies the distinctiveness of their respective motives. And the
modernist claim to despise such games, which we might expect to be
unique to the modern sphere as Anthony Giddens has described it, or
indeed as some ethnographers have found for its historical emergence
(for example, Jane Collier for Andalusia), has its roots in the contemptuous pride of rural actors.64 While the urban Greek intellectual may today
dispose of much greater ranges of choice and self-determination, there
is nevertheless an identifiable continuity with modes of action more dramatically described in the ethnographies of rural society. Indeed, Renee
Hirschon has made the extremely important point that the social and symbolic organization of domestic spacethe physical habitus, as it were
shows this continuity clearly. In more recent work she has also shown how
the transmission of agonistic modes of action is much the same among
urbanites as among rural dwellers.65 That perception is consistent with
the persistence of ideas about causation and responsibility, in forms distinctive to the Greek society, within that most modernist of projects, the
national bureaucracy.66
62
63
64
65
66
See, variously, Malcolm Chapman, The Gaelic Vision in Scottish Culture (London:
Croom Helm, 1978); George L. Mosse, Nationalism and Sexuality: Respectability and
Abnormal Sexuality in Modern Europe (New York: Howard Fertig, 1985); Nadel-Klein,
Reweaving the Fringe; Raymond Williams, The Country and the City (London: Chatto
and Windus, 1973).
produced beneficial effects
In a mountain village on Crete, I was told that eghosmos
when it led to competitive commercial success, as in the extraordinary proliferation of
coffeehouses.
Anthony Giddens, Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age
(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991); Jane Fishburne Collier, From Duty to Desire:
Remaking Families in a Spanish Village (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997).
Renee Hirschon, Heirs of the Greek Catastrophe: The Social Life of Asia Minor Refugees
in Piraeus (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989); Greek Adults Play, or, How to Train for
Caution, Journal of Modern Greek Studies 10 (1992): 3556.
See my Social Production of Indifference, esp. 1223.
160
M ICHAEL H ERZFELD
67
68
69
See Juliet du Boulay, Portrait of a Greek Mountain Village (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1974), in which we find the expression e tsi to vrkame (thats how we found it) invoked by villagers to account for customs they may have fearedalthough she does
not raise this issueit might strike the visiting anthropologist as primitive or otherwise
undesirable.
This paper was eventually published as When Exceptions Define the Rules: Greek Baptismal Names and the Negotiation of Identity, Journal of Anthropological Research 38
(1982): 288302.
On one occasion I was criticized for my Greek by a Greek-born copy editor in the United
States who failed to realize that the texts in question were in Cretan dialect.
161
Margaret E. Kenna, Houses, Fields, and Graves: Property and Ritual Obligation on a
Greek Island, Ethnology 15 (1976): 2134.
Bernard Vernier, La gen`ese sociale des sentiments: anes et cadets dans lle grecque de
162
M ICHAEL H ERZFELD
Ibid., 279.
This line of argument is not uniquely European, but ideologues like Guizot elaborated it
to an unusual degree of specificity in nineteenth-century Western Europe.
On the kokoretsi story, see Gutsy Greeks Fight to Save Delicacy, The Herald (Glasgow),
September 12, 1997, 14.
On the European Unions attempts to control the size and shape of bananas, see William
Miller, Boston Globe, September 22, 1994, 19. He reports that under the new rules a
banana must not be abnormally curved ). The article also reports earlier attempts to
ban the curved cucumber and to classify carrots as fruit. British Foreign Secretary Douglas
163
77
78
Hurd provides explanations in Hurd Highlights Myths and Lunacies of Brussels, The
Herald (Glasgow), November 7, 1992, 7. The excerpt from the Adam Smith Institute
report, authored by Timothy Evans and Russell Lewis, appears in Andrew Griffiths,
Cucumber Threat by Supernannies, The Daily Telegraph, May 5, 1993, 21.
Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans. Richard
Nice (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1984).
For an example of this, see Michael Herzfeld, The Poetics of Manhood: Contest
and Identity in a Cretan Mountain Village (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1985), 234.
164
M ICHAEL H ERZFELD
Thus far I have examined a structural relationship between self and society.
I have suggested that it exhibits a high degree of internal flexibility. But
that flexibility is not well described by simply reducing it to the level of
individualism permitted by an otherwise determining social conformity.
We do not thereby satisfactorily answer the questions of how such ideologies are actually maintained, how they interact with the new circumstances
of class and globalization, or how they are inculcated at the level of daily
action. To answer these questions, I turn to a somewhat different line of
argument.
This approach is perhaps best exemplified by the idea of crafting
selves described by Dorinne Kondo in her study of Japanese artisans and
their self-fashioning.80 Kondo shows that the artisans see in the products
of their labor models of their idealized collective selves (although the point
is rather submerged in her account). Among Greek (especially Cretan)
artisans, I have found an immediate formal analog: differentiation among
artifacts reproduces individualism among artisans. The political leadership both hails this as an expression of the European quintessence and
excoriates it as resistance to modernity. The artisans, for their part, both
boast of their disgust with homogenization and self-critically lament
the difficulty of achieving standardization, a term that acquires negative reverberations only in the soundbox of intellectual debate, whence it
returns to everyday speech and further complicates the picture.
Such questions are not usefully addressed in terms of resistance,
except in the sense that acts of resistance may confirm the marginalization
of those who engage in them and claim them as evidence of moral purity
(which, in the European context, is often equated with political weakness).81 As Debbora Battaglia has rightly insisted, self-makingwhich
79
80
81
See David E. Sutton, Local Names, Foreign Claims: Family Inheritance and National
Heritage on a Greek Island, American Ethnologist 24 (1997): 41537.
Dorinne K. Kondo, Crafting Selves: Power, Gender, and Discourses of Identity in a
Japanese Workplace (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).
This must be understood contextually: moral purity is claimed as a compensation for political marginality. This is the process that Edwin Ardener identified as englobing (that
is, of the politically stronger by the politically weaker); see his The Problem Revisited,
in Shirley Ardener, ed., Perceiving Women (London: J. M. Dent, 1975), 1927.
165
166
M ICHAEL H ERZFELD
intellectuals.83 This is, to be sure, unequivocally a stereotype of such people. It is, however, their own self-stereotype. It is what leads Cretan men to
force me to accept their hospitality without reciprocation, on the grounds
that this is what we Cretans do; like all stereotypes, it is by no means
universally accepted or enacted, but it is above all recognizable. This is
truly picturesque individualism, the modernist rendering of personal
sovereignty as a tradition.
What is especially interesting about this notion of the rewritten traditional self is that it takes on dramatic overtones borrowed from the language imprecisely glossed as honor and shame. The Greek term usually
translated as honor can more accurately be defined as the capacity to
live up to peoples expectations of someone in accordance with that persons current social status. This is a highly conformist notion, but its visibility is always contingent on a measure of aggressive nonconformisma
deformation of convention that becomes what James Boon has aptly called
an exaggeration of culture.84
Crete enjoyed a period of artisanal corporatism under Ottoman rule,
but that corporatism collapsed with the establishment of the welfare
state in Greece. Few Cretans are still artisans, and those who are cannot legally employ artisans without incurring punitive compulsory insurance charges. Deeply discontented with this restriction and aware that the
present-day state discourages them from organizing corporately, Cretans
commonly break the law in order to get cheap labor. Neither they nor
their apprentices would easily recognize themselves in, for example, the
historian James R. Farrs description of artisans in seventeenth-century
France. These artisans, claims Farr, evinced a deep concern with matters of honor in consequence of their desire for order, itself a product of
pre-Revolutionary corporatism. 85
If there were a direct correlation between the touchiness of honor
and the collective will to maintain the security of a corporatist polity,
one would expect the extreme concern with such matters found in Crete
not to have survived the collapsefar from recentof artisanal corporatism. Farr remarks, There was a strong connection between moral and
physical order in artisan mentality.86 But what, precisely, is an artisan
83
84
85
86
See Campbell, Honour, Family, and Patronage; Faubion, Modern Greek Lessons.
James A. Boon, Other Tribes, Other Scribes: Symbolic Anthropology in the Comparative
Study of Cultures, Histories, Religions, and Texts (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1982).
James R. Farr, Hands of Honor: Artisans and their World in Dijon, 15501650 (Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1988).
Farr, Hands of Honor, 195.
167
mentality? Is this another exoticizing device, relegating the preRevolutionary French working classes to something analogous to LevyBruhls prelogical mentality? Is the concern with honor a sign of some
collective inability to distinguish between symbolic and literal forms of
truth,as we mightinferbyapplyingLloydsreadingof the mentalite concept?
Once we recognize that almost everything that has been classed as
honor has less to do with adherence to a structural code than with
meeting expectations, we can see that the whole game of reputation politics is a matter of social calculation and strategy. The strategy that leads
social actors to capitalize on tradition is in that sense continuous with
what it mimics, for what we call honor is a calculating claim to lineage, to
a past, to history. If today the expectations one must meet are manufactured through media representation, that suggests that tradition plays
the role once accorded by anthropologists, in rural contexts in southern
Europe, to honor. Tradition is the collective representation of an expected
conformity. In the European context its lack of homogeneity can be read as
the sign of a European individualism and as the mark of backwardness.
But such self-stereotyping is not uniform throughout Europe.
Post-Soviet Muscovites, for example, classify themselves as collective
people.87 Unless one wishes to view such pronouncements as proof of
the older stereotypesthat Slavs are collectivist and therefore not really
European88 they should alert us to the dangers of conflation, much as
do differences in local usages so often lumped together as honor. In
both instances circularity leads to preemptive arguments that ill serve the
goals of analysis.
One important difficulty with historical attempts to explain collective
values, as Farr attempts to do for the seventeenth-century artisans, is
that such reconstructions most commonly are made in the absence of
much knowledge of the ways in which the objects artisans created were
locally understood as models of the self. Even in social anthropology,
scholars have begun to pay serious attention only recently to the crafting
of subjectivities and the crafting of objects. If the artisans in Farrs account
were really so subject to the ideological dictates of the corporatist polity,
were the products of their labors similarly functional and uniform? Were
they perceived to be so? And what notions of artisanal (but also of literary)
87
88
168
M ICHAEL H ERZFELD
originality and license were in the ascendant at that time and in that
place?
To address those questions, I briefly mention Susan Terrios remarkable work on French chocolatiers. Terrio describes how she arrived for
a tasting filled with fear of revealing her lack of expertise. She quickly
realized that she would not, indeed could not, admit to liking the sweeter
chocolates. Informed that the tasting was an apprenticeship, she found
herself swept into a new process of creating national culture by
educating the entire population into conformity with comprehensive models of how things should taste. She suggests that the imperative for
this massive inculcationwhich is about social representations of taste
rather than about a psychological preferencecame from the threats
posed to French autonomy by incorporation in the European Union: Attempts to forge Europeanness in the name of a universal culture were
especially problematic given the existence of a notion of French culture also defined as universal and embodied in French cultural achievements from literature to cuisine.89 The threat posed by Belgian chocolates led the French manufacturers of hand-crafted chocolates to accent
their Aztec origins, using exoticism to describe their product in complementarity with the traditional (or domestically exotic) aspect of its
production.
Here is the logic of segmentation in full force, etched in the dark bitter
chocolate that the new French cultural logic demands. Universality itself
becomes a remarkable fissile propertyjust like the Divine Being of the
Nuer, refracted through all the divisions of the body politic: my universality is better than yours, because my chocolate is better than yoursmuch
as Guizot had argued over a century earlier that the French were the most
European of all because they were the most internally differentiated.90
Possessive individualism is sovereignty.
French chocolatiers have been able to insert their cause in the larger
cultural hierarchies of taste that dominate world markets. The Cretan
artisans have been less lucky. Their alleged individualism allows them to
claim a European tradition, but their supposedly traditional products
have not achieved the popular appeal that perhaps may be possible only
in a country confident of its own modernitya place where, as Michael
Thompson has argued, garbage becomes valuable and feeds an entire
89
90
169
Michael Thompson, Rubbish Theory: The Creation and Destruction of Value (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1979).
Nadel-Klein, Reweaving the Fringe, 5024.
170
M ICHAEL H ERZFELD
93
8
European Nationalism and European Union
ARIANE CHEBEL DAPPOLLONIA
172
ARIANE CHEBEL
DAPPOLLONIA
In order to understand the various meanings of European nationalism, one must recognize that there is no necessary contradiction between
European ideals and national identities, between European unification
and national nationalism. Far from it. European identity must reside
in the concrete and symbolic realities created by centuries of history.
Furthermore, the affirmation of national identitieswhich should be distinguished from narrow and aggressive nationalismcan even act as a
democratic counterweight to a European Union that is not, or is not yet,
an entity possessed of a totemic transcendence to which national realities,
feelings, and symbols must be sacrificed.
A second preliminary objection must be clarified. It is unclear whether,
as is generally believed, the nation created nationalism or, as Ernest Gellner
has suggested, nationalism, in fact, created nations.1 Neither account,
however, is immediately relevant to a discussion of the situation within
the European Union as it is currently constituted. In the first place the
nations that now make up the Union have not always been nationalist
during Europes long history; in the second nationalism has often been
expressed within frameworks that were both larger and smaller than that
of the nation itself. In other words, it is difficult to analyze nationalism
apart from the idea of nation and national territory. Afro-Asianism
and Arabism are, for instance, examples of transnational nationalisms
that, in these cases, have sought to unite the disparate nations of the
developing world. (The same, of course, is true of the European colonial empires that preceded them; they represent but one of the possible
versions of European nationalism.) Inversely, the present resurgence of
national-populism (in the East as in the West), the emergence of multiple
forms of communitarianism stemming from a hodgepodge of ethnic or
religious solidarities, and the relative successes of separatist regionalisms
(Northern Italy, the Basque Country, Corsica, and so on) represent just
as many examples of infranational nationalisms.
European nationalism can be defined through an ideological and historical analysis of the evolution of the nation-states within the present
European Union on one side and with reference to the past and present
aspirations for a postnational Europe on the other side. A clear and significant parallel exists between European cosmopolitanism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and aspirations that underlie the creation
of the European Union. From the Enlightenment to the Second World
War, European nationalism had two meanings: a romantic conception
1
173
174
A RIANE C HEBEL
D A PPOLLONIA
loyal, solid, precise and profound.2 Here was the embryo of the coming
conflicts between aggressive nationalisms that have divided Europe since
the nineteenth century. Here also was the beginning of the grand strategies for a unified Europe based on closer, more enduring cosmopolitan
projects.
Cosmopolitanism was fueled by a rising feeling of European unity as
well as by a European superiority complex toward non-European populations. The closed conception of the nation, illustrated by Johann Gottfried
Herder and Johann Gottlieb Fichte, for instance, was rejected by many
writers and philosophers throughout Europe, but for two very distinct
reasons.3 For some, the nation-state was too recent a creation to possess any effective reality, or it was conducive only to conflict. European
cosmopolitanism, by contrast, was rooted in a long tradition from Antiquity to the Renaissance, which had included such figures as Erasmus and
Leonardo da Vinci, and which drew upon the Christian ideal of universal
peace. For others, the narrow conception of the nation seemed to lead
only to an aggressive nationalism that had been the prime cause of most
of the wars of the modern era.
Consequently, the reinforcement of national nationalism gave rise to
the first expression of European nationalism. As Europe was divided into
aggressive nation-states, there was a convergence between the idea of
Europe and the condemnation of national nationalism. This European
nationalism took three successive forms. Firstly, from the Enlightenment to 1848, it proclaimed that the nation was just a step toward a
larger totality, humanity. The universe contained Europe, which contained nations without any hierarchy. For Rousseau, in his Considerations
sur le gouvernement de Pologne, there are no more French, German,
Spanish, even Englishmen whatever one says, there are only Europeans.
They all have the same tastes, the same passions, the same habits. As
Iselin declared, Real patriotism is only an emanation of the pure love
of humanity.4 To these antinational European nationalists, there was
a concentric order of allegiances, from the family to the nation, from
the nation to Europe, from Europe to the universe. There was also no
contradiction between Europeanism and national sentiments when these
sentiments were not exclusive. For Montesquieu, Matters are such in
2
3
Quoted in Paul Hazard, La pensee europeenne au XVIII`e si`ecle (Paris: Fayard, 1963).
Johann Gottfried Herder, Lettres sur le progr`es de lhumanite (17931797) and Idees sur
la philosophie de lhumanite (17841791); Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Discours a` la nation
allemande (1808).
Iselin quoted by Hazard, La pensee.
175
Europe that all states need each other. Europe is a state made up of several provinces.5
This first expression of European nationalism was determined by a conviction of the superiority of the European over the non-European areas
of the world. Even before Europe entered the final, and most expansive
phase of its overseas expansion, most Europeans held their continent to be
well above the others. For Voltaire, in Le si`ecle de Louis XV, Europe was
one great republic divided into several states, all with common religious
bases, all with the same legal and political principles unknown in other
parts of the world.6 Intellectual supremacy, military power, economic
development, and commercial prosperity marked Europe as a homogeneous whole and gave it a unity far beyond national divisions. Until the
First World War, European nationalism was mixed with Eurocentrism.
European universalism was paradoxically founded on the particularism
of the continent: it was precisely because European culture was unique
that it could claim to be also universal.
This claim to universalism equally marked various pacifist projects,
as illustrated by Kants Perpetual Peace, written in 1795. For Kant, the
European idea was linked to pacifism (with the proposal of a disarmament plan), to the respect for morality, and to the application of rights
as the emanation of Reason. In proposing the creation of a general confederation of the European states as an essential step toward the construction of a world republic, Kant was, of course, consciously participating in a discussion that had been going on for centuries. It was
started during the Renaissance by the Spanish humanist Juan Luis Vives,
continued by Hugo Grotius, and hugely extended during the eighteenth
century by, among others, William Penn in Present and Future Peace of
Europe (1693), Charles Irenee de Saint Pierre (Projet pour rendre la paix
perpetuelle en Europe, Projet pour rendre la paix perpetuelle entre souverains chretiens, written between 1713 and 1717), and Jeremy Bentham
with his Plan for an Universal and Perpetual Peace (17869).7
Even before the peoples spring of 1848, European nationalism
was characterized by two basic characteristics: the will to protect
Europe against itself by establishing a federation, and the ambition to protect European interests and European supremacy against non-European
5
6
7
Montesquieu, De lEsprit des lois (Geneva, 1748), book XI, where he analyzes the characteristics of the federal republic.
Voltaire, Le si`ecle de Louis XIV (1756), Cap. XXXIX.
In 1761 Rousseau published an abridged version of Saint Pierres Projet, and in 1782 he
wrote his Jugement sur la paix perpetuelle.
176
A RIANE C HEBEL
D A PPOLLONIA
enemies. The fact that neither project was ever realized should not lead
to the conclusion that Kant and others were merely Utopians. Far from
it. Some of Kants critics, and Kant himself, insisted that his cosmopolitanism did not derive from an exaggerated concern for the human race as
such, but from the importance he attributed to right (Recht) law, to the
pragmatic recognition of the advantages of a peaceful alliance that could
be achieved only with the consent of the people. In other words, Europe
was an ideal-type that would be achieved in future time.
From 1848 to 1939, European nationalism assumed its second form
with the antinational theme of the United States of Europe. Derived
from the currents of opinion that opposed the new European order imposed in 1815, the various projects for the United States aimed to limit the
bellicose effects of state nationalisms and to combat the specter of the decline of Europe. Unlike the proponents of Kants Cosmopolitan Right
(ius cosmopoliticum), it was essentially the fear of seeing Europe lose its
dominant position that motivated the followers of European nationalism. Defended by Victor Hugo and Richard Cobden, the two principal
figures at the Congress of Peace organized in 1849 in Paris, the project
of the United States of Europe was a response more to the conscious desire to adapt the European states to the demands of a new international
environment than to an innate desire to unify them. This was why the
free-exchange economists of the time supported the idea. Hugo evoked
the markets opening themselves to commerce, these new battlefields,
in his famous speech of 1849. The day will come, he declared, when
you France, you Russia, you England, and you Germany, when all you
nations of the continent, without losing distinctive qualities or your individual glories, will bind yourself tightly together into a single superior
entity, and you will come to constitute a European fraternity, as absolutely as Brittany, Burgundy and Alsace are now bound together with
France.8
For certain intellectuals and economists, the state was an outmoded
political and economic entity, and nationalism an obsolete expression
of old narrow-minded beliefs. The success of the Zollverein, then of
German and Italian unification, confirmed these convictions, which were
defended at the third International Congress in Rome in 1891 and at the
1900 Congress of the Free School of Political Sciences. On this last occasion, the participants proved themselves ardent propagators of European
8
Victor Hugo, Douze discours (Paris, 1850). See Oeuvres compl`etes: Actes et Paroles (Paris:
Hetzel, 1882).
177
178
A RIANE C HEBEL
D A PPOLLONIA
into two blocs, and the loss of most of the European colonial empires motivated the speeches of the Founding Fathers of Europe. Whether unionists
or federalists, these Founding Fathers personified the third expression of
European nationalism: a mixture of pacifism, of reaffirmed faith in market mechanisms, of commercial ambitions, and of nostalgia for past glories justifying the ambition for future glories. On this last point Winston
Churchills famous speech in Zurich in 1946 is explicit: if the European
countries succeeded in uniting, their 300 to 400 million inhabitants would
know, by the fruit of their common heritage, a prosperity, a glory, a happiness that no boundary, no border could contain. . . . We must construct
such a thing as the United States of Europe.11 This declaration can be
compared to the definition of the nation given by Ernest Renan in 1882:
the common possession of a rich legacy of memories which must be
brought to fruition, that is the social capital upon which a national
idea can be established.12 It is therefore during the postwar years that
European nationalism has borrowed most from the national mystique by
defining itself according to the same criteria as the nation-state: historical
memory-building, a common identity and culture for all of the entities
grouped within the bounds of a given territory, and political and economic objectives destined to ensure general prosperity and to defend the
global interests of its participants.
The rediscovery or the total and/or partial recomposition of an historic
past justifies certain references to a common identity and culture. If, as
Jean-Baptiste Duroselle maintained in LEurope: Histoire de ses peuples,
history has created a real Europe, there can be no such thing as a
European history of Europe.13 In other words, European history is just a
juxtaposition of national histories. But, if the facts are not European, the
interpretations are.
Wars have always played a fundamental role in the composition of the
national identity. For the French the battle of Valmy in 1792 is the foundational act on which the mystique of the modern Republic is founded. The
Founding Fathers of the European Union adopted the same mechanism
of symbolic identification. Only in this case it is not the memories of glorious victory on which the new nation is founded but rather the desire
to escape from a conflict that for all those involved has been, in one way
11
12
13
Churchill, quoted by Elisabeth du Reau, Lidee dEurope au XX`e si`ecle (Bruxelles: Complexe, 1996), 1334.
Ernest Renan, Quest-ce quune nation? Conference a` la Sorbonne, 11 Mars 1882, in
Oeuvres Compl`etes, tome 1 (Paris: 1947), 887906.
Jean-Baptiste Duroselle, LEurope: Histoire de ses peuples (Paris: Perrin, 1990), 24ff.
179
Denis de Rougemont, Oeuvres compl`etes, 3 vols., Ecrits sur lEurope, vol. 1: 19481961
(Paris: Editions de la Difference, 1994), 85.
180
A RIANE C HEBEL
D A PPOLLONIA
Count of Saint-Simon on the need to establish a large economic and commercial space is still a topical question. He was one of the first, after the
collapse of the Napoleonic empire, to understand that it was only through
unity that the various states of Europe could prevent Europe from losing
its global supremacy. Furthermore, he fully grasped the importance of the
industrial revolution and the impact it would eventually have upon the
nations of the Old World. In order to meet the need to unite economically,
while still preserving the sovereignty of the individual European states, he
presented a proposal in 1814 at the Congress of Vienna. Written in collaboration with Augustin Thierry, it was entitled Reorganisation de la societe
europeenne, ou de la necessite et des moyens de rassembler les peuples
dEurope en un seul corps politique en conservant a` chacun sa nationalite
(The reorganization of European society, or the need and the means to
unite the peoples of Europe in a single political body while still preserving
their individual nationalities). Saint-Simons arguments were modern:
the problem he outlined is still a pressing onethe relationship between
the economical and the political in the construction of Europe. This he described as the outcome of a necessary evolution that would at once protect
Europe from itself and save it from decline. Thus he praised a collaboration between the member states on a number of specific projects such
as railways, central European banks, and an increase in the commerce of
free exchangeto paraphrase the Schuman declaration of 1950. Finally,
in the image of the nationalist historiographers, the partisans of European
nationalism have always had a tendency to reconstruct the history of their
doctrine, and of the achievements to which it has led, as a rectilinear trajectory in order to justify the theory of a linear evolution over the centuries
of the European idea.
FROM EUROPEAN COSMOPOLITANISM TO PRO-NATIONAL
EUROPEAN NATIONALISM
181
voice to the populations that make up the nation-states and by ensuring the protection of national identities outside the strict framework of
the state. In other words, this second model dissociates state sovereignty
from popular sovereignty, national identity from state sovereignty. Europe
is conceived as serving the national interest of all its members. Antinational European nationalism thus led to a European construction from
the top. Pro-national European nationalism implied a unification from
the bottom.
In recent history this second model has taken two forms. Before 1945
it was the Europe of peoples opposed to the Europe of princes, the Europe
of nationalities opposed to the Europe of realpolitik. Since the 1950s, pronational European nationalism has fed infranational claims: the Europe
of regions is presented as a counterweight to the federative logic of the
European Union and as an antidote to the widely perceived supranational
technocratic tendencies of the Union. It is the Europe of the heartlands
against the Europe of the Eurocrats.
This form of pro-national European nationalism was particularly powerful at the end of the eighteenth century and throughout the nineteenth
century in those regions of Europe that were struggling to emancipate
themselves from the older imperial structures, Ottoman Turkey in the East
and the Austro-Hungarian monarchy in the West. For Rhigas Velestinlis,
the principal Greek and Albanian nationalist of the period, some kind of
united Europe or Balkan federation seemed to be the only way to secure
national independence. In Velestinliss Thouros, a hymn celebrating independence that was greatly influenced by French philosophers, European
unification was conceived as the only vehicle for achieving an independent Greek homeland.15 Similarly, Teofan Noli, leader of the short-lived
Albanian democratic government in 1924, created a Pan-Albanian federation (Vatra) for the same objective.
In Italy Giuseppe Mazzini provided the best example of a romantic
pro-national European nationalism. From his Young Italy in 1831 to his
Young Europe in 1834, he pursued the same goal: to build Europe in order
to build Italy and vice versa. His conception of the resurgence (risorgimento) of Italy was a mixture of Jacobin-inspired liberalism, religiosity
(God and the People), and universalism. His nationalism, however, was
15
Rhigas Velestinlis lived from 1757 to 1798. While he was secretary to the hospodar
de Valachia, he became an enthusiast for the French Revolution and wrote a national
anthem modeled on the Marseillaise. Some years later, after he had settled in Vienna,
he participated in the diffusion of the Declaration of the Rights of Man in the Balkans.
After an abortive attempt to return to his native country, he was arrested by the Austrian
police and then handed over to the Pasha of Belgrade who executed him.
182
A RIANE C HEBEL
D A PPOLLONIA
very far from being xenophobic. Convinced that the people could win the
free exercise of their sovereignty only by making state and nationality
coincide, Mazzini proposed a Holy Alliance of Nations to combat the
Holy Alliance concluded in 1815 and the concert of nations orchestrated
by Metternich. For him, humanity was not a cosmopolitan world split
into immutable nation-states but a whole, created by God, that united all
peoples in the awareness of a common origin and a common future. In
1834 he published the program for his Young Europe according to which
free national associations signed an act of brotherhood, a declaration of
principle constituting the universal moral law and referring to the principles of Liberty, Equality and Progress. In his essay of 1860, The Duties
of Man, he described Europe as the means to achieve a superior political
order.
Mazzinis pro-national European nationalism was also founded on an
antigovernmental inter-European dynamic and on a democratic conception of the nation-state. His thinking sums up perfectly the desire to promote a peoples Europe instead of a Europe of monarchs. The whole of
humanity, he argued, had now been called upon to restructure itself into a
federalist system of unitary nations under the aegis of republicanism. The
republic was, for him, the only form of government that was legitimate
and logical, and thus compatible with both morality and nationality. It
was at once the mark of national identity and of the universality of a body
of citizens united in a federal system of individual nations. As such, the
republic was the sole form of government capable of reconciling national
sentiment and European unity. Promoter of an International League of
Peoples in April 1847, Mazzini personified the Europe of the peoples
spring of 1848 with its blend of internationalism, Europeanism, and
messianic nationalism.16 After the failure of the revolution of 1868, he
tried to materialize his ideals with the notion of a universal republican
alliance in September 1866.
The double patriotic and Europeanist inspiration of Mazzini reflects the
three ambiguities inherent in pro-national European nationalism. First,
the bond between the unitary nationalist vocation and the idea of the
spontaneous solidarity of populations has never resisted the ravages of
the aggressive nationalism of nation-states. Second, while opposed to the
conservative theories more or less based on the notion of an unchanging
natural order, Mazzinian thinking integrated a strong dose of organistic
16
183
convictions. Evidence for this lies in his scheme for a territorial redivision of the European States, a project that owed more to Fichte or to
David Frederic Strauss than it did to Ernest Renan. Mazzini proposed
the creation of fourteen groups divided according to history, tradition,
geography, and language. This new European map would have equitably
repartitioned the whole of the continent between the great Graeco-Roman,
Germanic, and Slavic families. Third, just as antinational European nationalism utilizes the same criteria for defining Europe as for defining the
nation, while at the same time claiming to bypass the latter, Mazzinis
pro-national European nationalism remains confined to the strict logic
of the national framework. In short, Mazzini was conflating Italy with
Europe.
What was good for Italy, however, was not necessarily applicable to
Europe as a whole. Furthermore, Mazzini was prevented from becoming
a prophet in his own country since the Risorgimento was carried out from
the top by a process of governmental centralization and not according to
the rights of the peoples to govern themselves. The resisters to unification
by a Piedmontese monarchy were numerous, particularly in the South. As
the federalist Carlo Cattaneo argued in his Gli stati uniti dItalia, Sicily
and Naples are not regions, but states. And from 1848 until 1870, in
particular with the uprising in Palermo in 1866, the unification was constantly threatened by the Southern Question, as in one way or another it
has continued to be ever since. At the time of the defeat of Adoua in 1896,
Ferdinando Martino, the minister of public instruction, commented:
Fatta lItalia, bisogna fare gli Italiani (We have made Italy, now we
must make the Italians)a phrase echoed by many of Europes present
observers: we have made Europe, now we must make the Europeans.17
Nonetheless, Mazzini was one of the first to emphasize the necessity
of transnational solidarities to establish European unity, whether under a
supranational or intergovernmental form. For the Italian patriot, the republican ideal was, as it had been for Kant, the only possible transnational
bond between the European peoples. The European federalist system that
he envisioned would have allowed the republican conquests that had occurred in France and Italy to be extended to the whole of the continent. After the failure of the revolution of 1848, Mazzini turned to the possibility
of a workers international union on a European scale as another form of
opposition to an exclusively narrow national framework. The European
17
See J. C. Lescure, Faire les Italiens, in LEurope des nationalismes aux nations (Paris:
Sedes, 1996), 2:9.
