Suchergebnisse

The idea of European identity has grown in significance & specificity over two millennia. Earlier, the advance was largely generated by opposition to outsiders, in terms of culture & religion. Those who thought in European terms were long a tiny minority of rulers, clerics, financiers, & men of learning & the arts. Only in the late 18th century did bourgeois participation broaden consciousness of a European community, linked in the 19th & 20th centuries to social & political progress. In the past half century, European identity has gained official sanction as a diplomatic & legislative set of entities. Efforts to underpin existing & to spur new mutuality at the folk level, however, lag, owing to a host of persisting problems -- linguistic diversity, disparities of resources, unforgotten grievances, doubts about the scope of territorial expansion, & a felt imbalance between administrative goals & popular allegiances. Adapted from the source document.

In this paper, an argument is developed in favour of further integration of "Europe" and, most importantly, its increased "politicization". It is not based on any romantic or idealistic vision of a positive European cultural identity, but on an assessment of Europe's reality as already integrated economically, socially and ecologically, however lagging behind politically in terms of democratic government and citizenship. The seemingly endless discussions about Europe's identity, limit, unity, civilization, etc. are not a problem that is yet to be solved, but are, precisely, the core of what makes Europe what it is: a plurality in unity instead of a "unity in plurality", as one of the official slogans of the European Union (EU) has it. Current social, economic and environmental problems require European solutions as well as a moreactiveEuropean citizenship. However, European civil identity that is to match European societal reality, will not be a unitary and homogeneous identity, but heterogeneous and diverse, covering a plurality of perceptions, preferences and ideals ‐ it will beplural, not as a first step towards unity, but in its core; and it will bedivided, but not along national lines. Vieningumo pliuralumas: europietiškasis tapatumas ir europietiškasis pilietiškumas Santrauka.Tolesnė "Europos" integracija ir svarbiausia – vis dažnesnės "politinės diskusijos" šia tema yra remiamos ir skatinamos. Vadovaujamasi ne romantine ar idealistine pozityvaus europietiškojo tapatumo vizija, bet Europos ekonominės, socialinės ir ekologinės integracijos vertinimu bei požiūriu, esą ji politiškai atsilieka demokratinio valdymo ir pilietiškumo atžvilgiais. Tariamai nesibaigiančios diskusijos Europos tapatumo, ribų, vieningumo, civilizacijos ir panašiais klausimais nėra ta problema, kuri jau turi būti išspręsta, bet iš esmės sudaro tokios Europos, kokia ji yra, pagrindą: vieningumo pliuralumas vietoj "pliuralumo vieningumo", kaip skelbia vienas iš oficialių Europos Sąjungos (ES) lozungų. Nūdienės socialinės, ekonominės ir ...

In this paper, an argument is developed in favour of further integration of "Europe" and, most importantly, its increased "politicization". It is not based on any romantic or idealistic vision of a positive European cultural identity, but on an assessment of Europe's reality as already integrated economically, socially and ecologically, however lagging behind politically in terms of democratic government and citizenship. The seemingly endless discussions about Europe's identity, limit, unity, civilization, etc. are not a problem that is yet to be solved, but are, precisely, the core of what makes Europe what it is: a plurality in unity instead of a "unity in plurality", as one of the official slogans of the European Union (EU) has it. Current social, economic and environmental problems require European solutions as well as a moreactiveEuropean citizenship. However, European civil identity that is to match European societal reality, will not be a unitary and homogeneous identity, but heterogeneous and diverse, covering a plurality of perceptions, preferences and ideals ‐ it will beplural, not as a first step towards unity, but in its core; and it will bedivided, but not along national lines. Vieningumo pliuralumas: europietiškasis tapatumas ir europietiškasis pilietiškumas Santrauka Tolesnė "Europos" integracija ir svarbiausia – vis dažnesnės "politinės diskusijos" šia tema yra remiamos ir skatinamos. Vadovaujamasi ne romantine ar idealistine pozityvaus europietiškojo tapatumo vizija, bet Europos ekonominės, socialinės ir ekologinės integracijos vertinimu bei požiūriu, esą ji politiškai atsilieka demokratinio valdymo ir pilietiškumo atžvilgiais. Tariamai nesibaigiančios diskusijos Europos tapatumo, ribų, vieningumo, civilizacijos ir panašiais klausimais nėra ta problema, kuri jau turi būti išspręsta, bet iš esmės sudaro tokios Europos, kokia ji yra, pagrindą: vieningumo pliuralumas vietoj "pliuralumo vieningumo", kaip skelbia vienas iš oficialių Europos Sąjungos (ES) lozungų. Nūdienės socialinės, ekonominės ir aplinkosaugos problemos reikalauja europietiškų sprendimų ir kur kas aktyvesnio europietiškojo pilietiškumo. Tačiau norint, kad europietiškasis pilietinis tapatumas atitiktų europietiškąją socialinę tikrovę, jis neturi būti bendras ir homogeniškas, bet, atvirkščiai, heterogeniškas ir įvairialypis, apimantis daugelį suvokimo perspektyvų, privilegijų ir idealų. Jis turi būti pliuralus, bet ne kaip pirmas žingsnis vieningumo link; jis turi būti iš esmės dalus, tačiau ne pagal valstybių sienas. Reikšminiai žodžiai: pilietiškumas, "civilizacionalizmas", diskursyvi erdvė, europietiškoji integracija, tapatumas, pliuralumas. First Published Online: 14 Oct 2010

