Europeanism: A Historical View

Abstract

The ideology of Europeanism – defined as a commitment to the political, economic, and cultural consolidation of the European continent – has undergone major transformations during the twentieth century. Yet the study of Europeanism has not as yet systematically examined the range of conceptual meanings that the various strands of the Europeanist ideological family exhibit. Instead, Europeanism has typically been treated either ahistorically as a set of desirable social ideals and values, or reductively as a quality exclusively associated with European institutions in their current form. Both obscure the fundamental, wide-ranging debates over the nature of ‘Europe’ and ‘Europeanness’ that have shaped the substantive development of Europeanist ideologies over the last century. This article maps out the key areas of conceptual contestation that are consistently shared by all Europeanisms regarding the boundaries of Europe, the degree of European consolidation, and how ‘Europeanisation’ is to be realised.

Digital Europeanism and extending the literary Europeanist discourse: The Twitter feeds of @PulseofEurope and @mycountryeurope

“…Ostrowski (2021: 2) critiques the study of Europeanism as being marked by ‘an excessive ahistoricism and a narrow reductionism’; not least when conceptualised solely in what are actually social democratic terms (see, for example, McCormick, 2010). Defining Europeanism very openly ‘as a commitment to the political, economic, and cultural consolidation of the European continent’ (Ostrowski, 2021: 1), he sees Europeanisms as having had ‘many competing tendencies to “naturalise” the borders of “Europe” in completely different ways’, seeing both restrictive and expansive Europeanisms as having retained ideational currency during differing historical periods (Ostrowski, 2021: 5).…”

“…Ostrowski (2021: 2) critiques the study of Europeanism as being marked by ‘an excessive ahistoricism and a narrow reductionism’; not least when conceptualised solely in what are actually social democratic terms (see, for example, McCormick, 2010). Defining Europeanism very openly ‘as a commitment to the political, economic, and cultural consolidation of the European continent’ (Ostrowski, 2021: 1), he sees Europeanisms as having had ‘many competing tendencies to “naturalise” the borders of “Europe” in completely different ways’, seeing both restrictive and expansive Europeanisms as having retained ideational currency during differing historical periods (Ostrowski, 2021: 5). The author sees, however, the ‘core six’ original members of the EU in the context of the Cold War as having constituted a distinct type of Europeanism marked by: (1) Christian and social democratic forms of post–World War II ‘right-left economic bargaining’; (2) ‘electoral-parliamentary democratic politics’; and (3) a ‘shared post-Enlightenment (Christian) confessional-secularist cohabitation’ (Ostrowski, 2021: 6).…”

“…Defining Europeanism very openly ‘as a commitment to the political, economic, and cultural consolidation of the European continent’ (Ostrowski, 2021: 1), he sees Europeanisms as having had ‘many competing tendencies to “naturalise” the borders of “Europe” in completely different ways’, seeing both restrictive and expansive Europeanisms as having retained ideational currency during differing historical periods (Ostrowski, 2021: 5). The author sees, however, the ‘core six’ original members of the EU in the context of the Cold War as having constituted a distinct type of Europeanism marked by: (1) Christian and social democratic forms of post–World War II ‘right-left economic bargaining’; (2) ‘electoral-parliamentary democratic politics’; and (3) a ‘shared post-Enlightenment (Christian) confessional-secularist cohabitation’ (Ostrowski, 2021: 6). Thus the ‘European core’, institutionalised in this manner by the original six members of the EU, became ‘not just a geographical label but also a political, economic and cultural signifier’ (Ostrowski, 2021: 6).…”

“…The author sees, however, the ‘core six’ original members of the EU in the context of the Cold War as having constituted a distinct type of Europeanism marked by: (1) Christian and social democratic forms of post–World War II ‘right-left economic bargaining’; (2) ‘electoral-parliamentary democratic politics’; and (3) a ‘shared post-Enlightenment (Christian) confessional-secularist cohabitation’ (Ostrowski, 2021: 6). Thus the ‘European core’, institutionalised in this manner by the original six members of the EU, became ‘not just a geographical label but also a political, economic and cultural signifier’ (Ostrowski, 2021: 6).…”

“…This was still, however, it must be emphasised, a Europeanism oriented institutionally towards ‘methodological nationalism and statism’ (Ostrowski, 2021: 7), even if, in Delanty’s (2008: 223) terms, the EU has undoubtedly also been a project of ‘normative transnationalism’ establishing the ‘preconditions for European cosmopolitanism’. Indeed, for Delanty and Rumford (2005: 22f) Europeanism is to be seen in relation to cosmopolitanism as a political idea, rather than a European ‘people’, a European society, a European supra-state or indeed a European sense of heritage.…”