Polity-sistem guvernamental, organizare politic

The most ambitious scholars even offer advice to the

European Commission on the nature of the symbols to promote a
collective European identity: Do we go for the Holocaust (Giesen
2003), or do we leave it to marketing professionals who work with
images and sounds rather than with words? (Eder 1999). Here I am not
concerned with judging the value of this discussion De gustibus non
est disputandum. I take issue, however, with those who aligning
themselves with the political elites emphasize identity factors when
explaining the last decades relatively low levels of support for the
European Union and the French and Dutch referenda outcomes.

Moreover, European symbols have remained far less potent than
national ones. To be sure, there have been efforts to create common
European symbols, particularly during two major periods since the end
of World War II. During the late 1940s and early 1950s, when a strong
European movement was active in the initial period of European
integration, many European symbols were proposed: various designs of
a European flag (not only the flag eventually adopted by the Council of
Europe, but also an alternative design with a green E on a white
background); postage stamps; historical places commemorating Europe,
such as Strasbourg; human rights charters; historical figures such as
Charlemagne, reinforced by the Charlemagne prize of Aix-la-Chapelle;
institutions for advanced education, such as the College of Europe in
Bruges; and rituals such as the lifting of border barriers by young
Europeans or the signing of international treaties by elder statesmen.
The 1980s and 1990s that is, the era of politicization of the EU also
witnessed numerous inventions of European symbols, often created by
the EU: a European anthem, a Europe day, a European flag, two
European charters of rights (1989, 2000), the Erasmus program, the
buildings of the European Parliament in Strasbourg and Brussels, and
finally the euro currency (Hedetoft 1998; Jones 2007; Kaelble 2003;
Passerini 2003).
But only the European flag (blue with twelve golden stars), the Erasmus
program, and the EU currency (the euro) have fully succeeded. Relative
to national symbols, most other European ones have remained weak or
ambiguous. The European anthem and Europe Day5 remain largely
unobserved and unknown. References to outstanding European historical
figures are infrequent. French and Germans successfully reinterpreted
Charlemagne as a European symbol after 1945; but he is not a figure of
Common identity for British, Polish, Swedish, or Portuguese citizens.
French historian Jacques Le Goff disavows Charlemagne as a major
European symbol. For him, the origin of Europe lies in the European
network of intellectuals that emerged in the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries rather
Further, a common European history, another symbol of European
unity, remains to be written. European schoolbooks are the exception,
not the rule (Franois 2007). Lacking are the typical ingredients of
national history a common war of independence, a common period
of defeat and suffering, a common period of subsequent reaffirmation
of the body politic, a history of common frontiers, and a common
historical memory. To be sure, common European places and objects
of memory (lieux de mmoire) can be traced, but they are much less
evident than national ones (Franois 2006). Europe lacks a symbolic
capital such as Paris or London. Brussels is an administrative center, but
no capital with which to identify, for lack of what one would expect
from a capital: a purposeful architectural ensemble of buildings for the
European Parliament, the European Commission, and the European
Council; a European museum, a European opera and theater, a
European academy of sciences, a major European university, a
European library, European monuments, and European street names
than in Charlemagnes conquest of theCarolingian empire (LeGoff
2003).6
carte:

Jonna Johnson

Looking at the European level, Lawn claims that education can be seen as playing a key role
in the transmission and construction of European identity and education and universities can
also be seen as political symbols, as well as tools.58
In the official European Union documents analysed there
are few direct references to a common identity. However, this does not mean that an identity
is not being discussed and constructed. Rather, I argue, it is useful to think of identity in
metaphorical terms as a container filled with certain ideas, myths, symbols and norms.
Therefore my main concern is on exploring how these are used when constructing both the
national and European subject, and how they also work to exclude the Other. We are
witnessing a boundary turn in social sciences with an increasing popularity as regards to
spatial metaphors. This development can be linked to the popularity of constructivist research
and the Other is constructed through identity discourses, at both the national and the
European level, through the construction of boundaries. Boundaries are symbolic linguistic
creations of our minds. In other words, they can be seen as structures which put limits to
what can reasonably be thought and argued. Further, boundaries can be seen as points where
something becomes something else; they exist both within nation-states and between them. Boundaries can, similar to
identity generally, be defined as either thick or thin or perhaps
more suitably as clear and vague. Boundaries are constructed with the help of certain
check-points where we are separated from the Other. Also important to this process is
the establishing of mental maps, which help us navigate in a world of insecurity and
In
addition, it highlights the ideational structures, such as myths, memories, symbols and
values, which are part of the national identity construction process, also resound at the
European level. Special attention is paid to the power of education and language as both
governmental technologies and symbols. The reason for looking closer at the literature on
national identity is that it is often claimed that the European Union policy-makers are
modelling European identity discourse on its national counterpart. In the second part of this chapter the meaning of
citizenship is analysed in order to show that it is more than a simple
legal marker. Often the concepts of identity and citizenship are used interchangeably.
However, even though citizenship can be perceived as a form of identity this is not the only
meaning that it has. I concur with Delanty who argues that identity entails the recognition of
common ties while citizenship is a membership of a polity.2 As was suggested in the
introductory chapter, through citizenship identity becomes a political concept. The
discussions and problematising of identity in these two first sections are useful when
describing the research process in the third and final part of this chapter.

