The horn must blow the clarion call again, but will Europeans let themselves remember how?

Image: Shutterstock

 

The reforms needed to achieve European strategic autonomy will probably require a strong shared European identity. It is unclear whether European political and cultural elites remember how to craft a collective identity.

Following Trump’s threats to seize Greenland, many EU leaders concluded that Europe must rapidly develop its strategic autonomy. This requires constitutional, economic and military reforms. Besides getting all these technocratic reforms right, history suggests Europe’s political and cultural elites need to do something they have not done in ages: they need to craft a collective identity.

To quickly and successfully reform the EU, two factors would help tremendously. First, voluntary sacrifices by individuals and member states for the greater good. This is challenging, because people tend to make major sacrifices only if they expect others to make similar sacrifices, whence the prisoner’s dilemma. Second, shared expectations of what a reformed EU would look like – which values, virtues and interests would a much stronger European Commission serve? Having similar inclinations would speed up negotiations and would overcome hesitancy to transfer sovereignty to Brussels.

Several historical examples clarify this point. When the Greeks were fighting their war of independence against the Ottomans, they needed Western European allies. The initial rally cry was the restoration of an Orthodox empire, a cause Protestant, Catholic and secular elites in Western Europe cared little for. In response, the Greeks rebranded themselves as the heirs of the ancient Greeks. It was the symbolism of ancient Greece, widely exalted among Western European elites, that ignited the burning desire to liberate the modern Greeks in Western Europe. How strong the parallel with the Ukrainians! They have rapidly redefined their national identity around democratic governance, eliciting self-sacrifice by many Ukrainians and support from Western nations, in order to defy Russia’s onslaught.

Similarly, France’s levée en masse to defend the revolution came about in a flurry of identity building through fairs, art and new symbols. The sacrifices by many citoyens for the revolution were key to beating the despots lined up against the French. Meanwhile, the main British weapon against the French was Britain’s capacity to borrow immense sums at affordable interest rates to finance warfare. This capacity depended on the mutual understanding among British elites that the money lent to the government would be returned with interest. This in turn was because British elites understood that the right to property was increasingly entrenched since the Glorious Revolution. Having shared expectations about how others will behave and which values and interests will be served helps to elicit sacrifices and to coordinate over the course of action to take.

However, pan-European solidarity and expectations do not arise ex nihilo: identities are social constructs. Shared expectations of sacrifice and of the values and interests served by a much more powerful EU cannot arise through technocratic measures only. It also requires instilling feelings of intra-European solidarity and expanding our nascent European identity.

In secular and non-tribal contexts, solidarity and identity historically arose through nation building, the invention of a nation where none existed before. National identities have emerged around multiple themes, including shared language, values and traditions, and love for one’s country’s nature. It has been done through art, architecture, plays, literature, history books, education and music. A genuine ‘we’ also requires some acknowledgment of its limits—some acceptance of boundaries, something many Europeans abhor. It demands an embrace of the particular: the diverse traditions, dungeons, and histories that make Europeans European rather than generic global citizens.

This goes against the grain of decades of European social thought. Instead, European academics often engage in technocratically optimizing processes or in deconstructing oppressive narratives and identifying intersectionally unique individuals. Crafting narratives about what makes us us is widely considered bad practice. Salonfähig European political discourse has followed suit. Even the Queen of the Netherlands denied the existence of a Dutch identity: “‘The’ Dutchman does not exist.” Balderdash, of course: a Dutchie is anyone who feels Dutch. Yet, why should anyone make sacrifices for Europe, if ‘the European’ does not exist? 

Much of modern visual art is still ‘deconstructing’ a status quo extinct since the 1940s. Painting any potential source of pride (landscapes, major events or representations of shared virtues) is considered kitsch. Yet, sticking bananas to walls is no longer considered bananas. Unfortunately, bananas on walls do not elicit sacrifice. Alternatively, many visual artists make non-Western voices heard, while taking the West down a peg over historical grievances. Yet, why should anyone make sacrifices for a continent tainted by historical sin? 

Meanwhile, architects are trained to create pragmatic, soulless husks from cheap materials used across the world. Modern architecture hardly ever instils a sense of pride or identity, something many urban designers even abhor – fortunately there are notable exceptions. Even though Europeans strongly pride themselves on their ‘superior’ architecture, the buildings of the EU institutions radiate soulless bureaucracy. Who identifies with the Berlaymont?

Virtue signaling these luxury beliefs was great fun while Europe was sheltered by the USA’s armed forces. Deconstructing our communal identities was easy when American security guarantees meant Europeans need not sacrifice for their own defense and economic growth made redistribution and European coordination painless. Self-expression could become a priority because self-sacrifice was someone else's job.

Now Europe needs to fend for itself, and it does have plenty worth defending! This will require a lot of coordination over which values the EU will serve and it will require voluntary sacrifice by member states and individuals. If history is any guide, this is unlikely to succeed without a strong shared identity – which is not to say Europe should discard all of its beautiful diversity. The transatlantic rupture shows what happens to alliances that fail to cultivate genuine bonds among their peoples. Ideas cultivated under shelter, about oppressiveness of boundaries and traditions, now stand as obstacles precisely when collective sacrifice is most needed. The horn must blow the clarion call again, but will Europeans let themselves remember how?

 

This essay is written in a strictly personal capacity, and it does not reflect the position of the Ministry or the Dutch government.