web analytics

Nosemonkey's EUtopia

In search of a European identity

Nosemonkey on history: Some starting assumptions

With a new(ish) emphasis on history, it’s probably an idea to outline where I’m coming from.

My approach to history is not coherent enough to be defined by any one term, but has probably most been influenced by the French Annales School, most notably the work of Fernand Braudel and the concept of the longue durée (first developed by Marc Bloch and Lucien Febvre). To boil a complex concept down to its fundamentals, this means that to understand both past and present, I believe that a long, wide view is necessary – one that takes into account as much as is feasibly possible of what might influence a society/culture. In short, while the minutiae of history can be fascinating, they cannot be understood without the wider context.

Taking this approach, nation states can be seen as little more than recent developments within a far larger entity, emerging over the course of the last thousand or so years (though only crystallising firmly during the last few hundred) of a Western/European civilisation that can more or less coherently be traced back to Ancient Greece. They are interesting, but not fully understandable without looking at the wider picture – not even the most powerful and oldest of them.

As Arnold Toynbee noted in his masterly A Study of History,

English history does not become intelligible until we view it as the history of a wider society of which Great Britain is a member in company with other nation states, each of which reacts, though each in its own way, to the common experiences of the society as a whole. Similarly, Venetian history has to be viewed as the history of a temporary sub-society including Milan, Genoa, Florence, and the other ‘medieval’ city-states in Northern Italy; Athenian history as the history of a society including Thebes, Corinth, Sparta, and the other city-states of Greece in the Hellenic Age.”

Would Britain be what she is today without the Anglo-Saxon, Viking and then Norman invasions? Without the impact of the Roman Catholic Church? Without the medieval revival of classical learning and introduction of advanced mathematics and algebra via European contact with Arab scholars? Without the centuries of warfare with France? Without the huge upheaval sparked by Italian Renaissance thought and the German/Swiss ideas that shaped the English and Scottish Reformations? Without the proximity of the Dutch Republic in the 17th century, offering sanctuary and a base for dissidents and propagandists? Without the Glorious Revolution, itself a Dutch invasion that was part of a wider European unease about the rise of France’s Louis XIV? Without the competition for global trade and territories with the other European imperial powers? Without the upheavals of the French and American Revolutions and the Napoleonic Wars? Without the rise of truly global trade and increasingly powerful economic competitors through the 19th century? Without the vast upheavals of the First World War, Great Depression, Second World War and Cold War?

In this approach, Europe can be seen as a more or less coherent entity for much of the last two thousand years – albeit an entity whose borders have shifted and remain ill-defined – and Western/European society/culture as something distinct from that of its near neighbours in North Africa, Asia and the Middle East (even while, thanks to such close proximity, sharing some elements and – on the borders – some overlap). Meanwhile, the borders of Europe’s constituent states have been in constant flux – even those of Britain (first the heptarchy, then Wessex, then England, then England and Wales, also taking in much of Northern France until the loss of Calais in 1558, then the merger with Scotland, the addition of Ireland, the loss of Eire and addition of Northern Ireland to the United Kingdom – not to mention the various far-scattered overseas territories like Gibraltar and the Falklands).

The defining influences on this Western/European society/culture have been (to massively over-simplify) Ancient Greece (especially Athens), the Roman Empire, Judeo-Christian religion, French courtly life, and British parliamentary democracy. Its influence in turn has spread worldwide via the various European empires, so that aspects of Western/European society/culture have embedded themselves around the world – most obviously in the Anglosphere, but also in Latin America, India/Pakistan/Bangladesh, and various parts of Africa and South East Asia.

Within Europe, its influence roughly coincides with the continent’s geographic borders – halting more or less with the Mediterranean to the South, and fading to the East over the Russian Steppes, where it slowly merges with other societies/cultures both on the Russian fringe and within Russia itself.

In short, you can understand pretty much any European country without knowing anything much about the history of China; you cannot understand pretty much any European country without knowing something of the history of its neighbours. Not even the big beasts of Britain and France, long the two most influential European states (with apologies to Spain), and certainly not the more recent arrivals on the European scene.

