France Bučar (Slovene PEN)

European consciousness

The European consciousness was the product of reflection on the future of the European nations in the ruins of World War One, when there was a collapse of the essentially unarticulated awareness of the self-evident right of the big mainly Western European countries to dictate on the basis of their own civilisational and technological supremacy how the rest of the world should live. In essence, European consciousness was the consequence of the crisis of the paradigm that appeared in Europe on the basis of the scientific revolution, a crisis that reached its peak in the 20 th century. The idea of Europe as a special entity did not exist either in Antiquity or in the Middle Ages. The notion of the universal nature of the Catholic Church, although until recently de facto limited to Western Europe, cannot contextually be limited only to Europe.

As a result of this reflection, European consciousness remained at the level of an idea that developed mainly among the socio-political elite of the European technologically developed world which had hitherto made most of the decisions about the destiny and position of the less developed world. The European consciousness mainly reflected the political embarrassment and uncertainty of the Western European ruling circles about how to preserve at least an equal role in decision making regarding the fundamental problems of the world at the collapse of their colonial empires and during the rise of new competitors in the hitherto unconquered world (North America, the Far East, etc.). [See the fundamental work on united Europe from 1923, written by the pioneer of the European idea Coudenhove – Kalergi.] Thus the European consciousness was limited primarily to political circles in Western Europe, Germany and Austria. The rest of Central and all of Eastern Europe played no role in the appearance of the European idea. However, the consciousness of a European identity coming before national identity has thus far not produced roots of any considerable depth even in Western Europe (the “democratic deficit”).

As the question of how to keep a decision-making role with regard to world affairs primarily affected those who had been making decisions hitherto and as the idea about a united Europe appeared in the European West, there arose the question of political power. How, out of what had until then been a divided and conflict-ridden Europe, to create a force capable of acting as an equal partner in decision-making and in the formulation of answers to all the most important global issues? The answer to this question was that the two divided protagonists in Western Europe at conflict with each other (France and Germany) made the appearance of such a force impossible (the proof for this lies in the two world wars, particularly World War II). Thus, first there had to be an end to the thousand-year old political rivalry between them as well as an end to resorting to war as a means of resolving conflicts; the whole of Western Europe had to be united into a single economic force; the power of this political and economic core then had to be extended to the rest of the so-called free Europe. When the rest of Central and Eastern Europe freed itself from communism, it presented an empty space (political, economic and conceptual), that Western Europe (the EEC) occupied in line with models of economic conquest. In the race to conquer this space there also appeared internal conflicts among the main Western protagonists of European unity, which have persisted in a hidden form until today.

This process in itself in no way extended beyond the framework for resolving international relations that had been established in the world on the basis of the paradigm of that time, which was the actual reason for the two world wars: the resolution of mutual relations on the basis of power. Europe united into a force that would compete on the world stage with a new strength – the problem of European integration. This is where the issue of European identity is transformed into an internal European problem, while Europe as a whole faces up to the unresolved problem of globalisation. And here is the line that the European idea has as yet not crossed.

1 The problem of European integration remains unresolved. Not only with regard to physical extent and form but also as a spiritual problem: what is the spiritual force that would unite all the inhabitants of Europe as Europeans with a particular consciousness about their European identity and who are Europeans, how far should the integrated Europe reach geographically, where are its borders?

Integration is a process or a state of being unified in a particular community, which is based on the consciousness of an agreement between an individual’s own notion of his or her personality and interests and the values and interests realised by the group in which the individual is included. In essence, integration in a particular group is a form of enforcing one’s own values and interests which can be realised only via such a group. A group is integrated and capable of action only when there is such an agreement of values and interests. An individual as an integral personality with different values and interests will therefore try and join various groups. This requires agreement regarding values and interests among all the groups of which the individual is a part.

Personal identity in today’s state of affairs includes the consciousness of national appurtenance as a part of personal integrity, as via national integration an individual realises a crucial part of his or her values and interests. The consciousness of European appurtenance is thus also conditional upon an individual recognising his or her national appurtenance, which ensures the realisation of values and interests that at today’s level of development can be realised only by the latter. This is why today one can not be a European unless one is a member of a European nation, as a part of one’s values can only be realised via one’s nationality. An individual is a participant in the culture of the nation he or she belongs to, as it is this culture that creates his or her consciousness of himself or herself, of his or her unique view of the world or of his or her role in it, as well as a way of life in accordance with these notions. The key question is which are the values a member of a particular European nation can realise fully or to the greatest possible extent only via the European integration?

