Introduction

Human kind is still in its infancy. We are far away from the end sta­tion, whatever people may think. When we look in the mirror we see a transient face. Our species continues to be on the move. What do we expect of humanity, say, four million years from now? Will there be those who actually resemble us? In such a period much can change. We started as an upright walking chimp. It has taken us some five to six million years to finally become the species we are today. Evolution is ongoing. Whatever we do – or don’t do.In our present day we are very much confronted with the notion of continuity and its opposite: extinction. We have changed our habitat planet Earth beyond recognition in a glimpse of time – in just a few thousand years - and killed off countless species, gone for eternity. In the process we influence the wheel of evolution, including the evolu­tion of our own species, unwillingly, and mostly unknowing of the nature and direction of that influence. In our habits we both protect and destroy. I believe it will be another ten to hundred thousand years before its cumulative impact can be assessed and solid evidence of ongoing evolution of our species will actually surface.

I never think of the future, it comes soon enough

Albert Einstein

New isolation would have to play a key role. It is a fundamental prerequisite. If it occurs it will most certainly progress through – i.e. by virtue of – adversity: adversity inflicted by nature, or, as likely, by man himself. It may also be that some quality is being favored by other means, e.g. cultural means: ideal models of fashion may well become ideal models of human progress. We don’t know. We either end up with a Planet of the Gods or we create a Planet of the Brutes. Both outcomes are plausible, none is more or less unlikely.

We are being warned today that the western white man is moving towards extinction unless he now starts procreating at a more mas­sive scale. Our western civilization is rapidly becoming short of western children. So, at least we are being warned about one possible course of evolution, i.e. not including the descendants of western modern man. We better make up our minds. But this is a very narrow view of course. We are just a few thousand years into civilization anyway. Many civilizations must still follow. So let’s be a little bit neutral about it. We cannot claim to be the ultimate civilization. We are still very far from that. 

As a species we have only scratched the surface of our brain potential. One Ein­stein will in the long run be thousands of Einsteins, millions perhaps. There is no end to the potential qualities of man and his descendants at any time in any era. And apart from Einstein there are many other things to cherish. We have our accomplishments. We have our western science. We have our libraries. We have our music, our amenities.There is a lot worth preserving and worth transferring to future gen­erations. And this includes our genes.

In the mean time great perils lay ahead. To call for mass reproduction is a slap in the face of the imminent overpopulation of our planet. We have all but exhausted our key resources and many millions of people already lack even the most basic necessities such as clean water. The perils we have to overcome are largely manmade. Our national and international institutions are ill equipped to effectively face them. It is a fascinating exercise to visualize the world many eons ahead, but we better look at the next forthcoming century as our greatest priority, at every level and in every language. In the process our societies, our politics and our corporate world need to address the issues – and the conflicts which arise from them – that they carry along from past history: matters of lifestyle and val­ues, our ambitions, the technology that has been accumulated, and so on. In all these and similar dimensions our present is what we have to deal with. We cannot escape it, but we do have the power – and the responsibility – not to let it dictate our future course. If at any time in human history this is a paramount directive, it is in our time.

The book can be obtained as an E-book from Amazon.com

REINVENTING SOCIETY

Can we reconcile diverging demands to create new harmony between economics and our quality of life?


In His agony the God who features in the Judea-Christian Bible might say to us: “I told you so!” In defiance of His warnings humanity has lavishly eaten the forbidden fruit of knowledge and ravaged the Garden of Eden beyond recovery. He might contend that our materialist selfishness has made us submit ourselves collectively to enslavement by the Devil, foregoing every reasonable concern for the longer term livelihood of our habitat in favor of insanely egoistic pleasures. Why, even in respect of our fellow human beings, our family, friends and our broader community we have become grossly indifferent. We have isolated ourselves from one another as we pursue our monotonous jobs, tagging along among the anonymous masses, each of us making huge claims, as individuals, on the available resources for energy, food, clean water and so on, without effectively securing their recycling to cater for the future. This is not merely a slap in the face of God, any god, but of the very essence of nature. How do we think we can carry on?

