We are not passive subjects
The true Europe is a community of nations. We have our own languages, traditions and borders. Yet we have always recognized a kinship with one another, even when we have been at odds—or at war. This unity-in-diversity seems natural to us. Yet this is remarkable and precious, for it is neither natural nor inevitable. The most common political form of unity-in-diversity is empire, which European warrior kings tried to recreate in the centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire. The allure of the imperial form endured, but the nation-state prevailed, the political form that joins peoplehood with sovereignty. The nation-state thereby became the hallmark of European civilization.
The nation-state is a hallmark of Europe
A national community takes pride in governing itself in its own way, often boasts of its great national achievements in the arts and sciences, and competes with other nations, sometimes on the battlefield. This has wounded Europe, sometimes gravely, but it has never compromised our cultural unity. In fact, the contrary has been the case. As the nation states of Europe became more established and distinct, a shared European identity became stronger. In the aftermath of the terrible bloodshed of the world wars in the first half of the twentieth century, we emerged with an even greater resolve to honor our shared heritage. This testifies to the depth and power of Europe as a civilization that is cosmopolitan in a proper sense. We do not seek the imposed, enforced unity of empire. Instead, European cosmopolitanism recognizes that patriotic love and civic loyalty open out to a wider world.
We do not back an imposed, enforced unity
The true Europe has been marked by Christianity. The universal spiritual empire of the Church brought cultural unity to Europe, but did so without political empire. This has allowed for particular civic loyalties to flourish within a shared European culture. The autonomy of what we call civil society became a characteristic feature of European life. Moreover, the Christian Gospel does not deliver a comprehensive divine law, and thus the diversity of the secular laws of the nations may be affirmed and honoured without threat to our European unity. It is no accident that the decline of Christian faith in Europe has been accompanied by renewed efforts to establish political unity—an empire of money and regulations, covered with sentiments of pseudo-religious universalism, that is being constructed by the European Union.--"The Paris statement – A Europe we can believe in The false Europe is fragile and impotent." [HT: Liam Kofi Bright]
The "Paris statement" has been signed by an eclectic variety of otherwise, fiercely independent thinkers (including Rémi Brague, Chantal Delsol, and Ruger Scruton), so at times it represents an ugly compromise text. Even so, it's general thrust is clear enough; it reflects the efforts of thinkers (with a conservative sensibility [recall this post]), who were once at home in European Christian-Democracy, to think through the parliamentary collapse* of Christian-Democracy. For me their task takes on a great urgency because (like me) they call themselves "liberal;" I share with them both a sense that "the greatest threat to the future of Europe is neither Russian adventurism nor Muslim immigration," (about which more below) as well as the concern over the increasing hollowness of European cultural and spiritual life (recall this post),* not to mention the idea that "statesmanship" is absent in Europe today.
They do not abjure Christian values; their project starts from what they call "theological self-knowledge" and appeals to the "equal dignity of every individual, regardless of sex, rank or race" arising from "Christian roots. Our gentle virtues are of an unmistakably Christian heritage: fairness, compassion, mercy, forgiveness, peace-making, charity." They marry these Christian values with bits of classical inheritance: "the grave virtues of the self-possessed Romans and the pride in civic participation and spirit of philosophical inquiry of the Greeks have never been forgotten in the real Europe."
The first thing to note is that polite talk of a Judaeo-Christian tradition is gone. Given that this group of thinkers renounces "marketing language, a language meant to obscure reality rather than illuminate," the effacement of the Jews is almost not an oversight. With their fondness for homes and homelands,+ and their insistence that "these [European] lands" belong "to us" and "are our home; we have no other," they make it clear that Jews (who, after all, have another homeland now) do not belong. When "linguistic decency," is celebrated and "mendacious language that evades responsibility" is denounced, one can guess that one is in the company of the mendacious and that humanity is lacking.
The second is the peculiar relationship to Europe's history. It is recognized that the desire for "greatness" led to "competition for supremacy" even on the "battlefield" which has "wounded Europe, sometimes gravely." But without mention of the history of colonial and racialized empire one learns that "we must recover an abiding respect for reality" means historical sanitation is taking place.
The only hint of the existence of the long history of colonialism and imperialism is the suggestion that "Europe’s multicultural enterprise" imposed by a technocratic elite facilitates "the very colonization of our homelands and the demise of our culture." (They treat an embrace of multiculturalism as an embrace of empire.) Here the authors leave unsaid who is colonizing, but later they forthrightly say that "immigration without assimilation is colonization" and they praise the "inconvenient truths" of politicians who speak about "Islam and immigration." These intellectuals dare not speak the cold truths to their own readers, despite claiming "rigorous discipline of intellectual honesty and objectivity;" they do not name the enduring virulence of racialized sentiments in our homelands; they lack Orwell's courage in defending cosmopolitan patriotism (recall).