However, critics argue that one of the weaknesses of ethno-symbolism is that it fails to give
any insight into what motivates the elite to take part in the identity-making process and
construct a specific version of identity.

In other words, group
belonging is dependent on shared memories according to Smith. This feeling of belonging and
sentiments of solidarity are enforced by the use of common codes and shared symbols and
myths of a common descent. However, Smiths idea of shared memories has been criticised
by for example Bell who argues that since memory is supposed to be anchored in a common
experienced and that memories can only be shared by those that actually experienced the
event. This means that the memories which Smith argues are important would not suffice and
that what Smith sees as memories should rather be called myths.40 In my mind, the idea of
memories carries with it a sense of being the truth and is perhaps therefore more excluding
than the concept of myths. Myths and symbols are not specific to the national identity
discourse, as will be argued later, in particular in chapter five. They are also present in
European identity discourse in order to create a European imagined community with a
suggested shared history, culture and civilization.41 In other words, I believe it is important to

Symbols are, similar to myths, shared by the people within a
community, and they are meaningful because all members of the group understand them. In
other words, these symbols can be seen as a visual discourse on identity. As Jacobsson
suggests, social representation is made up of imaginations, claims and explanations filled with
emotion and value that unite people.45 The most important symbols of the nation-state include
for example the flag, anthem, passport, and currency.
A further obstacle is the fact that European Union policy-makers
do not control the curriculum of the schools in the Member States. The content of education is
still in the hands of each individual Member State. Bologna will only streamline the length of
university degree programmes. In addition, Smith claims that there are no European shared
myths and symbols, which in Smiths view are essential for the maintenance of identities at
the national level. This causes Smith to pose the question of: who will feel European in
the depths of their being, and who will willingly sacrifice themselves for so abstract an ideal?
In short, who will die for Europe?50 I do not fully agree with Smith on the issue of lack of
European myths. Rather, in my own opinion, and as I will show in the analysis chapters, there
are European myths, albeit not as powerful as those of the nation, but since the Member States
still control the content of education, education cannot play as influential and powerful a role
as it does at the national level.

Symbols, on the other hand, are visible signs of belonging, such
as the national flag, passport, hymn, etc. In the official European Union discourse there are
claims of a common European culture while at the same time asserting that what makes
Europe so special is its ability to cope with and maintain Unity in Diversity. I will show that within the European Union
discourse a thicker and a thinner version of the meaning of unity
coexist. The former consisting of claims to a common culture and civilization while the latter
refers to a common set of values. For European Union policy-makers it becomes a precarious
balancing act when defining what unites us. Too much of the former might be seen as too
harshly excluding and politically incorrect and could undermine the image of Europe as a
democratic community while too much of the latter will not suffice to create the desired
emotional attachment. Turning to the meaning of diversity, there has been a shift over time,
from being seen as a hurdle to be seen as the very essence of what it means to be European. I
ask myself however how the idea of a common European culture can be combined with this strong emphasis on unity in
diversity. The second part of this chapter looks at the role which
higher education is given in the construction of a cultural version of European identity. This is
done by investigating the idea of a European dimension in relation to higher education. The
concept of a European dimension has been left more or less undefined by the European
Union policy-makers, thus allowing each higher education institution and/or Member State to
define it.
As was argued in
chapter three, besides myths, the nation-state has created symbols to appeal to and construct a
common identity. The symbols used to construct national identity, such as the flag, national
anthem, currency, etc, make up a distinct form of political symbolism, sometimes also referred
to as banal symbolism, which is used to support state-sponsored myths. I argue that symbols
play the same role at the European level. In other words, despite, or perhaps because of,
diversity, leaders and policy-makers have tried to instil some sense of Europeaness in
European citizens by introducing a common currency, flag, newspaper, sports teams and universitis.
The diversity referred to concerns historical heritage and culture. However, diversity is also
seen as problematic, as the Commission argues for the need to improve foreign language
skills: Their very diversity can indeed be one of the main obstacles, hence the need which we
have emphasized for people to improve their command of languages and thereby learn more
of each others countries.55 Once again the importance of language is being stressed. Education may be seen as a way to
alleviate the problems caused by diversity, yet the fact that language proficiency is still a
problem in the European Union demonstrates that diversity is not without its problems.
However, it seems highly unlikely that there will be a common European language in the
future, similar to standardised national versions. The reason for this, I argue, is two-fold. First,
because language is such a strong symbol for the alleged homogeneity of the nation. Second, it
would undermine, if not irreparably damage, the idea of Unity in Diversity.
However, there have been other symbols discussed in the official European Union discourse.
During the 1970s the European Union highlighted the fact that it lacked powerful symbols.
Early 1980s this began to change as the European Parliament, in 1983, took the initiative for a
common flag by adopting the one that the Council of Europe had been using since 1955. A
year later, in 1984, the European Council, at its meeting in Fontainebleau, stressed the
importance of promoting the European image and identity in the eyes of its citizens and the world. In addition it is argued
that an ad hoc committee should be set up to produce a report
discussing, among other things, symbols of the Communitys existence, such as a flag and an
anthem, a flag which has now, according to the Council of Europe, become the symbol par
excellence of united Europe and European identity.56 In 1985 a report entitled A Peoples
Europe was produced by an ad hoc committee, best known as the Adonnino Committee after
its president. This document can be seen as something of a water-shed in the history of both
the construction of European identity specifically but also the European integration process
generally. It suggested that a set of symbols, similar to those in the nation-state, were needed
to make people feel more emotionally attached to the European integration process. It
imagined:

In this chapter the construction of European cultural identity in the official European Union
discourse on European identity, has been analysed with special emphasis on its connections to
higher education. I have argued that cultural identity is a thick version of European identity.
As was argued in chapter three, an important characteristic of the national identity is its use of
myths and symbols to create a sense of belonging. Through the analysis of the official
European Union discourse on European identity and higher education it becomes clear that it
has its own myths and symbols. In this chapter I have highlighted a specific myth, i.e. Unity
in Diversity. Further I have argued that unity and diversity can themselves be seen as
separate but related myths. Looking closer at the myth of unity, earlier, in chapter three, I
stressed the importance of creating a sense of continuity, i.e. that we are connected to our
ancestors as well as to future generations through a shared culture, when constructing
identities. Here I have argued that the cultural form of European identity construction is the
one which most resembles national identity in the sense that it makes similar claims of
continuity through appeals to a common history and destiny, which make up the myth of
unity in its thick version. Hence, Europe is defined as a cultural community with a shared
European cultural heritage. However, there is also a thinner version of the myth of unity
consisting of claims of shared values, such as democracy, rule of law, etc. This version of the
myth of unity is increasingly being appealed to, perhaps since it is seen as more politically correct than the thicker
version in the form of cultural heritage. However, these values are
also argued to be part of the European cultural heritage which makes me question whether it is
more politically correct to appeal to a thinner rather than thicker version of unity. In my
opinion the idea of Europe as a community of values also plays an important role in the civic
version of European identity in the sense that it makes it possible for us to think of
ourselves as good, democratic human beings while the Other then has to be lacking in these
qualities since there would be no point in emphasising characteristics we see in others as
well. In addition, by linking our common values to the past what we are saying or implying
is that we are inherently good democratic individuals that are part of a good democratic
community. European Union decision-makers are faced with a precarious balancing act. While
a common cultural heritage has proved to be the strongest emotional glue in the nation-state
when making appeals to it at the European level many people seem to feel threatened. So far
they seem reluctant to give up the idea that culture can play the same role at the European
level as it does at the national.


Later it was seen as not hindering cooperation at the European level and
a common European identity, before being seen as something which is truly enriching. The
question for the future, I argue, is how much diversity the European integration process can
take. We have witnessed how the French and Dutch citizens have rejected the proposed
European Constitution perhaps as a reaction to what they see as a threat to their national
identities. European Union decision-makers seem to have taken note of this fear when they in
the spring of 2007 have proposed that all mentions of cultural political symbols, such as for
example the European Union flag and anthem, should be deleted in the proposed European
Constitution. However, in my opinion, the idea of Unity in Diversity might at the moment be
the only option available to European Union policy-makers. If they tried to push to
homogenise the Member States and their citizens instead the risk would be that the whole
European integration process would collapse before the benefits of a strong, common cultural
identity could be created.