THINKING OF EUROPE - WHAT EUROPE?

Signing the Treaty of Rome - 1957


Part I of an essay of the history and future of Europe from our present day perspective



Looking back: a century of pain and progress

In the decade before the First World War the European continent experienced great commonality across the national and imperial boarders, stretching from the North Sea well into the heart of Russia. Much of this was the result of manifold investments in the second half of the nineteenth century, most notably in rail transport but also new modes of communication such as the telegraph and the telephone. New markets were opened and the emerging new urban classes shouldered a gradual expansion of the economies of most European countries.


Railroads were the first to unite Europe (1900)

The increasing sense of European commonality was furthermore stimulated in the arts, in the world of science and invention, but also in the world of ideas. The emancipation of the working classes and efforts to improve the conditions of labor and their general living conditions became the first and foremost themes to create genuine internationalism among a broad segment of the European societies.

A rather more anachronistic and at the same time contradictory element were the close connections between the monarchs of the time and the shared culture of their entourage, which expressed itself both in the area of diplomacy and in the general habits of the European ruling elite. But it was contradictory indeed, because out of their very interaction arose the cataclysm that subsequently took many decades if not the entire twentieth century to overcome.

The outcome of the Second World War and the subsequent East-West division of Europe meant a prolonged social, cultural and political divergence among the people of Europe. But even in Western Europe the old sense of commonality did not return. The old mobile elite had vanished from the scene and the project of reconstruction and development was a national effort first of all for each country.

However, it was self-evident, after the Second World War, that the countries of (Western) Europe should strive to reach lasting settlements to safeguard the continent from any renewed armed Armageddon and that preferably they embark on a broader project of unity. From its start the European Community was embedded in the determination of the member states “…to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe”. Its main – primary – objective was to facilitate the development of their markets. Despite periodic setbacks this project has been hailed by many inside and outside Europe as an unequivocal success. It created a system of shared rules and instruments without precedent, which benefited all member countries in the broadest possible terms. It became a work in permanent progress, with successive new ambitions not limited to merely economic interests but increasingly covering the wide public domain of social, environmental and judicial affairs.

But perhaps the most significant development for - what became - the European Union has been the gradual enlargement of its membership, in particular when after the fall of the Berlin Wall the lost countries of Eastern Europe could finally rejoin the sphere of European commonality which had been held away from them for almost a century. The perspective of an enlarged common market of over 400 million consumers justified considerable effort – and monetary investment - to help these countries adjust and align with the prevailing regime of steep competitive regulations to which the western European countries had grown accustomed in the course of the preceding decades.

In parallel to the political processes new cultural commonalities emerged but they were not distinctly ‘European’ (continental) and rather more western, much of it being introduced out of the English speaking world, America in particular. A new universe of popular culture supported by rapidly proliferating mass media opened up and this in turn – at least to some extent – helped create a sense of shared interests, especially among the younger generations, throughout the western world.


Governments and their constituents: diverging perspectives

All of the above is the correct historic tale, one could say, but it is not necessarily the story of the European people themselves. For it is equally valid to say that the project of Europe has been – and has remained to this day – a project of the national governments - obviously supported by the business communities – and not a grass roots process. European citizenship is a concept only, however much our national passports allow us to freely move across the continent. For most Europeans, the unity of their countries is a bureaucracy, a powerless and distant parliament and a faceless center of regulations and directives which are rather more perceived as a disastrous overkill than as a genuine benefit.



Yet, in the face of today’s financial and economic adversity it is difficult to determine, however we ‘feel’ about the European Union, whether in fact this adversity has part been caused by a European project that has gone too far (for instance, by pushing the euro as a common currency before every participating country was truly ready) or, on the contrary, whether indeed the project has to be completed (it has not gone far enough) at even greater speed in order to safeguard its benefits for the member countries.

We have to remind ourselves of the fact that throughout the decades, no single destination for the European Union has been formulated – with people on many sides along the way arguing for a strong federal union or, alternatively, for a confederate union which leaves the center of political gravity in the national parliaments. Today, we may ask whether history hasn’t in fact overtaken these various arguments. On the one hand, the course towards stronger central influence seems almost irreversible or inevitable. On the other hand, despite greater unity, the member countries, including those who participate in the common currency, still show great divergence in terms of their political and societal priorities and preferences. The conditions set to save the solidity of our economies (and of the euro in particular) have ignited fierce protest in a number of European countries, reflecting a broader sense of estrangement among a significant segment of the population.