It can be intellectually honest to renounce empire and decent to reject "multiculturalism." Even so they go much further: they wish to "demand or even promote the assimilation of Muslim newcomers to our manners and mores, much less to our religion." [Would that be Lutherism, Calvinism, Dutch Reformed, Catholicism, Anglicism, or Eastern Orthodox, etc.?] It is peculiar that the continuous, demographic, cultural and civilizationational Muslim presence in Europe for well over a millennium is effaced here. Even the 'newcomers' they refer to have often been in Europe for three generations. The vast majority of which are living industrious and law-abiding lives. To enforce legally and thus violently "assimilation" from immigrants and their grandchildren without offering a path toward mutual recognition is a recipe for continuing unrest, if not mutual violence (recall).
By "liberal" these thinkers mean a willingness to embrace "robust public debate free from all threats of violence and coercion." At one point they also embrace a "rule of law" if it, and the markets it supports, aims at "at more than mere economic efficiency." That is, they insist that markets must serve "social ends" even a "highest good." And they embrace the "prudent use of government power to sustain non-economic social goods." But the harms majorities can inflict on minorities go unmentioned. And one encounters 'marketing speak' in the claim that after 1989 "central European nations restored their civic vitality" by which the mistreatment of the Roma and linguistic minorities are airbrushed away. One need not be a Freudian (or is that degenerate?) to observe that the aging, mostly masculine mindset of these intellectuals has a paranoid fear of the "fragile and impotent." These strong-minded thinkers overlook the vulnerability of and discrimination toward their fellow citizens--a word curiously missing from self-described 'liberals.' And, in fact, their liberalism is not of the generous sort, but rather fainthearted, if not illiberal, because the "loyalty" to law and "homeland" need not "always" take "the form of representative democracy." No, it does not.
Their illiberality is most honest in their claim that "Europe needs to renew a consensus about moral culture so that the populace can be guided toward a virtuous life." Has the demand for conformity even been expressed in such elevated language?***
Let me close with two observations: first, the "Paris declaration" embraces the "nation-state," but fails to address the challenge of regional nationalism (Scotland, Catalonia, Flanders) poses to a (De Gaulle-ian) vision of the "true Europe" as a community of nations," which have their "own languages, traditions and borders. " The sanctity of borders are being challenged. And the Paris declaration offers no clue how to respond.
Second, the piece belongs to a species of philosophical prophecy because it is has been organized around a set of contrasts between the true Europe and the false Europe. The false Europe is committed to:
- "faux Christendom of universal human rights"++
- An unprecedented commitment to one-sided human liberty. "It is a liberation from all restraints: sexual freedom, freedom of self-expression, freedom to “be oneself.""
- A "market-driven homogeneity and politically enforced conformity."
- An "unprecedented commitment to equality."
They despise the "The Generation of ’68" (by now mostly sipping Rioja in retirement) and the "faceless technocrats in league with powerful interests." They are the elect few who aim to "restore" the "spiritual greatness" of the past. But they show their true colors when they wish for a "new generation of patrons." (Patrons flourish in empire over their former slaves.) It is peculiar to be against powerful interests, but in favor of patrons. The only surprise is that these false prophets forgot to mention where our new beneficent masters must send their Paypal donations.
*An important observation is this: "Riot police are now necessary to quell violent anti-establishment protests and even to manage drunken crowds of football fans. The fanaticism of our football loyalties is a desperate sign of the deeply human need for solidarity, a need that otherwise goes unfulfilled in the false Europe." Given that riot police has been standard at football matches since before the (1985) Heysel disaster, the malaise goes back a long way. As we know since Hillsborough, the police are part of the problem, too.
**Obviously Germany is the exception. Even in Germany, Christian Merkel's CDU had not received such a low percentage of total votes since the first Bundestag elections in 1949.
***Unlike many contemporary liberals, I agree that moral neutrality of the state may well be a mistake. My own view is that liberal institutions can be oriented toward cultivating citizen virtue, but these must respect freedom of choice and the freedom to make mistakes.
+It is notable that the word 'refugee' is absent; this despite a sarcastic comment about how "to be homeless—is a noble achievement." [The quote is from a passage about the "false Europe" which embraces "universal community."]
++I trust that regular readers are familiar with my reservations about human rights talk.
Comments