Einheit und Vielfalt in der EU
Publiziert von der Europa-Gesellschaft Coudenhove-Kalergi
Generalsekretär Dr. Heinz Wimpissinger
Einheit und Vielfalt als politisches Deutungsschema in Europa
Unity and Diversity as a Political Interpretive Template in Europe
Unité et diversité comme schéma d’interprétation politique en Europe
DAS PROJEKT EUROPA SICHERN –– ASSURER LE PROJET EUROPE –– GUARANTEE THE PROJECT EUROPE
Günther Rautz, coordinator of the institute for minority rights at the
European Academy Bolzano
In contemplating the current crises of the European Union, there is no lack of financial/technocratic, institutional/architectural or political/philosophical solutions, as Jürgen Habermas already elaborated in 2011 in On the European Constitution. An Essay (Zur Verfassung Europas. Ein Essay). It is more a matter of a lack of an interpretive template, of a metaphor of unity, that would give a grasp of the interrelation and meshing of parts and the whole. The project of European integration has already seen numerous moments of successful inclusion of its singular members into a larger whole. The problem much rather seems to be that this is insufficiently noticed. What Europe really needs is first and foremost a concept that allows us to perceive reality as a dynamic combination of diversity and unity.
There are three causes to the current institutional crisis in Europe:
- An increased porosity of the nation state and an increasingly impotent interpretive template of parts and the whole in political and institutional reality.
- A lack of a new abstraction that connects the increasingly complex interactions between
unity and diversity on a continental level.
- The extension of the nation state onto a transnational level.
In German thinker and cleric Nikolaus von Kues’ (1401-1464) concept of the spiritus conexionis there is a feasible point of connection for a metaphor, for a proposal for the named necessary and perceptible abstraction that can grasp this dynamic combination of diversity and unity.
In Cusanus’ model, the political unity and diversity exists through the mutual recognition of diverse religions and cultures through the perspective of unity, only thus allowing for diversity to actually be diverse. For Cusanus, conexio just isn’t a compositio of differences in the sense of being an average or a sum of its parts. Cusanus’ trinitarian model for the combination of diversity and unity does not even need the accordance of the „I“ or the state as a political unity with a people, culture, language, or religion. Instead, it was based on an unreachable yet to-be-striven-for relational unity of the diversity of peoples, cultures, languages, and religions.
Indeed, one can point to more than a few examples of a successful dynamic combination of parts into a larger whole within the process of EU integration, a larger whole that does not unify and homogenize the diversity of its parts, but rather, bolsters it. As an example, one can refer to the basic principles of EU law, which, through the judiciary of the EU court, have proven to be a dynamic motor for the creation of an understanding of the EU as a community of basic rights, and
not merely a confederation of states with their respective traditions. These traditions are not being negated or homogenized, but instead and moreover attain a differentiated meaning through a unified perspective, in which said unified perspective shows their relation to other traditions, cultures, and legal systems.
This example shows how the state as a member of the union does not receive its identity and sovereignty from a homogenizing and thus identity-building abstract category of nation, but instead from relating to other states through the perspective of unity. Altogether in the sense of Cusanus, diversity thus only becomes diverse through a perspective of unity, as it would otherwise be an unrelated sense of existing next to each other.
Buzzwords such as a „Europe of different speeds,“ „Europe à la carte“, or „integration of concentric circles“ stand for a flexible integration in which some states have come further in the process of unification. This variable grade of integration does, however, make the EU appear disintegrated and diverse exactly because of the striving for unity. More structural diversity demands a larger degree of similarity, solidarity, and loyalty. The Lisbon treaty explicitly respects the national identities of the member states, including the regional- and local self-administration and thus also the diversity of cultures within the states. Thus European integration is a dynamic process in which unity can only be considered under the protection of the diverse identities within Europe.
Cusanus’ idea of the spiritus conexionis in the sense of being an interpretive template for a spirit of European unity should be perceived as that dynamic model which allows for a European identity without competing with a national one. The spirit that unites Europe should thus be an interpretive template for the long overdue next step towards integration, namely a consolidation of European institutions into a post-national political union.