Architecture has become an important discourse for new expressions of post-national identity in general and in particular for the emergence of a `spatial' European identity. No longer tied to the state to the same degree as in the period of nation-building, architecture has become a significant cultural expression of post-national identities within and beyond the nation-state. The article looks at four such discourses, first, taking the Millennium Dome in London and the Reichstag in Berlin, we show that architecture can express in a reflexive way contested and ambiguous national identities; second, the case of architecture in post-communist European societies illustrates the dual identity of architecture as a project of building and of re-building; third, the EU's search for a cultural form is discussed with respect to the architectural designs on the Euro banknotes; and finally the question of architecture as a relation to a lived space is considered with regard to cityscapes as yet another expression of a tendentially spatialized European identity.

The idea of European identity has grown in significance and specificity over two millennia. Earlier, the advance was largely generated by opposition to outsiders, in terms of culture and religion. Those who thought in European terms were long a tiny minority of rulers, clerics, financiers, men of learning and the arts. Only in the late eighteenth century did bourgeois participation broaden consciousness of European community, linked in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to social and political progress. In the past half century European identity has gained official sanction as a diplomatic and legislative set of entities. Efforts to underpin existing and to spur new mutuality at the folk‐level lag, owing to a host of persisting problems — linguistic diversity, disparities of resources, unforgotten grievances, doubts about the scope of territorial expansion, and a felt imbalance between administrative goals and popular allegiances.

The European Commission aims to understand the extent of which European citizens feel that they belong to the EU, assume their European identity and think of themselves not only as national citizens but also as citizens of Europe. Using data from the European Commission's Eurobarometer Surveys to proxy European identity and multinomial logistic regressions, this paper examines whether the transfer of resources to subnational tiers of government (i.e. fiscal decentralisation) and/or the transfer of powers to subnational tiers of government (i.e. political decentralisation) influence a European sense of belonging in comparison with national belonging. The results show that fiscal decentralisation is a powerful promoter of European identity, while there is no strong evidence that political decentralisation has reinforced it. Moreover, men, middle-aged people, highly educated people, single and people who are very satisfied with their life feel more European than others.

The present article aims to advance a reflexion on the construction of the European Union citizenship/identity and identify the main challenges behind the consolidation of the citizenship bond and the difficulties in making EU citizens becoming more involved in the integration process and in bringing European institutions closer to normal citizens.

According to a generally accepted conception, members of a nation foster their national identity through assorting their memories of the past, elaborating and preserving their symbols collectively. We have to look for the original unity forming the basis of national unity either in the cohesive force of common origin and residence, or in the self‐conscious contracts of the individuals, or in both. The European Union as such does not have sovereignty; those of the Member States overrule its legislative and executive institutions. Perhaps we can speak about the European Union as a community on a cultural basis. This will raise the question of multiculturalism. Recently an interesting polemic has been developing on the concept and role of Leitkultur. In antiquity the Imperium Romanum, in the Middle Ages the Republica Christiana seem to have been the multicultural forerunners of the European Union.