We all have our own appreciation of the conundrums of our time and of the prevailing societal, political and economic realities. Much depends on our personal circumstances and outlook, and this today seems to be a more prominent distinction among the people in our societies than – for instance – ideology or religious belief, both of which have lost their power to bring people together and inspire them to share and contribute in larger communities. For however we look at it, it is difficult to deny the increased segmentation – some call it atomization – of our societies and the loss of traditional bonds of mutual care and support, material and otherwise, which have largely become the object of collective provisions and services which rather categorize than personalize us in our particular needs. Local societies of private citizens responsible for schools, health care and cultural institutions all have been displaced by large scale institutions, largely operating within regulated public systems which allow for little if any spontaneous civic engagement.

Today however these systems (and institutions) have become subject to severe financial cutbacks, due to large scale cuts in public spending, forcing to reduce and standardize their service levels, allowing for even less personal discretion. At the time when new demands are made to citizens to take their own (financial) responsibilities, they seem least equipped to do so, both economically and in terms of their social context. We may have our various networks, but generally they serve as platforms for communication and information sharing rather than as communities of true mutual commitment.

My assumption is that our world faces a long term period of budget austerity and economic sluggishness if not worse. We can not rely on industrial and commercial innovation to spirit us in another wave of high growth any time soon. But even if this were otherwise, we still need to address the societal framework, including our interaction with the public systems, in which public responsibility, civic participation and the proper management of our collective interests are more closely aligned. The objective being to safeguard their access and promote sufficient public and private contributions, monetary and otherwise, in executing their functions. Such initiatives could counterbalance the current costly emphasis on individualism and re-introduce an element of sharing among a greater group of people with common interests.

One has to be realistic about the actual possibilities of such countervailing development. We have come a long way from the illusion that society can be engineered, that is, unless it creates substantive benefits for a significant segment of the population. Yet sustained scarcity - in all dimensions – can be seen as a viable trigger for citizens to actively pursue options to share and contribute as a means to maintain a reasonable quality of life for all.

It is evident nonetheless that the kind of leadership and inspiration required to effectively curb the current predominance of laissez-faire policies that emphasize individual self-reliance is glaringly absent and has been absent for a long time ever since market orientation and privatization became the prime focus of public policies, both left and right wing. One can not suppose that people take care of themselves unless there is a working context in which they seek cooperation and shared responsibility and shared benefit. To articulate such perspective is the greatest challenge to anyone who takes the human society serious and who does not want to surrender to a world driven by mere self-interest.

Admittedly the above is still rather more conceptual than substantial and it would require further elaboration, both in respect of the suggested route to take and in its underlying analysis. But an effort has to be made. The key point here is to help people to make proper use of their individual responsibility and not take it away from them. There should be an advantage for them, on the long rung, to share – and care – in a greater community of people rather than claiming every possible good individually. Such options have already developed, for instance in the area of private mobility, such as automobile sharing arrangements, and they can be extended into many other areas.



Also I believe that the above will only be fruitful if similar steps are taken at the level of macro-economics, the working of our labor markets, and taxation. We should seriously question the prospect of full employment under present conditions given that industry and commerce are doing everything in their power to maximize their return on investment with the least possible people. The paradox is that every new efficiency in the markets, based on the exploitation of the fruits of knowledge, will move us one other step away from meaningful human participation and this will eventually destruct the very societal fabric on which most public systems and provisions are currently based. We should rather reward employment and fully focus our tax systems on the use of resources and on business profits.

Having said this, it is clear that such thorough re-thinking of the basic assumptions of our world is not done overnight. But if we claim to live in true democracies it is upon us to make sure that more than just one value system or policy framework is available to choose from. As it stands at present, we are going one way – and this is not necessarily the best way.

AWAITING THE FURTHER PROCESS OF HISTORY

For most of its existence humanity was destined to be content with the status quo. This was either because early humans, like their predecessors, lacked the drive or the immediate pressure for ongoing invention and advancement or because the prevailing leadership kept their people largely ignorant of their potential for such advancement. Advancement as we know it is a recent phenomenon, however much it seems to be innately tied with the essence of our humanity. We simply can not imagine a status quo.