Generalsekretär Dr. Heinz Wimpissinger
Einheit und Vielfalt als politisches Deutungsschema in Europa
Unity and Diversity as a Political Interpretive Template in Europe
Unité et diversité comme schéma d’interprétation politique en Europe
DAS PROJEKT EUROPA SICHERN –– ASSURER LE PROJET EUROPE –– GUARANTEE THE PROJECT EUROPE
Günther Rautz, coordinator of the institute for minority rights at the
European Academy Bolzano
In contemplating the current crises of the European Union, there is no lack of financial/technocratic, institutional/architectural or political/philosophical solutions, as Jürgen Habermas already elaborated in 2011 in On the European Constitution. An Essay (Zur Verfassung Europas. Ein Essay). It is more a matter of a lack of an interpretive template, of a metaphor of unity, that would give a grasp of the interrelation and meshing of parts and the whole. The project of European integration has already seen numerous moments of successful inclusion of its singular members into a larger whole. The problem much rather seems to be that this is insufficiently noticed. What Europe really needs is first and foremost a concept that allows us to perceive reality as a dynamic combination of diversity and unity.
There are three causes to the current institutional crisis in Europe:
- An increased porosity of the nation state and an increasingly impotent interpretive template of parts and the whole in political and institutional reality.
- A lack of a new abstraction that connects the increasingly complex interactions between
unity and diversity on a continental level.
- The extension of the nation state onto a transnational level.
In German thinker and cleric Nikolaus von Kues’ (1401-1464) concept of the spiritus conexionis there is a feasible point of connection for a metaphor, for a proposal for the named necessary and perceptible abstraction that can grasp this dynamic combination of diversity and unity.
In Cusanus’ model, the political unity and diversity exists through the mutual recognition of diverse religions and cultures through the perspective of unity, only thus allowing for diversity to actually be diverse. For Cusanus, conexio just isn’t a compositio of differences in the sense of being an average or a sum of its parts. Cusanus’ trinitarian model for the combination of diversity and unity does not even need the accordance of the „I“ or the state as a political unity with a people, culture, language, or religion. Instead, it was based on an unreachable yet to-be-striven-for relational unity of the diversity of peoples, cultures, languages, and religions.
Indeed, one can point to more than a few examples of a successful dynamic combination of parts into a larger whole within the process of EU integration, a larger whole that does not unify and homogenize the diversity of its parts, but rather, bolsters it. As an example, one can refer to the basic principles of EU law, which, through the judiciary of the EU court, have proven to be a dynamic motor for the creation of an understanding of the EU as a community of basic rights, and
not merely a confederation of states with their respective traditions. These traditions are not being negated or homogenized, but instead and moreover attain a differentiated meaning through a unified perspective, in which said unified perspective shows their relation to other traditions, cultures, and legal systems.
This example shows how the state as a member of the union does not receive its identity and sovereignty from a homogenizing and thus identity-building abstract category of nation, but instead from relating to other states through the perspective of unity. Altogether in the sense of Cusanus, diversity thus only becomes diverse through a perspective of unity, as it would otherwise be an unrelated sense of existing next to each other.
Buzzwords such as a „Europe of different speeds,“ „Europe à la carte“, or „integration of concentric circles“ stand for a flexible integration in which some states have come further in the process of unification. This variable grade of integration does, however, make the EU appear disintegrated and diverse exactly because of the striving for unity. More structural diversity demands a larger degree of similarity, solidarity, and loyalty. The Lisbon treaty explicitly respects the national identities of the member states, including the regional- and local self-administration and thus also the diversity of cultures within the states. Thus European integration is a dynamic process in which unity can only be considered under the protection of the diverse identities within Europe.
Cusanus’ idea of the spiritus conexionis in the sense of being an interpretive template for a spirit of European unity should be perceived as that dynamic model which allows for a European identity without competing with a national one. The spirit that unites Europe should thus be an interpretive template for the long overdue next step towards integration, namely a consolidation of European institutions into a post-national political union.
Comments
Post a Comment