According to a generally accepted conception, members of a nation foster their national identity through assorting their memories of the past, elaborating and preserving their symbols collectively. We have to look for the original unity forming the basis of national unity either in the cohesive force of common origin and residence, or in the self‐conscious contracts of the individuals, or in both. The European Union as such does not have sovereignty; those of the Member States overrule its legislative and executive institutions. Perhaps we can speak about the European Union as a community on a cultural basis. This will raise the question of multiculturalism. Recently an interesting polemic has been developing on the concept and role ofLeitkultur. In antiquity the Imperium Romanum, in the Middle Ages the Republica Christiana seem to have been the multicultural forerunners of the European Union. Tautinis ir europietiškasis tapatumas Santrauka. Remdamasis bendrąja nuostata, esą savasis tautinis tapatumas yra puoselėjamas, saugant prisiminimus apie praeitį ir tobulinant jų bendruosius simbolius, straipsnio autorius pabrėžia vienos ar kitos tautos narių vienybės paieškų būtinybę. Būtent ji turėtų tapti tautinio tapatumo pagrindu, pabrėžiant istorinių tautos šaknų ir gyvenamojo arealo bei sąmoningo tautiečių bendra(darbia)vimo svarbą. Europos Sąjunga, straipsnio autoriaus teigimu, nėra suvereni, ir tik tam tikroms jos narėms lyderėms priklauso įstatymų leidžiamoji ir vykdomoji institucijos. Todėl galbūt galima kalbėti apie Europos Sąjungą kaip apie bendruomenę, vienijamą tos pačios europietiškosios kultūros. Taip kyla multikultūralizmo klausimas. Ypač įdomi polemika šiuolaikinėje Europoje plėtojama, pasak straipsnio autoriaus, Leitkultur sampratos ir vaidmens klausimu. Europos Sąjungos pirmtakėmis lyg ir galima laikyti senovės Romos imperiją ir viduramžiškąją Krikščioniškąją Respubliką. Jos abi turėjo vadinamąją Leitkultur ir lingua franca. Dabar nežinoma, kokia lingua franca padėtų išspręsti itin sudėtingas ...

According to a generally accepted conception, members of a nation foster their national identity through assorting their memories of the past, elaborating and preserving their symbols collectively. We have to look for the original unity forming the basis of national unity either in the cohesive force of common origin and residence, or in the self‐conscious contracts of the individuals, or in both. The European Union as such does not have sovereignty; those of the Member States overrule its legislative and executive institutions. Perhaps we can speak about the European Union as a community on a cultural basis. This will raise the question of multiculturalism. Recently an interesting polemic has been developing on the concept and role ofLeitkultur. In antiquity the Imperium Romanum, in the Middle Ages the Republica Christiana seem to have been the multicultural forerunners of the European Union. Tautinis ir europietiškasis tapatumas Santrauka Remdamasis bendrąja nuostata, esą savasis tautinis tapatumas yra puoselėjamas, saugant prisiminimus apie praeitį ir tobulinant jų bendruosius simbolius, straipsnio autorius pabrėžia vienos ar kitos tautos narių vienybės paieškų būtinybę. Būtent ji turėtų tapti tautinio tapatumo pagrindu, pabrėžiant istorinių tautos šaknų ir gyvenamojo arealo bei sąmoningo tautiečių bendra(darbia)vimo svarbą. Europos Sąjunga, straipsnio autoriaus teigimu, nėra suvereni, ir tik tam tikroms jos narėms lyderėms priklauso įstatymų leidžiamoji ir vykdomoji institucijos. Todėl galbūt galima kalbėti apie Europos Sąjungą kaip apie bendruomenę, vienijamą tos pačios europietiškosios kultūros. Taip kyla multikultūralizmo klausimas. Ypač įdomi polemika šiuolaikinėje Europoje plėtojama, pasak straipsnio autoriaus, Leitkultur sampratos ir vaidmens klausimu. Europos Sąjungos pirmtakėmis lyg ir galima laikyti senovės Romos imperiją ir viduramžiškąją Krikščioniškąją Respubliką. Jos abi turėjo vadinamąją Leitkultur ir lingua franca. Dabar nežinoma, kokia lingua franca padėtų išspręsti itin sudėtingas komunikacijos Europoje problemas. Leitkultur pagrindą Europos kontinente visgi turėtų sudaryti senosios europietiškosios politikos ir kultūros tradicijos. Reikšminiai žodžiai: kultūra, Leitkultur, tauta, suverenitetas, valstybė, sąjunga. First Published Online: 14 Oct 2010