184
A RIANE C HEBEL
D A PPOLLONIA
dimension of this project, rivaled then ruined by the creation of the First
International, was more important than the protection it offered to the
interests of the worker. Other representatives of the European left similarly refused to fashion European construction after the state model
(the goal of pro-national European nationalism being precisely the defense of national interests against the omnipotence of governments that
were detested because of their policies). Those left-leaning Europeans proposed various federalist plans that would comply with two fundamental
criteria: the guarantee of the exercise of a democratic citizenship and a
real control over state power by a series of counter powers, with Europe
considered as a intermediary organism. For Joseph Proudhon, author
of The Federative Principle (1863), Europe should be a confederation
of confederations respecting individual interests in a national collectivity and national interests in a European collectivity. The self-government
of the basic groups was doubled by a federal structure ensuring the coordination of the whole. The sharing of power on all levels ensured the
respect of pluralism despite the propensities of states to unification or
annexation. In 1872 in Federalism, Socialism and Antitheology, the anarchist Mikhail Bakunin proposed the creation of a United States of Europe
far removed from that envisioned by Victor Hugo or Richard Cobden.
For Bakunin, the question was not one of obtaining the agreement of
states in order for them to cooperate economically and politically. It was
rather a question of suppressing unitary states for the good of nations, of
replacing the existing hierarchical organization with a federation of free
individuals.
Proudhon and Bakunin had only a limited influence on the construction of Europe. One should not conclude, however, that their plans were
buried under the weight of history. Both imagined the emergence of a
European social organism, similar to the one currently being discussed
within the European Union. Both accented the need to respect the pluralism at the heart of European unity and the need for the peoples support in
the vast project of European unity. Finally, both considered the problem
of minoritieswhether cultural, religious, or even socialin a Europe
that would be homogeneous while still ensuring the free expression of
diversity.
To these projects should be added the efforts of the Austro-Marxists after the fall of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. They began to rethink the
relationship of state and citizenship. For Karl Renner, European nationalism was the only force capable of protecting the liberty of individuals
and the autonomy of nations. He even suggested dissociating nationality
185
The chancellor and then president of the Austrian Republic (1945), Karl Renner, belonged
to the reforming wing of the Social-Democrat Party. Before the war he and Otto Bauer
edited the journal Der Kampf. His basic ideas are set out in La fonction sociale du droit
(1904).
186
A RIANE C HEBEL
D A PPOLLONIA
common good. These two traditions are reactivated today by the debate
on the democratic deficit of the European Union.
The latest variation of pro-national European nationalism is the attempt to bypass the nation-state from the bottom, that is to say, from the
regions. The argument is simple: the nation-state is becoming outmoded,
its historicity leading it to a rapid obsolescence after the European and
worldwide developments brought about by globalization. The construction of Europe could accelerate this process by redefining new territorial
boundaries. Furthermore, according to its adherents, the resurgence of
regional identities would favor greater democratic expression, by permitting more direct participation by citizens (local referendum theory) and a
better understanding of national and infranational diversities.
The Maastricht Treaty thus took a decisive step toward the recognition
of infranational autonomist aspirations in creating a Regional Committee. This move was preceded by an initiative on the part of the Council of
Europe. Having long supported the creation of cooperative transnational
organizations, the Council in 1985 initiated the Assembly of European
Regions. The opening of economic representation offices in Brussels by
certain regions, such as Catalonia and Languedoc-Roussillon, also illustrates this evolution toward an increasingly active role for subnational entities on transregional bases. One example is the cooperation institutionalized between the members of the European Quadrige (Bade Wurtemburg,
Lombardy, the Rhone-Alps region, and Catalonia) created in 1988. This
process is still too recent to assess an eventual outcome. Will it lead, as
the Council has always hoped, to the emergence of new infranational
solidarities united at a supranational level? Or will it result in the further
narrowing of European space in the name of tribal regionalism, which will
further complicate a decision-making process already made cumbersome
by the addition of a supplementary level of bureaucracy?
THE PREDICAMENT OF EUROPEAN NATIONALISM TODAY
187
188
A RIANE C HEBEL
D A PPOLLONIA
semantic shift had taken place, and the word acquired most of its modern
meanings. The Encyclopedie defined nation as a considerable number
of people who inhabit a certain extent of territory, enclosed within specific
limits and bound by a single government. Since the nineteenth century,
nation has come to describe two complementary elements: first, the infrastructure of a community (political, juridical, and above all emotional)
united by a common history and a shared set of values and, second,
allegiance to a state authority that rules over the territory on which the
inhabitants of that nation reside.
The most economical definition of citizenship is the rights derived
from, and the civic duties owed to, any given political community.
(Of course, the content of these rights and duties has constantly varied
over time.) A citizen was not merely a member of a community; he or
she also possessed the rightand the obligationto participate in the life
of the Res Publica. By the end of the nineteenth century, the relationship
between nationality and citizenship had been inverted: nationality conditioned citizenship. Only in the twentieth century, with the progressive
enlargement of the franchise, did all the members of the democratic nations acquire the full status of citizenship. (Women, in France, for instance
were not given the vote until 1944.)
Today the classical shape of the nation-state is changing. Why not,
therefore, try to define the characteristics of a postnational citizenship?
As Jurgen
Habermas has pointed out, if democratic citizenship doesnt
necessarily root itself in a national identity of the people, notwithstanding
a plurality of cultural forms, it requires nevertheless a socialisation of individuals in a common political culture.20 To be acceptable, this common
political culture cannot be associated with one national cultural model.
For its part, the successful emergence of a common European political
culture would suppose the existence of three conditions.
The first condition is the replacement of merely national politics by
means of a cultural program whose purpose would be to generate a new
form of allegiance, independent of the present nation-state structure. This
would necessarily involve the rewriting of most national histories as they
are currently conceived. The European Union should cease to be represented as the outcome of some teleological development toward a democratic consensus. It is instead the creation of an act of will and therefore should be, in Ernest Renans phrase, a daily plebiscite in order to
20
Jurgen
Habermas, Citizenship and National Identity: Some Reflections on the Future
Europe, Praxis Internationale 12 (1) (April 1992): 119.
189
190
A RIANE C HEBEL
D A PPOLLONIA
however, European nationalism is very far from its symbols. Apart from
a flag, a hymn, and a few festivals that occur only intermittently, the
European Union offers little that can inspire collective enthusiasm. It takes
longer to accept a symbol than a Brussels regulation, if it is accepted at
all. But it is the only way to ground a real European identity and, perhaps,
to limit the upsurge of aggressive national nationalisms. The European
Union must become a visual and compelling identity. It needs myths as
strong as those that sustain the individual nations of which it is composed.
As Condorcet observed, Citizens are not born; they are created through
instruction.21 Homo Europeanus is still waiting to be made.
21
9
From the Ironies of Identity to the
Identities of Irony
LUISA PASSERINI
When this poem was written, Europe was in the midst of a civil war
between hordes of beasts (the Fascists) on one side and the anti-Fascists
on the other, and its fate depended on the outcome of this conflict. The
idea of a united Europe had been seized upon by both the Nazis and the
Fascists in the period between the two wars, as well as during the war itself.
Two examples of this are the Convegno Volta, a conference on Europe
organized in 1932 under the auspices of the Fascist regime in Rome and
the projects presented by Goebbels and Von Ribbentrop in 19423 for a
new Europe to be united under Nazi dominion.1 Those who resisted the
various types of Fascism and claimed to be sons of Europe could count
on only a frail mythif I may be allowed to extend Serenis metaphor
and this myth projected a possible Europe and possible Europeanness into
a completely uncertain future. At that time the sense of belonging to
Europe was more of a wager than a reference to a given reality.
An earlier version of this essay was published as the introduction to the anthology Identita` culturale europea: idee, sentimenti, relazioni (Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1998). Poems
quoted in the text have been taken from Poeti italiani del secondo Novecento 19451955,
edited by Maurizio Cucchi and Stefano Giovanardi (Milano: Mondadori, 1996). The author thanks Nicki Owtram of the Language Centre at the European University Institute in
Florence for translating the poems into English.
1 Walter Lipgens, Documents on the History of European Integration, vol. 1: Continental
Plans for European Union, 19391945 (BerlinNew York: Walter de Gruyter, 1985).
191
192
LUISA PASSERINI
The tradition of a united Europe was centuries old, but the First World
War had reduced it to ashes. The many attempts to revive it between the
two wars included Richard Coudenhove-Kalergis Pan-Europe of 1923
and the proposal for a United States of Europe made to the League of
Nations by Aristide Briand.2 These efforts were accompanied by a wide
debate on the possibility of turning Europe into an autonomous cultural
and political subject, an alternative to the choice between the United States
and the Soviet Union or, for others, between the United States and Nazi
Germany. The Second World War dashed once again any hopes for this
tradition of a united Europe, but it contemporaneously gave rise to a new
wave of Europeanism. Taking the patrimony of debates on federalism in
Great Britain at the end of the thirties in organizations such as the Federal
Union,3 anti-Fascists imprisoned on the island of Ventotene drafted the
Manifesto, which proposed the idea of a European federation. This was
in the summer of 1941, exactly one year before the poem by Sereni was
composed. The Manifesto di Ventotene, as it became known, with its
stress on democracy and equality, reminds us of the legacy of ideas that
emerged during the European resistance.
In this chapter three levels of discussion will be identified: (1) the concrete procedure of the unification of Europe, (2) the different ideas and
ideologies regarding a united Europe, and (3) European cultural identity.
The link between the idea of a united Europe and the institutional reality of
the European Union has at times been underrated, as if the latter was simply the result of member states calculations to maintain their wealth and
security. Perry Anderson, however, has claimed that current European
construction is inexplicable if the federalist vision of Jean Monnet and
his small group of technocrats is not taken into account. Anderson has
also observed that ideas did indeed play a role in the history of European
integration. They were the result of the political and intellectual elites,
not of the popular masses. European public opinion began to emerge as
unanimous for the first time only after the collapse of the Soviet system,
thus apparently demonstrating approval for some degree of opening
toward the Eastern bloc. All the same, this opinion has been expressed
by the media, above all the press, rather than by the wider public or the
electorate. The problem of the different levels therefore intersects with
2
Carl Hamilton Pegg, Evolution of the European Idea, 19141932 (Chapel HillLondon:
University of North Carolina Press, 1983); and Sergio Pistone, ed., Lidea dellunificazione
europea dalla prima alla seconda guerra mondiale (Torino: Fondazione Luigi Einaudi,
1975).
Andres Bosco, The Federal Idea, vol. 1: The History of Federalism from the Enlightenment
to 1945 (LondonNew York: Lothian Foundation Press, 1991).
193
Perry Anderson, Under the Sign of the Interim, London Review of Books, vol. 18,
no. 1, 4 January 1966; and The Europe to Come, London Review of Books, vol. 18,
no. 2, 25 January 1966.
Edmondo Paolini, Lidea di Europa: Nascita e sviluppi (Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1979);
and idem, La realta` Europa: dai trattati di Roma alla Federazione europea (Roma: Edime,
1983).
See Carlo Curcio, Europa. Storia di unidea (Firenze: Vallecchi, 1958); Federico Chabod,
Storia dellidea dEuropa (Bari: Laterza, 1961); Jean-Baptiste Duroselle, Lidee dEurope
dans lhistoire (Paris: Denoel, 1965); and Bernard Voyenne, Histoire de lidee europeenne
(Paris: Payot, 1964). See also Denis de Rougemont, Vingt-huit si`ecles dEurope (Paris:
Payot, 1961).
Robert Picht, Disturbed Identities: Social and Cultural Mutations in Contemporary
Europe, in Soledad Garcia, ed., European Identity and the Search for Legitimacy (London:
Pinter, 1993), 8194.
194
L UISA P ASSERINI
the term in their title fail to offer any sustained discussion of it) are a sign
of uncertainty and discomfort on the one hand and regressive operations
to protect old values on the other.
In 1973 the European Community (as the Union was called when it
was composed of only nine members) issued a Declaration on European
Identity that was approved in Copenhagen. It represented an attempt
to define a European specificity despite the unavoidable contradictions
of Eurocentrism. The Declaration was based on the principles of the
unity of the Nine, on their responsibilities with regard to the rest of
the world, and on the dynamic nature of the construction of Europe.8
Admitting a diversity of cultures, the Declaration answered the basic
necessity to ensure the survival of the civilisation which [the Nine] have
in common. The identity of Europe, according to this document, should
be based on a common heritage: identical attitudes toward life, converging
on the creation of a society responding to the needs of individuals; the
principles of representative democracy, the rule of the law, social justice,
and respect for human rights. At this point, an essential part of Europes
supposed identity was represented by a common market based on a customs union, established institutions, as well as policies and machinery for
cooperation.
The first sections of the Declaration repeated presuppositions that
were already familiar and acceptable in the main. The rest of it established a hierarchy of relations with the rest of the world. The first aim
was to intensify ties with those European countries with whom friendly
and cooperative relations already existed. Then came the aim of maintaining and strengthening the historic links with the Mediterranean and
African countries and with the Middle East. The close ties with the
United Statesa country that shared the values and aspirations of a common heritagewere held to be mutually beneficial. They should be
preserved on the basis of equality and in a spirit of friendship. With
Japan and Canada close cooperation and constructive dialogue were
foreseen; with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and the
countries forming the Eastern bloc, a policy of detente; with China,
exchanges in various fields; with other Asian countries, the extension
of already existing commercial relations; with Latin America, and in particular with several countries in the same area, an increase in friendly
relations. As for the less favoured nations, the Nine declared the
8
195
10
196
L UISA P ASSERINI
Goran
Therborn, Modernita` sociale in Europa (19501993), in Storia dEuropa,
vol. 1: LEuropa oggi (Torino: Einaudi, 1993), 461613.
Erik Lund, Pihl Morgens, and Johannes Slok, eds., A History of European Ideas (London:
Hurst & Co., 1962).
Richard Hoggart and Douglas Johnson, An Idea of Europe (London: Chatto, 1987).
Norberts Bobbio Grandezza e decadenza dellideologia europea, in Lettera internazionale 3 (1986): 15.
Bronislaw Geremek, LEuropa e la sua memoria, in LAteneo, XIII, 2 (1967), 219 and
Idem, Le radici comuni dellEuropa (Milano: Il Saggiatore, 1991).
197
17
18
198
L UISA P ASSERINI
199
have nothing to lose, she writes, than our chains in a federalist Europe,
and so it is that we are federalists.22 The multiplicity of languages in
Europe is expressed here in terms of suffering and alienation, of rootlessness and loss that have been the lot of many in the European history of
the twentieth century. A list of these people would include Jews, women,
immigrants from within and beyond Europe, refugees, the dispersed, and
the uncultured. This partial list of others, historically present in
Europe in a subordinate and conflictual position, suggests that a break is
necessary: a gesture of radical discontinuity needs to be made before one
can make a credible claim that the diversity of the European continent is
valuable.
As a result, the problem of European identity accepts the solution offered by the formula of multiple identity only as a first approximation.
In reference to Europeanness, Anthony Smith, among others, notes that
the number and extension of currently possible cultural identities have
increased.23 Identities based on gender and generation remain vital, and
even those based on class and religion continue to be influential. In addition, professional, civic, and ethnic identities have proliferated, attracting
increasingly large groups from all over the world. While national identification is still frequently the political and cultural norm that transcends
and organizes other loyalties, human beings maintain a multiplicity of
belongings that tend to push the national one into the background. In
regard to this central problem, the concept of multiple identity limits
itself to underlining the quality of tolerance and to expressing possibilities. It remains, however, conceptually undifferentiated and undefined, as
does its correlate, multiculturalism. Both terms, and the concepts to which
they refer, lack a sufficiently explicit description of the power disparity
between the subjects and the forms of subjectivity that they denote.
Given this situation, it is not surprising that the notion of a truly contemporary European identity is occasionally denied; according to some,
no sentiment of European identity is in line with the modernization of
continental affairsa view seemingly confirmed by the fact that Europe
is only marginally present in school curricula.24 According to others,
the European consciousnesshowever defined or justifiedis none other
that a form of group partiality, a kind of nationalism on a vast scale
that includes some and excludes others, thereby negating every authentic
22
23
24
200
L UISA P ASSERINI
universalism.25 These negative opinions are often based on the impossibility of developing a European identity with the same level of emotional impact as that made by national identities. Yet, as Hartmut Kaeeble and Gian
Enrico Rusconi have reminded us in two different ways, this is not the
real problem.26
EUROPE AND ITS OTHERS
Signatures are not enough
appeals are of no use
to rid us of our smooth guilt;
the intellectual is guilty, for centuries Europe
with its principles has been guilty, the missionary
who preaches resignation is guilty, the state
which preaches segregation is guilty, the army
which crushes to be obedient is guilty.
Racial hatred plunges down onto us once more.
Nelo Risi, Dentro la sostanza, 1965
These lines and the date on which they were publishedin the middle of
a decade characterized by anti-imperialist struggles worldwidereflect
a distancing from Eurocentric attitudes that has continued well beyond
this period, even if in ways that are sometimes blunted and submerged.
Indeed, this distancing may be one of the main impediments to developing
a concept that can advance a positive proposal for a European identity.
Eurocentric attitudes continue to exist more or less implicitly, however.
Although they were rejected, they were never discussed or analyzed in
any great detail. Above all, their rejection was a reaction to the criticism
that came from beyondthat is, from those who had been designated as
others by the Eurocentric subject: what characterised the experience
of the Europeans was also the experience of its victims.27
On the cultural level the victims were often made such in the course
of processes of assimilation that at the same time privileged and recompensed them, thus rendering the use of the term victim incongruous at
first sight. Indeed, the Other was often to be found within Europe itself.
25
26
27
201
In order to understand the process of Europeanization from this viewpointas a leveling down of other cultures to the Western oneit is useful to read the criticism, drafted in Moscow in 190910 and published
in Sofia in 1920, that Trubeckoj made of Eurocentric attitudes. Only by
means of a negative orientation such as the kind that he proposed,
which tends to place the reader in front of a void,28 can a process that
today would be called deconstructionist be initiated, as the initial premise
for a process of subsequent construction whose direction cannot be prefigured except by its protagonists. Even for Trubeckoj, the essay in which
both egocentricism and eccentrism (the placing of the center beyond oneself, in this case into Western Europe) were rejected formed only the first
part of a trilogyunfinished on account of his premature death.
The controversy over the eastern border of Europe goes back centuries,
but the formula from the Atlantic to the Urals still has not lost its attraction. As the process that began in 1989 of dismantling the Soviet empire
and reunifying the two Germanies and potentially Europe suggests, federative events to date have been based on Western Europe alone. This has
made the question of what it means to be European even more difficult
to answer. The war in the former Yugoslavia tragically illustrates the possibility and reality of inter-European conflicts of all dimensions. All this
accentuates the need for distance between the European construction on
the one hand and identity as a dimension of culture and subjectivization
on the other. What kind of Europeanness is capable of embracing both the
West and the East (including Russia) in cultural terms? This question should
be explored immediately. Similarly, there exists no immediate obstacle
to suggestions as to how best to integrate scattered items and common
experiences without, at the same time, negating the discontinuity of the
continent (as has been shown visually by the beautiful atlas of Central
and Eastern Europe by Michel Foucher).29
For many years forms of European identity were built up through contrasts, such as Orientalism versus Occidentalism.30 Europes Other
varied from an image of Asia, to an image of Africa, to an image of
Americaor of peoples of these continents. Europeans ambivalence
28
29
30
Nikolai Trubeckoj, LEuropa e lumanita` (Torino: Einaudi, 1982). In these essays both
egocentricism and eccentrism (the placing of the center beyond oneself, in this case into
Western Europe) were rejected. The essays formed the first part of a trilogy that remained
unfinished because of the authors premature death.
Michel Foucher, ed., Fragments dEurope: Atlas de leurope mediane et orientale (Paris:
Fayard, 1993).
Richard J. Mayne, The Europeans: Who Are We? (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson,
1972).
202
L UISA P ASSERINI
toward these others manifested itself in two different but indivisible relations. One is the area of concrete relations (political, military, socioeconomic, and missionary) with non-European peoples through colonial
expansion. The other is the area of the imagination, which created images deriving not from observation or experience but from psychological
drives.31 The Other was therefore both the primitive, considered as a
holder of positive values with which to rejuvenate a corrupt civilization
and a touchstone for the level of progress reached by Europe, and the
savage to be exploited, converted, and civilized. The very translation
of customs and attitudes of others into the languages of Europewith
their own metaphors, stylistic characteristics, and forms of inertiawas
a way of assimilation that took place through the accounts of travelers,
missionaries, and anthropologists.32
The figure of the Other was projected onto the country that overtook
Europe on the road to modernity and progressthe United States. This
projection was so strong that it created in Europe persistent trends of antiAmericanism.33 In reality, these trends are often ways to claim ex negativo
forms of European identity or to express the crisis in which the very idea
of Europe now found itself. It is for this reason that the concept of the
West, which includes Europe and North America and particularly the
United States, is ambiguous and conflictual. For this reason it deserves further investigation in order to clarify the aporiae and contradictions that
historically have been at the base of the European identity. One part of
the negative patrimony constituted by the European representations of
Others can be reversed and translated so as to endow with value the processes of cultural interaction and remind us that an implicit Europeanness
can frequently become consciousespecially for the strata of the population that are less or not at all intellectualonly through the experience
of migration or travel to other continents.
The contributions made by subaltern studies, in particular the
emphasis placed on the positionality of any scientific view, are essential to understand the relationship between Europe and its Others.34
It would also seem useful to make use of the discourse on critical
31
32
33
34
Ernest Henri Philippe Baudet, Paradise on Earth: Some Thoughts on European Images
of Non-European Man (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1965).
Talal Asad and J. Dixon, Translating Europes Others, in Europe and Its Others, vol. 1
(Colchester: University of Essex, 1984).
See Michela Nacci, Lantiamericanismo in Italia negli anni trenta (Torino: Bollati Boringhieri, 1986); and idem, La barbarie del comfort. Il modello di vista americano nella
cultura francese del 900 (Milano: Guerini, 1996).
Gavatri C. Spivak, Can the Subaltern Speak? in Nelson Cary and Larry Crossberg,
eds., Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (Urbana: University of Illinois Press,
1988), 271313.
203
ethnocentricism proposed by Ernesto De Martino in Italy. For De Martino, European centrisminasmuch as it has always made reference
to a privileged relation with the divinehas excluded confrontation between human beings and has compromised the fight against the dispersion of peoples. In contrast, the unification of peoples and cultures
presents itself as a concrete duty and a task that we must fulfill, not as a
plan pre-established by God or materialism, for any history is constantly
at risk of losing any kind of sense without the active intervention of human beings. The onset of this task is based on a twofold presupposition.
First, one cannot help being ethnocentric. Second, one can make critical
use of Western interpretative categories by going beyond the scandal
of reciprocal incomprehension, the extreme scarcity of common memories, and by accepting the sentiment of guilt and remorse towards the
separated brother. The objective is therefore neither a dogmatic Eurocentricism nor an unrelated cultural relativism but a critical European
centrism aimed at founding a new solidarity in human relations on our
planet.35
While I agree entirely with De Martinos idea that in this undertaking
it is not a question of eliminating the West but of questioning it deeply,
and of becoming aware of the limits of its humanism, which to date
has been corporative, I also believe that it is no longer possible (as it
probably was at the beginning of the sixties) to give back to the West
its compromised hegemonic power.36 De Martinos proposal, however,
must be corrected in the sense that the loss of the role that Europe held as
center must be fully admitted to the benefit of the search for its cultural
specificities and without any pretensions of superiority. What is left as
ethnocentric is the point of view of the individual and her story, connoted
by belonging to a certain gender, generation, and social and geographical
collocation.37
This approach stakes out a perspective for cultural identity that locates
the Other within the subject,38 and it links identity with alterity. The break
with the expectation of the superiority of ones own tradition is accompanied by the assertion of ones heritage and the possibility of correcting this assertion through the reciprocity of intercultural exchanges. For
example, the value of peacemediated by the consideration of other
35
36
37
38
Ernesto De Martino, La fine del mondo: contributo allanalisi delle apocalissi culturali
(Torino: Einaudi, 1977), 393.
Ibid., 352.
Luisa Passerini, Europe in Love, Love in Europe: Aspects of Cultural History in 1930s
Britain (London: Tauris, 1998).
`
Romano Madera,
LAlchimia ribelle (Bari: Palomar, 1997).
204
L UISA P ASSERINI
205
From the viewpoint of the history of mentalities and attitudes, few peoples
have held themselves to be at the center of a European specificity; most
peoples have experienced and continue to experience Europe as something
to which they belong, but where they also feel they represent something
separate. This was true for many years of Great Britain,41 but also of
Portugal and Spain, and certainly of Greece.42 European identity has long
included hierarchies and exclusionsa Europe-Europe and a lesser
Europe.43 Although in the last few decades the conviction that the center
and the periphery are now everywhere has become stronger, for many the
sense of not forming a full part of Europe is still marked. This sensation
can be linked to the difficulties of participating in the European Union,
a participation that is rendered problematic by, for example, monetary
unification. It is not, however, only a matter of a reaction to material
problems: there is also, and not only in Italy, the attribution of an ideal
and normative value to Europe, as though taking an active part in it meant
freeing oneself from weaknesses, public vices, and national ills.
In Italy great political and idealistic value has always been attributed
to the Europeanness of the country and its culture, although in a dreamlike way, as in the poem just cited.44 Today there is stillor perhaps it has
simply resurfaceda utopian coloring linked to the idea of entering Europe
or keeping pace with Europe or managing to catch the European
train, some of the many metaphors in the debate on the constitution
of forms of collaboration between the countries of the Union. Thus, a
hope has been expressed. It has spread throughout daily life and into the
opinions of the public at large. This hope may irritate the Eurosceptics,
but it stimulates cultural historians.
That Europe catalyzes strong hopes, including hopes for the introduction of the private into the political and the integration of a female politics with equal rights on the same footing as male politics,45
should not be seen as a political program capable of being acted upon
41
42
43
44
45
206
L UISA P ASSERINI
48
207
meaning. Firstly, in regard to European identity, belonging to the continent is not only not interpreted as being dominant, that is to say, it is
not the value that hierarchically organizes a whole set of other values (as
used to be the case, for instance, with the value of work in the phenomenology of oral and written autobiographies). Secondly, identity can
include within the category of European the fact of being born in Africa,
being male and of Jewish origin, as well as belonging to a certain generation and social class. This will hold, however, only if these definitions are
not thrown together higgledy-piggledy in an exaltation of undifferentiated multiplicitybeing European among other thingsbut instead lead
to being among the others and to taking on roles that have traditionally
been assigned to those who for many years represented the Other, such as
Jews, women, and immigrants, and therefore siding with those who are
today cast in the role of representing the Other.
Framing this perception in terms of the feminist tradition, Rosi Braidotti
has written that European identity has always been a notion fraught with
contradictions and has never been One. Indeed, its alleged unity was
at best a poor fiction.50 She believes that it has forged its position during
the course of history as the center, not only of the world economy but also
of thought, knowledge, and science. At the symbolic and discursive level,
this implies that others are peripheral and underrated. At the roots of
Braidottis feeling of Europeanness is not the triumphant assumption
of a sovereign identity but rather the disenchanting experience of disidentifying myself with sovereignty all together. The Europe to which she
feels she belongs is the place of possible forms of resistance to the systematic devaluation of the Other and to the destructive conflicts to which this
leads. To be European today is an expression typical of both Ursula
Hirschmann and Braidotti. For Braidotti it means positioning herself
within the historical contradictions of a European identity and experiencing the political need to turn them into spaces of critical resistance
to hegemonic identities of all kinds.51 Despite the fact that the subject
of feminist nomadism falls into the trap of triumphalism when she exalts the joyful nomadic force, the position that Braidotti proposesof
resistance to our pastis a primary stage in the criticism of the European
cultural heritage.
According to Agnes Heller, although it may be true that Europeans are
old, Europe is itself still young given that a European culture as such has
50
51
208
L UISA P ASSERINI
never existed but it could develop in the future.52 This projection toward
the future is a constant in the approach proposed in this chapter, and it is
from this point of view that I now draw a conclusion. Situated between positions that either completely negate the possibility of a European identity
and those that formalize it within a community already possessed of values and attitudes, and expressive of a single European spirit, this chapter
has attempted to describe forms of identity that are problematic, critical,
and linked to a nonsovereign subject.53 Such forms are not based on
exclusion or on a contrast with others, but recognize differences within
ourselves, our worlds, and the world. This presupposes maintaining the
tension between knowledge and practice, politics and culture, ideas and
emotions, as well as searching incessantly for their links. In addition, it
means being aware of the foundational character of intersubjectivity as a
horizon for new identities, and a readiness to welcome the new-born (in
the Arendtian sense) from future generations, as well as foreignersin
the many senses of the termwithout losing a sense of ones self and the
direction of ones own itinerary.
The title of this chapter refers to two kinds of detachment. The first
is necessary in order to recognize the aporiae, nemesis, and tricks that
the fate of Europe has played on the identities linked with it. The second
is indispensable to capture the tension between the self and the self, and
between the self and the otherboth inside and outside us. This last point
reminds us of the links between identities and masks (personae). To act
one or more parts on a stage composed of concentric circlesthe city, the
country, Europe, the worldcannot be separated from an attitude that
is ironic, at least in part, toward the performance and ones role within
it. To express the hope that these futures will be identities of irony means
hoping that they will be strong enough to oscillate, move, and change and
that they will be able to avoid the need to base themselves on rigidity and
exclusionas did those created in times of economic scarcity and cultural
contraposition. It also means hoping that they will always allow irony to
be shown both toward themselves and toward the illusions of grandeur
and the hegemonic expectations of the old subject.
52
53
Agnes Heller, Europe: An Epilogue, in Brian Nelson, David Roberts, and Walter Veit,
eds., The Idea of Europe (Oxford: Berg, 1992), 25.
Bhabha, The Third Space.
10
Muslims and European Identity: Can Europe
Represent Islam?
TALAL ASAD
Muslims are present in Europe and yet absent from it. The problem of
understanding Islam in Europe is primarily, so I claim, a matter of understanding how Europe is conceptualized by Europeans. Europe (and
the nation-states of which it is constituted) is ideologically constructed in
such a way that Muslim immigrants cannot be satisfactorily represented
in it. I argue that they are included within and excluded from Europe at
one and the same time in a special way.
I take it for granted that in Europe today Muslims are often misrepresented in the media and discriminated against by non-Muslims.1 More
interesting for my present argument is the anxiety expressed by the majority of West Europeans about the presence of Muslim communities and
Islamic traditions within the borders of Europe. (In France, for example,
a 1992 poll showed that two-thirds of the population feared the presence
of Islam in that country.2 ) It is not merely that the full incorporation of
Muslims into European society is thought to be especially hard for people
Michael Blim, William Connolly, Vincent Crapanzano, Heiko Henkel, Aseel Sawalha, David
Scott, and Gerry Sider commented on this essay at various points. I am grateful to them.
1 See J. Wrench and J. Solomos, eds., Racism and Migration in Western Europe (Oxford:
Berg, 1993), esp. the excellent contribution by S. Castles.
2 See A. Hargreaves, Immigration, Race and Ethnicity in Contemporary France (London:
Routledge, 1995), 119.