But indeed, our ongoing advancement equally stems from need: population pressures, environmental pressures and many other – related – issues which can only be resolved when humanity presses forward in its technology and in its institutional framework for peace and prosperity of our world’s population. There is no choice but to go ahead, the alternative being the certain collapse of our civilization.

But the current leadership of our world seems to experience great difficulty in articulating such road ahead. If anything their constituency is urging them to go backwards and none of the competing political forces offer a credible alternative that can rally voters away from their conservative populist preferences. Besides, almost all energy is spent in at least preserving the attainments of our recent past, as we currently experience in the European Union and as similarly is the experience of the people of America. Wealth, wealth creation, international security, a solid future for our children, all of this has become rather more uncertain than it has been throughout the greater part of our post-WW II universe. Concepts required to draw us out of mere debt management, budget control and public service restraints are greatly lacking on all sides.

Clearly, the status quo is not an option. We live in a world which by every measure is unsustainable. We can not dream of some nostalgic paradise. It is no longer there. We may redefine our needs, our ideas of society and well-being – and I am convinced that we should – but the only road ahead is one that is paved with substantive, progressive ambitions at unprecedented scale.



We will not see such ambitions surface any time soon. It will require a new momentum, most likely arising from a sense of imminent disaster, but hopefully some imminent opportunity too, the nature of which is anybody’s best guess at present.

The present state of stagnation is a reminder of the fact that history has no preset course. It is up to each generation to rise to the challenge and visualize an attainable, mobilizing future. True history is made by those who have the stamina and the persuasive power take us to new and promising frontiers. We have almost forgotten what it looks like and our younger generations haven’t had experience of it. But they too will know when they see it or at least, when they see the need for it.

As expressed at various occasions in this blog, humanity still has a long way ahead. The confines of our planet will largely define the parameters by which it will have to secure the habitat and livelihood of many billions of people over the longer term. I am convinced that we haven’t yet reached our ultimate potential in our means to achieve this, neither in technological terms nor in terms of politics and societal thinking. But it equally seems to me that we have reached the point of exhaustion of the thinking that has brought us to the point where we are today. This includes our ability to effectively respond to the great disparities in the conditions and prospects of the people populating our world. The true project of humanity is to address these disparities to the longer term benefit of all: their access to resources, their sustainable development and livelihood and their quest for a meaningful life however we may define it.

Our current global political and institutional framework may not necessarily suffice It is either too fragmented or it lacks the power and the means to mobilize the nations of our world towards a long term common goal. Old history still stands in the way but so do vested national and ideological interests.



It took some two decades before the true scope of the twentieth century became manifest, both in its drawbacks and in its vast array of possibilities. Much of the groundwork had been done in the preceding decades. The historic process centered around competing ideologies, out of which - as we see it – free market liberalism emerged victorious. National democracies have become the main residences of the people’s sovereignty. The greatest challenge for the present century is both to retain this foundation of government and at the same time strengthen the role of global institutions governing our critical resources. We should hope that it won’t require similar cataclysms as in the last century to finally get there.

MUSTERING THE POWER OF OUR SUSTAINABILITY

Who will dig up Liberty, and when?


Almost every civilization thus far in human history crumbled. It either went down into total oblivion or it disintegrated into a state of barbarism out of which new advancement arose. But humanity does not perish. The genes of the ancient are still among us. It is an interesting topic aside: where did the genes of the Sumerians or of the senators of Rome migrate? Most of us can barely trace our forbears beyond some hundred or two hundred years, let alone thousands of years. Nonetheless, the legacy of antiquity is all around us. The rise and fall of civilizations do not preclude the transfer and continuity of their achievements. Each new civilization or cultural tradition sooner or later absorbed traditions and inventions of a previous one. The ascent of Western Europe is a strong case in point. This is not merely because Rome retained its position as a center of authority and spiritual development but also because of the Renaissance, when the remains, in letters and thought, of antiquity were again dug up to inspire the birth of new culture, science and political thinking. It was a re-birth with profound consequences for the further advancement of our civilization, reaching well beyond the confines of our continent. If a Roman senator of antiquity would visit Washington D.C. today he would recognize many of its elements, its architecture, the tradition of its monuments and probably the atmosphere and proceedings on Capitol Hill too. In other words: he would start to wonder whether in fact Rome had fallen at all (see my previous posting: Much will change, much remains the same).