But perhaps the real estrangement is not so much with the institution or governance of the European Union (its new constitution being considered by some as “squalid”) but rather more with each other, between the people of the member countries. It seems as though more than half a century has done little if anything to bolster the broader sense of commonality between the citizens of Europe. We may enjoy a holiday in Italy or Spain but how much closer have we come to appreciate each other’s culture, aspirations and dreams of the future? Across Europe, people have retreated to a verbal trench war to keep everything as it is and they have thrown away the idea of Europe as a shining beacon.

Secondly, many European countries are grappling with the situation at hand, in all dimensions: economically, socially and politically. Across the continent we have become more inward looking, less cosmopolitan and less inclined to fulfill our great historic projects.

Trying to grasp the full picture

Then, there are those who argue that Europe’s crisis is even more profound, reaching to the heart of our civilization and its very continuity. They see our present crisis as symptomatic for a series of structural issues about which people have good reason to be concerned. Their anxieties, they contend, even including outright xenophobia, are only too understandable, however much people might be misguided both by the nature of the issues and the realistic solutions.




It is slightly disconcerting that such comments in particular stem from outside analysts, for instance out of America. Few European commentators come to the same inventory of problems, perhaps in part because they verge on treading the boundaries of political correctness and might be seen as too pessimistic.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to ignore these assessments, in particular where they concern the prevailing demographic trends. Examples are Bruce Thornton’s book “Decline and Fall – Europe’s slow motion suicide” (2008) and Mark Steyn’s “Ämerica Alone – The end of the world as we know it” (2006). Both books were published before the world wide financial crisis hit us and when in Europe the general consensus still was highly upbeat. They nonetheless paint a grim picture that today – more than at any time before – rings many bells of truth.



Apart from demographics (and their longer term economic, social and financial consequences), they see most Europeans as being politically too complacent, too much addicted to a high cost welfare system, inapt in dealing with immigration and integration issues and, perhaps most important, rapidly losing steam in terms of spiritual vitality. In particular they express their severe concern over Europe’s religious indifference, a point of view that may perhaps be most debatable but pertinent nevertheless.

For indeed, without shared underlying values that embrace the entire population, including immigrants and their descendants, Europe’s heritage and its historic potential are bound to obliterate. It is a choice to make, however we define religion or any other source of spiritual inspiration in this context.

Formulating new perspectives

These and similar analyses are reflected too throughout this blog. My main objective has thus far been not merely to underscore the nature and extent of our present day challenges. Most certainly it includes, however modestly, the attempt to formulate new perspectives and ideas which may inspire our younger generations in particular when defining their own themes and ambitions for the world as it will gradually be transferred to them. Still, gaining a good understanding of the past (“how did we get here?”) remains a critical point for any young person who wishes to make a contribution to his or her future world.

We live in a transition period. The old world is coming to an end, the new world is already in the making. Our focus should be on the latter, not on the former. We shouldn’t ignore history and its arguments, but more persuasive are the arguments derived from our perception of the world ahead. And this may well require a new concept for a lasting union among the peoples of Europe and stronger efforts to retrieve and safeguard our commonalities across national borders, wherever we live on this diverse and fascinating continent.



Further links on this topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n5VvWX6D-s
Bruce Thornton (Europe’s slow motion suicide)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQELHJx8Vf0&feature=related
Mark Steyn (America Alone)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAQTvRXZy-4
Neal Ascherson (British journalist)
http://www.freeworldacademy.com/globalleader/agendacont.htm
Europe civilization is committing suicide
http://www.economist.com/node/16539326
Can anything perk up Europe? (Economist 2010)

THE GUIDING MINDS OF HUMAN KIND

Consciously and subconsciously all of us harbor the notion that between heaven and earth powers are at work which guide our lives on a predetermined path. We do not necessarily believe that this is true, and most of us will dismiss such notions as outright imaginary or primitive. But however rational we may be, it is very difficult to entirely disregard the feeling that eyes and minds beyond our reach somehow influence the opportunities that we have or the direction that we take.