209
210
TALAL ASAD
Many of these voices are found in recent collections: B. Lewis and D. Schnapper, eds.,
Muslims in Europe (London: Pinter, 1994); S. Z. Abedin and Z. Sardar, eds., Muslim Minorities in the West (London: Grey Seal, 1995); G. Nonneman, T. Niblock, and
B. Szajkowski, eds., Muslim Communities in the New Europe (London: Ithaca Press,
1996).
211
the word, highlighting the individuals social locations and psychological crises in an increasingly uncertain world.4 This is my name, we
now declare. I need you to recognize me by that name. More than
ever before identity depends on the others recognition of the self. Previously, the more common meaning of identity was sameness, as in
the statement that all Muslims do not have identical interests, and
attributively, as in identity card. In Europe the newer twist on the
sense of the word is almost certainly more recent than in America. Perhaps in both places the discourse of identity indicates not the rediscovery of ethnic loyalties so much as the undermining of old certainties.
The site of that discourse is suppressed fear. The idea of European identity, I say, is not merely a matter of how legal rights and obligations
can be reformulated. Nor is it simply a matter of how a more inclusive name can be made to claim loyalties that are attached to national
or local ones. It concerns exclusions and the desire that those excluded
recognize what is included in the name one has chosen for onself. The
discourse of European identity is a symptom of anxieties about nonEuropeans.
MUSLIMS AND THE IDEA OF EUROPE
Philip Gleason points out that the first edition of the International Encyclopedia of the
Social Sciences, published in 19305, carried no entry under the term identity, and that
one appeared only in the 1968 edition. See Identifying Identity: A Semantic History,
The Journal of American History, vol. 69, no. 4 (1983): 91031.
Across the Great Divide, Time, October 19, 1992, 31.
212
T ALAL A SAD
Clearly, neither the genocide practiced by the Nazi state nor its attempt
to overwhelm Europe have led to feelings in Western Europe that would
cast doubt on where Germany belongs. I do not make this statement
in a polemical spirit. On the contrary, I affirm that given the idea of
Europe that exists, such violence cannot dilute Germanys Europeanness.
Violence isamong other thingsa complicated moral language. Far
from being threatened by internal violence, European solidarity is strengthened by it.
Let me explain: Tony Judt powerfully argues that the idea of Europe
stands as a convenient suppressor of collective memories of the widespread
collaboration with Nazi crimes in East and West alike, as well as of mass
brutalities and civil cruelties for which all states were directly or indirectly
responsible.6 His account has nothing to say, however, about violence perpetrated in this period by Europeans outside Europein colonial Africa,
say, or in the Middle East. No mention is made even of Algeria, which
was, after all, an internal Department of France. I stress that my comment here is not moralistic but descriptive. It has to do with how the
conceptual boundaries of moral and legal solidarity are actually traced.
I do not object to Judts leaving colonial violence out of his discussion.
I merely point to what he thinks is important. I indicate that his discussion
of collective culpability is limited in precisely the way that the myth of
Europe defines the extent of its own solidarity. The myth of Europe
does not simply suppress the collective memories of violence within
Europe; the resurrection of those memories strengthens that myth. Moral
failure is considered particularly shameful in this case because Europeans
try to cover up their past cruelties in Europe to other Europeans instead of
confronting that fact fully. The Turkish assault against Europe has quite
a different salience.
Historically, it was not Europe that the Turks threatened but Christendom. Europe was not then distinct from Christendom. For diplomats
and men of affairs, writes Denys Hay,
the intrusion of the Turk was a fact which could not be ignored and the practical
acceptance of a Moslem state into the field of diplomacy might well have produced
an early rejection of Christendom in the field of international relations. . . . The
language of diplomacy maintained the established terminology: the common
enemy, the Christian republic, the Christian world, the provinces of Christendom
are found in the phraseology of a large number of sixteenth- and early seventeenthcentury treaties. A similar attitude is to be found in the treatises of the international
6
Tony Judt, The Past is Another Country: Myth and Memory in Postwar Europe,
Daedalus, vol. 121, no. 4 (1992).
213
lawyers down to, and even beyond, Grotius. If the Turk was not different under
natural law, he was certainly different under divine law: the Turk was not far
short of a natural enemy of Christians.7
In the contemporary European suspicion of Turkey, Christian history, enshrined in the tradition of international law, is being reinvoked in secular
language as the foundation of an ancient identity.
Consider another example: the 1995 interview with Tadeusz
Mazowiecki on the subject of his principled resignation as the U.N. representative of human rights in the Balkans. At one point the interviewers,
Bernard Osser and Patrick Saint-Exupery, pose the following question:
You are Polish and Christian. Is it strange to hear yourself defending
Bosnians, many of whom are Muslims? Some readers might wonder
how it is that two French intellectuals, heirs to the secular Enlightenment, can formulate such a question in Europe today. But of course the
aim of this leading question is to elicit the plea for tolerance that the interviewers know will be forthcoming. So I find it more significant that
Mazowiecki expresses no surprise at the question itself. Instead, he responds as expected by urging tolerance. He assures his interviewers that
the war in Bosnia is not a religious one and that Bosnian Muslims are not
a danger to Europe. It bodes ill for us, he warns, if, at the end of the
twentieth century, Europe is still incapable of coexistence with a Muslim
community.8
Mazowieckis assumption (accepted without comment by his French
interlocutors) is that Bosnian Muslims may be in Europe but are not
of it. Even though they may not have migrated to Europe from Asia
(indeed, they are not racially distinguishable from other whites in Europe),
and even though they may have adjusted to secular political institutions
(insofar as this can be said of Balkan societies),9 they cannot claim a
Europeannessas the inhabitants of Christian Europe can. It is precisely
because Muslims are external to the essence of Europe that coexistence
can be envisaged between us and them.
7
8
9
Denys Hay, Europe: The Emergence of an Idea (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,
1957), 11314.
B. Osser and P. de Saint-Exupery, The U.N.s Failure: An Interview with Tadeusz
Mazowiecki, The New York Review of Books, vol. 42, no. 14, September 21, 1995.
In its historical practice, writes Francois Thual, Caucasian, Balkan, Greek, and Slav
Orthodox Christianity has never known secularism based on the separation of Church and
State. (Dans le monde orthodox, la religion sacralise la nation, et la nation prot`ege la
religion, Le Monde, January 20, 1998, 13.) It is a little known factand one very rarely
publicizedthat the Greek constitution is proclaimed in the name of the Holy Trinity,
and that it affirms that the dominant religion in Greece is that of the Eastern Orthodox
Church of Christ.
214
T ALAL A SAD
For both liberals and the extreme right the representation of Europe
takes the form of a narrative, one of whose effects is to exclude Islam.
I do not mean by this that both sides are equally hostile toward Muslims
living in Europe.10 Nor do I assume that Muslim immigrants are in no way
responsible for their practical predicament. I mean only that for liberals
no less than for the extreme right, the narrative of Europe points to the
idea of an unchangeable essence.
ISLAM AND THE NARRATIVE OF EUROPE
11
The hostility of secular liberals, however, is often difficult to distinguish from that of
the extreme right. In France, for example, a headmaster suspended three Muslim schoolgirls in September 1989 for wearing head scarves on the grounds that they were in
contravention of French laws of lacite. Later the headmasters suspension order was
overturned by Frances education minister. The response that followed was remarkable.
A group of leading intellectuals, including Regis Debray and Alain Finkelkraut, compared the ministers decision to the 1938 appeasement of Nazi Germany at Munich:
by implication, observes Hargreaves, the Islamic bridgehead established by the three
girls in Creil now represented a comparable threat to the future well-being of France.
The form in which the issue was publicly represented helped the extreme right-wing Front
National Party to win a sweeping by-election victory near Paris, an event that in turn
contributed to the adjustment of government policy on immigration. See Hargreaves,
Immigration, 1256.
Michael Wintle, Cultural Identity in Europe: Shared Experience, in M. Wintle, ed.,
Culture and Identity in Europe (Aldershot: Avebury, 1996), 13 (emphasis added).
215
immigrants experience that they are not those whose home is Europe.
These moments are precisely what others have designated European
civilization.
Raymond Williams notes that the word civilization is used today in
three senses: (1) a single universal development (as in human civilization); (2) the collective character of a people or a period that is different
from and incommensurable with others (as in the civilization of the renaissance in Italy); and (3) the culture of a particular population, which
is rankable as higher or lower than another, and perhaps also capable
of further development.12 Although Williams does not say so, the three
senses together articulate the essence of European civilization: it aspires to a universal (because human) status, it claims to be distinctive
(it defines modernity), and it is (at least in terms of quantifiable criteria)
undoubtedly the most advanced. Taken together these senses require a
narrative definition of Europe.
The two journalistic examples I cited earlier both assume a historical definition of Europe as a civilization. But they do so in ways that
are largely implicit. Hugh Trevor-Ropers The Rise of Christian Europe
is one of many academic texts that expresses the essence of European
identity explicitly by means of a historical narrative.13 Trevor-Ropers
book is interesting because it defines European civilizationand therefore
European identityas a narrative, or at least as the beginning of one
whose proper ending is already familiar. Like other texts with which it
may be compared, it presents a twofold notion of history: the history of
the idea of Europe and of European history.14 It also has an interesting historical location. It appeared in 1965, when British decolonization
was more or less complete and when the flood of non-European immigrants from the former colonies was stemmed by legislation passed
amidst charges of betrayal of its principlesby the Labour government.
At the time a new role for Britain in its postimperial phase was being
vigorously debated in all sections of the political spectrum. The option
of joining Europe politically was an important part of that debate.
12
13
14
216
T ALAL A SAD
John Locke, Two Treatises of Civil Government (London: J. M. Dent & Sons, 1924),
book II, chapter V, paragraph 34 (emphasis added).
217
It follows from this view of Europe that real Europeans acquire their
individual identities from the character of their civilization. Without that
civilizational essence, individuals living within Europe are unstable
and ambiguous. That is why not all inhabitants of the European continent are really or fully European. Russians are clearly marginal.
Until just after World War II, European Jews were marginal too, but
since that break the emerging discourse of a Judeo-Christian tradition
has signaled a new integration of their status into Europe.16 Completely
external to European history is medieval Spain. Although Spain is
now defined geographically as part of Europe, Arab Spain from the
seventh to the fourteenth centuries is seen as being outside Europe,
in spite of the numerous intimate connections and exchanges in the
Iberian Peninsula during that period between Muslims, Christians, and
Jews.
There is a problem for any historian constructing a categorical
boundary for European civilization because the populations designated
by the label Islam are, in great measure, the cultural heirs of the Hellenic
worldthe very world in which Europe claims to have its roots.
Islamic civilization must therefore be denied a vital link to the properties that define so much of what is essential to Europe if a civilizational difference is to be postulated between them. There appear to be
two moves by which this is done. First, by denying that it has an essence
of its own, Islam can be represented as a carrier civilization that helped
to bring important elements into Europe from outside, material and
intellectual elements that were only contingently connected to Islam.17
Then, paradoxically, this carrier civilization is attributed an essence: an
ingrained hostility to all non-Muslims. That attribution constitutes Islam
as Europes primary alter. This alleged antagonism to Christians then
becomes crucial to the formation of European identity. In this, as in
other historical narratives of Europe, this oppositional role gives Islam
a quasi-civilizational identity.18 One aspect of the identity of Islamic
civilization is that it represents an early attempt to destroy Europes
civilization from outside; another is that it signifies the corrupting moral
16
17
18
Of course, anti-Semitism has not disappeared in Europe. But no one who aspires to
respectability can now afford to be known publicly as an anti-Semite.
The Arabs themselves . . . had little of their own to offer. . . . But as carriers, their services
to Europe were enormous. Trevor-Roper, The Rise of Christian Europe, 141.
In Trevor-Ropers picturesque language: Out of this union [of ecclesiastical and feudal
power] would come, in due time, the combined spiritual and material counter-attack of
the enslaved West against its Moslem exploiters: the Crusades. Ibid., 100.
218
T ALAL A SAD
It is often conceded that several peoples and cultures inhabit the European
continent, but it is also believed that there is a single history that articulates European civilization and therefore European identity. The official
19
20
219
P. Anderson, The Europe to Come, London Review of Books, January 25, 1996.
J. G. A. Pocock, Deconstructing Europe, London Review of Books, December 19, 1991.
220
T ALAL A SAD
What this story misses is that Europe did not simply expand overseas;
it made itself through that expansion. This story also underestimates the
role that Europeansespecially those who inhabit the United States
still play in regulating world-wide society, a role that is by no means
modest. The borders of political Europe have varied not only over time,
but also according to the European model governing global relations.
Can Muslims be represented in Europe? As members of states that
form part of what Watson and others call European international society,
Muslims have, of course, long been represented (and regulated) in it.
But representing Muslims in European liberal democracies is a different
matter. It raises a question that does not apply to the international system:
how can a European state represent its minorities?
EUROPEAN LIBERAL DEMOCRACY AND
MINORITY REPRESENTATION
So far I have explored the idea that Islam is excluded from representations of Europe and the narratives through which the representations
23
Adam Watson, European International Society and its Expansion, in H. Bull and
A. Watson, eds., The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1985), 32.
221
are constituted. I now approach the question from another angle: are
there possibilities of representing Muslim minorities in modern European
states?
The ideology of political representation in liberal democracies makes it
difficult if not impossible to represent Muslims as Muslims. Why? Because
in theory the citizens who constitute a democratic state belong to a class
that is defined only by what is common to all its members and its members
only. What is common is the abstract equality of individual citizens to one
another. Marie Swabey has stated the issue succinctly:
The notion of equality central to democracy is clearly a logical and mathematical
conception. . . . [O]nce equality is admitted, the notions of number, per capita enumeration, and determination by the greater number are not far to seek. . . . Citizens
are to be taken as so many equivalent units and issues are to be decided by the
summation of them. . . . Once we conceive the whole (the state) as composed of
parts (the citizens) which are formally distinct but without relevant qualitative
differences, we are applying the notion in its essentials. Involved here is the assumption not only that the whole is authoritative over any of its parts, but that
what there is more of has ipso facto greater weight than that which differs from
it merely by being less. In the democratic state this idea is expressed as the postulate that the opinion of the people as a whole, or of the greater part of them, is
authoritative over that of any lesser group.24
Marie Collins Swabey, The Theory of the Democratic State (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1939), 1820 (emphasis in original).
222
T ALAL A SAD
Joseph Heim, The Demise of the Confessional State and the Rise of the Idea of a Legitimate Minority, in J. W. Chapman and A. Wertheimer, eds., Majorities and Minorities
(New York: New York University Press, 1990).
223
the body of equal citizens from whom they are excluded. In the British
empire vast numbers of colonial subjects were ruled by a democratic
state of citizens far smaller in number through a variety of constitutional
devices.26 Minorities are defined as minorities in structures of dominant
power.
Take the case of France. Religious Muslims who reside in France are
similar to the Christian (and post-Christian) inhabitants of that country
in this regard: each group has constituted itself as a group through its
own narratives. These narratives, and the practices they authorize, help to
define what is essential to each group. To insist in this context that Muslim
groups must not be defined in terms they regard as essential to themselves
is in effect to demand that they can and should shed the narratives and
practices they take to be necessary to their lives as Muslims. The crucial
difference between the majority and the minorities is, of course, that
the majority effectively claims the French state as its national state. In
other words, to the extent that France embodies the Jacobin narrative,
it essentially represents the Christian and post-Christian citizens who are
constituted by it.
Thus Jean-Marie Le Pens insistence in the early eighties on the right
of the majority (the French in France) to protect its distinctive character
against the influence of minority difference is not only an extension of the
left slogan the right to difference. It is a claim that the majoritys right
to be French in their own country precludes the right of minorities to
equal treatment in this regard. We not only have the right but the duty
to defend our national personality, Le Pen declares, and we too have
our right to be different.27 Given the existence of a French national personality of which the Jacobin republic is claimed to be the embodiment,
and given that the majority is its representative, Le Pen can argue that
only those immigrants able and willing to join them (thereby ceasing to
26
27
Colonies, protectorates, mandates, intervention treaties, and similar forms of dependence make it possible today for a democracy to govern a heterogeneous population
without making them citizens, making them dependent upon a democratic state, and at
the same time held apart from the state. This is the political and constitutional meaning
of the nice formula the colonies are foreign in public law, but domestic in international law. Carl Schmitt, The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy (1926; trans. ed.,
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1985), 10.
Nous croyons que la France est notre patrie, que les Francais y ont des devoirs mais
aussi des droits superieurs a` tous autres, et que nous avons non seulement le droit mais le
devoir de defendre notre personnalite nationale et nous aussi notre droit a` la difference.
Le Monde, 21 September 1982, cited in part, and in English translation, by Miriam
Feldblum, Re-Visions of Citizenship: The Politics of Nation and Immigration in France,
19811989, Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1991, 48. My translation of the original is
slightly different from Feldblums.
224
T ALAL A SAD
belong to a minority) have the right to remain in France as French citizens. It follows that the inassimilable ones (North African Muslims)
should be encouraged to leave when their labor is no longer required by
France. This may be an intolerant position but it is not illogical.28 To be
a French citizen is to reflect, as an individual, the collective personality
that was founded in the French Revolution and embodied in the laws
and conventional practices of the French Republic, and that is recounted
in its national story. Although that personality may not be regarded as
eternal and unchangeable, it represents a precondition of French citizenship. As even liberals concede, the individual citizen cannot make with
the state any contract he or she chooses independently of that personality.
In brief, the narratives that define being French and the practices they
authorize cannot be regarded as inessential. French citizens cannot be
de-essentialized. This view, shared by the Left, Center, and Right, rejects
the notion that the citizen is identical only with himself or herself, that
he or she therefore essentially represents an abstract quantity that can be
separated from his or her social identity, added up and then divided into
groups that have only numerical value. It should not be surprising that
Le Pen has been able to push the greater part of the majority toward endorsing reforms of the Nationality Code in the direction demanded by the
extreme right.29 The very existence of the French Jacobin narrative permits the extreme right to occupy the ideological center in contemporary
French immigration politics.
Liberals are generally dismayed at the resurgence of the Right, but the
notion of primordial intolerance will not explain it. Many critics have
observed that part of the problem resides in the identification of national
boundaries with those of the state. Some of them have sought a solution
in the radical claim that all boundaries are indeterminate and ambiguous.
William Connolly has recently theorized the matter more perceptively.
He asks, pointedly, whether it is possible to prize the indispensability of boundaries to social life while resisting overdetermined drives to
overcode a particular set. He goes on to question the assumption that
the boundaries of a state must correspond to those of a nation, both of
28
29
Feldblum, in Re-Visions, argues that the immigration politics of the extreme right are
better described as nativist than as racist, because the latter term does not explain
why many of the nonracist left also share certain crucial elements of the same position.
While Feldblums study as a whole is valuable for understanding developments in recent French ideas of national identity, she does not discuss the contradictions inherent
in liberal ideas of citizenship. Her use of the pejorative term nativism to denote populist denunciation of foreign influences deflects her from an adequate consideration of
liberal forms of exclusivism.
See Hargreaves, Immigration, 16976.
225
these to a final site of citizen political allegiance, and all three of those to
the parameters of a democratic ethos.30
The problem of representing Islam in European liberal democracies
cannot be addressed adequately unless such questioning is taken seriously.
With America especially in mind, Connolly urges a shift in the prevalent
idea of pluralism from a majority nation presiding over numerous minorities in a democratic state to a democratic state of multiple minorities
contending and collaborating with a general ethos of forbearance and critical responsiveness.31 The decentered pluralism he advocates in place of
liberal doctrines of multiculturalism requires a continuous readiness to deconstruct historical narratives constituting identities and their boundaries
(which, he argues, have a tendency to become sacralized and fundamentalized) in order to open up space through which care is cultivated for
the abundance of life.32
To what extent and how often historical narratives that constitute identities can be deconstructed remains a difficult question. Thus I have been
arguing, on the one hand, that Europes historical narrative of itself needs
to be questioned and, on the other, that the historical narratives produced
by so-called minorities need to be respected. This apparent inconsistency is dictated partly by my concern that time and place should be made
for weaker groups within spaces and times commanded by a dominant
one. Muslims in Europe, I have implied, should be able to find institutional
representation as a minority in a democratic state where there are only
minorities. For where there are only minorities the possibilities of forging
alliances between them will be greater than in a state with a majority
presiding over several competing minorities.
My comments also reflect an unresolved tension: how can respect for
individual identities be ensured and conditions be fostered that nurture
collective ways of life? The latter concern is not merely a matter of
recognitionof the demand that one should be able to name oneself
and be confirmed by others as the bearer of that name, and thereby have
ones anxieties allayed. It is also a matter of embodied memories and
practices that are articulated by traditions, and of political institutions
through which these traditions can be fully represented. (The constituency
represented does not have to be geographically continuous.) Our attention
needs to be directed not so much at how identities are negotiated and
recognized (for example, through exploratory and constructive dialogue,
30
31
W. E. Connolly, Pluralism, Multiculturalism and the Nation-State: Rethinking the Connections, Journal of Political Ideologies, vol. 1, no. 1 (1996), 58 (emphasis in original).
32 Ibid., 70 (emphasis in original).
Ibid., 61.
226
T ALAL A SAD
See Charles Taylor, Multiculturalism and The Politics of Recognition (Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press, 1992).
J. Milbank, Against the Resignations of the Age, in F. P. McHugh and S. M. Natale,
eds., Things Old and New: Catholic Social Teaching Revisited (New York: University
Press of America, 1993), 19.
227
But there is something else: because the temporalities of many traditionrooted practices (that is, the time each embodied practice requires to
complete and to perfect itself, the past into which it reaches and which
it reenacts and thereby extends) cannot be translated into the homogeneous time of national politics, scope for the latter is further reduced.
The bodys memories, feelings, and desires necessarily escape the rational/
instrumental ambitions of such politics. (This is not properly understood
by those well-wishing critics who urge Asian immigrants to abandon their
traditions, to regard some of their collective memories and desires as not
essentially their own, and to embrace instead the more modern conception of self-determination underlying the European nation-state in which
they now live.35 ) For many Muslim minorities (though by no means all),
being Muslim is more than simply belonging to an individual faith whose
private integrity needs to be publicly respected by the force of lawand
more, certainly, than a social identity to be guaranteed by the nation-state.
It is being able to live as part of a collective way of life that exists beside
others in mutual tolerance. The question for them is: what kind of political conditions can be developed in Europe in which everyone lives as a
minority among minorities?
I conclude with another question because decisive answers on this matter
are difficult to secure. If Europe cannot be articulated in terms of complex space and time, which allow for multiple ways of life and not merely
multiple identities to flourish, it may be fated to be no more than the common market of an imperial civilization,36 always anxious about (Muslim)
exiles within its gates and (Muslim) barbarians beyond. In such an embattled modern spacea space of abundant consumer choice and optional
life-stylesis it possible for Muslims to be represented as Muslims?
35
36
See Homi Bhabha, New Statesman and Society, March 3, 1989: where once we could
believe in the comforts and continuities of Tradition, today we must face the responsibilities of cultural Translation. This was written in a spirit of friendly advice to Muslim
immigrants in Britain during the Rushdie affair. Yet how innocent is the assumption
that Muslim Tradition carries no responsibilities, and that cultural Translation to a
British lifestyle in Britain is without any comforts?
Europe is again an empire concerned for the security of its limitesthe new barbarians
being those populations who do not achieve the sophistication without which the global
market has little for them and less need of them. Pocock, Deconstructing Europe.
There is, of course, a periodic need for barbarian labor.
11
The Long Road to Unity: The Contribution
of Law to the Process of European
Integration since 1945
PHILIP RUTTLEY
228
229
together has been the institutionalization of these divisions into the very
architecture of the two Treaties on European Union of Maastricht (1992)
and Amsterdam (1997).
FROM THE TREATY OF PARIS TO THE TREATY
OF AMSTERDAM: THE UNIFICATION OF EUROPE
THROUGH THE EC TREATIES
230
P HILIP R UTTLEY
the old continent apart. Before the Stalinist takeover of much of Eastern
Europe in 1948, many advocated a grand vision of a United States of
Europe. Most vocal among them was Winston Churchill, who used his
231
operandi of the Commission, and the types of legislative acts that the
Community Institutions can adopt, are again strongly French in character. The Commission is divided in Directorates-General with their
officials organized in divisions along the model of the French civil service. The motor language of the Community was and remains French,
with official documents first drafted in that language and then translated
in the other official languages. The European Court of Justice is essentially French in its character and procedure. An impersonal court, it produces anonymous judgments with no dissenting minority opinion being
recorded. The Court is even assisted in its deliberation by a legal expert,
the Advocate General, whose nearest equivalent is the Commissaire au
Gouvernment of the French administrative law system.
As noted earlier, the fundamental political and legal structure of the
European Communities is French in character, with subtle and far-reaching
consequences for the vision of Europe that has conditioned the imagination of political leaders. This character has led to tension when the
European Communities have expanded to include new Member States of
different legal and administrative traditions. Such tension was particularly acute in the United Kingdom and in Denmark. Their adoption of
communautaire ways has been particularly troubled, but a RomanoGallic, as opposed to Anglo-Saxon, legal tradition has largely prevailed,
giving the European Union a subtly different character than it would have
had if the United Kingdom had participated in the initial formative stages
of the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty or the Messina Conference of 1995 (which led to the creation of the EEC and EURATOM).
The centripetal forces of ever-increasing cooperation led to the desire
for more centralization and more fusion of the powers of the EC states.
The Single European Act of 1987 strengthened integration in certain areas to create an Internal Market (as opposed to the looser Common
Market). Federalist sentiments then resurfaced quickly. These unifying
ambitions led to the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, vigorously opposed by
the United Kingdom and Denmark. Their governments were adamantly
against the idea of a federal union.
The collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s has led to a wholly
novel geopolitical situation. The competing ideological blocks of capitalism and communism have now been replaced by a world where the
United States is the unrivaled single superpower with three strong regional
rivalsthe European Union, China, and Russia. The discredited Marxist
ideology has been replaced, virtually worldwide, by an acceptance of liberal capitalism. This has led to two far-reaching consequences, both of
which profoundly affected the future shape of the European Union: the
232
P HILIP R UTTLEY
creation in 1994 of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the collapse
of Soviet rule in Eastern Europe and the former Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics (USSR). Faced with these two developments the European Community felt increased pressures toward some form of federal or even confederal union. This was most clearly manifested during the intergovernmental conference that led to the Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997 with its
thinly disguised federalist ideology. As has been acutely observed, the
European Community signifies very different things to different people
and constitutes a political forum in which competing and even conflicting
aims and goals are mediated and negotiated.6
The historical process of European integration through the successive
EC Treaties conveniently divides into five distinct phases. The first phase,
from 1945 to 1955, saw the creation of the prototype for all the later
European Communitiesthe European Coal and Steel Community established by the Treaty of Paris of 1951 for a period of 50 years. The
first phase also saw the abortive negotiations concerning the European
Defense Community and the European Political Community. The second
phase, from 1955 to 1968, saw the creation of the EURATOM and the
EEC, both by the Treaties of Rome in 1957. The third phase, from 1965
to 1987, was a period of dynamic integration and severe institutional
and political clashes between the Member States and the supranational
centralized Community Institutions, which began to flex their political
and legislative muscles. The European Communities expanded from six
Member States to twelve. The fourth phase, from 1987 to 1992, saw
the next leap forward toward greater economic and political integration,
through the vast legislative program of harmonizing legislation of the
1987 Single European Act. The fifth phase, from 1992 to the present day,
saw Europe at the crossroads. After the Treaties of Maastricht (1992) and
Amsterdam (1997), the 15 European states now stand on the threshold
of federal union. This is creating the strains and tensions that currently
bedevil European politics. Each of these five phases will be discussed in
detail.
The First Phase, 19451955
To a significant measure, the success of European unificationa far
more accurate term than the word integrationis the work of the
European Court of Justice and the far-sighted federalist politicians
6
233
The OEEC developed into the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), whose membership expanded to include the United States, Canada, and Japan.
Britain was not alone in holding such sentiments. At the Havana conference in 1948,
the United States effectively vetoed the creation of the proposed International Trade
Organization on the grounds that its powers would undermine the national sovereignty
of the United States; it would take until 1994 for a similar institution, the World Trade
Organization, to be created. (Nationalistic sentiments are still being expressed about the
WTO on Capitol Hill.)
234
P HILIP R UTTLEY
10
11
For surveys see P. Van Dijk and G. J. H. Van Hoof, Theory and Practice of the European
Convention on Human Rights, 2d ed. (Deventer: Kluwer, 1990) and Louis-Edmond
Pettiti, Emmanuel Decaux, and Pierre-Henri Imbert, La Convention Europeenne des
Droits de lHomme (Paris: Economica, 1995).
It is an interesting anecdotal fact that the foreign ministers of France, Italy, and Germany
at the time of the ECSC negotiations all spoke German as their first language. (The
French foreign affairs minister was originally from Alsace-Lorraine and the Italian from
the Alto-Adige.) This factor apparently greatly assisted them in building mutual trust and
understanding.
See F. Duchene, Jean Monnet: The First Statesman of Europe (New York: Norton, 1994),
239 (with quotes from Monnets comments from 1952).
235
Community (EDC) with a European army, joint institutions, and a common budget. This proposal in 1950 led to the signing of the EDC Treaty
by the six ECSC states in 1952.
The following year a draft statute for a European Political Community
was proposed as a complement to the EDC. It set out a detailed federal
program, including joint institutions and a coordinated foreign policy.
However, a combination of nationalist and Communist deputies in the
French National Assembly defeated the proposals in 1954, and both the
EDC and EPC were abandoned.
The Second Phase, 19551968
Although the process of European unification had suffered significant setbacks through the opposition of Britain and France at various moments,
the idea of a European union strengthened markedly in the second phase.
A conference of the six ECSC foreign ministers was held in Messina,
Italy, in 1955; Britain declined to take part. Under the chairmanship of
the Belgian prime minister, Paul-Henri Spaak, a wide-ranging proposal for
a European Economic Community and a European Atomic Energy Community was produced. The rationale of the EEC was to create a trading
bloc, with a customs union and the removal of barriers to internal trade
(such as the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital). This
Common Market would harmonize the national economic, fiscal, and
social policies of the six participating states.
Accordingly, the six ECSC states, under the Treaty of Rome of 1957,
established a far-reaching and radical European Economic Community.
The EEC Treaty covered most forms of economic activity (except the
defense industry), harmonized taxation, removed internal customs barriers, and established common rules for economic activity (for example,
competition, free movement, and rights of establishment).
To implement common policies designated to create this Common
Market, the EEC established an institutional structure based on the ECSC
model. Thus, legislative authority was vested in a Council (where Member
States are represented); executive power was conferred on a Commission;
a political representative assembly was established (the European
Parliament); and constitutional control over the legality of the acts of
EEC institutions was given to the European Court of Justice.
These four institutions are supranational institutions with powers derived from the constitutive Treaty of Rome of 1957. A long line of cases
236
P HILIP R UTTLEY
from the European Court of Justice has established the doctrine of the
supremacy of community law over conflicting national law.12 To the extent that legal competence to act in a particular way has been transferred
to the Community by the Member States, the EEC states no longer have
the right to act unilaterally or independently.13
The EEC, like its precursor, the ECSC, has international legal
personality.14 Therefore, the EEC can enter into diplomatic and treaty
relations in much the same manner as a conventional sovereign state.15
The rationale for the EURATOM was, of course, different from that for
the ECSC and the EEC. In essence, the six states recognized their inability
(individually) to match the investment and technological strength of the
United States or of the USSR in the field of nuclear energy. Consequently,
their best option was to fuse their individual strengths in a common enterprise, the EURATOM. The EURATOM Treaty reproduced the same
institutional pattern as its sister Communities: a Council, Commission,
Assembly, and Court of Justice.
