Creating European Identity Through History: Representations of the Past in Contemporary European Politics

Home , Copenhagen criteria

Creating European Identity through History: Representations of the Past in Contemporary European Politics. Caner Tekin, Institut für soziale Bewegungen, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, 09.09.2015–10.09.2015.

Reviewed by Caner Tekin

Published on H-Soz-u-Kult (December, 2015)

Initiating a commonplace argument of Euro‐ accumulation of European history; it is rather an pean history has become the European Union’s abstract attempt to give a Pan-European idea. The objective for a long time. The House of European concept “House” also implies this characteristic. History in Brussels, the museum endorsed by the “It has strived to refect an inclusive language”, European Parliament, is the latest attempt to re‐ Rosenberg stated. Perhaps that is one reason of fect a shared narrative with references to history. why the HEH focused on historical events after The question yet remains on whether there is an 1945. Important incidents in earlier European his‐ uncontested history of the EU. In order to discuss tory, like the siege of Vienna by the Ottomans in this issue, the idea of uniform European history, 1683, are apparently not added to the HEH’s selec‐ scholars from far and wide came to sit on the tive content due to the EU’s inclusive pan-Euro‐ workshop, “Creating Identity through History: peanist rationale. Representations of the Past in Contemporary Eu‐ At the end of the frst session two points came ropean Politics” organised by Caner Tekin and into question: The European Union’s narrative, or, chaired by Professor Stefan Berger at the Ruhr more critically, its political programme about Eu‐ University Bochum. They therefore addressed a ropean history, and its reactions from national historical and political question: What are the mo‐ contexts. The following sessions of the workshop tivations before creating a common historical nar‐ discussed these two points. rative of Europe and what are the underlying fac‐ The participants proceeded to the workshop’s tors of and challenges to this process? second session about the role of the European The participants in the opening session re‐ Commission in the historiography of European in‐ viewed the House of European History (HEH). tegration. ORIANE CALLIGARO (Brussels), the ses‐ They characterised, in agreement, the House to sion’s presenter, argued that the European Com‐ refect a uniform, even cohesive, argument about mission from the beginning assumed the objec‐ European history. Comparisons between the HEH tives of creating a Europeanised historiography, a and other local museums suggest that the for‐ particular form of history-writing according to mer’s coverage is in harmony with the general pan-Europeanism, and initiating a network of purpose of the primary supranational EU institu‐ scholars on the history of European integration. tions, namely, producing a pan-European dis‐ In order to achieve these objectives, the Commis‐ course in the EU. The presenter DANIEL ROSEN‐ sion inaugurated and supported two networks, BERG (Jerusalem) therefore stated that the House the history department at the European Universi‐ of European History is not designed to show an ty Institute and the Liaison Committee. Oriane H-Net Reviews

Calligaro argued that the Commission was partial‐ at national levels, the workshop turned its atten‐ ly successful in these attempts. The Liaison Com‐ tion to the representation of Europeanness and mittee, for example, from the 1980s did well in in‐ European history in relation to the historical “oth‐ troducing a network of scholars writing European ers”. Therefore, JUDITH MÜLLER (Ben Gurion integration and therefore contributed to a com‐ University) pointed at the references to Europe in mon terminology, which involves today popular the Jewish literature during the fourth session. concepts like “identity”, “memory”, or “integra‐ Europe in the 19th century according to Jewish tion”. But the period, in which the European Com‐ texts was almost a humanitarian “home”; it later mission endorsed various departments, also sug‐ dramatically turned to a source of trauma under gests that European historiography was almost rising anti-Semitism. The main point Müller made impossible to monopolise. Despite that fact, as is that the Holocaust has always been linked to agreed by the participants, the European Union Jewish narratives. But the Holocaust has not been continues to mirror a political program in identity the only focal point. The authors, especially the policies. ones like Aharon Appelfeld and Lizzie Doron, re‐ At the end of the frst two sections, partici‐ mind us of sorrow and despair before the Holo‐ pants asked the question that whether we really caust, too. In her conclusion, Müller stated that need a representation of European history, espe‐ the mentioned writers identify in their stories the cially since national institutions are so willing to Jewish “self” through locating the dark chapter of give their own perspectives. It then seems timely rising anti-Semitism in European history. By so to look at intersections between European and na‐ doing, the Jewish authors also seek in their narra‐ tional identity policies. The EU’s cultural policy is tives the ideal Europe in pre and post-war period. an important example of a uniform European CLAUDIA WEBER (Frankfurt an der Oder) in representation. Therefore, CLAUDIA SCHNEIDER the ffth session presented the contemporary con‐ (Berlin), in the third section, asked: To what ex‐ ditions of remembering the Stalinist Eastern Euro‐ tent do EU members uphold a supranational rep‐ pean history. She therefore addressed: “How do resentation of European culture? She oriented Europeans today refer to the humanitarian this question to her analysis of national represen‐ crimes initiated by Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union tations at the European Union National Institutes under the shadow of other traumas to which Eu‐ for Culture (EUNIC), the network of national cul‐ ropean heritage is connected?” As an example, tural institutes of the EU’s member states. One of history-writers in Europe prioritised commemo‐ the institution’s aims is encouraging “cultural dia‐ rating a number of events, especially the Holo‐ logue and exchange” at the European level. De‐ caust, whereas they somehow overlooked the Stal‐ spite that, principal objectives of EU members at inist era. Weber argued in that regard that history the EUNIC admittedly prevail against the idea of writers generally establish through their narra‐ shared European identity and culture. Member tives a hierarchy of violence when dealing with states voluntarily come together to contribute to memories of traumas. Historians are humans: the common European memory, but they do actu‐ they are not perfect in giving equal weight to ally exhibit their national cultural heritages. The traumatic events. In the attempt of dealing with emphasis on being European, as Schneider con‐ historical cases critically, they might stay under cludes, is in fact no more than a side efect of the the infuence of other factors, such as power poli‐ EUNIC. tics. For example, public opinion and historiogra‐ After discussing the EU’s venture of Euro‐ phy questioning the consequences of Stalinism in peanised historiography and the actual situation Eastern Europe remained limited in the Cold War. Additionally, some examples of the Stalinist terror