This is why I find Europe – however ill-defined that term might still be – a worthwhile and coherent unit of study.

24 Comments

  1. Hi, Nosemonkey,

    Are you at all interested in the work of David Christian and “Big History” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_History

    Big history takes the longue durée concept and runs with it, teaching history at extreme timescales (literally from the big bang to the end of the universe). It smooshes physics, chemistry and geology up with history. “Europe” sort of gets lost in the mess at scales like this, but in terms of understanding the world around you, it’s pretty neat.

    Awful name, though.

  2. Well we would expect the nearest nations to have the most influence , with time making the distances less relevant.
    Would we be the same without Algebra from Arabia, numerals from India and gunpowper from China ?
    We know it all gets connected, as in potatoes are discovered in South America and brought to Europe but a famine happens in Ireland and there is great emigration to America which helps build that country to be .. the leading and most influential country there is now.
    I think we can read the history of our own country in the traditional way without emphasising Europes involvement as though Latvia is more relevant than South Carolina.

  3. Of course Europe wouldn’t be the same without all of the historical things you mentioned. History is still very present every day. In a very obvious way, is when an Englishman speaks to a German, there is an awareness around the other persons accent, and there is often the unspoken ghost of the war; and it’s present in that very conversation.

    That’s the most obvious example, and of course; it’s not always easy to explain or indeed to understand how something that happened a thousand years ago affects today, but it does. And of course, with you trying to find your European Identity, you won’t even be able to get close to it without delving into as much European history as you can.

  4. KIFR,

    Why does he want to find a EUropean identity when he has a British/English identity without any effort ?

  5. Hi, Robin!

    Hope all is well.

    Surely a person can have as many identities as they want? I’ve got an English identity, and a European identity.

    I’m not really so big on the “British” identity thing, though.

    No problem with other people calling themselves whatever they want, though.

  6. Robin – perhaps because (like most British/English people), I have numerous non-British ancestors and relatives. My mother’s side of the family are all French Huguenots who fled Louis XIV, my grandmother’s grandfather was a German who fled Bismark, my uncle is the son of Austrian/Czech Jews who fled the Nazis.

    Anyone “British” is the product of numerous waves of immigration – the Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Normans only being the most obvious. Both the country’s key foundation myths – the Norman Conquest and the foundation of London by the Trojan Brutus – are based on immigrants coming from other parts of the continent, after all. Britain has also long been home to people fleeing conflict and persecution elsewhere, and to merchants and traders from all over the world. Unsurprisingly there has been quite a bit of intermarriage, and so I would be very surprised indeed if you – or anyone British – was solely of “British” extraction.

    But still, searching for my own European identity is only a small part of this blog’s aim. My real purpose is to see if there is such a thing as a European identity, what it is, and where it can be found.

  7. Hi Joe,

    Must pop round to your blog if you`ve been busy there .

    I dont think people can have too identities otherwise they get schizophrenic. Some identities come readily, others are worked for.
    We all know we are European because that is this continent. I doubt if Asians try to supercede their nationalities to a continent wide identity, except perhaps at moments of high tension when they percieve the Europeans as being a bit uppish or circleing the wagons around selfish interests.

    Why aren`t you big on the British ID ? I`ll admit it may be old hat in the future if devolution goes full swing into independence (for all, English included).

    Nosemonkey,

    Yes I very much doubt anyone can claim a 100% WASP ancestry, especially in England .You`d be surprised at mine and I haven`t ever bothered to look up the family tree (and it would shut prats up like MatGB who call people racist just because they disagree with them ).
    The great thing about being English/ British , American,New Zealand, Australian, South African, other, is that you dont need this Germanic way of looking for bloodlines to determine who you are. You`re born here, or integrate, and there you go.
    No need to bother with the EUropean identity.

  8. Cheers, Robin,

    I’ve been very busy pratting about with new media. I’m not sure you would approve. :-D I still have a blog at http://www.citizen-europe.eu/ – but it’s become more of a place to put my academic work (and it’s not much of anything at the moment). My main blog is now at http://www.joelitobarski.com – where I’m busy making a tit of myself, if you’re interested.