In 1965 a Merger Treaty was concluded between the six states in order to merge the institutions created by the ECSC, the EEC, and the
EURATOM into a common Council Commission, Parliament, and
Court.16 Henceforth, therefore, the Commission became a single Commission with powers under all three constitutive EC Treaties in the spheres
covered by their provisions.
The European Economic Community Treaty, in its original form, was
a wide-ranging economic and political cooperation treaty. Its aim was to
increase the prosperity of the citizens of the EEC states:
The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and
an economic and monetary union and by implementing the common policies or
activities referred to in Articles 3 and 3a, to promote throughout the Community
a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and
non-inflationary growth respecting the environment, a high degree of convergence
12
13
14
15
16
See Case 26/62, Van Gend en Loos v. Netherlands Tax Administration (1963), European
Court Reports; Case 6/64, Costa v. Enel (1964), ECR 585; Case 106/77, National Finance
Administration v. Simmenthal (1978), ECR 629; and Case C-213/89 R v. Secretary of
State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and Others (1990), ECR I-2433. For a
general survey, see T. C. Hartley, The Foundations of European Community Law, 4th ed.
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), chap. 7.
Case 22/70, Commission v. Council (1971) ECR.
Article 210, EC Treaty; Article 6, ECSC Treaty; and Article 184, EURATOM Treaty.
See Ian Brownlee, Principles of Public International Law, 4th ed. (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1994), chap. 30; and I. Macleod, I. D. Hendry, and Stephen Hyett, The External
Relations of the European Communities (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), chap. 2.
The Merger Treaty of 1965 was repealed and then repeated without any substantive
changes by Article 9 of the 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam.
237
To achieve this, the EEC Treaty authorizes the pursuit of several common policies, such as the Common Agricultural Policy, the Common
Transport Policy, the Common Customs Union, and the Common Commercial Policy (for external trade). To achieve these objectives, the Community Institutions, such as the Commission, are conferred legislative
powers and executive authority in the form of Regulations, Directives,
and Decisions. Regulations are directly applicable laws that automatically
become part of the national domestic laws of the Member States and operate in much the same way as an act of Parliament in the United Kingdom
or an act of Congress. Directives define objectives for the Member States.
They must be achieved by a certain date. Each Member State can use
its discretion concerning the legislative means to achieve the objective.
Finally, Decisions are addressed to individual Member States.18
To facilitate the achievement of the Common Market, the fathers of
the EEC Treaty were conscious of the need to break down the many
overt and hidden barriers to unity such as customs duties, differing professional or technical standards, residence permits, and administrative
registration requirements. The EEC Treaty therefore created four fundamental freedoms: the freedom for citizens to move between states (Articles
4851); the freedom to establish oneself in another state (Articles 5258);
the freedom to provide services in another state but ones own (Articles
5966); and the free movement of capital (Articles 6273). Later treaties,
described in subsequent parts of this chapter, considerably expanded the
scope of the Treaty of Rome.19
The Third Phase, 19651987
Dynamic growth and dramatic internal clashes characterized the third
decade of European Unification. These difficulties came out of Frances
nationalist ambitions under General Charles de Gaulle; the enlargement
of the Community in 1973 and 1980 to absorb the United Kingdom,
Denmark, Ireland, Greece, Spain, and Portugal, thus fundamentally
17
18
19
Article 2, EC Treaty.
See Article 249 (formerly Article 189), EC Treaty; and Article 161, EURATOM Treaty.
The ECSC Treaty enumerates two types of binding acts: binding decisions and
recommendations, which operate like EEC directives (see Article 14, ECSC Treaty).
Examples include the Single European Act 1987, the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, and the
Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997.
238
P HILIP R UTTLEY
altering the political and social composition of the Union; and the political
and institutional lethargy of the 1980s, when the European Communities
seemed to have run out of steam.
The conflicts between Gaullist France and its five EEC partners erupted
in a full-scale crisis in 1965 when the transitional provisions of the original
EEC Treaty expired. This led to the move from unanimous voting in the
Council to qualified majority voting. The Commission at that moment
made a fiscal proposal to the Council of Ministers that the Community
should raise its own funds from direct taxation on agriculture and external
trade tariffs, rather than relying on funds contributed by Member States.
Attacking the federalist logic of the Commissions proposals, de
Gaulle attempted to persuade his partners in the Council of Members
but without success. As a result, France boycotted Council meetings by
means of an empty-chair policy for a full seven months from June 1965
to January 1966, until a compromise was eventually reached. This compromise, known as the Luxembourg Accords, effectively gave France
the victory it was seeking. Where the vital interest of a Member State
(or those interests it considered to be vital) were at stake, voting in
the Council would be by unanimity (thus giving individual states a veto
power). Ordinary matters were to be decided on the basis of qualified majority voting. The Luxembourg Accords significantly shifted power back
to the Member States and away from the centralized institutions of the
Community, particularly the Commission.
While the Community was facing difficulties internally, it began to acquire an increasingly strong personality externally, and gradually began
to express itself with a single voice. Thus, it negotiated as a block of contracting nations during the 1967 Round of GATT (General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade) negotiations and, in 1963, successfully concluded a farreaching trade and development aid agreement with 18 African states at
Yaounde. This agreement would subsequently become the prototype of a
whole service of aid and trade agreements between the European Community and its former colonies in Africa, Asia, and the Pacific, known as the
Lome Conventions (after the capital of Togo where they were signed).20
However, not all Western European states agreed with the EC six
that an integrationist model was appropriate. Seven statesthe United
Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, Norway, and
Portugalcreated the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), which
20
The Lome I, II, III, and IV agreements are examples. See Macleod, Hendry, and Hyett,
External Relations, 380ff.
239
240
P HILIP R UTTLEY
and Spain followed in 1986 once they, too, had become parliamentary
democracies.
Intergovernmental cooperation deepened during the 1970s. The 1970
Davignon Report (commissioned after the 1969 Hague Summit) proposed quarterly meetings of the foreign affairs ministers of the six Member
States; this was later institutionalized in the European Political Cooperation scheme of 1973, giving the EEC states a mechanism for achieving
a common voice in those international organizations where all Member States were members (for example, the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development). Then in 1974 the European Council
was established to give a regular forum for holding summits. The drawback to this form of summitry was, of course, that it weakened the
unification process in favor of continued individual comportment by
Member States. Parliamentary supervision was also weakened. Intergovernmentalism now dominated at the expense of more integrative
forces.
This negative trend was largely the result of the Luxembourg Accords,
by which the French won the right from Member States to block or retard
new policies. Under the original EEC Treaty scheme, the Commission
was to have the role of formulating policy and of proposing new laws to
the Council. As Piet Dankert, a leading Commissioner of the time, has
observed:
The Council of Ministers, which was originally intended to be a community body,
has now become largely an intergovernmental institution thanks to the famous
Luxembourg Agreement, which under French pressure, put an end to the majority
decisions which the Council was supposed to take according to the [EEC] Treaty
on proposals submitted by the European Commission. This [new voting rule as a
result of the Luxembourg Accord] that decisions could only be taken unanimously
had the effect of gradually transforming the Commission into a kind of secretariat
for the Council which carefully checked its proposals with national officials before
deciding whether or not to submit them. This in turn has a negative effect on the
European Parliament which can only reach for power, under the Treaty, via the
Commission.21
There were, however, forces working in the other directions; the system of the
Communitys own resources (a strong federalist element) and the related extension
of the European Parliaments budgetary powers and in 1979, the direct election
of that Parliament.22
21
22
This was written before the co-decision procedure between the Council and the Parliament and the Parliamentary consultation procedures introduced in the legislative architecture of the European Community by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992.
Piet Dankert, The ECPast, Present and Future, in The ECPast, Present and Future,
ed. L. Tsoukalis (Oxford: Blackwell, 1983), 7.
241
24
242
P HILIP R UTTLEY
The objections of Greece, Denmark, and the United Kingdom were overridden by their
fellow members of the European Community.
COM (85) 310. (COM is the standard way of referring to EC Commission documents.)
Article 18, EC Treaty (formerly Article 8A).
243
Title III of the SEA, which does not form part of the EC Treaty.
244
P HILIP R UTTLEY
A fundamental area of European unification is financial, fiscal, and monetary policy. It lies at the very heart of functional national sovereignty.
Therefore, the proposals for greater Community centralization in these
areas predictably generated the loudest debate.
With relative ease the original six Member States agreed on the principle of eventual monetary union.30 This was achieved as far back as
1969. They also agreed that the Community should be funded from its
own sources of tax revenue rather than from financial contributions by the
Member States.31 The Budgetary Treaty and the Own-Resources Decision
of 1970 had an important federalist element: they made the Community
financially independent from its parent Member States. Contributing
to the federalist current was the new role given to the Parliament: to
it was transferred the Councils powers of adopting the Community budget. The Parliament lost little time in flexing its political muscles by using this effective right of veto over the Community budget.32 To oversee
29
30
31
32
J. Weiler, The Transformation of Europe, Yale Law Journal 100 (1991): 24578.
See the report of the committee headed by Werner (Luxembourgs prime minister) in
Bulletin EC-11-1979. See also the Council Resolution of 1971 on the achievement of
monetary union in successive stages (EC Official Journal 1971, C28/1).
Its own sources were agricultural levies, customs duties levied at the Communitys external borders on products of non-EC origin, and 1 percent of the Value Added Tax (VAT)
levied by the EC Member States.
See Hartley, The Foundations of European Community Law, chap. 1.
245
34
246
P HILIP R UTTLEY
247
The Treaty of Amsterdam is remarkable for self-consciously emphasizing the civil rights foundations of the Union.44 This is partly in response
to persistent (and in the main justified) criticism of the secrecy and bureaucratic style of government practiced by EC institutions. However, it is
also significant at the deeper and more complex level of self-identity. The
Treaty of Amsterdam makes it unambiguously clear that the European
Union is to be based on a political structure that is democratic and participatory.
The history of European integration since 1945 has been dominated,
as we have seen, by two currents: a strong vision of European federalism relying on supranational institutions, and a determination to preserve national identity and sovereignty expressing itself in a preference
for intergovernmentalism. These conflicting tensions were not buried at
Maastricht. Instead, they were enshrined and institutionalized, creating a
rather confusing mixture of supranationalism and intergovernmentalism.
To help create the European Union, the Maastricht Treaty envisaged
three pillars. The first was the European Community itselfthat is to
say, the obligations, rights, and common activities contained in the EC
Treaties. The second and third Pillars fell outside the scope of the EC
Treaties altogether: interstate cooperation on a common foreign and
security policy (CFSP); and justice and home affairs (JHA).45
Through the implementation of a common foreign and security policy including the eventual forming of a common defence policy, the
European Union hoped to achieve an international identity. The European
Council was to define common positions and the Member States were
to ensure that their individual foreign policies conformed to them. The
42
43
44
45
Article 2, EC Treaty.
Dierdre Curtin, The Constitutional Structure of the Union: A Europe of Bits and Pieces,
Common Market Law Review 17 (1993): 67.
Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty of European Union, the treaties establishing
the European Communities and certain related acts (1997).
Article J.1 and J.11; Article K.1 to K.9
248
P HILIP R UTTLEY
249
by EUROPOL). There is to be closer cooperation between judicial authorities and other relevant authorities of the Member States, and certain
criminal laws in Member States are to be approximated. Practically, such
cooperative action is to take the form of detection, information sharing,
and training, as promoted by the Council through EUROPOL. Judicial
cooperation will make its contribution by facilitating proceedings and
the enforcement of decisions, by assisting extradition and addressing the
issues of compatibility of rules and conflicts of jurisdiction, and by establishing minimum rules on substantive criminal laws and penalties in
selected fields.
On the initiative either of the Commission or of the Member States,
the Council can adopt common positions (defining community policy) or framework decisions on harmonization (although these have
no direct effect), decisions on matters other than harmonization, and
conventions (to be adopted by Member States under their domestic constitutional provisions).49 A limited amount of judicial review is envisaged.50
The European Court of Justice, however, cannot review the legality or
proportionality of operations carried out by the police or other law enforcement services of a Member State or the exercise of the responsibilities
incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law
and order and the safeguarding of internal security.
The changes brought about by the Treaty of Amsterdam are, therefore,
limited when compared to Maastricht. However, new common policies
have been added that will eventually have an impact on the citizens of
Europe.
The Community now has express legislative powers to act against
discrimination on grounds of sex, race, ethnic origin, religion, belief, disability, age, or sexual orientation.51 New legislative powers address employment crises.52 These are not primary legal instruments but rather
common measures and initiatives designed to support or complement
national employment policies. (Article 127 of the Treaty of Amsterdam
expressly records the importance of respecting the material competence of
Member States in this sphere.) The Treaty of Amsterdam does, however,
provide for a new Employment Committee, and the Council now has the
power (drawn from conclusions of the European Council) to make Recommendations to Member States after it has examined their policies in the
49
50
51
250
P HILIP R UTTLEY
The European Communitys legal system has produced one of the most
adventuroussome would say interventionistcourts of any regional
53
Under Article 249, EC Treaty (formerly Article 189 EC), the Council can adopt
mandatory Regulations, Directives, and Decisions as well as persuasive but not
binding Recommendations and Opinions.
251
system. Indeed, the European Court of Justice has behaved very much
like the U.S. Supreme Court; it has set its individual stamp on the shape
of the emerging European Union. Repeatedly, it has nudged forward the
process of European unification by landmark judgments. In doing so, the
ECJ has been guided by a certain vision of European unification and,
to the extent that ECJ judges have expressed themselves publicly, with a
strong federalist flavor.
As a constitutional court, the European Court of Justice has a wide
and varied jurisdiction.54 It adjudicates on disputes between Community
Institutions (for example, when the Parliament complains that the Council
has not consulted it properly or under the codecision procedure); between
the citizens of the Union and the Community Institutions and Member
States over their implementation of EC law; and between Member States
and Community Institutions (for example, when Member States challenge
the vires of a provision of Community legislation).
Three examples will suffice to describe the ECJs role in nudging forward Community integration with its own collegiate vision of Europe.
The first example will be an analysis of how the Court has enhanced the
Parliaments role in the legislative process. The second example will be
taken from the ECJs role in the development of the doctrine of exclusive Community competence by which sovereignty is transferred from
the Member States to the centralized Community Institutions. The third
and final example will be the ECJs development of the doctrine of direct effect, whereby citizens have a right to enforce Treaty articles and
other forms of Community law against defaulting or recalcitrant Member
States to force them to give their citizens the individual rights intended to
be conferred by the provision of EC law in question.
Before the Treaties of Maastricht (1992) and Amsterdam (1997), the
Parliament was an unhappy hybrid of representative assembly and consultative body. It had little active involvement in EC lawmaking, and this
was thought to be a crucial gap in its nature. However, the Parliament
astutely made use of certain ambiguities in the text of the EC Treaty to
enlarge its role. Accordingly, the Parliament, as a distinct Community Institution, began to use its legal powers to challenge the legal validity of
the acts of other Community Institutions, such as the Council. In doing
so, it forced the ECJ to intervene in the constitutional architecture of the
European Communities.
54
The discussion here will be limited to the European Court of Justice sensu stricto. No
substantive analysis will be made of the EC Court of First Instance, created in 1989,
with jurisdiction largely limited to review European Community acts in the spheres of
competition, external trade, and staff disputes.
252
P HILIP R UTTLEY
56
58
In the dispute over Parliamentary consultation in isoglucose legislation, the Council went
ahead and legislated without waiting for the Parliament to deliver its opinion: see Case
138/79, Roquette Fr`eres v. Council (1980), ECR 3333; and Case 139/79, Maizena v.
Council (1980), ECR 3393.
57 Now Article 230, EC Treaty.
Now Article 230, EC Treaty.
59 Now Article 230, EC Treaty.
Formerly Article 7, EC Treaty.
253
Since this landmark case in 1980, the Court has developed the Parliaments institutional standing by allowing it to join the category of Community Institutions expressly cited in the Treaty as institutions whose
actions can be annulled by legal challenge.61 Thus, Green Party activists
could challenge the Parliaments acts that have a bearing on EC environmental policy.62 More recently, the ECJ appears to have fought shy of
further expansion of the Parliaments legislative role, perhaps in the belief
that the Parliaments powers had increased enough and that expansion of
the Parliaments functions should be left to those who would draft future
EC treaties. In 1990 the ECJ ruled that the Parliaments right to bring an
action to annul a Community measure operates only when its prerogatives (that is, its right to be consulted) have been infringed in the adoption
of the contested measures.63 The ECJ expressly recognized the existence
of a gap in the Treaties but would not arrogate to itself the right to amend
the Treaties by judicial activism:
The absence in the Treaties of any provisions giving the Parliament the right to
bring an action for annulment may institute a procedural gap, but it cannot prevail
over the fundamental interest in the maintenance of and observance of the institutional balance laid down in the Treaties establishing the European Communities.64
61
62
63
64
Case 138/79, Roquette Fr`eres v. Council (1980), ECR 3333 at paragraphs 19 and 37;
Case 139/79, Maizena v. Council (1980), ECR 3393. The ECJ has since ruled that, in
certain circumstances, a failure by the Parliament to produce an opinion does not block
the Councils right to legislate. See Case C-65/93, European Parliament v. Council (1995),
ECR I-643.
Under Article 230 of the EC Treaty (formerly Article 173 EC), the acts of the Council
and the Commission are expressly subject to annulment.
Case 294/83, Parti Ecologiste Les Verts v. European Parliament (1986), ECR 1339.
Case 302/87, European Parliament v. Council (1988), ECR 5616 (the so-called comitology case). See also Case C-70/88, European Parliament v. Council (1990), ECR I-2041.
Ibid., paragraph 26.
254
P HILIP R UTTLEY
67
255
68
69
70
71
72
73
The European Community would enjoy internal competence if the Treaty created a common policy in, say, the field of environmental safeguards.
Opinion 1/76, regarding the Draft Agreement for a Laying Up Fund for Inland Waterway
Vessels (1977), ECR 741.
Cases 3,4 and 6/76, Cornelius Kramer and others (1976), ECR 1279.
See David OKeefe and Henry G. Schermers, Mixed Agreements (Deventer: Kluwer,
1983).
See Opinion 1/94 regarding the WTO agreement (1994), ECR I-5267. For the effect of
the WTO within the domestic legal system of the EC, see Philip Ruttley The Direct
Effect of the WTO Agreements in EC Law, in Philip Ruttley, Iain Mac Vay, and Carol
George, eds., The WTO and International Trade Regulation (London: Cameron, May
1998), 130.
Article 300(1), EC Treaty.
256
P HILIP R UTTLEY
Private Enforcement of the Treaties against Member States
The European Communities Act of 1972, as amended. See Lawrence Collins, European
Community Law in the United Kingdom, 4th ed. (London: Butterworths, 1990).
257
A leading ECJ judge was quite candid later about the activism of the
Court:
It appears from these considerations that in the opinion of the Court, the Treaty
has created a Community not only of States but also of peoples and persons and
that therefore not only Member States but also individuals must be visualised
as being subjects of Community law. This is the consequence of a democratic
ideal, meaning that in the Community, as well as in a modern constitutional
75
76
Case 26/92, Van Gend en Loos v. Netherlands Tax Administration (1963), ECR 1.
Ibid.
258
P HILIP R UTTLEY
State, Governments may not say any more what they are used to doing in international law: LEtat, cest moi. Far from it; the Community calls for participation of everybody, with the result that private individuals are not only liable to
burdens and obligations, but that they have also prerogatives and rights which
must be legally protected. It was thus a highly political idea, drawn from a perception of the constitutional system of the Community, which is at the basis of
Van Gend en Loos and which continues to inspire the whole doctrine flowing
from it.77
In many ways the doctrine of direct effect is an application of the principle of the supremacy of Community law over conflicting national law.
Since Van Gend en Loos, the doctrine of direct effect has been progressively extended to allow citizens to force states to honor their EC Treaty
obligations in many areas and to deny states the possibility of frustrating
the operation of EC law by their inaction or failure to fully implement
their Community obligations. The doctrine of direct effect now applies
to EC Treaty Articles and to secondary laws, such as Regulations and
Directives, with various conditions that need not concern us here. Since
Van Gend en Loos, the ECJ has expanded the boundaries of direct effect as well as the doctrine of state financial liability. EC states are now
liable to pay compensation to individuals within their jurisdiction who
have suffered economic damage as a result of their manifest and serious
failure to implement their Treaty obligations.78
Not every Treaty provision or legal measure taken by the EC, however,
can have such direct effect. The provision or measure in question must be
legally perfect: that is to say, it must be unambiguous and clearly intended to benefit a definable class of individuals, it must not require any
further implementation by the Member State, and it must be unconditional. The relevant EEC Treaty provision in the Van Gend en Loos case,
Article 12, of the EC Treaty, states that Member States of the European
Community cannot introduce new tariff barriers between each other. This
is a clear and unambiguous EC Treaty provision, which is unconditional,
77
78
Pierre Pescatore, The Doctrine of Direct Effect: An Infant Disease of Community Law,
in 8 European Community Law Review 155 (1983): 158.
See Cases C-46 and 48/93, Brasserie du Pecheur SA v. Germany and R v. Secretary of State
for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and others (1996), ECR I-1029; Case C-392/93,
R v. HM Treasury ex parte British Telecommunications plc (1996), ECR I-1631; and Case
C-5/94, R v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Ford, ex parte Headley Lomas (1996),
ECR I-2553. Case C-48/93 R v. Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame Ltd
and others (III) (1996) ECR I-1029. Proceedings to recover damages from the United
Kingdom by Spanish fishing interests claiming to have suffered economic loss from the
implementation of the Merchant Shipping (Registration) Act of 1988 held the applicants
were not entitled to claim exemplary damages from the respondent in relation to the
breaches that were the subject of the proceedings.
259
80
81
For discussion of direct effect, see Hartley, Foundations of European Community Law,
chap. 7; Collins, European Community Law in the United Kingdom, chap. 2; and Henry
G. Schermers and Denis F. Waelbroeck, Judicial Protection in the European Community,
5th ed. (Deveneter: Kluwer, 1992), 13854.
Article 227 of the EC Treaty (formerly Article 170) allows a Member State to start proceedings against another member for failure to comply with EC law.
See Articles 211 and 226, EC Treaty (formerly Article 155 and 169 EC respectively).
12
The Euro, Economic Federalism, and
the Question of National Sovereignty
ELIE COHEN
For years the construction of Europe has been discussed and made by
experts. Because the wider public never quite knew what was going on or
what the issues at stake quite were, Europeat least in most European
nationsenjoyed a generally positive, if also somewhat vague, reputation.
Criticism became apparent only when referenda on the various stages
of the development of European unification transformed it into a public
affair. It was as if a long-agreed discourse on the need for a unified Europe
had effectively camouflaged the consideration of all opposing interests, as
if the only acceptable Europe was one that would be realized by those who
alone were competent to handle such matters, and behind closed doors.
Central to all potential objections to European integration has been and
remains the question of sovereignty. And it is sovereignty that has been at
the core of the debate on monetary union, since the issues at stake involve
such time-hallowed functions of national states as the right to mint money,
the independence of central banks and their possible subordination to
an exterior central power, the loss of parliamentary prerogatives, and
even the loss of a fundamental element of national identity: the national
currency itself.
The first difficulty that arises from any attempt to understand the relationship between monetary union and sovereignty stems from the multiple
meanings that are accorded to the latter. For the term no longer implies
simply the complete and absolute authority of the sovereign body. Political sovereignty, which possesses a clear legal foundation, is often confused
with policy prerogatives, particularly where they concern economic regulation that may vary over time and that can be exercised directly or
by delegation, depending on specific cases. In order to achieve a better
understanding of monetary sovereignty, one must separate what most analysts have attempted to keep together. Can one, for instance, integrate
260
261
economies and maintain national currencies? Can one set common disciplines and leave the governing of the central banks to the discretion of national political authorities? Should monetary policy be removed from the
control of national parliaments? Does it make economic sense to separate
the monetary and budgetary policies of individual states? The institutional
complexities are multiple, and they sometimes have unexpected effects.
There exist dependent central banks that follow a strict objective of inflation control, and independent central banks (such as the American Fed)
whose anti-inflationist performance was for long only mediocre. Likewise, a central bank does not lack democratic legitimacy simply because
it is independent. The legitimacy conferred on such a bank by constitutional provision, a monetary government made up of representatives of
the federated states, and widespread acceptance by the citizens may grant
it a certain weight and credibility, even if the question of accountability
remains open, as is the case of the European Central Bank.
The question we must ask is a simple one: how did the European
Monetary Union (EMU) become the response to contradicting needs
technical, economic, politicaland in what way does the institutional
model invented for this occasion prefigure the final integration of the
current nation-states into an integrated Europe? In view of the complexity
of the relationship between the technical, economic, and political dimensions of this debate, I shall begin by suggesting an answer to this question
and then outline why I believe it to be the correct one.
WHY THE EMU?
First of all, the EMU is a vital necessity for the construction of a large
European market. It is, in fact, simply impossible to sustain a single market
without a single currency. A system of fixed but adjustable parities can
always skid out of control, as the experience in the summer of 1993 made
abundantly clear. This point of view, however, has been hotly debated
by economists. Some admit that a policy of stimulation of competition
and the unification of the European interior market can be ruined by
erratic currency fluctuations. Others have countered this argument by
maintaining that, even over a long period of time, the parities correct the
differentials of competitiveness and that over a short period the changes
in monetary rates may correct the volatility of the exchange rates.
These arguments, although technically acceptable, fail to recognize
the political dimension of economic integration. When countries do nearly
two-thirds of their exchanges among themselves, and when almost one
262
E LIE C OHEN
263
since he still had to convince his partners in the European Union of the
desirability of the move. The EMU is thus the result of a convergence of
strategies and of ulterior motives. To the United Kingdom, in particular,
it seemed as if liberalization of capital together with financial deregulation would put an end to French constructivism in European affairs. It
was a kind of market consecration. From this point on, the British consistently attempted to curb the process by maintaining an opt-out clause and
by proposing from time to time some alternative solution (the common
currency or the weighted Ecu).
The French strategy, on the other hand, has always been simple: use
the EMU to win in internal influence what it lost in the framework of
the ERM. The German outlook is divided. The liberalization of capital
and the ERM have confirmed Germanys monetary hegemony; the EMU
is thus either pointless or acceptable only at the end of a long process
of real economic convergenceprovided that it reproduces the German
institutional model. Only the political determination to give a guarantee
to France in order to hasten reunification led Hans Dietrich Genscher,
Germanys secretary of foreign affairs, to ignore the opposition of the
Bundesbank and to create the Maastricht compromise of 1992.
The EMU was in large part shaped by French politico-administrative
elites. This was because these elites saw in it a motor for the naturalization
of exterior constraint and for the limitation of the discretionary power
of politicians. In reality, these elites wanted to make the decisions taken
in 1983 irreversible and thereby give themselves larger and more gratifying places in the European framework. As it happened, however, the
people rejected the plans of their enlightened despots. Currency relies
upon confidence, and this makes it hard to create a common currency
wholly within the confines of the offices of monetary experts. The monetary crises of 1992, 1993, and 1994 were attributable less to response
of defiant markets than to the reaction of a hesitant, uncertain, and illinformed public when faced with severe economic policy decisions. As
the turning point of 1983 illustrates, it was political power along with a
nonindependent Central Bank that broke the inflationist mechanism by
resorting to the instruments of a policy of revenues instead of the tools of
monetary policy.1
Would it not then be economically more efficient to call upon the people
in order to create a change in policy? When all is said and done, the
1
264
E LIE C OHEN
Jean-Pierre Patat, LEurope monetaire (Paris: La Decouverte, 1990). In this book Patat
describes these elementary notions with exceptional clarity.
265
the freedom of particular people to choose the currency with which they
operate.3
This introduces a double limitation to monetary sovereignty. Firstly,
it is the private actors (in particular the banks) that essentially create
the currency. Their behavior (particularly that of business treasurers) influences most directly the stability of a currency. Secondly, in an open
economy the markets arbitrate daily among currencies, compelling monetary authorities to renounce their discretionary power over rates.4 The
constitution of monetary zones is but a partial response to this loss of
control by individual states. In reality, a zone is always organized around
a dominant currency with prerogatives the others lack. Those others thus
find themselves restricted.
Abandoning ones currency for a new one is either the recognition of
the limits of monetary pluralism in a single marketin which case the
state delegates a limited and specific power to an ad hoc institutionor
it constitutes part of the process whereby a federation of states is created
whose substance and legitimacy could be found only in approval of a
federal constitution by the citizens of those states. In the first instance,
the source of legitimacy remains national since jurisdiction remains an
indefinable prerogative of the national state. The best proof of this is to
be found in the very process by which control over any national currency is
relinquishedin this instance the treaty. What one treaty does can always
be undone by another, since intergovernmental coordination is not part
of any constitutional process. In the second instance, the single currency
and the European Central Bank, along with other institutional devices,
constitute the components of a new political-institutional order. Contrary
to popular opinion, one cannot go to sleep French and wake up European
by means of a series of institutional shifts and the cumulative effects of
reassigning public policies. There must be an act capable of manifesting
the popular will.
The authority over a territory (its sovereign character, the power to do
and to undo) clearly defined the limits of the modern nation-statethat
is to say, the entity within which, according to Ernest Gellner, is found
the identity of a people, of a territory, of a culture, of a state, and of the
3
4
266
E LIE C OHEN
principle of political legitimacy.5 Is the EMU a step toward the abandonment of the nation-state and a move toward federation? Or can monetary
policy still be controlled by a delegation of powers by sovereign states to
increase collective authority over policies that are essential to economic
regulation? To answer these questions I must identify more precisely what
is at stake in monetary union and explain how and why the European
states have come to this position.
The Europe that has been constructed so far has made extensive use of
economic means to achieve its political goals. The law and the market
operated, not as a substitute to the political will, but as the political will
in disguise. At the same time, however, monetary Europe has been the
necessary outcome of economic integration and the most obvious solution
to economic crises.
We do not have to go back to the European Union of Payments, created
in 1950, or to the European Monetary Agreement of 1955, which organized a specifically European margin of fluctuation in relation to the U.S.
dollar in the framework of Bretton Woods (0.75 percent to 1 percent), to
see that the Marjolin Report since 1962 has established monetary union as
the third step toward European unification. Following the customs union
and the common market, the Werner Report in 1970 proposed the realization by 1980 of a monetary union with the complete and irreversible
convertibility of currencies, the elimination of margins of fluctuation of
exchange, the irrevocable setting of parity relations and the liberation of
movements of capital throughout the whole of Europe.6 The Werner
Report anticipated an economic union founded on the coordination of
economic policies, the harmonization of budgetary and fiscal policies,
the transfer to the Community of monetary policy as well as short-term
macroeconomic policy and medium-term programming.
The crisis began with U.S. president Richard Nixons decision to suspend the gold convertibility of the dollar. This decision curbed the practical realization of community objectives because of the free floating of
currencies and at the same time compelled the Europeans to become
5
6
267
See Kenneth Dyson, Elusive Union (London and New York: Longman, 1994). He explains
how the argument for the necessary liberalization of the movement of capital as a prerequisite to any discussion on the realization of monetary union allowed the English and the
Germans to block French objectives of a monetary integration for a considerable time.