If ancient Egypt survived, we might have seen the same thing over and over

The Rome that we know of antiquity perished by manifold forces both from the inside and the outside; the weight of its bureaucracy, the decadence of its elite, exhaustion of its innovative power, the devolution of its authority and the massive demographic pressure forcing its way through the eastern borders. In our present-day ears these factors ring a familiar bell. All of them have their contemporary parallel. We may already feel severely disturbed by the pressures coming out of the Arabic world and its impact on our civilization, but if we seriously ponder such concerns then we should be concerned in at least similar measure by many other - inside - factors too, similar to those which plagued Rome in its final stage, such as our consumerism and the decadence it projects, our hedonist popular culture, the mounting disparity between the wealthy and the poor, our stagnating technology – that is: where today it matters most; the exhaustion of our key resources, the diminishing power of persuasion of our leaders and so on. One could paint a very bleak picture of our current state of civilization and of the prospects of its survival and predict that nothing less than that the fate of Rome awaits us.

Still, all of the factors mentioned played a role one way or the other at previous stages of our history too, and they didn’t bring us the irreversible apocalypse of preceding civilizations. More than any other our western civilization has demonstrated the capability of renewal and re-birth from within, and like no other it has come to cultivate this capacity as is manifest in its present-day popular culture, which by and large celebrates the power of youth. We can make a long list of weaknesses but we would do great injustice to ourselves if we didn’t count our blessings too. Similarly, we wouldn’t have arrived at our current (st-)age of global information and communication without our innate commercial and intellectual acumen (and freedom), elements severely lacking in any civilization that has preceded us. However much we may feel stagnation today, our innovative potential is everything but exhausted. Our modern western world is a mere hundred years old. Why would it perish any day soon, sooner – by comparison – than all other previous civilizations?


Is the nuclear age over, or is it just beginning?

The answer is: there is no need for any imminent oblivion, if only we seriously face the challenges. They are unprecedented too. That is the key. We know that in fifty to hundred years time no drop of oil will be left, but as yet no substantive alternative (i.e. an alternative that is safe and without severe negative side-effects) is in sight that will allow the undisturbed continuation of our present way of life. What power will drive us, what material will replace our plastic and all other vital derivates of fossil carbohydrates? Unless we find a way to re-cycle every atom that goes through our hands, a principle which has kept nature going for many hundreds of millions of years, the prospect of our continuity is very gloomy indeed, almost inconceivable. The newly rising resistance against nuclear energy and the actual uncertainties that surround this potentially infinite power source are indicative of the long road still ahead either to solve these uncertainties or to find a viable alternative. In my own mind energy is the outstanding factor affecting the outlook of our western world, but there are quite a few other, in part associated, factors which need to be addressed at the same time, demography most certainly heading the list.

Until the Middle Ages much of what happened in the story of human civilization could be seen as ongoing variations of just a few unchanging themes. Progress in almost every dimension – human well being, the organization of social and political institutions, the evolution of public governance, technology – was very slow indeed. Today we live at the pinnacle of exponential progress; it has changed the globe beyond recognition. Our future progress will be measured first of all in terms of the sustainability of where we are today. Every inventiveness, every youthful vigor, and every bit of true civilization will be needed to achieve this.



But then, I am reminded of one the main messages of the much acclaimed television series of the late nineteen sixties, the monumental BBC documentary of Sir Kenneth Clark “Civilisation”: the one decisive element, he told us, of a lasting civilization is its confidence. Ability isn’t good enough. We have to shed any doubt that we can get there.

MUCH WILL CHANGE, MUCH REMAINS THE SAME

La plus ça change, la plus c’est la même chose


One event in history that stands out as an instant of great change is the fall of Rome. The sack of the great city in the mid 400s not only marks the oblivion of the imperial and military order which had commanded the European people’s for more than four centuries, it also crushed its entire civilization, or so we are led to believe. But when not long ago I visited Rome for the first time, I was struck by the specter of continuity. By the looks of it there was much that had not changed. In particular, I felt, the historic elements of the city which are an expression of power and authority – the remnants of imperial Rome but also the monuments of Christianity – all seemed to suggest to me that the process of change had been rather transitional and that the epoch which brought us the Dark Ages is just as fascinating for what had been destroyed as for what was preserved.



