Schuman lecture 2008: Is Europe a reality without theory?
“Why is Europe boring? Why doesn’t it sell?” asked professor Ulrich Beck and the audience gathered in the lecture hall of the Maastricht Faculty of Economics went quiet. “The history of Europe is a story of ‘NO’,” answered Beck to his own question, “Europe is a lady in her 50’s, without a name. It’s a reality without theory.”
Many metaphors like these were heard during this year’s Schuman lecture organised earlier this month by Studium Generale. Guest lecturer Ulrich Beck from Munich University and the London School of Economics described cosmopolitanism as the missing narrative for Europe. His lecture, entitled “Understanding the real Europe - a cosmopolitan vision”, was well attended, mostly by students and academics, and Beck seemed very driven. He joked with his audience and illustrated his points with a few of anecdotes. He read out some extracts from his book, but also tried to explain his concept in a more lively way. Since he didn’t use any visual presentation and his lecture stayed quite theoretical the jokes and anecdotes were a welcome way to keep the audience focused.
Europe’s missing backbone
Beck argued that the theories used to describe Europe are still those which were made for a nation state and not the European community. The notions of racism, nationalism and universalism for example don’t seem suitable to define the current situation in Europe. Racism creates a hierarchy while universalism treats everybody equally, therefore neglecting individual differences. Nationalism can be seen as another form of universalism, but one which is restricted to the national level, where relations with parties outside the nation are overlooked.
Beck offered cosmopolitanism as the solution that would allow people to be different from each other but still equal at the same time. He stressed that cosmopolitanism is not synonymous with multiculturalism, which means cultures in plural. He advocated one larger cosmopolitan culture rather than many different cultures put together.
For Beck, cosmopolitanism is the only theory that underlines the importance of diversity as the very source of the European identity. If we continue to think in national categories, the professor argued, whatever Europe gains, the nation loses and conversely, whatever the nation gains, Europe loses. Instead, Beck’s cosmopolitan Europe is a Europe of “as well as”, rather than “either or”.
The professor connected his idea of a cosmopolitan Europe to the ongoing discussions on global warming, inequality and globalisation. In fact, according to Beck, global warming could be the very topic that could help implement his idea. “Whose duty is it to stop climate change? The problem is too big to be resolved by individual initiatives. (…) It is only with the European budget of billions of euros that we will be able to engage in technological innovations, from alternative energy to energy economics.” He referred in similar terms to globalisation. “We no longer need to be impressed by the negative juxtaposition of “us” and “them”,” he said. “It is a mistake to restrict the debate about poverty to the national level. Finding an adequate response to the challenge of globalisation is one of the key tasks of a revitalised EU, because no nation state can do this on its own.”
Beck also examined the issue of power to illustrate his point that there doesn’t seem to be any theory behind the concept of Europe. He noted that Europe is not a federation, in the sense that it is not governed by one federal super state, but it is not an intergovernmental structure either, which would imply a simple cooperation between states, not necessarily within a larger entity like the European Union.
In any case, Beck said, Europe as a community does not have any usual insignia of power like an army or a European police. Hence the power of Europe lies somewhere else - in the fact that it can decide upon its members. Countries, like the former eastern European states and now also Turkey, are willing to undergo numerous changes in order to be eventually accepted as a new EU member. Professor Beck called this “selfeuropalisation”.
He also mentioned that a country gains power by joining the EU because the other member states have to treat it as an equally important member. The new country can express its views even if they are dramatically different from those of the other EU member states.
In my opinion however diverging standpoints among member countries could be a problem in becoming a Europe that promotes Beck’s “as well as” perspective. Indeed, we often would rather not have anything to do with other member states’ internal problems, or we don’t agree with their leading politicians. Since we cannot vote for these politicians, why should we feel that they are “ours”? On the other hand, I suppose other people could counter that politicians who get chosen in our own country often don’t represent our views either. Keeping this in mind I see a cosmopolitan Europe as a challenging but feasible concept.