Quoted in Pascal Riche and Charles Wypolsz, eds., LUnion Economique et Monetaire
(Paris: Le Seuil, 1993).
268
E LIE C OHEN
269
with East Germany for July 1990.9 West Germany obtained support from
its European partners and, most importantly, the (albeit reticent) approval
of France. In return, West Germany offered a firm commitment to the
accelerated realization of the EMU, even though the Bundesbank was
simultaneously demanding a ten-year moratorium in order to manage
the integration of East Germany. In April 1990 the stakes were raised
still higher with the Kohl-Mitterrand proposal to conduct the EMU and
political union at the same time.
The final negotiations began in Rome on December 15, 1990. The
Bundesbank formally had no say in the matter, since negotiations were
concerned with establishing a new system of exchange. Nonetheless, it
insisted on ensuring that the mark was abandoned only for an equally
solid monetary unit. The European Central Bank had to be an exact replica
of the Bundesbank, or at least as independent and dedicated to the fight
against inflation. The barter was concluded along the following lines: the
sharing of monetary power was granted to the Twelve in exchange for
allowing Germany to set the rules of the game. The famous article 107 of
the Treaty states:
In the exercise of powers and in the accomplishment of the missions and duties
which have been conferred by the present treaty and by the statutes of the ESBC
(European System of Central Banks), neither the European Central Bank, nor
any national central bank, nor any member of their decision-making bodies may
solicit or accept instructions from community institutions or bodies, from administrations of the Member States, or from any other organisation. The Community
institutions and bodies, as well as the administrations of Member States, commit
themselves to respect this principle and will not look to influence the members of
the decision-making bodies of the European Central Bank or the national central
banks in the accomplishment of their missions.10
But what exactly is the EMU? The question is perhaps best answered
in terms of its salient features. It is a process that organizes the progressive
9
10
This is the first of the three crises that led to the abolition of the ERM. Karl Otto
Poehl, then head of the Bundesbank, claimed this decision would ruin East Germany
and bring about massive financial transfers from the West to the East. In the absence
of a courageous fiscal policy, this could only renew inflation. His analysis proved to be
perfectly correct. Chancellor Kohl was convinced that historical opportunities must be
seized. The presence of Gorbachev in the Kremlin made reunification possible; from then
on the German administration had to follow. The promise of the paradise of the West
as a welcoming gift to the brothers from the East, and the promise made to the citizens
of the West that reunification would cost them nothing, were the best means to achieve
rapid reunification. To Kohl, it was obvious that the administration would follow his
lead. Europe paid dearly for this strategy.
Les traites de Rome et de Maastricht (Paris: La Documentation Francaise, 1992), 68.
270
E LIE C OHEN
Why, then, have the European nations, and especially the largest among
them, France and Germany, committed themselves to a process that, while
promising, is exposed to considerable risks? Why are these nationstheir
administrations, their political elites, and their trade unionsconvinced
that only the solutions extolled by ultra-libertarians and Friedmanian
monetarists can bring about European unification? To constitutionalize
maximum deficits, separate monetary and budgetary policies, confer monetary policy upon an independent central bank: these are the great principles of the EMU. Its theoretical sources are to be found in the writings
of Milton Friedman, but they are hardly applied with rigor even in the
United States.
In the sixties during a period of full expansion, at the initiative of
the Trilateral, a global think-tank, illustrious men and women tried
hard to resolve the crisis of the western democracies. Rampant inflation
was eating away at the acquisitions of growth, making covert transfers
and, above all, revealing the states incapacity to contain this movement.
The established diagnosis questioned the governability of democratic market societies. In reality, the impersonal mechanisms of the market, the
rigidity of salaries and prices, and the weight of social oligopoly were
thought to be responsible for serious limits on the states regulative capacity. Various solutions were considered that would have placed a check
on the politicians and prohibited them from giving in to demands that
271
might hurt the economy. Among these solutions, one enjoyed considerable popularity: prohibition of budgetary deficit by formal inscription
in the constitution. But it was the separation of monetary and budgetary policies that offered a lasting solution. An independent central
bank, restricted solely to the fight against inflation and not required to
coordinate its actions with the actions of those in charge of the budgetary policy, would, it was believed, limit the arbitrariness of political decisions.11 The hypothesis is now a familiar one: an independent
central bank is reputed to be more credible because it is sheltered from
political pressure and can thus avoid inopportune, election-timed reflation policies. Such a bank can take a long-term approach and adapt
its short-term aims. A dependent central bank is compelled to change
its conduct and continually revise its aims in order to meet short-term
objectives. Finally, an independent central bank acts in accordance with
a pre-established code instead of multiplying discretionary interventions.
An independent central banks voluntary commitment or a mandate to
pursue only one goalfighting inflationconfers upon it an uncontested
credibility.
Germanys remarkable performance in the fight against inflation progressively elevated its monetary policy to the status of a model in the
1980s. The institutional factorthe Bundesbanks independencecame
to be regarded as the sole explanation for Germanys stability and performance. The context for this successthe institutionalized social compromise and salary moderationand its historical mooringsthe Ordnungspolitikwere forgotten. After the Left took power in France in 1981,
three consecutive devaluations convinced a number of administrative
authorities of the excellence of the German model.
The economic administration of France, or (if one prefers) the economic decision-making community (Treasury, Bank of France, private
governments of financial and industrial groups), would not have committed themselves to the EMU project if its cardinal objective since March
1983 had not been to create an institutional foundation for competitive
deflation, while removing from political control the discretionary manipulation of the currency. The following statements in a 1992 issue of Haute
11
See Robert Barro and David Gordon, Rules, Discretion and Reputation in a Model
of Monetary Policy, Journal of Monetary Economics (July 1983): 10122; and Finn
Kydland and Edward Prescott, Rules Rather than Discretion: The Inconsistency of
Optimal Plans, Journal of Political Economy 85 (June 1977). They offered a theoretical
foundation for this proposal by establishing that independent central banks were more
credible than governments in fighting inflation.
272
E LIE C OHEN
Competitive deflation thus became a form of political technology inscribed in the workings of the economy. In its initial phases this mechanism permits the naturalization of political choice in exterior economic
constraints, but at cruising speed it is able to deploy its full force without
recourse to political deliberation.
It is not, however, sufficient to remove from political control the discretionary manipulation of the currency. The credibility of the whole system
demands the creation of a European system of central banks (ESCB). The
sole and unique mission of the ESCB is to oversee the stability of the
currency while combating the risks of inflation. It is even less a question
of adopting the German monetary system, which gives the illusion of being merely the importation of a partial model created by an institutional
system with strong internal coherence. As Michel Aglietta has observed,
The foundation of its [the Central Banks] independence stems from the uniqueness and the irreducible singularity of its role in the society. The confidence in
the currency is none other than the popular anticipation that this role will be
continually and duly assumed.14
273
The mechanism of the convergence criteria is a masterpiece in the application of force through technical devices. At the same time it is a response
to accusations of illegitimacy. None of the criteria employed, however, is
persuasive for the economist. In the first place, the rules of good budgetary
management will tolerate a deficit from the moment that it is inferior to
the sum of investments. Criteria limiting the budgetary deficit to 3 percent
of the GDP and a public debt/GDP ratio set at 60 percent are thus more
severe than the codes of financial prudence require.15 Moreover, no criteria of real economic convergence has been offered for productivity, or
for employment, or for competition, or for the state of the economy as
a whole. Finally, no indication has been offered as to what the central
macroeconomic criteria monitored by the European Central Bank will be
after the realization of the third phase. The whole technical disposition,
from this point on, is analyzed as the setting, on the initiative of French
and German central banks, of indicators close to the Bundesbanks implicit objectives in its management of the mark.
Five criteria have now been linked and systematized.16 The first of
these, established immediately to curb inflation, prohibits rates of inflation
higher than 1.5 percent in relation to the average inflation rate of the three
European countries with the lowest rates of inflation. The second criterion
stated that the average nominal long-term interest rate must not exceed
by more than 2 percent the rates observed in the three least inflationist
countries; this means that anticipation of inflation in the long term must
play a role in any final calculation. The third criterion allowed for an
accelerated passage to the single currency, and for its final realization
in 1999. This criterion could not be achieved unless, in addition, the
exchange rate had been maintained for two years without serious tension,
which means that all monetary adjustments had to be real.
As long as budgetary policy does not derive from a transfer of powers,
individual states will remain in controlif, that is, there exist financial
markets where the rates for financing deficits are freely fixed. In practice
this is the case with the federal states, and the Union should, therefore,
leave control of budgetary policy to national governments. But the haunting memory of spiraling inflation, and the leanness of the Community,
mean that the financing of deficits can have a serious impact on inflation
levels.
15
16
When the criteria were set, the performance of France was twice as great: the deficit/GDP
ratio was at 1.5 percent and the debt/GDP ratio was around 30 percent. This performance
can be explained by the very strong growth in France from 1988 to the middle of 1990.
Wiplosz and Riche, Lunion monetaire.
274
E LIE C OHEN
The two remaining budgetary criteria are the limitation of the budgetary deficit to 3 percent of the GDP and the maintenance at less than
60 percent of the ratio of public debt to GDP. In fact, both criteria are intended to limit the possibilities for maneuver open to nation-states and to
prevent any single government unable to control public expenditure from
being tempted to turn to the monetary financing of its debtexactly what
is happening in Germany. When the industrialists give in to unions or the
state abandons itself to lax policies, the central bank, by managing the
currency, is able to call the offending parties to order. Adjustments, however, cannot be painless: monetary revival is forbidden. The sole solution
for correcting an imbalance resides in the adaptation of the real economy
and thus in the renegotiation of the social contract.
But the authors of the Maastricht Treaty wanted to impose additional
controls on the individual states. They forbade the national treasuries
from financing themselves through privileged relations with the national
central banks. In practice, this was pointless since the treasuries had long
since abandoned such temporary solutions. Nevertheless, the measure
was retained as a token that allowed the drafters to provide a form of
legal sanction against any state that had resorted to such strategies as an
easy way out of its difficulties and might be tempted to do so again. The
measure also had the advantage of abbreviating the relations between the
monetary and budgetary policies and thereby rendering the central banks
independent.17 Likewise, the freeing of the movement of capital makes
it impossible to recreate any form of credit limitation. On the grounds,
however, that two guarantees are better than one, when signing the treaty,
France chose not to employ this monetary facility in case of a need to
correct a budgetary disequilibrium.
Economic and monetary Europe is not, therefore, the offspring of the
European Communitys will. Rather, it is the creature of a cartel of national administrative elites who, once granted political power, preferred to
naturalize the demands of structural adjustment by calling for European
constraint. The locus of this bureaucratic cartel was the Economics and
Finance Committee. In informal meetings a European monetary elite
forged a common language and achieved, with the EMU, a work of considerable political inventiveness. The denunciation of the bureaucracy in
Brussels should thus be seen as an act of political communication, as an
17
See Pierre Jaillet and Christian Pfister, Du SME a` la monnaie unique, Economie &
Statistique 23 (1993): 29.
275
avowal by the political actors of the impossibility of reaching an agreement on monetary policy through political deliberation.
THE EMU : A STRATEGY FOR WINNING
MONETARY INFLUENCE
276
E LIE C OHEN
finance. Although France had hoped to secure from Germany the sacrifice of the mark and the Bundesbank, it had no desire to place any pressure
on German economic administration. To do that would have been to question the underlying principles of the German monetary system, which the
Europeans were, in practice, adopting in exchange for Germanys renunciation of the mark. All that now remains of this project, however, is a
vague formula for the setting of the principal orientations of the Member States economic policy by the heads of state and their secretaries of
finance.
The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 suddenly rendered possible the
acceleration on paper of the European project while postponing its realization. The reasons are economic dynamics, the incompatibility of
the public policies pursued by France and Germany, and the German
Central Banks rejection of a strategy contrary to its fundamental charter, its sociology, and its professional culture. In the autumn of 1989, the
French geo-strategic assets were brutally devalued. The crumbling of the
Soviet bloc made a political alliance with France less crucial for Germany
while reunification awoke in France the fantasy of an all-powerful
Germany and of a drift to the East. Secretary Genscher, therefore, wanted
to accord to France the possibility of an equally decisive political role
in the framework of the federal Europe, then in the process of being
created. The EMU, coupled with political union, should have been a
relief to France, which had just witnessed the sudden reunification of
Germany.
Without measuring all the implications, France relinquished its policy of autonomy and self-control for a strategy of influence. What it was
unable to obtain as a nation in full control of its currency, it thought to
acquire by deploying a strategy of influence at the heart of a Europe of
the Twelve strengthened by a European Germany. For the central corps
of French politico-administrative elites, Europe is as much a multiplier of
force as it is a market and a vague assembly in the service of interminable
discussion. A fragmented Europe has no weight in monetary or commercial mattersnor, of course, in defense and diplomatic matters. A unified
Europe, on the other hand, would be the leading economic force in the
world and capable of making international commercial rules. It also could
undermine the power of the dollar, make the Euro into a (and possibly the)
reserve currency, and ultimately form, with the United States and Japan,
a world directoire, a G3. Because of the determination to make this into
a reality, an agreement was reached, despite the difficulties of setting in
motion such an obviously imbalanced construction as the EMU.
277
The second phase of the creation of the Euro was, as we have seen,
the most hazardous. A series of crises jeopardized the process of European integration. The management of these crises constitutes a useful
guide to understanding the motives behind the Franco-German desire for
integration.
Between July 1992 and August 1993, the ERM suffered significant
destabilization, thus distancing the prospects of the EMU at the very moment that its ratification process was coming to a close. This has generally
been attributed to the irrepressible force of the markets, the Anglo-Saxon
conspiracy against the EMU, the lack of realism of ERM structures of parity while the economies of the member countries were still divergent, the
provincialism of a Bundesbank insensitive to its European commitment,
and, finally, to the political hesitations of the French Right. It would be
pointless merely to enumerate all of these contributing factors. But the
sequence of events after German reunification does allow us to rank them
in order of importance.
To control reunification and contain nascent inflation, the Bundesbank
asked Chancellor Kohl to reevaluate the mark. A reevaluated currency
favors imports and complicates exports. It incites industrialists to show
their rigor in internal management (salaries, prices, productive organization, and so on), which acts as a cooling agent for inflationist tensions.
France, which had rightly prided itself on practicing a strategy of competitive deflation based on the German model, refused to do the same.
Despite this divergence, the ERM survived, and currencies such as the
peseta, the lire, and then the British pound, which were manifestly overvalued, remained or entered into the ERM.20 While Europe was negotiating Maastricht, the anticipation of European integration by the markets
operators was so strong that they considered economic and monetary
disadjustments (and even an exogenous shock as massive as the reunification) to be negligible. As Patrick Artus and Jacques Salomon have
written:
The reduction of the differences between Germanys interest rates and those of its
partners since 1987 has progressively led to the inversion of the credibility argument: by adhering to the exchange mechanism, a country would import credibility,
20
The entry of sterling into the ERM in October of 1990 was achieved without coordination and at an unjustified level of parity. This happened even though the coordina
tion of parity with other ERM partners is required by the Bale-Nybourg
agreements
of 1987.
278
E LIE C OHEN
and all else being equal, would be permitted to reduce the cost of its deflationary
adjustments.21
Patrick Artus and Jacques Salomon cited by Jaillet and Pfister, Du SME a` la monnaie
unique.
Mairi Maclean, Le Mercredi noir et le dilemme Britannique du systeme de taux de
change: cooperation Europeenne ou splendide isolement? Relations internationales et
strategiques 11 (1993): 15164. She tells how Black Wednesday, which saw the pound
crumble and Britain withdraw from the ERM, was preceded by repeated warnings by the
Bundesbank on the unrealistic attempts at pound/deutschemark parity of 1 = 2.95 DM.
She describes how, at Bath, the proposal made by the Bundesbank for a realignment of
parities was not even discussed, and how the ministers and governors present intended
to accept only one policy: the lowering of German rates.
279
mini-zone created between the Germans and the Dutch. Consequently, the
third solution imposed itself. Fed by the rise of an anti-European discourse
at the core of the French Right and by the Bundesbanks reaffirmation of
its constitutional prerogatives, it opened the way to speculation.
The debacle of the French Left during the 1993 legislative elections
removed powerful support for a strong franc and placed the future of the
ERM in the hands of a divided French government and a German Central
Bank determined no longer to allow measures of questionable efficiency
to be imposed upon it or upon the weakened image of a unified Europe.
Efforts by the Balladur government to persuade the Bundesbank to lower
its rates, and the failed attempt to pass the short-term rates below those of
the Germans, actually weakened the franc. The intensity of the debate in
France over the other policy, the continuing deterioration of its employment situation, and the irrationality (from the viewpoint of short-term
national economic interests) of a policy of strong rates forced the French
government to pressure the Bundesbank in the name of Franco-German
entente. Political consensus at the heart of the French governmental majority appeared impossible to achieve, however. The crisis of 1993, coming
after that of 1992, illustrates the difficulties of a cooperative strategy in
monetary matters in a context where Germany spoke with two voices and
France maintained two discourses: one rigorous and directed toward the
exterior, the other permissive and intended wholly for internal use. But
Europe is a dynamic that creates unstable states. One cannot break this
dynamic and then wonder why market actors recommence their games,
for it is precisely in this dynamic that their legitimacy resides.
With the collapse of the ERM demonstrated by the adoption of large
margins of fluctuation, are markets triumphing over national states that
would render vain the constructivist efforts to create a single European currency? Not really. Markets do not conspire. We cannot attribute
a will to them even if, at a given moment, a central current of opinions is formed on the fate of a currency.23 However, the central banks
23
280
E LIE C OHEN
and the administrations can manifest a desire and then translate it into
action. What has happened since Black Thursday, when the Bundesbank refused to lower rates, triggering speculation that resulted in the
removal of the tight margin constituted by the ERM? The devaluation
of the franc and the lowering of rates simply did not work, and even
the public rebuke that the obstinate Gauls received from three leading
American economistsFranco Modiglianu, Paul Samuelson, and Robert
Solowdid not change anything. The French authorities desire to bring
the franc to a parity with the mark as close as possible to that which prevailed before Black Thursday is the most tangible manifestation of this
obstinacy.
Paradoxically, we have here an illustration, in the worst context, of how
influential the state can be within the framework of a multilateral action
intended to consolidate a monetary zone. The setting of secret parity
objectives, the maintenance of rates at a high level and their progressive
slackening, and the permanent consultation with other central banks have
created a highly unpredictable situation for markets and speculators.
In May of 1996, the franc re-entered the tight margin of the ERM,
thus erasing completely what had happened in the summer of 1993. In
December of 1995, in Madrid, the principle of the passage to phase three
was confirmed, and on January 1, 1999, the Euro officially came into
existence.24 When the markets reopened on January 4, 1999, eleven countries made the transition to the Euro without mishap. The system of parity
between the various European countries in effect at the closure of the markets in 1998 became fixed. The national currencies of those countries are
now fractions of the Euro.
24
Until December 1995 three scenarios were imaginable. In the Big Bang scenario, the
fifteen are able, in view of the Maastricht criteria, to allow a significant number of states
(necessarily including France and Germany) and to negotiate a code on parities with
nonqualifying countries. The Euro is adopted as the common currency, and a European
Central Bank is established in Frankfurt on January 1, 1999. In the mark-CFA scenario,
the absence of any real convergence of economies prohibits the realization of phase
three. For political and economic reasons France agrees to link the franc and the mark in
perpetuity by adopting a stable and irrevocable franc-mark parity. A European currency
exists: the mark. In the stopping-of-the-clock scenario, the principal EU countries do not
achieve the Maastricht criteria and decide to wait for the budgetary consolidation plans
to take effect. In each case, the criteria only present an obstacle because the member
states want it that way. The Treaty leaves the door open to debudgetizing operations that
can mask lax budgetary policies thanks to the artifices of accounting presentation. In
late 1995 the political signal was given in Madrid: the Big Bang became the scenario
toward which the central banks and the financial institutions have been working since
March 1996. This is the scenario that will be realized provided no unforeseeable development or catastrophe takes place before 2002.
281
The exchange policy constitutes a first limitation on the effective realization of independence. It is the same for the interactions between monetary policy, lender of last resort,
and prudential supervision. Prudential supervision, for example, was not included among
the powers of the First European Central Bank. As Michel Aglietta notes, subsidiarity
plus independence of central banks equals fragility in a deregulated universe. See Aglietta,
Lecons pour la Banque Centrale Europeenne.
282
E LIE C OHEN
refused to sanction the uncoupling of the coordinated franc-mark in order to guide the transition. The third snag appeared when Britain and
Italy allowed their currencies to be re-evaluated without controlling inflation. With the recession and the debates over the ratification of the
Maastricht Treaty, technico-political consensus ended up dividing Member States and their respective political elites. For economists preoccupied
with the macroeconomic regulation of the whole, the stubbornness of
France in asking everything from the budget in order not to threaten the
franc-mark parity aggravated the employment situation and the financial
health of banks and other financial enterprises because of the excessively
rigorous character of its monetary policy. It also threatened conditions
of real convergence since the charge of the debt was bound to reduce
progressively the degrees of liberty in budgetary matters.26
As noted earlier, criteria technically defined to meet a specific and contingent need were inscribed in a treaty. The major political consequences
soon became evident. The cost of abandoning respect for the criteria of
convergence, even if they are not very reliable, is high. A political interpretation can always be given to any revision of technical indicators. The
obstinate desire to set up the Euro on the agreed date forced the Member States to carry out policies of convergence that objectively weakened
their economies and increased unemployment. The calamitous prospect
of a rupture of the integration process and several hasty thoughts on the
benefits of the Euro in terms of employment and activity were sufficient
to maintain the program of 1989/90 at all costs.
The question of criteria automatically posed another problem. What
discipline of management should be adopted now that monetary union has
been achieved? Formally, there was nothing that obliged the member states
to coordinate their budgetary policies. This is, at least, what the Twelve
had decided at the signing of the Maastricht Treaty. In practice, however,
in the name of the fight against inflation, a stability pact strictly limiting
deficits had been adopted in Dublin in 1996 and confirmed at Amsterdam
in 1997. The reason for such a decision is simple: if any one country within
an integrated monetary zone practices a lax budgetary policy, all of the
countries in that zone run the risk of inflation. The stability pact is a
budgetary policing weapon that limits authorized deficits, establishes a
system of penalties for offenders, and defines a consultation procedure
26
See Jean-Paul Fitoussi, Le debat interdit (Paris: Arlea, 1995), which has become the
manual of the party of the other policy. Fitoussi is one of the most vigorous critics of
the monetary orthodoxy of the Bank of France.
283
284
E LIE C OHEN
Patat, 956.
285
directives and to define a policy of exchange is immediately suspect because it carries with it the risk that it might interfere with the independent central bank. At the same time, however, and in the interest of the
European Central Bank, a legitimate political authority has imposed itself. The solution was finally found with the creation of an informal group
known as Euro XI. It has neither secretariat nor defined powers. But
even this minimally defined authority is contested because it excludes
the countries which are, at present, out of the Euro (the United Kingdom,
Sweden, Denmark, and Greece). In sum, this laborious compromise hardly
differs from all of its predecessors: it is an attempt to create European
Union policies out of an irreversible process that precludes any change
without an explicit political decision.
There exist two interpretations of the EMU, just as there exists a
single market where major sources of competitive imbalance subsist. The
post-Euro Europe will be subjected to double internal and external pressure. In actual practice, the single market is going to become fully active
with the introduction of the new currency: the comparability of prices,
costs, and charges will be instantaneous. And the development of information technologies will accelerate the process. There is, therefore, no
doubt that competitive pressure will be increased and that the social and
fiscal systems will affect the localization of activities. External pressure
will manifest itself through the appreciation of the Euro in relation to
the dollar and the yen. In the long run a monetary zone like Europe with
low demographic pressure, with an aging population, whose growth rate
is weak and that has an excessive savings rate, risks seeing its currency
overvalued. In either case, apart from taking a new leap toward coordination of macroeconomic policies, the internal tensions in Europe will
increase, quickly jeopardizing the single currency. Today nobody is ready
to imagine a substantial European federal budget, coordinated employment policies, fiscal harmonization, or a strict prohibition on fiscal, social,
and regulatory dumpingin short, an advance toward a Union organization of a federative type. But European integration follows a cycle; it has
its depressions and its upswings.
Today the paradox resides in the contradiction between monetary integration (all the more necessary since the single market is a success and
commercial activity has become intense) and a monetary union (all the
more fragile since it is founded on the automatic dispositions of economic
cooperation). Following a crisis of the Euro, the most widely accepted
solution is the renewal of the march toward budgetary federalism and
political union. This demonstrates the extremely imbalanced character of
286
E LIE C OHEN
A decisive advance in the realization of monetary union occurred in Verona in April 1996.
A highly political affair such as the exterior value of a currency in the heart of the Europe
of the Fifteen was placed on the road to final technicalization. In the initial conception
of the EMU, the Eurofed determined monetary policy; its power was supposed to be
balanced by that of the European economic government, which reserved the privilege
of setting the exterior value of the Euro and the parities with nonadmitted European
currencies. In Verona, Eurofeds power to call a ministerial meeting (so as to proceed
with the monetary alignments made necessary by the divergences between the Euro,
hard-core currency, and currencies of the periphery) was recognized.
13
Identity Politics and European Integration:
The Case of Germany
THOMAS RISSE AND
DANIELA ENGELMANN-MARTIN
We do not want a German Europe, but a European Germany. This famous quote by the novelist Thomas Mann from the interwar period has
remained the mantra of the German political elites ever since the catastrophe of World War II.1 To be a good German means nowadays to be a
good European and to wholeheartedly support European integration.
To be a good European German also means to have finally overcome
the countrys militarist and nationalist past and to have learned the right
lessons from history.
The political elites of the Federal Republic of Germany have thoroughly
Europeanized the German national identity since the 1950s. This Europeanization of German collective identity explains to a large degree why
all German governments since Konrad Adenauer was chancellor have
embraced European integrationfrom the Treaty of Rome in 1957 to
the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997. Since the late 1950s, there has been an
elite consensus in support of European integration based on a federalist
modelthe United States of Europe. This federalist consensus has remained quite stable despite drastic changes in Germanys power status in
Europe and the world. It is strongly linked to the Europeanized national
identity, and it accounts for continued German support for European integration, even though the end of the Cold War and German unification
should have challenged that elite consensus. After all, Germany was now
free to choose its foreign policy orientation for the first time since 1945.
Instead, the country opted for continuity.
1
This chapter presents findings from a multiyear research project funded by the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Association): Ideas, Institutions, and Political Culture: The Europeanization of National Identities in Cross-National Comparison.
For research assistance on theoretical concepts concerning national identity, we thank
Martin Marcussen. For critical comments, we thank Anthony Pagden.
287
288
THOMAS RISSE
AND
D A N I E L A E N G E L M A N N -M A R T I N
Identity politics not only explains the stubborn support for European
integration by all German governments from Adenauers to Gerhard
Schroders. It also operates as a mechanism for silencing political controversies: the more that previously domestic issues become Europeanized,
the less obviously contentious they become. The European Economic and
Monetary Union (EMU) and the single currency are cases in point. Identity politics largely accounts for the absence of any serious political debate
about the pros and cons of the Euro by the country that is among the most
affected by giving up its cherished Deutsche Mark. Elite politicians, particularly former opposition leaders of the German Social Democratic Party
(SPD), were effectively silenced, since objections to the Euro were seen as
opposition to European integration in general and, therefore, as inconsistent with German European identity. As a result, German political elites
never took advantage of the strong public majority against renouncing
the Deutsche Mark.2
But German Europeanness is still German Europeanness. It comes, as
do all collective understandings of Europe, in national colors. We do not
want to suggest that Germany has somehow supranationalized and surrendered its identity as a nation-state. German discourses on Europe
and what it means contain distinctive features relating to particular understandings of German history and culture. In other words, German
Europeanness is different from, say, French Europeanness, particularly
since German understandings of the nation and the state embody different concepts and meanings than French understandings of letat nation.
In this chapter we shall proceed in three stages. First, we will try to clarify the concept of national collective identity and to elucidate what identity politics can and cannot explain. Second, we will provide an overview
of the evolution of German elite identities related to Europe since 1945.
Third, we will discuss the question of how, and under what conditions,
identity politics matters with regard to the arguments preceding the introduction of the EMU and the Euro.
The chapter is concerned with the level of political elites. Its empirical
domain are discourses and controversies between and among the major
German political parties. Identity politics is always about the interaction
of elites and masses. But it is empirically and methodologically beyond
our scope to analyze the effects of elite identity constructions on mass
public opinion. It is equally impossible here to investigate how popular
2
289
4
5
For the following, see also Martin Marcussen, Thomas Risse, Daniela EngelmannMartin, Hans-Joachim Knopf, and Klaus Roscher, Constructing Europe: The Evolution
of French, British, and German Nation-State Identities, Journal of European Public
Policy 6, 4 (1999): 61433.
Anthony D. Smith, National Identity (London: Penguin, 1991), 1314.
See also Anthony D. Smith, Gastronomy or Geology? The Role of Nationalism in the
Reconstruction of Nations, Nations and Nationalism 1, 1 (1995): 323.
290
T HOMAS R ISSE
AND
10
291
Dominic Abrams and Michael A. Hogg, eds., Social Identity Theory (London: Harvester
Wheatsheaf, 1990); Penelope J. Oakes, S. Alexander Haslam, and John C. Turner, Stereotyping and Social Reality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994); John C. Turner,
Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1987).
292
T HOMAS R ISSE
AND
of the state and political order. Because this chapter is concerned with
the latter rather than with the former, we will use the term nation-state
identity to delineate the differences from other components of national
collective identities.
Fourth, nation-state identities are social identities defining social groups
on the basis of mostly territorial criteria. In modern times they construct
the imagined communities of nation-states and are closely linked to
ideas about sovereignty and statehood. As a result, nation-state identities
often contain visions of just political and social orders. In the case of identity constructions related to Europe, federalist visions of a United States
of Europe, of an intergovernmental confederation of nation-states, or
ideas about functional market integration are examples of such concepts
of political order.
Fifth, self-categorization theory argues that self/other categorizations
change the more gradually the more they are incorporated in institutions,
myths, and symbols, as well as in cultural understandings.12 This would
be particularly relevant for national collective identities that usually take
considerable time and effort to construct and are then embedded in institutions and a countrys political culture. Thus, one should assume that
national collective identities are generally very compelling and subject to
change only gradually.
Social psychology helps to clarify the concept of collective nation-state
identity. But it is less helpful concerning the conditions under which incremental change in nation-state identities can be expected. How and
under what conditions are principled ideas and identity-related concepts
about Europe and European order selected, incorporated, and frozen
in collective nation-state identities?
Two factors account for the selection of particular ideas and their incorporation in collective nation-state identities. First, instrumental and
power-related interests can determine the selection of ideas. Political elites
who are in the business of identity construction and manipulation can
select specific ideas about European order and even try to Europeanize
nationally defined identities, because it suits their instrumentally defined
interests to do so. Thus, we do not claim an identity versus interest
account that would serve only to reify both. Political elites legitimately
pursue instrumentally defined interests; they want to remain and gain
political power, for example. The more significant question is how
12
Susan Fiske and Shelley Taylor, Social Cognition (New York: Random House, 1984);
Oakes, Haslam, and Turner, Stereotyping.