    I don’t mind British identity, but I don’t feel it myself. I definitely feel English (at least, culturally). But I’m living in mainland Europe now. Also, my grandfather on my father’s side was Polish, and although I grew up without any Polish influence, I still feel the connection. Finally, the history of England is (as NM pointed out) so intertwined with European history that, once I started thinking of myself as European, it felt pretty natural. Most continental Europeans would raise eyebrows, I suspect, if somebody told them the English/British didn’t feel European.

    I don’t know about other people, but for me identity is telescopic. At the closest level there is my identity as an individual. Then, pulling back a bit, there is my identity as a member of my family and friendship circle. Then, I suppose, my identity as an Englishman. Above that is a vague notion of “British” identity. Then as a European. Then as a “citizen of the world.”

  9. Joe – on the identity thing I’d add further identifiers: religion (to a greater or lesser degree), friends, socio-economic class and – often most importantly – local area (village/town/county/region/whatever).

    Different parts of the country have very strong local identities – Yorkshire, Cornwall, Geordies, Scousers, Brummies, Cockneys – many of which can be at least as important as national identities, and are often modified by other factors than national. There’s the obvious religious/sectarian divides of Liverpool/Glasgow (the Liverpool vs Everton and Rangers vs Celtic split), but also the less obvious local rivalries between towns, villages and counties (sometimes, as with Norfolk vs Suffolk, mostly due to proximity; sometimes, as with Yorkshire vs Lancashire, due to proximity and history) which are so often forgotten.

    A national identity may be overlaid on top of these more local/personal identites, but I’d argue that it’s often these lower-level identities that are most important. (If you grew up in South East England during the Thatcher years, for example, you’d have had an altogether different experience to someone from the North – so little wonder that the North/South divide has been one of the most obvious within England for the last few decades.)

    Religious identities again can be hugely important – sod the current fuss about Muslims, what I’d be interested to see is a study into whether British Catholics feel more “European”, being as they are part of a wider Church than the mass of Anglicans. A study along these lines is perfectly feasible – though the argument has been made ever since the Reformation that Catholics can’t be trusted because they hold allegiance to an extra-national power, so may have some unpleasant connotations of the old anti-Catholic scares and persecutions.

    (Oh, and I forgot to respond to your “Big History” question. Simple answer: That’s not history, it’s metaphysics based on a flawed teleological assumption. History is about people, at its most basic. You need to understand more than just people to understand history, but anything much further back than 10,000 years has long been firmly in the territory of “pre-history” for good reason: there are no written records, and the archaeology is patchy. There may have been civilisations and societies, but we know next to nothing about them if there were, so they may as well not have existed. Unlike, say, the neolithic Yangshaou culture of China (c.5,000-3,000 BC) or the pre-Dynastic Naqada culture of Egypt (c.4,000-3,000 BC) – for which evidence is patchy, but which can be identified as precursors of cultures whose influence is still being felt to this day.)

  10. Hi Robin,

    Two things. Firstly, our roads are Italian, our language is French, our political structure is Greek, our chocolates are Swiss, our God is Jewish, our numbers are “Arabic” (though strictly speaking Hindu) and our French fries are Belgian (yeah, weird one that), not to mention the fact that our fishing rights are Spanish (couldn’t resist). You don’t have to look at the history of the UK, but it certainly explains why we are the way today (definitvely European, if you bear in mind the fact that the historical (short term) British image is woad and war, and the “big history” British image comes from Africa, strictly speaking).
    Secondly, why not apply your maxim to Europe? The UK is in Europe, so why not integrate? Frankly the differences between the UK and any other European nations get smaller as the picture gets bigger. Hell if you zoom out, all you can see is the big black blob of the universe, liberally interspersed with dots of light and the identity of the British is invisible, and if you zoom in you find that humans are 65% water, 18% Carbon, 10% Hydrogen, 3% Nitrogen and, surprisingly, contain trace amounts of Germanium (Britannium is, again, nowhere to be found). Anyway, I digress. Why NOT bother with the EU identity if we’re going to bother with the British identity?