Until now the axiom was that a high level of material wealth and wellbeing can be ensured only alongside economic cooperation and a unified European market (hence the EEC). However, modern globalisation is weakening this rule. It seems that it is not the market economy that is dictating European integration as various other possibilities in the wider world also appear acceptable; the social aspect seems more important. The market economy, alongside a number of indisputable advantages, also has a series of negative consequences, particularly with regard to the social aspect, that in the global economy cannot be prevented by national economies. A wider economic area is needed, such as Europe. But these goals contradict each other to a certain extent.

The preservation of the current privileged economic position with regard to the rest of the world is definitely the common interest of all Europeans, which includes protection against terrorism, against a mass influx of immigrants, etc. But this goal is questionable from the moral point of view with regard to national solidarity.

Undoubtedly, it is in the common interest of all Europeans to protect and preserve their way of life and the values that are the foundation of their existence and development – to preserve their cultural life pattern. The cultures of individual European nations are different (many see a systemic advantage in this difference), but they do have a common trait: the unique role of the independent individual, which differentiates European culture from all other world cultures (Huntington) and which precisely for this reason during the last few centuries created such an advantage against all others that enabled Europe to dictate the rhythm of the development of the rest of the world. The

2 preservation and development of European culture is the main foundation stone of the European idea.

The European community exists in reality only in as much as it is covered by a common European consciousness based on these common values and interests. In this respect, the slogan “All different, all equal” reflects reality, but only to a limited extent. That which goes beyond this common denominator requires violence, which in the long term becomes a destructive factor because without an agreement of interests no group can exist. The EU can be no exception in this respect.

In addition to all the common interests, the interests of individual countries in relation to the EU are different and differentiated. The countries that in the past played an important role in world affairs and wish to preserve this role and further develop it, lean towards changing the EU into a means of achieving their goals. Their understandable tendency is to create an internally connected organisation that is well equipped to face global challenges. The countries which believe they can achieve these goals through their own strength are thus ready to joint the EU only with respect to those interests they can achieve via the community. On the other side there are smaller countries in particular, which never had and still do not have the power, either economic or political, to interfere in events, especially in the rest of the world, via their area of influence. Thus they are in favour of integration in the EU in as much as this corresponds to their own fields of interest.

The scope of the meaning of European consciousness is thus different for different countries and is in constant competition with national consciousness. Large countries which see their role in the instrumentalisation of the EU in order to influence world events will thus be in favour of an “efficient EU that is capable of making decisions”, an “ever closer union”. Their national interest and consciousness are almost fully equal to the European interests and their European consciousness is to a large extent equal to their national consciousness. In smaller countries there is considerably less agreement between the two. However, as they are, due to the considerably greater political, economic and demographic strength of large countries, dependent on their interpretation of the role and structure of the EU, the smaller countries must subject themselves to the decisions of the larger countries, as required by the principle of efficiency.

Because of the difference in interests, efficiency also has different consequences for different participants in the group. Above all, it requires a high degree of unity. Unity will follow the pattern of the big players, who are very interested in as high a level of efficiency as possible. With this, the EU faces up to the basic problem about its legitimacy and existence. All members of the community have joined it so that they could realise their existence and identity through it. But how far can unity based on as high a degree of efficiency as possible extend and when does unity turn into the negation of itself, requiring the loss of identity? The basic uniting principle “All different, all equal” loses its second element. All that is left is “All different”. And that signifies the end of any community which requires at least a modicum of equality with regard to joint interests that can not deny the special and the different on which depends the identity of the members of the community. This is the basic challenge facing the EU, on which hinges its existence and the future of Europe. In the past, Europe did not know how to resolve it and did not succeed in resolving it. This failure threatened Europe’s role in the world and the influence of its culture. The solution of this problem, however, is not just a question of Europe’s internal structure and organisation, but above all a question of new relations among nations, based on the new notions of equality and cooperation among them. These new notions are only slowly replacing the framework of the transcended nationalism that to a great extent is still with us.

Translated by Maja Visenjak-Limon