293
Ronald L. Jepperson and Anne Swidler, What Properties of Culture Should We Measure? Poetics 22 (1994): 35971; M. Rainer Lepsius, Interessen, Ideen und Institutionen
(Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1990).
294
T HOMAS R ISSE
AND
15
We use the term Germany routinely for the Federal Republic including the preunification period. For further details on the following, see Daniela Engelmann-Martin,
im deutschen Parteiendiskurs in der Weimarer Republik sowie nach
Nationale Identitat
dem II. Weltkrieg (1. Untersuchungszeitraum), manuscript (Florence: European University Institute, 1998).
Simon Bulmer, The Changing Agenda of West German Public Policy (Aldershot:
Dartmouth, 1989). See also Gunther Hellmann, Goodbye Bismarck? The Foreign Policy of Contemporary Germany, Mershon Review of International Studies 40, 1 (1996):
139; Peter J. Katzenstein, ed., Tamed Power: Germany in Europe (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell
University Press, 1997).
295
17
18
19
20
Europaischen
Verteidigungsgemeinschaft (Munchen-Wien:
Oldenbourg, 1969); HansPeter Schwarz, Vom Reich zur Bundesrepublik. Deutschland im Widerstreit der
auenpolitischen Konzeptionen in den Jahren der Besatzungsherrschaft 1945 bis 1949
(Neuwied: Luchterhand, 1966).
Jurgen
Bellers, Sozialdemokratie und Konservatismus im Angesicht der Zukunft
Europas, in Jurgen
Bellers and Mechthild Winking, eds., Europapolitik der Parteien.
Konservatismus, Liberalismus und Sozialdemokratie im Ringen um die Zukunft Europas
(Frankfurt/M.: Lang, 1991), 342.
Richard N. Coudenhove-Kalergi, Pan-Europa (1923; reprinted, Wien: Pan-Europa
Verlag, 1982).
Rudolf Morsey, Vorstellungen Christlicher Demokraten innerhalb und ausserhalb des
296
T HOMAS R ISSE
AND
22
See, for example, Adenauers opening speech at the Second Party Convention of the
EuCDU in the British Zone in Recklinghausen, August 289, 1948, Eine Hoffnung fur
ropa, in Hans-Peter Schwarz, ed., Konrad Adenauer. Reden 19171967. Eine Auswahl
(Stuttgart: Deutsche VerlagsAnstalt, 1975), 124ff.
Baring, Auenpolitik, 57; Bellers, Sozialdemokratie, Konservatismus, 278.
297
Jakob Kaiser, quoted in Frank Pfetsch, Die Auenpolitik der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
298
T HOMAS R ISSE
AND
Europe. Adenauers Europe ended at the Iron Curtain, which he constructed rhetorically as the borderline between good and evil. Europe
meant civilization, Christianity, democracy, and the market economyin
sharp contrast to the East as well as to Germanys own past.
The Social Democrats (SPD) were the main opposition party to
Adenauers policies. In its 1925 Heidelberg program, the SPD embraced
the concept of a United States of Europe and became the first major
German party to do so. When the party was forced into exile during the
Nazi period, the leadership fully endorsed the notion of a democratic
European federation. As in the case of the CDU, the European idea
was primarily invoked as a spiritual value in the first years of the emigration. What Europe would be like after Hitler was a second-order question,
though it was taken as self-evident that it would be socialist. In this period
Europe was seen as an antithesis to Nazi Germany.25 As Erich Matthias
put it in 1952: For the Social Democrats, there is no Germany without Europe, it is always Germany and Europe, Germany with Europe,
Germany in Europe.26 The Social Democrats constructed a connection
between Germany and Europe. After the war they considered it their task
to lead Germany back to Europe.
In short, the Europeanization of German nation-state identity originated in the resistance of exiled political leaderswithin both SPD and
CDUto Hitler and the Nazis. For them Europes other was Nazi
Germany. Europe symbolized the values of democracy, human rights,
and social justice, values that had to be preserved against the Nazis. This
particular identity construction then became dominant in the postWorld
War II Federal Republic.
From these historical memories the Social Democrats drew different
conclusions than did the Christian Democrats. Conscious of not being
responsible for the catastrophe of the Third Reich and convinced that the
bourgeois parties had failed and were not up to the confrontation with
communism, the SPD claimed to have a right to leadership and considered
it self-evident that Germany and Europe would become socialist. When
the SPD was refounded in 1946, its first program supported the United
States of Europe, a democratic and socialist federation of European states.
25
26
William E. Paterson, The SPD and European Integration (Glasgow: Glasgow University Press, 1974), 3. See also Bellers, Sozialdemokratie; Rudolf Hrbek, Die SPD
299
300
T HOMAS R ISSE
AND
market economy. With regard to foreign policy, they revisited the 1925
Heidelberg program and became staunch supporters of European integration. The changes culminated in the 1959 Godesberg program. Two years
earlier the SPD had reversed its course regarding European integration:
it supported the Treaty of Rome in the German parliament. The SPDs
return to Europe went hand in hand with a complete reversal of its
attitude toward the economic and social order of the Federal Republic.
The SPD essentially gave up socialist principles.
A Federalist Consensus Emerges
In sum, from the late 1950s on, a federalist consensus (United States of
Europe) prevailed among the German political elites from the centerright to the center-left. Germanys nation-state identity embraced a modern Europe as part of the Western community, based on liberal democracy and a social market economy, with Europes other being both
Germanys past and communism. This consensus outlasted the changes
in government from the CDU to the SPD in 1969 as well as the return of
a CDU-led government in 1982. It also survived a major foreign policy
change of West German policy toward Eastern Europe, East Germany, and
the Soviet Union. When Chancellor Willy Brandt introduced Ostpolitik
in 1969, he made it very clear that efforts at European integration were
to be untouchable and had to be continued.29 As we explain later,
German unification twenty years later did not result in a reconsideration
of German European policies.
The German European consensus, prompted by SPD election defeats,
has remained stable despite the recent politicization of European politics.
The federalist consensus has long outlasted the instrumental interests that
brought it about in the first place. As mentioned earlier, it went hand in
hand with a peculiar identity construction in the aftermath of World War
II. Support for European integration among Germanys political elites is
linked to their broad visions of the European order. It also is directly
concerned with postWorld War II German nation-state identity. Two
aspects of the concept of national identity are particularly relevant in
the German context: historical memories and the way ones own past is
understood, on the one hand, and performances and achievements, which
are claimed to serve as a model for others, on the other.
29
Wolfram F. Hanrieder, Deutschland, Europa, Amerika: Die Auenpolitik der Bundesrepublik, 19491994 (Paderborn: Schoeningh, 1995).
301
William E. Paterson, The German Christian Democrats, in John Gaffney, ed., Political
Parties and the European Union (London: Routledge, 1996), 65.
und Geltung. Beitrage
zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und
Jurgen
Habermas, Faktizitat
des demokratischen Rechtsstaats (Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, 1992).
302
T HOMAS R ISSE
AND
303
Lander
elections in East Germany, it only marginally passed the 5 percent hurdle during the last federal elections. The differing view of the
East German political elite organized in the PDS does not represent a
serious challenge to the mainstream identity constructions. East German
Christian Democrats or Social Democrats do not challenge the dominant
European identity constructions either. First, East German political elites
seem to play only a minor role in this discourse since issues relating to
Europe are far less visible than those relating to German unification.38
34
35
36
37
38
eine
Suddeutsche
Zeitung, April, 6, 1998; Wahlprogramm der Linken Liste/PDS. Fur
starke linke Opposition, Neues Deutschland, September 27, 1990; PDS-Parteitag in
einem Thuringer
Parlamentarier in Straburg, der auszog, den Ostdeutschen das Furchten
304
T HOMAS R ISSE
AND
East German concerns and issues related to German unity are the main
topics that East German politicians usually address, and they have a higher
priority and tend to supersede everything else. Statements by East German
politicians on Europe in the media, just like their contributions to party
conventions, are quite rare. Most East German policymakers appear to
overlook, at least in their public statements, that the European Union
through its structural funds and its regulatory policies regarding state
subsidiesplayed a major role in the German unification process.
Second, the few East Germans who do speak out on Europe, usually
members of the European Parliament or rather prominent politicians,
seem wholeheartedly to embrace former West German identity constructions with regard to Europe.39 Wolfgang Thierse, leader of the Eastern
SPD at the time and now speaker of the German Parliament, declared
in 1990: Our commitment to European integration, our commitment
to the creation of the United States of Europe, is not merely rhetorical,
but for us it symbolizes a chance for lasting stability, security and partnership in Europe.40 Europe and European integration are almost
always referred to in connection with German reunification: Europe is
our chance. . . . There is an indivisible link for us between German and
European unification.41
However, East German political elites slightly differ from their West
German counterparts, since they bring a stronger Eastern European perspective to the political discourse. They are usually firm advocates of
rapid Eastern enlargement of the European Union. In view of the external
frontiers of the European Union, Eastern Europe is far closer to Eastern
party members who find themselves acting as a kind of trustee for Eastern Europe and bearing a special responsibility for shaping the future
relationship to Eastern European countries.42 CDU politician Lothar De
Maizi`ere reminded his party that security and stability in Europe include
39
40
41
42
Rolf Berend, a member of the European Parliament, who cited Adenauer, at the Party
Bruckenfunktion.
See also Merkel, proceedings of SPD Party Convention 1989, 92
October
94; Reinhard Schulze at the 3rd Party Convention of the CDU in Dusseldorf,
2628, 1992, 190; Thierse, SPD Convention speech 1990, 43.
305
43
44
45
46
Speech by the leader of the GDRs Christian Democrats, Prime Minister Lothar de
Maizi`ere, at the Party Convention of the CDU in Hamburg, October 12, 1990, proceedings, 43.
Thomas Banchoff, German Identity and European Integration, European Journal of
International Relations 5, 3 (1999): 25989.
Joseph M. Grieco, The Maastricht Treaty, Economic and Monetary Union, and the
Neo-Realist Research Programme, Review of International Studies 21, 1 (1995): 21
40; Wayne Sandholtz, Monetary Bargains: The Treaty on EMU, in Alan W. Cafruny
and Glenda G. Rosenthal, eds., The State of the European Community: The Maastricht
Debate and Beyond (Boulder Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1993), 12542.
David R. Cameron, Transnational Relations and the Development of European Economic and Monetary Union, in Thomas Risse-Kappen, ed., Bringing Transnational
Relations Back In: Non-State Actors, Domestic Structures and International Institutions
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 3778.
306
T HOMAS R ISSE
AND
48
Parts of the following were published first in Thomas Risse, Between the Euro and the
Deutsche Mark: German Identity and the European Union (Washington, D.C.: Center
for German and European Studies, Georgetown University, 1997); and in Thomas Risse,
Daniela Engelmann-Martin, Hans-Joachim Knopf, and Klaus Roscher, To Euro or Not
to Euro? The EMU and Identity Politics in the European Union, European Journal of
International Relations 5, 2 (1999): 14787.
Katzenstein, Tamed Power.
307
Schroder
(SPD) before he became chancellor in 1998 on the center-left.49
They were joined by the more implicit opposition to the Euro voiced by
the powerful German Bundesbank.50 However, each of them framed his
opposition by insisting on a strict adherence to the convergence criteria
50
308
T HOMAS R ISSE
AND
criteria (to make the Euro as strong as the Deutsche Mark). In this case,
then, the German elite consensus on European integration and the German
European nation-state identity served as powerful silencing mechanisms
that effectively foreclosed a public debate on the pros and cons of a single
currency.
Given the federalist elite consensus, the EMU was viewed as a cornerstone of European political integration. It was supported by all major
parties, despite a legitimacy crisis of a single currency in German public
opinion. Since the Euro was regarded as part and parcel of this political project, supporters strongly insisted that a delay in entering the third
stage in 1999 would endanger the successes of the European integration process up to now, as Chancellor Kohl put it.51 Former chancellor Helmut Schmidt, a Social Democrat, argued even more bluntly that
any delay means in all likelihood the ultimate abandonment of the currency union project.52 The German political elite identified the Euro
with European integration. The vast majority of the German political
elite shared Chancellor Kohls belief that only deeper political and economic unionsymbolized by a single currencycould anchor Germany
firmly in the West and strengthen European institutions to ensure peace
in the years ahead. As Helmut Schmidt argued, If the Euro-currency
is not realized by January 1, 1999, it will most likely never again be
realized. . . . This would result in the worst crisis of the European integration processpossibly its end! And Germany would be isolated
exactly the opposite of the binding which all chancellors from Adenauer to
Kohl have pursued as the overarching strategic goal, in the vital German
interest!53
Chancellor Kohl wanted to be remembered as the one who pushed
through the EMU and made a closer European Union inevitable, thus
preventing a return to nationalism in Europe.54 Kohl framed the single
currency as the symbol of European integration, and he identified his political fate with the realization of the Euro. His unsuccessful candidacy
for the chancellery in 1998 was motivated primarily by his commitment
to European integration and the Euro. He labeled 1997the year of reference for the fulfillment of the convergence criteriaas the key year
51
52
53
54
sachsischen
Regierungschefs zuruck,
Suddeutsche
Zeitung, July 28, 1997.
309
of Europe, as existential for further integration. Kohl appeared to believe that if the house of Europe was not built then, it would not be
built ten years later. He even argued that the success of the EMU was a
question of war and peace.55 Kohls convictions were not unique among
the German political elite. It is interesting that those parts of the Green
Party who supported the Euro used almost the same language as the chancellor. Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, who was a Green Party leader
in the Bundestag at the time, claimed that the only alternative to an early
start of the Euro was a return to the European past of power balancing
and nationalism.56
The strength of this elite consensus on European order and German
European identity became particularly apparent when it was challenged.
As argued above, even those opposed to the EMU did not dare touch the
German consensus on European integration but framed their criticism in
terms of asking for a delay and/or demanding a strict application of the
convergence criteria. Individual politicians from the CDU/CSU coalition
and the former SPD opposition had repeatedly tried to criticize the agreement that forced Germans to give up their cherished Deutsche Mark but
failed to gather support even from their fellow party members.57 When
Prime Minister Stoiber criticized the Maastricht Treaty in November 1993
and called for a slowing down of European integration, he was not only
condemned by the SPD and FDP in the Bundestag, but also strongly criticized by fellow Christian Democrats.58 Kohl himself restated his partys
commitment to the goal of European union in a Parliamentary address
insisting that there was no alternative to European unity.
More significant, the opposition SPD had ample opportunities to challenge the consensus on the Euro during the 1994 election year when both
federal and state elections were conducted in Germany. Even though most
Germans opposed the single currency at the time, the SPD refrained from
exploiting this sentiment for its own purpose. The consensus among the
main parties regarding European unity held firm. The SPD did not want
to be regarded as anti-European.
55
56
57
58
For the speech to the German Bundestag, see Kohl: Bei der europaischen
Wahrung
ist
wichtiger als der Kalender, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, May 28, 1994.
Stabilitat
den Euro bin. Das Jahr Europas: Im Streit um die
See Joschka Fischer, Warum ich fur
Wahrungsunion
geht es um den notwendigen Abschied vom klassischen Nationalstaat,
Die Zeit, March 21, 1997.
Dorothee Heisenberg, Loud and Clear: Germanys EMU Agenda-Setting after Maastricht (paper presented at the Tenth International Conference of Europeanists, March
1417, 1996, Chicago).
310
T HOMAS R ISSE
AND
Gerhard Schroder,
the prime minister of Lower Saxony, launched an attack against the EMU. They were immediately reprimanded by other SPD
leaders, members of the European Parliament (EP), and the SPD youth organization that usually represents the partys left wing. When Lafontaine
launched his candidacy for the SPD Party chairmanship a month later, he
explicitly criticized Scharpings attitude toward the common currency as
being inconsistent with the party platform. As candidate for the chancellorship, Schroder was the only voice in the party leadership to remain
skeptical of the Euro, yet in early 1998 he, too, changed his position. He
had originally called for a delayed entry into the third stage because of
economic considerations. At the same time he made it clear that he was a
good European by arguing that a controlled delay would not damage
Europe.59
It is particularly noteworthy that the German center-left largely remained silent over the EMU and that the majority of the Social Democratic elite supported it.60 The German left blamed the record-level unemployment on the Kohl governments austerity measures, but few drew
the obvious connection between those policies and Bonns determination to meet the convergence criteria. The German trade unions refrained
from criticizing the Euro, even though their constituents appeared to be
the biggest losers. Despite the publics growing reluctance to give up the
Deutsche Mark, a fractious debate on the Euro never occurred.
But supporters of the Euro did face significant challenges in Germany
in particular, Deutsche Mark patriotism. This was the ultimate reason
why the Euro was supposed to look very much like the Deutsche Mark
and why political discourse in Germany focused on how strong a currency
the Euro would become. The German government was willing to give
up the previously hegemonic role of the Deutsche Mark within the EMS
only if the future single currency was designed institutionally according to
59
60
Gerhard Schroder
in Den besten Zeitpunkt suchen!
Ton Notermans, The German Social Democrats and Monetary Union, mimeo, ARENA,
University of Oslo, May 1998.
311
312
T HOMAS R ISSE
AND
63
See the absurd German debate in the summer of 1997 over whether 3.0 meant three,
313
The irony was that the federal government was caught in its own
rhetoric. Compared with its European partners, Bonn had insisted on
a very rigid interpretation of the convergence criteria in order to reassure a nervous German public and to guarantee that EU members instituted the necessary austerity policies to meet the criteria. As a result,
Chancellor Kohl and Finance Minister Theo Waigel reduced their own
flexibility with regard to Germany meeting the criteria. When Waigel
desperately tried to generate additional resources by proposing that
the Bundesbank should revalue its gold reserves and transfer the revenue into Bonns 1997 budget figures, he was immediately accused of
creative accounting by his European partners. More important, the
Bundesbank, which had only grudgingly accepted the single currency to
begin with, launched a campaign against the federal government by linking up with Euroskeptics in Waigels own Bavarian CSU. The Bundesbank
won the battle, even though a re-evaluation of currency rather than gold
reserves was to be accounted for in the federal budget in early
1998.64
In sum, German political elites, including Chancellor Kohl, who strongly
supported the EMU tried to square the circle. They favored a single currency as a major step toward European political union, something they
regarded as necessary to anchor a united Germany firmly in Western political and economic institutions. Moreover, the single currency would
stabilize German Europeanness and constitutional patriotism at the
same time. But the elites also had to deal with Deutsche Mark patriotism. Insistence on a strict application of the convergence criteria, in
particular the 3 percent goal with regard to budget deficits, was meant
to increase the political acceptability and legitimacy of the EMU by constructing the Euro as a Deutsche Mark with a different name. But the
more rigidly the political elites interpreted the convergence criteria, the
less likely it became that Germany would meet them. Delaying the entry
date in a single currency was no way out, since supporters of the EMU
had convinced themselves that this would have spelled the end of the
single currencyand possibly of European integration as a whole. Moreover, cutting the German budget deficit increase to less than 3 percent
of GDP involved deep cuts in the German welfare state. The self-inflicted
strict interpretation of the Maastricht criteria challenged the famous
64
314
T HOMAS R ISSE
AND
German consensus on the welfare state and the social market economy,
yet another component of German national identity.
CONCLUSIONS
315
federalist order, as Joschka Fischers speech in Berlin in May 2000 confirmed again. The model is the Bonn republic, not Paris and the Fifth
Republic. In this sense, visions of European order are strongly connected
and relate to the German domestic institutional setup. Thus, Germans
ideas about Europe and the European order are strongly correlated with
their own domestic order.
German Europeanness also serves as an example of how political elites
manipulate and instrumentalize collective nation-state identities for political purposes. Almost single-handedly, Chancellor Adenauer constructed
the Federal Republics European identity in order to justify and legitimize
a foreign policy oriented toward the West. He used the German past, notions of a Sonderweg and of a seesaw policy between East and West,
to denounce the political opposition to his preferred course of action.
This time Germany should be firmly anchored in the West to prevent a return to the nationalist past. Since this identity construction resonated well
with the widespread enthusiasm for European integration at the time, and
since Adenauers foreign and domestic policies proved highly successful,
the opposition failed. When the SPD turned around after two election
defeats, the German federalist consensus emerged.
Consensual identity constructions can be used for instrumental purposes. Consider the Euro. Chancellor Kohl attached his support for the
single currency to the German Europeanized nation-state identity. This
effectively silenced potentially strong domestic opposition. It became impossible to discuss the Euro in purely economic terms and to weigh the
costs and benefits of it in a politically neutral way. The single currency
was identified with the political project of European integration as a whole
and, thus, with a project each good German had to approve. Skeptics
had to demonstrate that they were good Europeans. Only then could
they criticize the Euro. Deutsche Mark patriotism simply was not strong
enough to counter Euro patriotism.
German Europeanness is firmly anchored in the collective nation-state
identity of the German political elites. But what about the German mass
public? Data on mass public opinion appear to show that the German
public has supported European integration in terms of a permissive consensus for a long time. Cracks in the consensus occurred only recently
and are probably related to the fact that European issues such as the single
currency increasingly hit home, become politicized and subject to political controversy. There is not much evidence, however, that the German
public at largeEast and Weststrongly identifies with the European
316
T HOMAS R ISSE
AND
14
Nationalisms in Spain: The Organization
of Convivencia
A N D R E S D E B L A S G U E R R E R O
317
318
A N D R E S
DE
BLAS GUERRERO
Maiz, eds., Los naOn Spanish nationalism in general, see Justo Beramendi and Ramon
de la II Republica
cionalismos en la Espana
(Madrid: Siglo XXI, 1991); Alberto Botti,
(Madrid: Alianza Universidad, 1992);
Cielo y dinero: El nacionalcatolicismo en Espana
de Espana
(Madrid: Catedra,
Espana
in Jose Maria
vol. 34 (Madrid: Espasa Calpe, 1981); Juan Marichal,
Jover, ed., Historia de Espana,
(Madrid: Taurus, 1995); Jose Antonio Rocamora, El nacionalismo
El secreto de Espana
1994. For a recent synthesis of state and nation building in Spain, see Luis Gonzalez
y las Espanas
(Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 1997).
Espana
Anton,
On nationalism in Catalonia, see in particular Albert Balcells, Catalan Nationalism: Past
and Present (London: Macmillan, 1996); Joan Benet, Bibliografia sobre el nacionalisme
cuestion
Nationalisms in Spain
319
For a survey of the Spanish autonomous state, see Juan Pablo Fusi, El desarollo au 19751986
tonomico,
in Javier Tusell and Alvaro Soto, eds., Historia de la transicion,
(Madrid: Alianza Universidad, 1996); Eduardo Garc a de Enterr a, Estudios sobre autonom as territoriales (Madrid: Civitas, 1985); Luis Mart n Rebollo, ed., El futuro de
las autonom as territoriales (Santander: Universidad de Cantabria, 1990); Luis Moreno,
de Espana
(Madrid: Siglo XXI, 1997); Francisco Pena
D ez, ed., El EsLa federalizacion
tado autonomico
(Madrid: Ministerio de Administraciones Publicas,
1993); Alberto Perez
de las Comunidades Autonomas
ciones Publicas,
1996); and Documentacion
Liah Greenfeld, Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992).
320
A NDRE S
DE
B LAS G UERRERO
in previous investigations I proved once and again that the Spanish experience was quite comprehensible on its own terms, although it did not
conform to the generalizations developed by political scientists studying
the history of England, France, and Prussia. It did not make sense to call
Spain eccentric; the fault clearly lay with the generalizations, not with
Spain.5
The long era of martial conflict with the Muslim world, present in
the Iberian Peninsula since the invasion of the eighth century, culminated
at the end of the fifteenth century. The Christian kingdoms born of the
Reconquest would become an expression of political pluralism, but they
never broke free of the influence of the idea of a unified Spain under
the government of Rome or especially under the Visigothic monarchy
terminated by the Muslim invasion. One of the most significant aspects
of the Hispanic reunification begun in the late fifteenth century was the
weight of the crown of Castile in terms of demographic potential, wealth,
and territorial control. The modern Spanish state, born like other Western
countries as a national state, was thus dominated by a single region at
the expense of the other kingdoms and jurisdictions that constituted the
union. When an alteration of demographic, economic, and social trends
in favor of the periphery began at the end of the seventeenth century,
the opportune political consequences for the state would not be easy to
discern.
The Spanish state that emerged from the traumatic Iron Age of the
seventeenth century experienced abnormally prolonged moments of peace
in the Age of Enlightenment and a difficult assimilation of liberal politics
in the nineteenth century. This was a state certain of its identity. Its status
as a national state was practically beyond question. Indeed, the Spanish
state was even envied on occasion by the rest of Europe.
The impact of the disturbances at the end of the nineteenth century
cannot be underestimated. Political Catalan nationalism (catalanismo)
became important during the first decade of the twentieth century, and
Basque nationalism established a more modest presence over the course of
the first third of this century. These movements caused centrifugal tensions
in the republic, although they were in no way comparable to the social and
economic tensions that ended in the tragedy of 1936. The most serious
crisis of national conscience, the crisis that to a degree still afflicts us
today, is that which began with the sudden interruption of our liberal
5
capital y los estados europeos, 9901990 (Madrid: Alianza UniCharles Tilly, Coercion,
versidad, 1992).
Nationalisms in Spain
321
tradition by Francoism. The crisis continued during the fight against his
dictatorship and the process of transition to democracy.
The dictatorship of Franco attempted to terminate the nationalist and
regionalist demands that had been present in Spain since the last decades
of the nineteenth century. Consequently, there was a return to unifying
and centralist bases of government unhindered by the limits and balances inherent in the liberal political order. The Franco regime found
itself obliged to adopt this centralist option by virtue of its totalitarian,
and then authoritarian, nature. The reestablishment of democracy was
necessarily accompanied by various forms of territorial distribution of
power. These developments were prompted as much by the pressure of
peripheral nationalisms as by the prestige brought on during the 1960s
and 1970s by regional economic and administrative projects designed to
encourage political participation.
This pressure to reformulate the model of territorial organization of
the state was complemented by the supranational integration after World
War II, which had remained to a large degree at the margin under the
dictatorship of Franco. Since the beginning of the twentieth century at
least, the cause of European integration had been inseparable from the
process of economic and social modernization and the reform of the liberal
order begun in the first decades of the nineteenth century. For the majority
of the opposition to the dictatorship, full integration into the European
Community remained a fundamental political aspiration. Some viewed
this aspiration, doubtless somewhat precipitously, as the prelude to a rapid
dissolution of the national state and of the idea of the political nation, both
now thrown into dispute by the processes of supranational integration and
the demands of internal devolution.
This is not the moment for a digression into this supposed process of
autodissolution of the state prefigured by the new post-Hobbesian order
that would develop in Spain. But we weary of the supposed imminence
and inevitability of the terminal crisis of the liberal-democratic Leviathan.
As Michael Mann and others have pointed out, Eurocentricism dominates our vision of a crisis that is not easy to determine in great powers
such as the United States, Japan, and Germany, or in smaller states struggling to liberate themselves from the pre-Hobbesian stage dominant in
their societies.6 It is time to question, not only this Eurocentricism, but
also the unidirectional character of certain phenomena that have been
6
Michael Mann, Nation-States in Europe and Other Continents, Daedalus, vol. 122, no.
3 (1993).
322
A NDRE S
DE
B LAS G UERRERO
The distinction between the idea of the political nation and the cultural nation, first made by Ferdinand Meinecke, has hardly ever been
applied to the Spanish case, despite the rationale behind its creation and
the possibilities it contains for the treatment of certain national questions
from the perspective of democratic pluralism.7 The political nation
emerges in Europe as an ideological reference point destined to facilitate
7
Ferdinand Meinecke, Cosmopolitanism and the National State (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1970); and idem, The German Catastrophe: Reflections and Recollections (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1950).
Nationalisms in Spain
323
the life of the state.8 Far from being the consequence of a pre-existing na (Great Interpreter)
tional reality, this state is typically the gran truchiman
postulated by Ortega y Gasset to explain the appearance of nations.9
The substantially political genesis of the nation is in no way exclusive to
Europe. The United States, Latin America, and subsequently Africa and
Asia set the stage for a pattern of nations that cannot be the result of a
prior ethno-linguistic homogeneity.
The origins of this type of nation are old and can be traced to the very
birth of the modern state in the form of the nation-state. Nevertheless, the
question of national origins did not attain authentic importance until an
advanced date. When the cohesion of the state depends upon other political and ideological meansdynastic fidelity or religious bonds surviving
through the all-powerful force of traditionthe nation is an ideological construction largely without foundation. The liberal state discovered
all its potential through the advantageous substitution of fallen idols.
As exemplified by liberal states such as Britain, France, the United States,
Germany, and Spain, national characterundoubtedly conditioned by the
complex process of protonationalismtakes on a distinct meaning and
an urgency to conform to the internal and external demands that bring
about national mobilization. Resistance to the new liberal order, the need
to proceed to the unification of the state, the exigencies of imperial enterprises, and the questioning of the state by emerging nationalist movements
of a secessionist character are some of the factors that modulate the form
and the intensity of this national mobilization in liberal states.
The originality of the nation should not be juxtaposed with the
artificiality of the state. A nation adapts to the necessities brought
about by economic, social, ideological, and political transformations,
and it assumes the multiethnic character of its constituents in accordance with liberal nationalism, generating a type of nationalism that,
as Eugene Kamenka has argued, is based on the citizen and not on ethnic
particularism.10 The individual, possessed of dignity and intrinsic rights,
should be the subject and not the object of the nation and nationalism.
Several decades ago Alfred Cobban pointed out the political consequences
implicit in this type of nation, unlike the model of the organic or cultural
nation.11
8
9
10
11
324
A NDRE S
DE
B LAS G UERRERO
To a certain extent, Johann von Herder served as the first great prophet
of a German-based nationalist tradition that argued for a different understanding of the nation. In his view the cultural singularity of a collectivity,
the spirit of the people, is ultimately responsible for the emergence of a
nation. This nation should not be constituted by historical-political factors or by the action of the state, but rather by the delimitation of territorial political organizations. The enjoyment of the state itself is considered
indispensable as a guarantee of the differentiated cultural personality of
the people, something that, for Herder, possesses greater value than the
collectivity.12
One recurring problem is how to identify the causes for the sudden
appearance of this second type of nation. In most cases it can be attributed
to external conflicts of the kind that inspired Fichtes Discourses to the
German Nation.13 In other cases, however, the element that unleashes the
process can be found in internal factors. Industrialism, for example, may
reveal differences in wealth between territories within the state that had
previously lived together in harmony. Other factors include urbanization,
the impact of educating the masses, and the turmoil generated by largescale migrations.
Even allowing for the importance of the aforementioned factors, the
historian and the political scientist cannot neglect the power of ideologies and nationalist movements in constructing new communities. Several
databases would doubtless be necessary for any viable quantitative study
of nationalism. Even then such statistics would provide a backdrop for,
rather than any strict determinant of, the new national-cultural realities.
This conception of the nation will necessarily give rise to another type
of nationalism, one characterized by its supra-individual foundation in
addition to its taste for diversity and its inevitable enthusiasm for that
which is unique to each people. The protagonist of the nation is the cultural entity, and the rights of the nation are not derived fundamentally
from its citizens, but rather from the living and eternal organism that
forms the cultural basis of the nation.