    Cheers,

  11. Hello Hunter.

    Two reasons for not bothering with trying to foster a European or EUropean identity is because it wastes effort and seems racist. Why not see ourselves as the nationality we readily are, with some nations more closely connected to others in their part of Europe and others having a looser connection and more ties to countries outside of the EU ?

    Our roads cant be Italian. WE drive on a different side for a big start, the more snobby parts of our language are French,the proles bits are more Germanic,our chocalates are more Quaker than Swiss,French fries is the American term for chips (and they want to rename Freedom Fries because they dont trust the French )our political structure is nothing like a Greek Junta but has borrowed a bit from Pericles Athenian times, not Sparta note, the EU has destroyed yet another industry, this time fishing and everyone knows God thinks in English.
    Zoom out and you see we are even connected by land to the European continent and zoom in and we share our complex phsiology with all the races of the world, not just European.
    The differences between all the countries of the world are getting smaller, thanks to globilisation, but who wants to homogonise all the countries of Europe into one except for political reasons ?
    You dont have to bother about a British identity, it`s just there. I notice there seems to be some work to foster a EUropean ID. A bit like East Germany trying to always make out it was totally seperate from West Germany.Ultimately it failed .

    Regards
    Robaire.

    Hello Joe L,

    Good luck with your new project.I reckon if I show disaproval it will be a small badge of honour to some so you have my comndenation now before I even see it.

    Yours
    Rueben.

  12. I don’t understand why Robin feels that his identity must be a national one. As pointed out by other commenters, identity is a multi-dimensional phenomenon.

    I am an Arsenal fan by choice I suppose, but not because it’s an English or British club (indeed it seems to employ a minority of Brits as players!). I have a religious identity that has nothing to do with my Englishness or Britishness, but is a personal choice. I am a heterosexual (no choice) married (by choice) male (no choice) with children (by choice), but none of that has a national element to it. Put me in a room with a British lesbian Man Utd fan and a married Russian Jew with children who supports Aresnal, and I will naturally have masses more in common with the latter.

    One of the dimensions of identity is therefore choice. The national aspect of identity is a separate dimension entirely. You can be born with a national identity or be obliged by circumstance to belong to a national group, but many people are able to choose their national identity, whether thanks to their own family tree, their travels, their job, their marriage, or whatever.

    The same is true of European identity. For most of us, it is partly simply a fact inasmuch as we are heavily influence by all the European history and culture that the others have mentioned above. But in addition, it can be a cultural or political choice. So it’s not necessarily a question of “needing” (i.e. choosing) a European identity.

    And actually I think that national and European identity are structurally more similar than many people (especially nationalists) will admit. There is a great deal of excellent literature on nationalism out there, which I’d briefly summarise as suggesting that national identity is a mixture of cultural and political identities. The power of nationalism comes from its conscious linkage of rational political identity with the much more emotional cultural identity. For example, it is hard to deny that the British state has an interest in ensuring that British schoolchildren are taught about British history and British parliamentary democracy at school in a way that justifies the state and creates loyal citizens. Similarly, the EU, the Council of Europe, UEFA, etc all have an interest in fostering a political European identity, which they seek to link to an emotionally appealing cultural European identity.

  13. Excellent post. A very wide historical context is always needed to prevent historians from ending up down rabbit holes. But I also think we need to integrate geographic and environmental inputs with sociological and political ones. Humans can become very arrogant when they talk about themselves without a wider consideration of the physical world in which they live, and the way in affects their lives. I think the movement into the industrial epoch had a profound impact on European society, as it liberated us from the ravages of nature. At the same time, as we have become more industrialised, more urbanised and less attached to nature (on the face of things), we have also in many ways become more ignorant. As our power over the natural environment has increased, our understanding of it, and our closeness to it, have declined. I fear this has clouded our knowledge.

  14. Insideur,

    I did not say that one can only have one identity. I pointed out that your national identity comes readily to you but this EUropean identity seems manufactured by those who are stakeholders in this EU project or its supporters.I also pointed out that Europeans may not, depending on their nationality, have that much in common with other Europeans, and many will have more in common with nations outside of Europe (unless these connections are deliberately wrecked by fanatical EUrophiles ).