It all cumulates in the Rome’s predominant monument of history, the Vatican, a complex that was built to intimidate and to assert the supremacy of the Roman pope, much like his imperial predecessors. Christianity may have been inspired by piety and humility, but its appearance in the city of Rome (and, as many will argue, in some thousand years of its existence) rather underscores an unchanging desire to rule and indeed of every effort, throughout the past sixteen hundred years, to match and preserve what was seemingly lost by the hands of barbarism.


Paris, La Bastille, 1789

There have, of course, been subsequent instances of change – or revolution – in our history, such as the Reformation, the Enlightenment and the period of revolution that followed. The two world wars of the twentieth century similarly define major dividing lines, in manifold dimensions. But as with the history of Rome it can be said for all these instances that continuity was as much an interest of the generations which carried them as the enforcement of change. And thus, in a broader perspective, we can look our history as one in which both elements play a role, every time and again. And this must be true for our time too.

Having said this, change has been the fascination par excellence of our present generations. It is our first and foremost addiction. We want to see change every new season. The fashion of our clothes, the design of our commodities, the technology that drives our appliances; our architecture; all of it must be constantly on the move. And if this is particularly true for our material environment, the same holds for other, more abstract aspects of our world. When in our public arena someone calls “change!”, we rally to it en masse, without so much as a blink, as if change itself is more important than the actual purpose it is supposed to serve.



Nonetheless, even the most ardent champion of change must at one point or other concede to things that will not move. Vested interests and vested practices are often tenacious in their defense and so is this anonymous monster called ‘reality’. As a result, real change remains elusive, almost illusory, and it can only be perceived once considerable had passed – by hindsight. Moreover, in our present day, progressiveness and the urge to change the world for the better have taken a back seat (as has happened many more times in the past) in favor of reinvigorated conservative sentiments, even to the point where going back in time is being presented as a legitimate way to go ahead. We see this sentiment both in Europe and America, in the strengthening of rightist populism, much as a response to the perceived undermining of our societies and its traditional cultural assumptions by foreign elements.

But setting this aside, change is ongoing and seemingly irreversible both inside and outside our political arenas. We are just at the beginning of the information and communication revolution that has ravaged our traditional societal and civic fabric beyond recognition. Economic pressures in addition drive public service and commercial organizations to spew out obsolete management and supporting staff in ever increasing acceleration. At global level economic and political power is shifting into new patterns, adding to the discontent of many people in our world in respect of their future up to and including the most basic conditions of their lives. In my own country, the Netherlands, there is a growing uneasiness about the greater divide between rich and poor and about the diminishing opportunities, both true and perceived, of a significant segment of society to aspire a level of wealth - and welfare – similar to what has been enjoyed by the great majority of the people in previous decades.


Futurist imagery in present-day computergames

In this blog I have already alluded to the disappearance of “future” as a source of inspiration (and aspiration) in our collective mindset at several instances (see, most recently: A future that can energize). If anything our prevailing desire is for the present (and perhaps even the past) to remain where it is, with minor adjustments only. But this is a fallacy. We better be prepared, both in our own mind and in the choices we actually make. Change is a roaring monster which we should tame (or keep checked) in the service of our advancement and not the other way around. It requires that we articulate the terms of such advancement, based on the realities that we face. Adverse change will occur when we deny these realities, as we seem to be doing today. If we pursue along this course, we may find ourselves in a similar situation as the Romans did, many centuries ago. If we want to preserve and foster our continuity, we should embrace change in order to achieve it.