Yet, according to Beck, the dilemma in finding a common, cosmopolitan, European view could be that EU citizens still don’t feel like that they are part of a new European entity. Each member state feels like a separate nation, belonging to some sort of coalition. “Why isn’t the European community built on emotions?” Beck asked. “Why do we feel connected to our national history and not to myths about Europe?”
I think, indeed, that most people would know their national anthem and the legends of their country but far less would be able to name the European anthem or tell the story of the Phoenician princess Europa, kidnapped by Zeus disguised as a white bull.
As Beck pointed out, not many people seem to notice that most national problems cannot be solved only at national level, as was previously the case. In his view, solidarity is an element of the European dream of equality which could encourage us Europeans to start thinking about Europe as our homeland.
So why can’t we open up to Europe? Somewhere around that question, without offering a clear conclusion, professor Beck ended his lecture, due to lack of time, and referred the audience to his recent book “Cosmopolitan Vision”.
Open questions and lingering anxiety
The post-lecture discussion was opened by Dr. René Gabriëls from the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences of Maastricht University, who said that although he respected Beck’s opinion, many questions remained unanswered. Indeed, why didn’t we open up to Europe? Why are neonationalistic organisations growing in popularity instead of the idea of a cosmopolitan Europe?
Many more questions came from the lecture hall. Out of a multitude of listeners who raised their hands, four lucky ones were picked to expose their remarks to the professor. Unfortunately most of Beck’s replies oscillated around the fact that he didn’t have enough time to answer them properly. Somehow the crowd accepted that the lecture was closed and no other questions could be asked.
I am not sure whether professor Beck purposely avoided going into more problematic subjects during his lecture and the Q & A time. He did seem to know what he was talking about and he did manage to explain his concept of cosmopolitanism, at least to a certain extent. And although concerns about anxiety, neonationalism, the European public sphere or European justice were not addressed, the lecture did seem to motivate participants to think further about these questions. I wonder however how many have checked his book for more precise answers.
Cosmopolitan Maastricht?
Since the lecture didn’t give me a clear conclusion about the European identity that I could settle with, I came up with my own. What if we could test Beck’s cosmopolitan vision on Maastricht?
Maastricht is often described as lying at the heart of Europe, not only in a geographical sense but also because of the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 which led to the creation of the European Union. But is Maastricht cosmopolitan? It is sometimes called that, but I believe that professor Beck would rather call Maastricht a multiculture, because of the variety of groups of people living next to each other in the city. Maastricht’s population consists of a local community (the majority of the city’s residents), a foreign community including expatriates, international students and immigrants, a sizeable group of Dutch students, and possibly other communities. Could these groups of people indeed form a cosmopolitan Maastricht?
It would be an interesting idea to imagine the city most associated with the creation of the European Union as the first cosmopolitan European city. Maastricht could even set a new trend - the cosmopolitan trend - where smaller communities would acknowledge each other and celebrate their differences on the way to a united, cosmopolitan Europe.
For Maastricht such a goal could be seen as an opportunity to finally prove itself as a desirable location for all ages. The city would invest not on shopping malls but on activities which could bring its different communities together. A variety of cultural events, workshops or concerts could help the different groups to find out what it means to be a local “Maastrichtenaar” or how it feels to be a student or an expatriate in Maastricht.
Maybe the city could even open a venue, so desired by the younger population, where all its communities could gather and see great shows together? This would allow people to see the similarities but especially the differences between them, and it is precisely through the celebration of these differences that Maastricht would become a cosmopolitan prototype paving the way to Beck’s Europe.
It sounds amazing, but could it ever work?
By Misia Furtak
Misia Furtak graduated in MA Media Culture of Maastricht University. She is Polish and lives in Maastricht since late 2005. She is also the singer and bass player of the international band très.b
June 7th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Here’s my idea of cosmopolitanism (seen in the metro in Paris last month):