    When a national is in a far away country, he gravitates to someone of his own nation quite easily. If you are in a god forsaken place, you would hanker for someone from your nation first, not a fellow Arsenal supporter or someone with children. Similarly Brummies dont feel lonely when they are temporarily in Geordie country – they are surrounded by their fellow compatriots.

    Insideur, take anyone you know and describe him/her. Their marital status, children,job, hobbies, rich or poor,anything that tells us about the person but doesn`t give a clue to where he comes from .Whoever you describe him to will not feel that there is a complete picture until you give the nationality .

  15. Pingback: National identity vs European identity | Nosemonkey’s EUtopia

  16. Pingback: Is My “European” Identity Racist? | Joe Litobarski

  17. Robin,

    I am not seeking by any means to deny the emotional importance of national identity. Indeed, I explicitly acknowledged it in my comment. Many people feel they need a national identity, or at least feel that it gives them a foundation on whoch to build other identities.

    But this is not the case for all by any means. Don’t forget that there are many “nations” in the world where “national” identity is every bit as arbitrary as European identity.

    You are certainly wrong in my case about naturally gravitating to Brits when abroad. Put me on the Costa del Sol, where I went a few years ago, and I would rather have teeth pulled than gravitate to the Brits who are rampaging through the streets at midight, too drunk to stand. I’d much rather be sitting with a Spanish family sipping good Rioja.

    Indeed I would hope for your sake that you don’t feel that your British identity trumps everything else in all cases.

    The fact that an identity is “comes readily” doesn’t give it any intrinsically superior quality or value to the individual. If Arsenal support runs in the family but I really just like Chelsea better, I don’t give a hoot that the Arsenal identity “comes readily”.

  18. Insideur,

    Nor would I wish to associate with hoodlums of whatever country ,and a Turkish driver is the only one I have done in convoy from Istanbul to London. It`s nice mixing with “People From Other Lands” (a geography book title in school) occasionally but notice how drained you are at the end of the day.
    I`m not saying that the English/british are even a nicer set of people than anybody else,just different to other nationalities . But all things being equal, I said you would gravitate, not magnetically attach, to people of your own nation.

  19. Robin I think you are underestimating my ability to gravitate to people of other nationalities and away from Brits. I am married to a “foreigner”, and speak a “foreign” language with my wife and in-laws. I don’t find it tiring anymore – a question of practice and not of any fundamental compatibility.

  20. Robin,

    In your line of work, you must have the opportunity to travel about Europe a fair bit. Do you mostly do UK routes, or also across the continent?

    Don’t you feel a sense of common tradition and history when travelling across Europe?

    I’ve lived in Asia, and I’ve lived in Europe. I love Asia, and it’s got an amazing history and rich, diverse cultures, but I always felt like an outsider living there.

    It is not about skin colour, either. It’s about having some sort of connection. My wife is Afrikaans. She feels both European AND African. White South Africans have been living in Africa for centuries. There is a connection to the land.

    I don’t have a connection with Asia, but I DO have many, many connections with Europe. Maybe, by inheriting family from Africa, I will also begin to feel a connection with Africa.

    Heck, I was brought up in Australia as a boy. I still have an Australian passport, and I still feel a connection with Australia (though it’s pretty weak by now).

    I feel each of these identities. Not all of them are equal, but they are all valid.

    Joe

  21. Robin – I echo Insideur on this one. Just because *you* find it tiring spending a day with people from other countries doesn’t mean that the rest of us do.

    My wife is not British, nor is she European, nor Caucasian, and English is not her first language. Neither of us find it draining to be in each other’s company – and she doesn’t find herself particularly gravitating towards people of her own nationality while abroad. (Though, interestingly, most of her friends in London are also foreigners without English as their first language – be they Romanian, Brazilian, Italian, Spanish, Greek, Chinese or whatever. Here the binding sense of identity is a negative one – *not* being native English speakers has drawn them together in a country of English-speakers.)