THINKING OF EUROPE – WHAT EUROPE? – PART II

Europe in a world of shifting powers


This is the second part of an essay on the present and future outlook of Europe. For the first part, see:
Thinking of Europe - Part 1


Institution building and the sentiments of history

Throughout modern history the process of nation building and of establishing the fundamental principles and rituals of a people’s governance has been a profoundly historic one. Constitutions were wrought from the claws of one or the other agonizing struggle – from the suppression by tyranny, a foreign usurper or severe civil conflict.- and invariably the transition is recorded as a moment of renewal: the promise of a better future, often coinciding with new liberties and (increased) democracy. Without exception these momentous transitions in a people’s history continue to be celebrated; their remembrance is transferred to the next generations, mementos are erected.

In more recent history similar milestones have been reached at the international level, such as the conclusion of wide reaching treaties and the fall of the Berlin Wall, a defining moment with world wide implications. The establishment of the European Community and its subsequent enhancement both in scope and membership can be seen as similar major accomplishments after nearly two centuries of continental strife and destructive competition between its - then – major powers.


Europe in the present public’s mind

Today, this European pre-history seems all but forgotten. In the eyes of many Europe has become synonymous with a distant and burdensome reality. Public sentiments are firmly fixed at the national level, regardless the gradual erosion of the member states’ autonomy. This prevailing sentiment, even in countries which have been ardent supporters of a strong Europe, stands in sharp contrast with the ongoing unification process. New rules of European governance and member state compliance are being drawn up with major implications at the heart of national budgetary prerogatives. It happens not so much in the wake of one or the other great historic drama or long term European inspiration but rather more as an expediency for the short term fiscal and monetary survival of the members of the Euro zone. It may steer those member states towards greater unity, but it may equally stir new disparity between the European nations.

I believe the project of Europe is on a dangerous path if the governments of the member states merely treat this transition as a technical issue. They should pro-actively mobilize broad public support for the likely further enhancement of Europe’s political clout in national fiscal and budgetary policies. Failing this, it will only add new frustrations to what is already a widespread skepticism of the union’s faceless intrusion in domestic interests.





Yet, all of this can still be seen as concerns to overcome immediate challenges only, leaving the greater question of Europe’s future unaffected – or at least undecided. It remains a question with many faces. The issue of Turkey’s potential EU membership, on which Member States have in principle agreed, epitomizes the manifold dilemma’s – some would call it crises – that linger in the union’s undercurrents. As a country on the brink between the Christian and the Islamic – Arab – world the sentiments against Turkey’s membership have become more articulate, such as those of Germany and France. They most of all reflect the growing uneasiness in European countries with their internal demographic reality of a sizeable Islamic population. Thus, more than ever before, the question of extended EU membership hits the union – and the individual Member States – in the heart of their own sense of European identity.


Our history is moving towards new paths

It is a foregone conclusion, I would think, that the EU will not become the super power that once was considered its destiny, at least not in the foreseeable future. No single, shared interest nor any major issue would rally the current EU members to speak and act in one voice and with sufficiently credible muscle. In fact the whole idea of Europe as a super power rather stems from an era in which it served as a logic – to assert itself against two major super powers, the Soviet Union and the USA. Today these powers have not only lost their pre-eminent position in the emerging multi-polar world, the countervailing pressure towards devolution and regionalization seems stronger than ever at the same time.



Lastly, the history of nation states and their alliances may not yet be at an end but it faces increased competition with the rise of the modern day commercial super powers and the history of their impact in our modern world. It is just as easy, and perhaps more pertinent, to describe the past few decades in terms of Microsoft’s ascent in the lives of almost everyone on our globe (or that of Apple, Samsung, Google and the like) as it is to write about the cumbersome efforts of the various nations to maintain a reasonable level of peace and security. In this respect too, the future of our political conglomerates has many faces, more particularly so as and when we move away from the current oil-driven power equilibrium.




Conclusion

In summary, no single future path for Europe can at present be defined as credible or likely. It may as well become a matter of merely historic interest as it may still emerge as a priority on our agenda. Shifting powers in our world, between major regions as well as between public and private (commercial) interests make a plausible prediction about the position of Europe in the next forthcoming decades a hazardous undertaking. At the same time, EU Member States have arrived at a perilous cross road if they persist in strengthening the political role of the EU whilst simultaneously ignoring to mobilize broad public support in doing so.

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)