Beyond our individual fate we also harbor certain notions about the time and circumstances in which we live. We may think that certain events are inevitable, for instance, as some people strongly “pre-sensed” the end of the world near the turn of the Millennium. Such convictions can also be more realistic and to some extent they may constitute a self-fulfilling prophecy. One example in history is the overriding belief among many people in Europe at the turn of the nineteenth century that war was a certainty in their time. It almost seemed as if the collective minds of the continent were driven into it by an invisible hand. Even today one might ask what caused the war that broke out in the late summer of 1914. A house of cards came tumbling down. Nobody in his or her right mind would have wanted the Great War as it actually unfolded, yet masses of people hailed its advent as if to celebrate their satisfaction that the prophecy had come true.




By the same token, in times of prosperity and general progress, we can think that it will last forever. Economic recessions invariably take us by surprise. Time and again the “boom and bust” of our economies are accompanied by unreasonable optimism and unreasonable pessimism respectively. In a longer term perspective, i.e. the perspective of an entire generation, the broad conditions of our youth frame the sense of the probable and the improbable in our own minds. The social and cultural context in which we grow up (including the absence or presence of religion) furthermore shape our view of the immediate and longer term future, including our subconscious sense of fate – of what may happen or of what is “bound to happen”. As illustrated above the general mood of a generation can have a direct or indirect impact on events that actually occur (even though thy may not be truly inevitable or necessary).

I am alluding to this interplay between the rational and the irrational as in our current time as many certainties of the past decades have increasingly come into question: our continued progress, the shared values and general coherence of our societies and indeed the very foundations of peace and security which have been self-evident in our world for an unprecedented long period. In a way, this outlook – at least superficially – very much resembles the situation described above, some hundred years ago. Many elements differ, for sure. Classic imperial conflicts have been replaced by manifold global tensions. The struggle to maintain - or achieve – social and economic equilibrium for an ever increasing world population is one in which nations and political regions face substantive stumbling blocks such as scarcity of resources and ecological deterioration. At the same time historical adversities and violent animosities especially directed at the western world constitute serious impediments for our traditional mechanisms of international consultation to reach long term consensus on major issues.

We most certainly have not reached a boiling point of global proportions to merit popular fatalism or another collective urge towards an armed resolution of prevailing conflicts. If anything, the past century has demonstrated the devastating outcome of such resolution – on would say – in highly convincing terms. However, as indicated above, it is not merely our rational deliberation or our memory of history which will determine the fate of our world in the foreseeable future, nor, for that matter, our personal fate. If anything, in our current time we witness another surge of popular sentiments which only two or three decades ago the great majority of the people in the western world would have considered perfectly unjustified if not insidious. This, unfortunately, includes racial, ethnic and cultural sentiments that most of us would have thought were left behind decisively some five decades ago.




Nothing in our world is predetermined. Yet our anxieties, our sense of the inevitable and the certainties we harbor have their own role to play, even if this would imply a course of action against all better wisdom. From our present point in time it is perhaps even more difficult than ever (at least considering the past three to four decades) to make a reasonable assessment of key factors of our world in ten, let alone twenty years time. Most of the postings in this blog address these factors. Indeed, they are manifold, complex and far reaching, affecting every dimension of our livelihood.

Our world has grown much beyond the mass hysteria – guided by monopolized mass propaganda – that led the people in the western world to the gates of hell just half a century ago. Most of us living today can not imagine the horror and devastation to which previous generations have been subjected. We should nonetheless realize that even in our own time people live in desperate circumstances. The shifting global power balance creates new influences and antagonisms which in turn can ignite irrational sentiments and new fatalism.




I, for one, do not believe that there is a guiding hand beyond our own – and those of our leaders - to steer clear from disaster. However, in countering populist anxieties rational policies or resolutions will prove sufficient only if they respond to the people’s inner convictions and beliefs at the same time. Nothing in the future is predetermined, but without satisfying at least some sense of destiny, human kind will progress – or otherwise – in a spiritual desert.