It goes without saying that Meineckes two classes of nations, both of
Nationalisms in Spain
325
326
A NDRE S
DE
B LAS G UERRERO
J. J. Solozabal,
an expert on the Spanish Constitution, has examined the
Spanish national state as a state of autonomies.16 In 1931 some of
those responsible for the republican constitution believed themselves to
be engaged in a revolutionary process with the capacity to create a
new state. The current Spanish constitution, by contrast, is the
expression of the continuity of a Spanish nation that is open to convivencia with other eventual realities, particularly of a cultural
nature.
16
Nationalisms in Spain
327
Accion
(Madrid: Alianza Universidad, 1985).
328
A NDRE S
DE
B LAS G UERRERO
J. Alvarez Junco, La teor a pol tical del anarquismo, in Fernando Vallesp n, ed., Historia de la teor a pol tica, vol. 4 (Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 1992).
Nationalisms in Spain
329
least, by the delegitimization of the state. The boundaries have not always
been clear between a dictatorial regime, a state profoundly penetrated by
the logic of the dictatorship, and a nation with a long history of liberalism
behind it. The updated Basque and Catalan nationalist movements have
taken advantage of this ambiguity. They are intent on constructing their
hegemony in the Basque country and Catalonia on fragments of legitimacy torn from the Spanish state and nation. The greater solidity and
consequent self-assurance of Catalan nationalism allowed, however, the
partial reconsideration of this position by the Catalan nationalist party,
the CIU. The nationalism of the Basque Nationalist Party is more radical.
This party is conscious of the precariousness of its political hegemony,
gained in part through the exceptional circumstances created by the terrorist practices of ETA (Euskadi y Libertad ).
Since the reestablishment of democracy in Spain and the implementation of the constitution of 1978, the obstacles to the liberal-democratic
state posed by the traditional right, by anarchists, and by Spanish Marxists have finally been eliminated. The overwhelming majority of the old
Spanish right has opted for the democratic political formulas expressed
de Centro
by parties of the center and the right of center, such as Union
Democratico
(UCD), the Centro Democratico
y Social (CDS), and the
current Partido Popular (PP). The former anarchist syndicate has disappeared from our political scene, and traditional Marxism has given way
to the modern social-democratic positions of the renovated Partido So (PSOE). The only significant refutation of the
cialista Obrero Espanol
state that remains in force today is directed against the role of the state
as a nation, not against its liberal-democratic character.
In this context several commentators have inevitably argued for European integration and the convenience of forgetting the national character of the Spanish state. By this logic the state could be replaced by
something like a sum of nationalities, an ambiguous nation of nations
that vaguely recalls the hardly reassuring formula of conversion in the
Austrian-Hungarian Empire on the eve of its extinction. Some believe
that the forced blurring of the Spanish national conscience is the best expedient, given the importance of peripheral nationalism and the process
of European integration. In Spain the problems of the legitimacy of the
national liberal-democratic state have not been associated wholly with
peripheral nationalism or with European integrationa process with
consequences for the future of the nation-state that are still poorly understood. However, it makes better sense to think that Spanish nationalism,
with distinctly liberal-democratic origins and committed both to a plural
330
A NDRE S
DE
B LAS G UERRERO
15
The Kantian Idea of Europe: Critical and
Cosmopolitan Perspectives
JAMES TULLY
That is, I demur from the suggestion, advanced by many of Kants followers, that his political philosophy is cosmopolitan. Kant claims only that his philosophy has a cosmopolitan
intent. See Immanuel Kant, Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Intent,
in Perpetual Peace and Other Essays, ed. Ted Humphrey (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1983), 2940. This I do not dispute. For a recent and unmodified claim that
Kants political and moral philosophy is cosmopolitan, see Martha C. Nussbaum, Kant
and Stoic Cosmopolitanism, The Journal of Political Philosophy 5, 1 (March 1997):
126.
331
332
J AMES T ULLY
Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch, in Perpetual Peace and Other
Essays, 10744, 11218. The republican constitution is the first definitive article of peace
and the federation of such states is the second.
Ibid., 10711, 11819, 125. The cosmopolitan right is the means by which commerce is
offered to other nations. Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals, trans. Mary Gregor
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 158.
Benjamin Constant, The Spirit of Conquest and Usurpation and their Relation to
European Civilization, in Political Writings, ed. Biancamaria Fontana (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1988), 738, 14956. Constant realized that his defense of
the variety of customs against uniformity was unpopular, and he believed that the economic and political processes of modernization would lead to uniformity in the long run.
Kant, Perpetual Peace, 117. (This idea of federalism should eventually include all nations.) See Anthony Pagden, Lords of all the World: Ideologies of Empire in Spain,
Britain, and France c.1500c.1800 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 190. The
federation can use economic power, rather than war, to force other nations to comply
(125).
Pagden, Lords of all the World, 1205; Kant, Idea for a Universal History, 2940. For
a recent historical survey and defense of the stages theory of historical development in
Enlightenment thought, see Istvan Hont, The Permanent Crisis of a Divided Mankind:
Contemporary Crisis of the Nation State in Historical Perspective, in Contemporary
Crisis of the Nation State? ed. John Dunn (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1995), 160231.
Pagden, Lords of the all the World, 178200. The title of this concluding chapter is From
Empire to Federation.
333
colonies by warfare, Kant accepts and builds on this older imperial foundation, understood as the will or mechanism of nature and does
not permit any resistance to it.8
This idea of Europe and of the world as a European federation writ
large is worth serious consideration because it has played the role of something like a Kantian regulative ideal over the two centuries since the
publication of Perpetual Peace in 1795. It has come to function as a more
or less taken-for-granted normative standard against which many people organize and evaluate forms of political association in Europe and
throughout the world. Initially, as we have seen, it gave philosophical expression to widely held assumptions about political association and historical development in eighteenth-century Europe. Across the Atlantic,
James Madison, according to Nicolas Greenleaf Onuf, argued that the
federation of the thirteen Euro-American states in 1787 was modeled on
this continental idea of federation, but that the United States added
an Atlantic element of active republican citizenship that is absent
from Kants formulation.9 The Atlantic element is the republican or
neo-Roman concept of freedom, which involves the civic responsibility to serve the public good through participation yet is adapted to a federal system in which citizens are represented at both the state and federal
orders.10 The United States modification and use of the European idea
served in turn as a norm for some of the non-Indigenous liberal revolutions in Latin America and, to some degree, for the federation of the four
provinces of Canada in the nineteenth century.
In the early twentieth century President Woodrow Wilsons vision of
decolonization, independent state building, and the League of Nations
8
9
10
Kant, Perpetual Peace, 1205, esp. 124. Kant explains this conservative doctrine in The
Metaphysics of Morals, 12933. Under no circumstances can any existing constitutional
order be questioned with regard to obedience. Moreover, like many of the stages
theorists of the eighteenth century, Kant apparently believes that legal order and peaceful
relations only arise with sedentary agriculture and trade in any case, so the Indigenous
peoples who hunt, fish, and herd have no laws and are the most contrary to a civilized
constitution (Perpetual Peace, 122 and note).
Nicolas Greenwood Onuf, The Republican Legacy in International Thought (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1998).
For the neo-Roman or republican concept of freedom in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries, see Quentin Skinner, Liberty before Liberalism (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1997) and Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and
Government (Oxford: Clarendon: 1997). In contrast to this widespread concept of republican or neo-Roman freedom, Kant defines freedom as the privilege not to obey
any external laws except those to which I have been able to give my consent, yet he calls
this republican (Perpetual Peace, 112 and note). It is questionable whether Madison
endorses the republican concept of freedom as nondomination (independence) or the
liberal concept of freedom as noninterference.
334
J AMES T ULLY
Is it possible to call this idea of Europe into question and take up a critical
attitude toward aspects of it and the regulative role it plays in political
thought and action without denying its importance? The answer is yes.
Such an attitude has developed in response to the five features of the
Kantian idea over the past two hundred years. A survey of this critical
attitude enables us to see the Kantian idea as a critical ideal rather than as
a regulative idealas one form of organization of the political field among
many rather than as the framework in which alternatives are evaluated.
This attitude is neither anti-Enlightenment nor post-Enlightenment. It is a
critical attitude that derives from the Enlightenment and finds expression,
for example, in Kants essay What is Enlightenment?13 It is a test of the
habitual and regulative assumptions or, more accurately, limits of the
present, including the limits that Kant and other Enlightenment thinkers
claim to have established as beyond doubt. Michel Foucault poses this
critical question: In what is given to us as universal, necessary, obligatory,
what place is occupied by whatever is singular, contingent, and the product
11
12
13
Carl J. Friedrich, Inevitable Peace (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1948).
David Held, Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan
Governance (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995), 22630.
Kant, What is Enlightenment? in Perpetual Peace, 10744. For the Enlightenment context of this essay, see James Schmidt, ed., What is Enlightenment? Eighteenth-Century
Answers and Twentieth-Century Questions (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1996). For the interpretation of What is Enlightenment? as initiating a form of critical
reflection on the dominant assumptions of the present, including the assumptions of the
Kantian tradition of political philosophy, see Michel Foucault, What is Critique? and
What is Enlightenment? in The Politics of Truth, ed. Sylvere Lotringer (New York:
Columbia University Press & Semiotext(e), 1997), 2382, 10134; and James Tully,
To Think and Act Differently: Foucaults Four Reciprocal Objections to Habermas,
in Foucault contra Habermas: Two Philosophies of the Present, ed. David Owen
(New York: Sage Publications, 1998).
335
Perpetual Peace played an important role in promoting a form of postcolonial state building and international organization toward the end of
this second and higher stage of imperialism. It is reasonable to question
if it has not also played a role in continuing aspects of imperialism, given
the context in which it was written (of the transition from one phase
of imperialism to another) and the apparently uncritical stance the text
takes to underlying forms of economic and constitutional imperialism.
Now this is exactly the sort of historical and contextual question the
14
15
17
336
J AMES T ULLY
337
21
22
23
Ibid., 9. For a very good introduction to the study of cultural imperialism, see John
Tomlinson, Cultural Imperialism: A Critical Introduction (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1991).
Said, Culture and Imperialism, 7.
For this historical sequence of decolonization, see ibid., 23981. For the distinction
between liberation and practices of liberty, see Foucault, The Ethics of Concern for Self
as a Practice of Freedom, in Michel Foucault: Ethics, Subjectivity and Truth, ed. Paul
Rabinow (New York: The New Press, 1997), 2823.
Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth, trans. Constance Farrington (New York: Grove
Press, 1963); note the preface by Jean-Paul Sartre. For the status of this text in the Third
World as roughly equivalent to Perpetual Peace in the First World, see Lewis R. Gordon,
T. Denean Sharpley-Whiting, and Renee T. White, eds. Fanon: A Critical Reader (Oxford:
Basil Blackwell, 1996); and Said, Culture and Imperialism, 26778.
338
J AMES T ULLY
27
339
On this account, then, the Kantian idea of free states and federation
is not culturally neutral but is the bearer of processes of a homogenizing or assimilating European cultural identity. Constant saw it this way
as well, as rendering subjects culturally undifferentiated and uniform.
On the contrary, Pagden suggests that many of the proponents of
Kantian European and world federalism from Andrew Fletcher to
Woodrow Wilson saw it as culturally pluralist.28 Those who have struggled to liberate themselves from imperialism over the past forty years have
tended to agree with Constant and Fanon. They have seen their struggles
not only as a means to liberate them from a formal colonial system. They
also struggled for the recognition and accommodation of cultural diversity against forms of cultural imperialism imposed by the very institutions
that Kant took to be cosmopolitan.
Moreover, these struggles over the past forty years did not always
involve the establishment of an independent state through decolonization or secession, although this was common enough from Algeria and
Vietnam to the breakup of the Soviet Union. These struggles for cultural
recognition, as Charles Taylor points out, just as often take place within
existing constitutional states (including within newly decolonized states,
as Fanon predicted), to recognize and accommodate a diversity of cultural
identities either in the shared institutions of unitary political associations,
as in the United States, or through institutions of legal and political pluralism in multi-ethnic and multinational federations and confederations,
as in the European Union.29 These demands are put forward by indigenous peoples; linguistic, religious, and ethnic minorities; nations within
multinational states; and immigrants, exiles, refugees, and multicultural
citizens.30 The aim is not to overturn but to amend the institutions of
constitutional democracy, so they will express the cultural plurality of the
sovereign people, or peoples, rather than impose the dominant cultures
identity while masquerading as universal and difference blind.31 Will
28
29
30
31
340
J AMES T ULLY
Kymlicka writes:
Throughout the world, minorities and majorities clash over such issues as language rights, federalism and regional autonomy, political representation, religious freedom, education curriculum, land claims, immigration and naturalization policy, even national symbols such as the choice of national anthem or public
holidays.
Resolving these disputes is perhaps the greatest challenge facing democracies
today. In Eastern Europe and the Third World, attempts to create liberal democratic institutions are being undermined by violent nationalist conflicts. In the
West, volatile disputes over the rights of immigrants, indigenous peoples, and
other cultural minorities are throwing into question many of the assumptions
which have governed political life for decades. Since the end of the Cold War, ethnocultural conflicts have become the most common source of political violence in
the world, and they show no signs of abating.32
Since these struggles against five hundred years of imperialism are only
forty years old, it is too early to say if they will be effective or simply mark
the transition to a third phase of imperialism. Nevertheless, they have
manifestly challenged the purported cultural impartiality and universality
of constitutional states and federations in practice, and the response in
theory has been urgent critical reflection on the imperial setting of
one of the most authoritative regulative ideals, the Kantian idea of Europe.
Three cultural aspects of the Kantian idea in particular have come in
for criticism: the conception of cultures, the relation of cultures to constitutions and federations, and the procedures that render a constitution
impartial and legitimate. I will now survey these criticisms and their relation to the earlier tradition of a critical Enlightenment ethos in order
to show how they give rise to a changed understanding of the idea of
Europe.33
RETHINKING CULTURES
As noted earlier, the fourth feature of the Kantian idea of Europe is a background philosophy of world history. This philosophy of history ties all
five features of the Kantian idea together into a comprehensive worldview.
32
33
Will Kymlicka, ed., The Rights of Minority Cultures (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1995), 1.
In order to focus on cultural imperialism, I set aside the important question of whether
Kants idea of federation challenges or legitimates economic imperialism. (The answer
seems obvious enough.) It is worth noting that Kant was aware of and sought to arrest
aspects of military imperialism. See Preliminary Articles 3, 5, and 6, Perpetual Peace,
10810.
341
In Perpetual Peace and Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Intent, Kant lays out his version of the stages idea of world-historical
development. All societies are located on hierarchically arranged levels of
historical development. Western European nation-states with their emerging republican constitutions, commerce, inchoate federal relations, enlightened self-seeking, competitive motivation of unsocial sociability,
cultivated civilization, and, finally, intimations of a single and universal
culture and morality are closest to the highest stage, yet only halfway there:
We are, to a high degree, cultivated beyond bearing by all manner of social convention and propriety. But we are a long way from being able to regard ourselves
as moral. For the idea of morality belongs to culture; and yet using this idea only in
references to semblances of morality, e.g. love of honour and outward propriety,
constitutes mere civilization.34
All other societies, with their lower political, economic, and cultural
ways, are described and ranked from the standpoint of the European
level. The stage that European societies are approachingof independent
nation-states with republican constitutions and one culture and morality in a federationis universal and cosmopolitan. It is the end-state
to which all others are tending in due course, the level of the development of all the capacities of the human species, and the level of perpetual
peace.35
As the processes of colonial rule and commerce spread around the
globe from the European nations, which will in all likelihood eventually
give laws to all others,36 they stimulate the lower societies to progress
in such a way as to shed their primitive institutions, cultures, and
different kinds of historical faiths, which were appropriate to their
lower stage of development.37 These societies either develop into independent states or become incorporated in the European colonies, which
develop into independent nation-states. Cultures tend to be relative to
the underlying stage of political and economic development. Barbarism
and savagism appear at the inferior, hunter-and-gatherer stage;
civilization and refinement at the superior, commercial stage. The
motive of unsocial sociability, which drives the development of human
34
36
37
Kant, Idea for a Universal History, 36. 35 Ibid., 369 (theses eight and nine).
Ibid., 38.
Kant, Perpetual Peace, 125 note. For Kant there is no religious or moral pluralism. There
is only one religion (and one morality) valid for all men in all times. The variety of
faiths historically can be nothing more than the accidental vehicles of religion and can
only thereby be different in different times and places.
342
J AMES T ULLY
Antagonisms among competitive individuals within crude political organizations have the unintended consequence of constructing the foundations of a perfect civil constitution. In the same way the antagonism of
war among political organizations leads unintentionally to the development of federations:
Through wars, through excessive and never remitting preparation for war, through
the resultant distress that every nation must, even during times of peace, feel within
itself . . . [men] are driven to make some initial, imperfect attempts; finally, after
much devastation, upheaval, and even complete exhaustion of their inner powers,
they are driven to take the step that reason could have suggested, even without
so much sad experience, namely, to leave the lawless state of savagery and enter
into a federation of peoples.39
40
343
the Turks, Tamurlaine, the Europeans after Columbuss discoveries, they have all
amazed the southern lands with their arts and weapons.41
41
42
43
Kant, Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime, in Race and the Enlightenment: A Reader, ed. Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1997),
64. Kant wrote this in 1764, twenty years before the Idea for a Universal History. However, nothing in the latter text (or in Perpetual Peace) repudiates or contradicts his earlier
view on national characteristics. The whole tenor of the text is complementary to it (see
especially 389). He also continued to write on the racial superiority of Europeans in
1775 (On the Different Races of Men) and 1798 (Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point
of View). For an introduction to Kants views on race and national characteristics, see
Eze, Race and the Enlightenment, 19, 3870.
Johann Gottfried Herder, Ideen zur Philosophie de Geschichte der Menschheit (178491),
translated in part as Ideas on the Philosophy of History of Mankind, trans. T. Churchill
(New York: Bergman Publishers, 1800).
Eze, Race and the Enlightenment, 65. Compare Charles Taylor, The Importance of
Herder, in Philosophical Arguments (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1995), 7999.
344
J AMES T ULLY
rhetorically:
Does the author really mean that, if the happy inhabitants of Tahiti, never visited
by more civilized nations, were destined to live in their peaceful indolence for
thousands of centuries, it would be possible to give a satisfactory answer to the
question of why they should exist at all, and of whether it would not have been
just as good if the island had been occupied by happy sheep and cattle as by happy
human beings who merely enjoy themselves?44
Herders work challenges two features of the Kantian idea: the presupposition that all cultures can be ranked relative to a European norm
and that they all develop (once they come into contact with the more
civilized nations) toward that apex. Herder also presents an alternative
attitude of cosmopolitanism as cultural pluralism: the presumption that
all cultures are of intrinsic worth and that they have their own histories. In
the long term Herders cultural pluralism called into question the attitude
of European cultural superiority informing the Kantian idea and helped
to foster an outlook of cultural pluralism. This outlook is expressed in
early-twentieth-century anthropology, the respect for non-European cultures that began to emerge during decolonization, and the more recent
demands of multiculturalism. As Taylor suggests, the demands of multiculturalism rest on the premise derived from Herder that we owe
equal respect to all cultures. This is understood as a presumption that
cultures are of equal worth:
it is a starting hypothesis with which we ought to approach the study of another
culture. The validity of the claim has to be demonstrated concretely in the actual
study of the culture.45
45
Kant, Review of Herders Ideas on the Philosophy of the History of Mankind, in Kants
Political Writings, ed. H. Reiss, trans. H. B. Nisbet (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1970), cited in Eze, Race and the Enlightenment, 70.
Taylor, The Politics of Recognition, 667.
345
cultures are not independent, separate, and internally uniform but overlapping, interacting, and internally contested or negotiated. Moreover,
the multiplicity of cultures does not seem to bear any straightforward
relation to constitutional and economic development or to tend to convergence and uniformity. Quite the opposite.46
Consequently, cultures should be seen, in the words of Said, as contrapuntal ensembles.47 The overlapping, interacting, and internally negotiated character of cultures is expressed as a second presumption
of cultural diversity rather than Herders pluralism or Kants monism.
Reflecting on the cultural diversity and demands for recognition within
the emerging European Union, Jacques Derrida writes that, contrary to
both Kant and Herder, what is proper to a culture is not to be identical
to itself. This is not to say that cultural identity is not important or not
to not have an identity but to be able to take the form of a subject only
in the difference with itself. There is, Derrida suggests, no culture or
cultural identity without this difference with itself.48 This second presumption is, like the first, a working hypothesis, an attitude one takes to
culture, not a preconceived idea to which reality must correspond. When
approaching a culture or any demand for the acknowledgment of a culture, one should ask three questions. Are there other cultures or, recalling
Fanon, other activities of cultural discovery and invention that share the
same geographic space and deserve mutual presumptive respect? Is the
culture in question constituted temporally by interaction with other cultures? Are there others who share the culture in question yet contest the
way it is articulated and expressed by spokespersons claiming to speak
for all?49
What are the differences between the attitude toward cultures in the
two presumptions of cultural diversity and in Kants idea of Europe? The
first and most obvious difference is the attitude of presumptive respect
for cultural differences in contrast to the presupposed attitude of cultural
superiority (of Europeans). The second presumption suggests that a citizen or a people will be the bearer of more than one culture, of multiple
46
47
48
49
For Herders view that cultures are separate and incommensurable, see Anthony Pagden,
European Encounters with the New World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993),
17281. The change in the understanding of cultures as overlapping, interacting, and
internally negotiated is summarized in Michael Carrithers, Why Humans Have Cultures:
Explaining Anthropology and Social Diversity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992),
1233.
Said, Culture and Imperialism, 52.
Jacques Derrida, The Other Heading: Reflections on Todays Europe, trans. Pascale-Anne
Brault and Michael R. Nass (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991), 9.
For these three questions, see Tully, Strange Multiplicity, 129.
346
J AMES T ULLY
cultural identities, and that this diversity is better approached as activities of cultural discovery, invention, reimagination, and contestation in
agonic relation to the powers of cultural imposition and assimilation
than as a diversity of fixed cultural formationsmore Dionysian than
Appollonian.50
The third difference is the understanding that culture is closely related
to identity. Kant understood this as well, but he saw cultural identity, except at the highest stage, as something superficial and irrelevant to ones
identity as a citizen. Ones identity as a citizen is defined in the First
Definitive Article in terms of a metaphysical and universal theoretical
identity, toward which the species is tending, of autonomy: the capacity of rational agents to direct their lives reflectively in accordance with
universal principles. In contrast, cultural identity is seen as an important aspect of ones practical identity. The appropriate acknowledgment of and respect for ones practical identity is now seen as relevant
to ones identity as a citizen. Practical identity refers to the aspects of
citizens identities that matter to them. It is the answer to the question
Who are we? or the structure of strong evaluations in accord with,
and against, which humans live their lives.51 In an influential and representative analysis, Christine Korsgaard describes practical identity in the
following way:
The conception of ones identity in question here is not a theoretical one, a view
about what as a matter of inescapable scientific fact you are. It is better understood as a description under which you value yourself, a description under which
you find your life worth living and your actions worth undertaking. . . . Practical
identity is a complex matter and for the average person there will be a jumble of
such conceptions. You are a human being, a woman or a man, an adherent of a
certain religion, a member of an ethnic group, a member of a certain profession,
someones lover or friend, and so on. And all of these identities give rise to reasons
and obligations. Your reasons express your identity, your nature; your obligations
spring from what that identity forbids.52
50
51
52
For one important attempt to work out the implications of this second difference,
see William E. Connolly, The Ethos of Pluralization (Minneapolis: The University of
Minnesota Press, 1995).
For these ways of characterizing practical identity, see Michel Foucault, The Subject
and Power, in Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, ed. Hubert L.
Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 21013;
Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989), 3101; and David Owen, Maturity and Modernity: Nietzsche, Weber, Foucault and the Ambivalence of Reason (London: Routledge,
1994), 64216.
Christine Korsgaard, The Sources of Normativity (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996), 101.
347
Fourth, the awareness that the jumble of cultural aspects that make up
ones practical identity matter to ones sense of self-worth has led to the
argument that these cultural aspects require a level of mutual respect in
ones society in order to live the sort of life of self-directed agency presupposed by Kant. John Rawls forcefully argues that self-respect must be
seen as a primary good of a liberal society; self-respect requires a threshold of mutual acknowledgment and respect of citizens practical identities
(or practices of identity formation and reformation).53 Forms of cultural
disrespect (such as racism, sexism, or the a priori ranking of citizens
cultures as superior or inferior in the Kantian scheme) and misrecognition and nonrecognition of cultural differences (such as the suppression
and assimilation of minority cultures and languages) are serious forms
of oppression and injustice, Anthony Laden argues. They undermine the
conditions of self-respect required for free and equal citizenship.54
These four differences mark the fairly widespread transition from and
repudiation of the conception of cultures in the Kantian idea of Europe to
the recognition of the problem of cultural imperialism and the exploration
of the two presumptions of cultural diversity, not only between the socalled First and Third Worlds, but within European and North Atlantic
societies themselves. This change in outlook is in part the achievement
of the critical Enlightenment attitude and, in particular, Fanons contribution to it. Nevertheless, one could agree that this is a change in the
understanding of cultures from Kants idea of Europe but deny that it
entails any change in what is essential to the Kantian idea: the concepts
of constitutions and federations. It is to this that we now turn.
RETHINKING CONSTITUTIONS AND FEDERATIONS
Recall that on Kants account the constitution of every free and independent nation-state should be the same. The constitution is republican, and
this means that it treats each citizen the same, as free and equal. Rightful equality, Kant explains, is that relation among citizens whereby no
citizen can be bound by a law, unless all are subject to it simultaneously
and in the very same way. 55 This idea of equality gives expression
to the principle that all humans are equally worthy of respect because
53
54
55
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), 4401.
See the important thesis by Anthony Simon Laden, Constructing Shared Wills: Deliberative Liberalism and the Politics of Identity, Ph.D. diss., Department of Philosophy,
Harvard University, 1996.
Kant, Perpetual Peace, 112, note.
348
J AMES T ULLY
of their status as rational agents with the capacity for autonomy. To recognize citizens are equals in this sense involves treating them impartially
(in the very same way) and, so Kant thought, in a difference-blind
manner. It is standardly expressed in individual rights and duties, formal
equality before the law, and the principle of nondiscrimination. The upshot of the change in the understanding of cultures is the recognition that
humans ought to be respected as equals in their capacity to form, contest,
and transform practical identities or identity-related cultural differences
as individuals and as members of cultural groups. However, the presumption of the equal recognition and respect for cultural differences, which,
as we have seen, seems to follow from recognition of the equal capacity to
form such cultural differences, comes into conflict with the presumption
of equality as impartiality or difference-blindness, which seems to follow
from the equal capacity for autonomy. The tension between these two
kinds of equality of respect and recognition, which are both equally well
grounded in the values of modern politics, can be formulated in different
ways.56
The first and most Kantian resolution is to argue that the recognition
and respect for cultural differences take place outside the political realm
in the realm of ethics and self-esteem, whereas citizens are recognized and accorded respect solely under the description of impartial
equality: that is, as bearers of identical rights and duties.57 It is certainly
true that many cultural differences and forms of multiculturalism can
be treated fairly in this way. Citizens can express and contest many aspects of their practical identities while exercising the rights and duties of
impartial equality and fight against various forms of cultural imposition
and disrespect by the application of the principle of nondiscrimination,
as Jeremy Waldron has asserted.58
However, there are many cases where the two aspects of equality cannot be separated into two mutually exclusive categories, where the equal
recognition and respect for cultural differences involve some conflict with
56
57
58
For this formulation of the debate between Kantians and their critics as a question of the
relation between two kinds or aspects of equality of recognition and respect, rather than
as equality versus difference, see Taylor, The Politics of Recognition, 413.
349
Such conflicts comprise one of the central problems of the present (as
the preceding quotation from Kymlicka highlights). Yet it is difficult to
formulate in the terms of the Kantian idea of Europe. As a result, the
Kantian idea of a constitution and a federation has been amended in two
types of cases.
John Stuart Mill was one of the first to suggest how. He argued that
the a priori presumption should remain in favor of impartiality, and
the law should treat all alike except where dissimilarity of treatment
is required by positive reasons, either of justice or of policy.60 In the
first type of case, citizens reason that they cannot exercise the rights and
duties of impartial equality (and so participate in the public and private
life of their constitutional association without injustice) unless they are
allowed to exercise them in ways that recognize and accommodate, rather
than misrecognize and denigrate, their cultural differences. The relevant
cultural difference may be linguistic, religious, gender-related, ethnic, and
so on. This is a challenge, not to the shared rights, duties, and institutions
59
60
350
J AMES T ULLY
associated with impartial equality but to the requirement that all exercise
them always in the very same way.
The positive reasons advanced for this dissimilarity of treatment
often appeal to the very value of impartial equality that was thought to
entail difference-blindness. If, under the rubric of impartial equality, a
constitution upholds one public language, statutory holidays that coincide with one religion, public practices that uphold a male norm, public
education that upholds one historical narrative, and so on, then the constitution, while treating everyone in the very same way, does not treat
them impartially. It is partial to, and serves to impose, one culture and
subordinates and assimilates all others to some extent. To be impartial
the constitution cannot be difference-blind, which is impossible in these
cases, or difference-partial, as it is by upholding one set of dominant cultural differences while pretending to be impartial. Rather, the constitution
must be difference-aware or diversity-aware: that is, it must accord equal
due recognition and respect, in some way, to the respectworthy cultural
differences of all citizens. This is the same structure of argument against
cultural imperialism we saw earlier with Constant and Fanon, but now it
is advanced by the culturally diverse citizens of contemporary societies.
Alternatively, as Kymlicka has argued, the due recognition of the cultural
differences of citizens is a necessary condition of the capacity for autonomy, something impartial equality is meant to secure. In these and other
ways, the idea of a constitution in the Kantian idea has been modified
from within to include, as a matter of justice, the equality of respect for
cultural diversity.61
The second and stronger type of case is where citizens reason that the
equal recognition and respect of their cultural identities require different
institutions of self-government: that is, forms of legal and political pluralism that accord with cultural differences by means of devices of subsidiarity, devolution, regional autonomy, federalism, and confederalism within
a larger constitutional association. This demand conflicts with another
principle of a republican constitution according to Kantthe principle
of the dependence of everyone on a single, common [source of] legislation (as subjects).62 In multi-ethnic and multinational constitutional
associations, the positive reasons for this second type of dissimilarity of
61
62
The literature is vast. See, for example, Gutmann, ed., Multiculturalism; Will Kymlicka,
Liberalism, Community and Culture (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991); and Kymlicka,
Multiculturalism. In this and the second type and case, I set aside arguments that appeal
to the equal respect for cultural differences as a value in its own right.
Kant, Perpetual Peace, 112.
351
63
64
For the European Union, see Richard Bellamy, The Constitution of Europe: Rights
or Democracy, in Democracy and Constitutional Culture in the Union of Europe, ed.
Richard Bellamy (London: Lothian Foundation Press, 1996), 15373. The literature on
this second type of case is also vast. See Kymlicka, ed., The Rights of Minority Cultures
and Multicultural Citizenship; Iris Marion Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990); and Laden, Constructing Shared Wills.
Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals, 12930.
