THE AMBIGUITY OF EUROPE:

ABSTRACT

This paper takes its starting point in the public discourse, of politicians and academics, that suggests that Europe, specifically the European Union, is suffering from a ‘crisis of identity’. This is believed to stem from the recent enlargements, the pending ‘problem of Turkey’, and disarray over the European Constitution. This issue is addressed in two ways: first, through an exploration of the main current models and meanings of ‘Europe’, and second, applying an anthropological approach to identity, through examining the relationship between models and meanings of ‘Europe’ and local, regional, ethnic and national identities. In the first place, this suggests that there is not, and cannot be, agreement over the shape and meaning of ‘Europe’. There is, rather, rooted in histories, geographies, politics, and cultures, a range of different Europes, which only coincide imperfectly, at best. In the second place, Europe is always viewed from local, regional, ethnic and national points of view. Each approach converges on the same conclusion: there can never be a clear-cut, consensual unified model of Europe. This is a normal situation, not a crisis, and, if anything, is one of the strengths of the European Union project.

Keywords:

• Europe
• European Union
• identity
• ethnicity
• models of Europe
• meanings of Europe

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to three anonymous referees, to Alan Scott, Rogers Brubaker and Gerard Delanty, and to the original audience at the Jean Monnet Summer School at the University of Trento in September 2005, for their comments. Revising the paper for publication was more than usually difficult due to the contradictory comments of the referees – who wanted different parts of the paper expanded or shortened – but I have done my best to act on every comment that I could. The paper is much better as a result.

Notes

¹Although ‘culture’ is a notion that has its own serious problems when it comes to clarity and definition (Jenkins 2002a: 39–62).

²Interestingly, modern scepticism about the arbitrary division of large continuous land masses into ‘continents’ (Lewis and Wigen 1997) has ancient antecedents: Herodotus entertained his own doubts in the fifth century BC.