2 H-Net Reviews were illuminated much later than the actual time date’s EU accession becomes relevant: Has Tur‐ of their happening, as we see in the recognition of key’s compatibility with Europeanness been not the Kathyn Massacre in 1990. “objectively” discussed in Europe? Another ques‐ The sixth meeting of the workshop focussed tion of equal importance is that whether there is a rather on a political analysis of a contemporary yardstick of representing the history of European case. SOFIA VASILOPOULOU (York) tackled the historic “others”. I addressed these questions at current level of Euroscepticism through her anal‐ the end of the workshop. In the closing session, I ysis of the recent legislative elections in Britain. brought to discussion the European Union’s acces‐ The UK has always been sceptical to European po‐ sion criteria (the EU’s Copenhagen Criteria for its litical integration and, in the present context, to candidate countries) in my speech about the rep‐ the EU’s pan-European aspirations through the resentation of Turkey’s history at the European Europeanised historiography. But in the latest leg‐ Parliament in the 2000s, especially after the be‐ islative elections in 2014, Eurosceptical motiva‐ ginning of the negotiations (2005). I claimed that tions perhaps played a greater role in political analysing political statements at the European campaigns and, according to Vasilopoulou, in vot‐ Parliament suggests the distance of political ing behaviour of British electors. camps to the accession criteria while they concep‐ tualise Turkey. From the beginning of the negotia‐ The seven and eighth sessions were reserved tions parliamentarians largely adhered to the ac‐ to a contemporary debate about Turkey, arguably cession criteria in their expressions. However, the historic “other” of Europe. PAUL LEVIN (Stock‐ they sometimes made use of the accession criteria holm), who directs the Institute of Turkish Studies in order to legitimise their essentially negative at the Stockholm University, began his speech Turkey stereotypes. Especially the conservative with the evolution of the Turkish image in Europe and far-right camps at the European Parliament in a longue durée. It is highly acknowledged that in the 2000s showed important examples of that European identity in history was partially forged problematic discourse. Judging from the men‐ in relation to the Islamic image of Turkey. Levin tioned term, the European Union’s accession crite‐ later claimed that Turkey’s religious exclusion ria thus are not always an objective measure of from Europe continued today, in particular dur‐ discussing Turkey’s past. ing the European Union’s membership negotia‐ tions with the candidate. The public opinion in Of course, there are far more current topics favour of Turkey’s membership consistently de‐ than the workshop’s repertoire on the idea of uni‐ clined in Europe in the second half of the 2000s. form European history and the relationship be‐ On the one hand, Turkey’s failing reform perfor‐ tween European integration and history-writing. mance played a role here. On the other hand, Eu‐ Based on the arguments summarised here, the ropeans remembered Turkey with its historically participants argued that the EU will continue its “non-European” traits, in particular its Islamic attempts to initiate a collective understanding of character. Levin concluded that Turkey-sceptical European history in harmony with its identity political camps sometimes explained democratic policies. Yet, national challenges will remain problems in Turkey with the country’s religiously against the uniform and top-to-down conception non-European nature and therefore paved the and narrative of European history. way for the country’s further disinclination from Conference Overview: the EU’s accession process. Creating European Identity through History: Therefore, the role of Turkey’s Islamic image Representations of the Past in Contemporary Eu‐ within arguments that are sceptical to the candi‐ ropean Politics

3 H-Net Reviews

Introduction Stefan Berger, Ruhr Universität Bochum Daniel Rosenberg (Hebrew University Jerusalem), Exhibiting Post-National Identity: the House of European History and European Plural‐ ism? Oriane Calligaro (Free University of Brussels), The European Commission’s Action in Favour of a Historiography of European Integration? Claudia Schneider (Freie Universität Berlin), Creating European Identity with Foreign Cultural Policies of the EU´s Member States? Judith Müller (Ben Gurion University of the Negev), ‘Glorious, Accursed Europe’ - European (Jewish) History in Israeli Literature Claudia Weber (European University Viadrina Frankfurt an der Oder), Coming to Terms with the Stalinist History of Europe Sofa Vasilopoulou (University of York), The British Euroscepticism Paul Levin (University of Stockholm), Repre‐ senting European and Turkish Histories through‐ out the EU’s Membership Negotiations with Tur‐ key Caner Tekin (Ruhr Universität Bochum), Con‐ ceptualisation of the Turkish Past by European Parties: Uses of the Accession Criteria

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/

Citation: Caner Tekin. Review of Creating European Identity through History: Representations of the Past in Contemporary European Politics. H-Soz-u-Kult, H-Net Reviews. December, 2015.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=45810

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.