352
J AMES T ULLY
Once this is settled, Aboriginal peoples have no appeal for the recognition
and protection of their cultures and Aboriginal rights. As we have seen,
they face assimilation under the Kantian idea of equality, which decrees
their subjection to non-Aboriginal legislative authority in the very same
way as every other citizen.
Of course, this dimension of the Kantian idea has always been contested
by Aboriginal peoples, and they continue to challenge it in the courts and
legislatures of Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand,
and in international law today.65 In addition, it was forcefully challenged
from within the Enlightenment tradition of constitutionalism by John
Marshall, chief justice of the United States, in the early nineteenth century. Like Herder, he repudiated the stages view on which it is based
and reasoned that Aboriginal peoples should be recognized and respected
as equal: that is, as self-governing nations, equal in juridical status to
European nations.
As Marshall wrote in Worcester v. the State of Georgia (1832): America,
separated from Europe by a wide ocean, was inhabited by a distinct people, divided into separate nations, independent of each other and the rest
of the world, having institutions of their own, and governing themselves
by their own laws.66 Marshall goes on to conclude that the just establishment of non-Aboriginal constitutional states in America requires the
consent of the Aboriginal nations acquired through nation-to-nation
treaties. His opinion gives rise to a treaty-based federalism between selfgoverning, co-existing Aboriginal nations and the American (and Canadian) governments.67
Thus two central features of Kantian constitutionalism and federalism
are abandoned: the difference-blind application of his principle of equality and the principle of citizens dependence on a single, common source
of legislation. Aboriginal peoples are dependent first and foremost on
their own legislation, and the source of this legislative authority is not the
United States or the Canadian constitution, but the Aboriginal peoples
themselves as self-governing nations prior to the arrival of Europeans.
Moreover, this line of argument has been extended to question the underlying Eurocentric direction of constitutional and federal development
65
66
67
See The Report of the Canadian Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 5 vols.
(Ottawa: Supply and Services, 1996), esp. vols. 1 and 2.
Chief Justice John Marshalls opinion in Worcester v. the State of Georgia, reprinted
in The Writings of Chief Justice Marshall on the Federal Constitution (Boston: James
Monroe and Co., 1839), 4267.
Ibid., 435, 445. See Tully, Strange Multiplicity, 11738.
353
in Kants framework. A number of scholars have argued that the federation of the United States was influenced not only by European and
Atlantic ideas of federalism but also by the federation of the five Iroquois
nations. Others have suggested that Iroquois federation and its constitution, The Great Law of Peace, is a better heuristic for global federalism
than the Kantian idea precisely because it respects and recognizes cultural
diversity.68
FROM MONOLOGUE TO COSMOPOLITAN MULTILOGUE
The Enlightenment critical attitude toward the problem of cultural imperialism modified all five features of the Kantian idea of Europe and the
world. However, recall the line of argument. Two presumptions regarding the equality of respect for cultures gave rise to three questions and four
differences with respect to Kants understanding of cultures. It followed
from these presumptions, questions, and differences that Kants ideas of
constitutions and federations should be amended, specifically the ideas
that equality always entails difference-blind treatment and that there must
be one locus of authority in a constitutional association. These amendments led to the justification of two non-Kantian types of cases: where
citizens share the same rights and institutions yet exercise and participate
in them in different ways (diverse constitutionalism) and where citizens
require a plurality of legal and political institutions (diverse federalism) in
order to accord equal respect to the diversity of their cultural similarities
and differences.
These rather dramatic changes in the understanding of the principles
and practices of constitutions and federations rest entirely on two presumptions that the cultural differences in question are worthy of respect.
The changes should be accepted if and only if the two presumptions can
be made good. We have assumed this for the sake of the argument, but
the point of describing them as presumptions is precisely to flag that
68
Robert W. Venables, American Indian Influences on the America of the Founding Fathers, Exiled in the Land of the Free, ed. Oren Lyons (Santa Fe: Clear Light Publishers,
1992), 73124; Jose Barriero, ed., Indian Roots of American Democracy (Ithaca: Aewkon
and Cornell University Press, 1988); and Iris Marion Young, Hybrid Democracy:
Iroquois Federalism and the Postcolonial Project, in Aboriginal Rights, Political Theory and Reshaping Institutions, ed. Duncan Ivison, Paul Patton, and Will Sanders
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). For a careful treatment of the demands
for recognition of Aboriginal peoples and the principles of liberal democracy, see Michael
Murphy, Nation, Culture and Authority: Multinational Democracies and the Politics
of Pluralism, Ph.D. diss., Department of Political Science, McGill University, January
1998.
354
J AMES T ULLY
If Kant had entered into dialogue with members of the cultures he ranked
monologically, he could have broadened his horizons and seen the idea
for a universal history with a cosmopolitan intent as one background
of valuation among many. He could have entered into the difficult but
rewarding activity of comparing the worth and public respectworthiness
69
70
Kant, On the Agreement between Politics and Morality according to the Transcendental
Concept of Public Right, in Political Writings, ed. Hans Reiss, 12530.
Taylor, The Politics of Recognition, 67.
355
72
73
For the logic of this kind of intercultural and agonic multilogue, see James Tully, Diversitys Gambit Declined, Constitutional Predicament: Canada after the Referendum of
1992, ed. Curtis Cook (Montreal: McGillQueens University Press, 1994), 14999; and
Laden, Constructing Shared Wills, 2608.
Kant, On the Agreement between Politics and Morality, 125; and idem, Perpetual
Peace, 112 note.
356
J AMES T ULLY
75
76
Jurgen
Habermas, Discourse Ethics, 66. The role of dialogue in overcoming partiality and securing consent based on conviction is mentioned on pages 667. Habermas
interprets Rawlss theory here as monological like Kants. Rawls corrects him on this in
Reply to Habermas and clarifies his own conception of public dialogue on constitutional essentials.
Habermas, Discourse Ethics, 678.
See Habermas, Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason, 12631; Rawls,
Reply to Habermas, 1617; and Habermas, Popular Sovereignty as Procedure, in
Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy,
trans. William Rehg (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1996), 46390. For Kants objection
that popular sovereignty is self-contradictory, see Metaphysics of Morals, 130.
357
78
79
80
358
J AMES T ULLY
citizens are to treat each other equally in the discussion itself, they will
have to recognize that Habermass form of public argumentation is not
impartial but culturally particular and thus accept culturally different
forms of argumentation. In these and other ways the imperial aspects of
the early formulation of principle D have been exposed and corrected.
A postimperial and genuinely cosmopolitan conception of the critical exchange of public reasons among free and equal citizens can then become
the basis of constitutionalism and federalism.81
CONCLUSION
The Kantian idea of Europe and the world is not as cosmopolitan as Kant
intended it to be. His conceptions of cultures, constitutions, and federations, as well as the procedures of constitutional legitimation, are partial
in one way or another, and as a result they continue cultural imperialism
when they are treated as if they were universal. My critical survey was
not restricted to this negative, Socratic task of showing that Kants idea of
Europe and the world does not possess the cosmopolitan status it intends
to possess. The Enlightenment critical attitude is often criticized for being
only negative, for failing to put forward an alternative. In response to this
objection, I sought to show how a different way of thinking about and
acting in relation to the cultures, constitutions, and federations of Europe
and the world has been developed in the course of the two hundred years
of criticism. This way of thinking and acting appears to be less imperial
and more cosmopolitan, and perhaps more peaceful, than the Kantian
idea that it simultaneously respects and challenges.82
81
82
Iris Marion Young, Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy,
in Democracy and Difference, 12035.
This attitude of both respecting and challenging the prevailing forms of thought and
action in the present is the Enlightenment critical attitude. See Foucault, What is Enlightenment? 41.
Contributors
TALAL ASAD teaches anthropology at the Graduate Center of the City University of
New York. He was born in Saudi Arabia, spent his boyhood in India and Pakistan,
and was educated in Britain where he has lived for most of his life. His most recent
book is entitled Genealogies of Religion (1993).
ANDRE S DE BLAS GUERRERO is Professor of Theory of the State and Chairman of the
Department of Political Science and Administration of the Universidad Nacional
de la Vie
Politiques in Paris. She also is associate researcher at the Centre dEtude
Politique Francaise (CEVIPOF) and executive director of the American Center/
Sciences Po. She has published widely on the politics of European integration and
on the history of the Right in Europe. Her most recent publication is Les racismes
ordinaires (1998).
ELIE COHEN is Director of Research at the CNRS (National Center for Scientific
360
Contributors
Vice President at the Haut Conseil du secteur public, scientific adviser to the
European Union Cost Program, and a former member of the Board of Directors
dEtudes
Politiques et Internationales of the University of Lausanne. Her books
include Rethinking the Politics of Commercial Society (1985), Benjamin Constant
and the Post-Revolutionary Mind (1991), and Politique de Laclos (1996). She is
also the editor and translator of Benjamin Constant, Political Writings (1988).
MICHAEL HERZFELD is Professor of Anthropology, and Curator of European
Ethnology in the Peabody Museum, at Harvard University. A past president of
both the Modern Greek Studies Association and the Society for the Anthropology
of Europe, he has also served as editor of American Ethnologist. He is the author
of a large number of books on the anthropology of Europe, the most recent of
which are The Social Production of Indifference: Exploring the Symbolic Roots
of Western Bureaucracy (1992), Cultural Intimacy: Social Poetics in the NationState (1997), and Portrait of a Greek Imagination: An Ethnographic Biography
of Andreas Nenedakis (1997).
WILLIAM CHESTER JORDAN is Professor of History at Princeton University and
former Executive Director of the Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Historical Studies at Princeton. His most recent book is The Great Famine: Northern Europe
in the Early Fourteenth Century (1996). He is currently at work on a book on
Europe from 1000 to 1350 to be published by Penguin Books.
Contributors
361
Index
Abendland, 296
Aboriginal peoples, rights of, 3513
absolutism, 124
Espanola,
Accion
327
Acton, Lord, 326
Adam Smith Institute, 162
Adenauer, Konrad, 287, 315; foreign policy
of, 2948
Adonnino Committee, 242
Adoua, 183
Aegean Sea, 56
Aeneas, 34
Aeneid (Virgil), 345
Africa, 26, 36, 38, 51, 57, 59, 201, 212,
323; and European Community, 194,
238. See also North Africa
Agamemnon, 34
Agenor, 34
Age of Louis XIV (Voltaire), 64
Aglietta, Michel, 272
agriculture, 489, 78, 79
Albania, 60, 181
Albigensian Crusade, 78
Algeria, 212
Allemagne, De l (de Stael), 125
All-Union Geographical Society, 47
Alpers, Svetlana, 51
Americas, 19, 64, 66; imagery of, 50, 51; as
other, 201, 202. See also Canada; Latin
America; North America; United States
Amsterdam, Treaty of, 28, 232, 243, 247,
255, 287; policies of, 24850
Anabaptism, 64
anarchism, 328
ancestor cults, 132
Anchises, 34
Ancien Regime, 65, 121, 122
Anderson, Benedict, 25, 290
Anderson, Perry, 192, 219
Angevins, 62
Anglo-French Consortium, 65
Annee sociologique school, 149
Anselm, Saint, 73
Antarctica, 58
anthropology, 140, 1456
anti-Americanism, 202
anti-Europeanism, 173
Antioch, Lords Supper at, 1334
antiquity. See Greeks, ancient; Roman
Empire
Antonius Pius, 42
Apology (Grotius), 103
Arabs, 59. See also Muslims
Arcana in Republics and Principalities
(Wassenaer), 1056
Arcanis, De (Clapmarius), 1045
architecture, Gothic, 8990
Argyrou, Vassos, 145
aristocracy and religion, 1034
Arminians, 97, 103
army. See military power
artisans, 164, 165; corporatism and, 166,
1678; Cretan, 1667, 1689
Artus, Patrick, 277
Ascanius, 34
Asia, 27, 38, 45, 47, 51, 56, 58, 59, 323;
concepts of, 11718; and European
Community, 194, 238; influence of,
346; as other, 46, 201
Athens, 1367
Augustus, 42
Australia, 58, 140, 352
Austria, 57, 65, 67, 75, 119, 123,
238
Austro-Hungarian monarchy, 181
Austro-Marxists, 1845
authority, 4, 44, 73, 82; legal, 42, 43; and
rebellion, 1545
autonomy, 41, 168
Avignon, 62, 88, 121
363
364
Index
Centro Democratico
y Social (CDS), 329
Chaeronea, battle of, 39
Channel Tunnel, 69
Charlemagne, 45, 62
Charles I, 98
Charles II, 6
Charles V, 44, 45, 6364
Charles X (comte dArtois), 116
Index
China, 50, 52, 53, 66, 194, 197; state in,
1312
Ching empire, 66
chocolatiers, 168
Christendom, 43, 456, 75, 21213
Christian Democratic Party (CDU), 20,
295, 298, 300, 3045
Christianity, 4, 5, 35, 43, 44, 45, 100, 214,
320; confraternity and, 1334; cultural
identity of, 1213; expansion of, 601,
62; and knowledge, 4950; and politics,
1012; as unifying force, 11819
Churchill, Winston, 178, 230
cities, 39, 41, 42, 130; ancient vs.
medieval, 1356
citizens, 119, 131, 223n26, 332; ancient vs.
medieval, 1348; and cultural
differences, 355, 3568; free, 912
citizenship: as concept, 188, 222;
European, 26, 478; and European
Union, 1856, 189, 190; French,
2234; and national identity, 2912,
346; Weber on, 12934
city-states, 8, 1323
CIU. See Catalan nationalist party
Cive, De (Hobbes), 98
civilization: and commerce, 645;
European, 21416; Islamic, 21718
civil wars, 13, 79, 82
civitas, 40
Clapmarius, 109; De arcanis
rerumpublicarum, 1045, 1067
climate (in High Middle Ages) 79
Cluny, 81
coastlands, geographic definitions from,
567, 59
Cobban, Alfred, 323
Cobden, Richard, 176
Cockfield, Lord, White Paper of, 2423
Code Napoleon, 122
Coercion, Capital, and the European
States, 9901990 (Tilly), 31920
Cohen, Anthony, 142; on personal
nationalism, 144, 149, 151, 154; Self
Consciousness, 143
Cold War, 69, 179, 230, 2345, 296, 302
collective personality, 224
collective values, 1678
colonialism, 12, 53, 145, 149, 212, 341;
British, 10, 223; and cultural
imperialism, 3378. See also
decolonization
colonization, 19, 523
Columbus, Christopher, 50
Come si diventa europei? (Noteboom), 198
commerce, 14, 15, 64, 126, 127, 262, 341;
cities and, 135, 136; competition and,
365
366
Index
Cosmographia (Munster),
51
cosmopolitanism, 16, 72, 74, 78, 83, 124,
174, 176; vs. localism, 73, 89; of papal
legates, 867
Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard, 177, 192,
295
Council Commission, 236
Council of Europe, 233
Court, Johann de la, 5, 98; Interests of
Holland and West-Friesland, 91
Court, Pieter de la, 5, 96, 98, 99, 105;
Interests of Holland and West-Friesland,
91; Politicke consideration, 106; on
republicanism, 923, 95, 110
Crete, artisans on, 164, 165, 1667, 1689
Crise de la conscience europeenne, La
(Hazard), 198
Croats, 61
Croatia, 75, 219
Cruce, Emeric, Le Nouveau Cynee, 14
crusades, 50, 61, 63, 74, 75, 80, 85,
218n19
culture(s), 26, 77, 160, 188, 197, 201, 219;
and citizenship, 3567; equality and,
34750; European, 12, 234, 2056,
2078; and European Union, 22, 162;
Greek, 389, 1601; Herder on, 3445;
human development and, 3412,
3434; identity and, 3457; imperial,
3367; indigenous, 3512; interactions
of, 3445; national, 1523; pluralism
of, 512; ranking of, 3545; respect for,
3489; and self-government, 3501
Culture and Imperialism (Said), 336
currency, 277, 280n24, 282; imbalances in,
2667; national, 288, 305; single,
3067, 31012. See also Euro;
European Monetary Union
Cyprus, 145
Czechoslovakia, 69, 185, 230
Czechs, 61, 219
Dankert, Piet, 240
Dante Alighieri, 44
Davignon Report, 240
Declaration of the Rights of Man and the
Citizen (1789), 121, 222
Declaration on European Identity, 1945
Index
economics: community and, 91, 1345,
234; European Monetary Union and,
2789; of High Middle Ages, 73, 78
Economics and France Committee, 274
economy, 7, 80, 94; European Monetary
Union, 2634; of High Middle Ages,
7881; inflation and, 2701; Napoleon
and, 1267
ECSC. See European Coal and Steel
Community
ECHR. See European Convention on
Human Rights
ECJ. See European Court of Justice
ECU. See European Currency Unit
EDC. See European Defense Community
EEC. See European Economic Community
EFTA. See European Free Trade
Association
157, 158, 159, 163
eghosmos,
Egypt, 567, 131
Basic Program, 2956
Eichstatt
Eighty Years War, 13
elites, 122, 160; East German, 3035;
German, 297, 3078, 314; languages of,
445; and nation-state identities, 2923;
political, 287, 288; religion and, 1034;
responsible government and, 912
Emba River, 47
empire(s), 9, 10, 14, 42, 44, 67, 82; French,
1223. See also by name
EMU. See European Monetary Union
Encyclopedie (Diderot and DAlembert),
117, 197
England, 74, 78, 81, 83, 96, 136, 145, 153,
173, 222; papacy and, 86, 87. See also
United Kingdom
Enlightenment, 9, 10, 667, 70, 120, 123,
196, 214, 216, 222, 320, 334, 335,
338n26, 353, 354; commerce and,
645; historical view of, 624; and
nation-states, 119, 137, 1734
environmental policy, 253
equality and cultural differences, 34750,
3568
Erasmus, 14
Erler, Fritz, 299
ERM. See Exchange Rate Mechanism
ERTA. See European Road Transport
Agreement
ESCB. See European system of central
banks
Esprit des Lois (Montesquieu), 118
Esquisse dun tableau historique des
progr`es de lesprit humain (Condorcet),
1617
esprit de conquete, De l (Constant), 1256
Estonia, 75
367
368
Index
Index
Furet, Francois, 121
Fustel de Coulanges, N. D., 137
Gadamer, Hans-Georg, 11, 198; Die
Vielfalt Europas, 197
GATT. See General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade
Gaulle, Charles de, 237, 238, 239
Gellner, Ernst, 265, 290
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT), 238, 255
Geneva, 124
Genscher, Hans Dietrich, 263, 276
Genscher-Colombo Plan, 241
Genoa, 79, 121
geography, 567; of High Middle Ages,
745; Napoleonic wars and, 1278
Geremek, Bronislaw, 196
German Central Bank, 276, 279
German Empire, 57
Germanic customary law, 42
German Social Democrats. See Social
Democratic Party
Germans, 17, 19, 59, 173
Germany, 65, 68, 69, 75, 176, 212, 245,
256, 271, 287, 323; and Cold War,
2345; East German elites and, 3035;
European identity in, 288, 31416;
European Monetary Union, 262, 263,
275, 276, 278, 279, 30614; and
European unification, 2989; exchange
rate mechanism and, 2778; foreign
policy of, 294300; medieval markets
in, 79, 80; monetary policy of, 267,
2689, 272; national identity in, 3001;
reunification of, 2, 21, 2812, 287,
3024; and unified Europe, 22930
Gibbon, Edward, 39, 62, 63, 66
Giddens, Anthony, 159
Giles of Verracclo, 86
Girondins, 325
Gli stati uniti dItalia (Cattaneo), 183
globalization, 3, 187
Godesberg program, 300
Goebbels, Joseph, 191
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 21
Gomarists, 98
Goths, 42
governments, 3, 37, 91, 117, 120, 197;
Napoleonic, 1223; power of, 45;
representative, 2212; republican, 92,
1067; tolerance and consensus in,
1001
Grand Design, 14, 54
Grass, Gunter,
21
Graswinckel, Dirk, De iure majestatis,
104
369
Habermas, Jurgen,
26, 188, 301, 355, 357
Habsburg dynasty, 64, 94
Habsburg (Hapsburg) family, 578, 96
Hague conference, 179
Handworterbuch
der Staatswissenschaften
(Weber), 130
Handler, Richard, 140, 152
Hanse, 74
Harrington, James, 91
Hay, Denys, 212
Hazard, Paul, La crise de la conscience
europeenne, 198
Hecateus, 38
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, 35, 37
hegemony, 124, 134, 230
Held, David, 334
Helen of Troy, 34
Heller, Agnes, 23, 2078
Hemsterhuis, Francois, 96
Henry VIII, 87
Herder, Johann Gottfried von, 174, 324,
354; on cultures, 3445; Ideas on the
Philosophy of the History of Mankind,
343
Herodotus, 34, 36, 37, 38, 49
Herstelden Prins, Den (The Prince
Restored), 111
High Middle Ages, 7273; architecture of,
8990; economy of, 7881; geography
of, 745; Roman Catholic Church in,
868; scholasticism in, 835
Hirschmann, Ursula, 30, 1989, 207
370
Index
Index
Jews, 75, 133, 217
Joan of Arc, 78
John, King, 86
John of Abbeville, 86
Johnson, Douglas, 196
Johnson, Mark, 149
Jordan, William Chester, 9, 10
Judt, Tony, 212
Juno, 35
Justinian, 43
Kaeeble, Hartmut, 200
Kaisen, Wilhelm, 299
Kaiser, Jakob, 297
Kaminka, Eugene, 323
Kant, Immanuel, 5, 8, 16, 23, 38, 176,
331, 334, 339, 347, 349, 353, 358; on
cultural development, 3434, 352;
cultural ranking of, 3545; works of, 6,
16, 175, 3323, 3356, 3401, 3423,
351
Karpathos, 161
Keating, Michael, 325
Kenna, Margaret, 161
kleftes, 153, 157
knowledge, access to, 4950
Kohl, Helmut, 7, 268, 269, 277, 305, 310,
313, 314, 315; on European Monetary
Union, 307, 3089
Kondo, Dorinne, 164
Korsgaard, Christine, 23, 346
Kossmann, E. H., 112
Krerch River, 47
Kundera, Milan, 219
Kymlica, Will, 340, 350
labor contracts, 136
Lackoff, George, 149
Lactantius, 34
Laden, Anthony, 347, 357
Lafontaine, Oskar, 310
Lanfranc, 734
language(s): diversity of, 1989; dominant,
445; in Middle Ages, 846; unifying,
434
Languedoc-Roussillon, 186
Latin, 4344, 73; literary and intellectual
use of, 845
Latin America, 194, 323, 333
Latin culture, 61, 62, 69; history and, 63,
64
Latins, 34, 35
Latvia, 75
Lausanne Conference, 179
law, 28, 49, 134; family, 1456; Roman,
423, 44; rule of, 37, 38, 41
Leach, Edmund, 153
League of Nations, 192, 3334
371
372
Index
Muller,
Adam, 17
multiculturalism, 344
multilingualism, 445
Mundell, Robert, 275
Munster,
Sebastian, Cosmographia, 51
Muslims, 75, 211, 213; in Europe, 12,
20910, 220, 320; political
representation of, 221, 2237
mythology, 335
naming system, Greek, 1602
Napoleon I (Napoleon Bonaparte), 17, 43,
94, 332; on administration, 1223; and
French empire, 11920; opposition to,
1246
Napoleonic wars, 3, 67, 117, 119,
127
nation(s), 31, 171, 318; as concept,
174, 1878; political vs. cultural,
3226. See also nation-state(s)
nation building, 21
National Assembly (France), 121
national character, 1501, 1734, 323;
Greek, 1567
national consciousness, 1734
nationalism(s), 19, 23, 31, 1401, 142,
152, 199, 237, 320, 325; European, 21,
1713, 17480, 18990; German, 301,
314; Greek, 147, 148; personal, 1434,
149, 151, 154, 164; pro-national, 1816;
and pluralism, 1718, 326; and rebellion,
1545; Spanish, 31719; and unified
Europe, 22930
nationality, 1878
Nationality Code, 224
national-populism, 172
National Synod of the Reformed Church,
102
nation-state(s), 2, 9, 21, 140, 152, 173,
174, 1867, 298; boundaries, 2245;
ethnicity and, 534; identities as,
28994; Spain as, 3201
Index
NATO. See North Atlantic Treaty
Organization
nature, 41, 489
Nazi Germany, 20, 191, 192, 212; as other,
298, 314
Near East, 75
Netherlands, 13, 19, 57, 65, 66, 68, 136,
233, 234, 256; European Monetary
Union and, 278, 279. See also Dutch
Republic; Holland
New World, 63
New Zealand, 352
Nice, 121
Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, 328; Beyond
Good and Evil, 206
Nixon, Richard, 266
Noli, Teofan, 18, 181
North Africa, 456
North America, 10, 65. See also Canada;
United States
North American Free Trade Agreement,
69
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), 233, 234, 297, 303
North Sea, 58, 74
North-South: concept of, 367;
relationships with, 3, 13
Norway, 238, 239
Noteboom, Cees, Come si diventa
europei? 198
Nottingham, 153, 154
Nouveau Cynee, Le (Cruce), 14
Novalis, 18
Occident, 131, 295
Occidentalism, 148
Ochakov crisis, 47
OEEC. See Organization for European
Economic Cooperation
Oldenbarneveldt, Johan, 101, 102
oligarchies, 92
Orange, House of, 97
Orangeism, 106
orbis terrarum, 43
Ordinum Hollandiae ac Westfrisiae Pietas
(Grotius), 101
Organization for European Economic
Cooperation (OEEC), 233
Orient, 47, 131, 139, 295
Oriental Despotism, 67, 196
Orientalism, 138, 148
Ortega y Gasset, Jose, 177, 323
Osser, Bernard, 213
Ostpolitik, 300
other, 213; defining, 2002, 300; and
European identity, 207, 296; German
concepts of, 295, 314
373
374
Index
Espanol
public reason, 3556
Pufendorf, Samuel, 512, 98
Purchas, Samuel, 35, 49, 50
Pythagoras, 38
Quadruple Alliance, 128
quality of life, 201
Quebec, 140, 152, 325
Rabinow, Paul, 149
racism, 53
rationalism, 1489
Rawls, John, 347, 355
Raynal, Abbe (Guillame-ThomasFrancois), 62, 66; Philosophical and
Political History of the Two Indies, 64,
65
Index
Rusconi, Gian Enrico, 200
Russell, Bertrand, History of Western
Philosophy, 149
Russia, 58, 67, 70, 219; Europe and, 118,
201; Voltaire on, 656
Russians, 34, 61, 69, 217; as other, 467
Russian Orthodoxy, 35, 75
Saar River, 234
Said, Edward, 335, 343, 345; Culture and
Imperialism, 3367
Saint-Exupery, Patrick, 213
St. Just, 30
Saint Pierre, Charles Irenee, Abbe de, Projet
pour rendre la paix perpetuelle en
Europe, 14, 175
Saint Simon, Henri de, 13, 22, 180;
Reorganisation de la societe
europeenne, ou de la necessite et des
moyens de rassembler les peuples
dEurope en un seul corps politque en
conservant a` chacun sa nationalite, 180
Salomon, Jacques, 2778
Samuelson, Paul, 280
Savoy, 121
Scandinavia, 58, 75. See also various
countries
Scandinavians, 74, 81
Scharping, Rudolf, 310
Schlegel, A. W., 1734
Schlegel brothers, 17
Schmid, Carlo, 299
Schmidt, Helmut, 267, 299
scholasticism, 73; Latin and, 835;
sixteenth- and seventeenth-century,
767
Schroeder, Gerhard, 229, 288, 310
Schumacher, Kurt, 299
Schuman, Robert, 8, 233, 234
science, 10; European, Christian, 4950
Scotland, 31, 74, 145, 325. See also United
Kingdom
SEA. See Single European Act
Second Republic (Spain), 32738
Second Treatise on Government (Locke),
48
self, 142, 167, 347; in Greece, 1578;
resistance and, 1645
selfhood, 25; and individualism, 16970
self-categorization, 2912
Self Consciousness (Cohen), 143
self-determination, 5, 21
self-government, 3501
separatism, 31, 172
Serbia, 60
Serbs, 61
Seven Years War (French and Indian War),
1415, 65
375
Solozabal,
J. J., 326
Soto, Domingo de, 15
Southern Question (Italy), 183
sovereignty, 28, 65, 96, 97, 11314, 158,
187, 2601, 302; European
Community and, 242, 2434, 2534;
European Monetary Union and, 2646,
278; Federal Republic of Germany,
2978; Spinoza on, 11112
Soviet Union, 30, 47, 69, 145, 179, 192,
194, 201, 230; collapse of, 231, 232,
250, 268; as other, 295, 296
Spaak, Paul-Henri, 233, 235
space, complex vs. simple, 226
Spain, 6, 46, 57, 65, 74, 75, 123, 205, 217,
239, 323; colonialism in, 15, 145; and
European Community, 237, 240,
258n78; Francoism and, 322, 3289;
legitimacy, 32930; nationalisms in,
31719, 326; as nation-state, 3201;
and Netherlands, 13, 96, 978, 1078;
political factions in, 32730
SPD. See Social Democratic Party
Spinelli, Altiero, 8, 1819, 242
Spinoza, Baruch, 5, 96; on religion and
state, 1034; on sovereignty, 11112;
works of, 98
stability pact, for European Monetary
Union, 2823
Stadhouder, 97, 102, 106, 111
Stael, Germaine de, 17, 124; works of, 125
376
Index
Union
(UCD), 329
United Kingdom, 22, 29, 31, 48, 65, 67,
68, 69, 192, 205, 215, 223, 227n35,
229, 233, 234, 245, 256, 258n78, 323;
colonialism of, 10, 15, 145; and EFTA,
238, 239; and European Community,
230, 231, 237, 242, 243; and European
Monetary Union, 263, 282, 285;
imperialism of, 19, 67; individualism in,
153, 154
United Nations, 146, 213, 334
United Provinces. See Dutch Republic
United States, 26, 689, 177, 192, 230,
234, 323, 333, 352; and currency
fluctuation, 2667; disorder in, 1534;
and European Monetary Union, 2767,
284; individualism in, 13940
United States of Europe, 176, 177, 178,
184, 192, 230, 298, 31415
unity: European, 17, 192, 219, 2956,
2989, 31516; spiritual, 1978
universalism, 81, 123, 134, 168, 175;
French Revolution and, 1201, 122
universities, 834
University of Leipzig, 84
upper class, 85
Ural Mountains, 47, 58
urban life, 40, 49, 80, 130
Urla, Jacqueline, 146
Uruguay Round, 255
Utrecht, Treaty of, 14, 64, 65, 66, 96
vagabonds, 72
Valery, 206
Index
377
Verbruderung,
132
Vernier, Bernard, 161
Versailles, Congress of, 173
Versailles, Treaty of, 15
Vespucci, Amerigo, 50
Viaggio a Reims, Il (Rossini), 11617, 125
Vico, Giambattista, 148, 149
Vielfalt Europas, Die (Gadamer), 197
Vienna, Congress of, geographic changes,
1278
Vikings, 74
villages, autonomy of, 73
violence, 212
Virgil, Aeneid, 345
Vitoria, Francisco de, 15
Vives, Juan Luis, 14, 175
Voltaire, 9, 37, 40, 62, 63, 118, 119; Age
of Louis XIV, 64; History of Russia
under Peter the Great, 58, 656; Le
siecle de Louis XV, 175
Von Ribbentrop, 191
Vorstius, Conrad, 101