    Personally I always tend to avoid fellow Brits when I’m overseas – and not just the loudmouth yobs. I get plenty of British culture when I’m in Britain – when abroad, I want to sample the culture of the place I’m visiting. Otherwise, what’s the point? I might as well stay at home and head down the pub.

    And if I am drawn towards any people I meet while travelling, there is one general binding factor, and it’s nothing to do with nationality. I (largely unconsciously) tend to gravitate towards people who, like me, are middle-class.

  22. Hi Joe,

    My work was about travlling throughout the EU, out of it and back in again. I spent vastly more time out of the UK than I did in the UK .
    One aspect I liked about it was getting under the skin of a country – the way I was treated , and not because I was a tourist or EU official bringing pots of money into the country. I also saw racism in other countries and semi official harrasment.
    You do seem lucky, living in other parts of the world and having dual passports. I notice you say Asia has diverse cultures. Do you think they beleive themselves a homogeanous group seperate to others in the world, or more attached to their nation ?
    I agree that nationality is not about skin colour- in England/Britian . I think in other countries of Europe, like Germany, there is more emphasis on “blood” and ethnic lines . The British way can form new countries asyou`ve seen in Australia.

    Nosemonkey,

    I do know where your wife originates from. I`m glad she feels settled here. I may be wrong, but dont her fellow nationals feel more in common with Americans than say, Laotians ? Mainly due to trade ? It`s interesting what you say about foreigners in London . I beleive this as I see some similarities on transit routes through Europe.
    When I mentioned about feeling drained, perhaps the difference is you are in contact with other middle class nationalities with a very good grasp of English, whereas I am dealing with working class and talking pigeon Deutche, French or something. I`m also not surprised if you holiday anywhere that you want to look at the local sites away from Brits, especially , as Insideur says, they might not be the type you would want to associate anywhere.

    BTW gentlemen, you seem to have been born abroad, living abroad or are married to abroad. Do you consider yourselves the same or something different to the average Joe (sorry Joe – you`re special ) ?

  23. Fair point, Robin, and to some extent you are right. But our cases are simply examples of the exceptions that disprove the rule. I have very few British friends, whether from “home”, from school, from uni, from work, or any other part of my life, who regard national identity in the terms you describe, although I have not carried out a formal poll.

  24. Robin – the Japanese situation is one of the most complicated going, in terms of identity. Largely because twice in the last 150 years, Japan has had a top-down imposition of a new sense of national identity – first during the reforms of the Meiji era (a concerted effort to modernise the country, suppress old traditions, and pick and choose the best systems in use in other parts of the world), and then again following the America-led imposition of the country’s current constitution at the end of the Second World War.

    Over-simplifying it, Japan today remains hugely nationalistic/patriotic, albeit in a decidedly pacifist, non-aggressive sense (a legacy of the post-war constitution – although there are moves afoot to alter this), with a very strong sense of being different not just to their near neighbours, but to pretty much *everybody*.

    As to which countries Japan identifies most closely with, it’s complicated.

    The general feeling seems to be that the country is more “Western” than “Asian” – a legacy largely of the Meiji reforms (where most of the new systems were copied from Europe, with a French-trained military, German-inspired medical system (Japanese doctors write their notes in German to this day, obscure trivia-fans), British-inspired navy and parliament, and so on, with countless other elements taken from countless other countries. Since World War Two the country has also been under continual American occupation, and has found a ready market in the US for many of its products, so the US influence is naturally strong.

    But at the same time, Japan is very much a Far Eastern culture, owing much to the legacy of its historic contact with near neighbours China and Korea (Japan’s relationship to Imperial China being much like Western Europe’s with ancient Greece and Rome).

    The great thing about Japan is that despite its strongly nationalistic, island-nation sense of identity, the country has continually adopted useful traits from other peoples with which it has come into contact – first Chinese writing, philosophy and religion, later European military/governance styles, more recently American-style capitalism. In that respect – as in many others (the royal family, the dislike of its near neighbours, the sense of superiority, etc.) – Japan is very similar to Britain…