Episode 3: Towards a Common and Unified European Memory?

Welcome to Talking Memories, the podcast of the School of European Memories. This season, we explore historical revisionism and ask a [music] bold question. Who owns the past? Join us as we listen, question, [music] and rethink the stories we thought we knew. Let's get into it. Episode 3, towards a common and unified European memory. So, hello. We are Hubbert, Artium, Elisa, Sara, and Ma. And we are here pleased to welcome Jose Nunes Shes. So to begin with our questions, we first wanted to tell you about how within our group we have been talking about how the project of European integration emerged in the aftermath of the devastation of the second world war and how early steps toward what would become the European Union were grounded in anti-asism and post holocaust. So however the European Union has not remained static. We have seen that with major airlinement waves in 2004 and 2007, it incorporated many Eastern European countries whose historical experiences differ from those just mentioned. And so we can see that these diverse historical trajectories have introduced new memories into the European framework and complicating the idea of a single unified narrative. So as the European Union continues to expand and diversify, we also have talked about this that this raises an important question which will be that for you to answer. Can there be a common unified European memory? >> Uh I don't really think there's going to be ever a common unifi uh unified European memory. There are so many different national memories. We just talk about it. However, I really think that the European Union and the states that shape the European Union can try to establish some common points of let's say of agreement uh some common uh landmarks of the in the direction of building strong values and which can serve as a fundamentals can serve as a basis for the construction of a of an emotional feeling of being Europeans whether there is a European memory or not, whether a European memory can be built or not, I think we can simply we can rather uh refer to relatively uh weak points of in common like you know I mean but I I would put stronger emphasis on values and particularly these values could be the defense of democracy, the welfare state as certain path of development which also takes into account could be say an economy of free market with social sensitivity and then the reaction of totalitarianism or or the reaction of authoritarianism whatever it comes from and you're right uh certainly anti-fascist a kind of anti-fascist consensus was a common element a common underping element for most western European democracies after 1945 although this anti-fascist this anti-fascist consensus was also built on some historical silences collaborationist etc complicity of occupied countries uh with the holocaust etc. However, uh certainly the enlargement towards the east has incorporated a new sensitivity what to do with the Soviet past and with uh communist the years of communist rule and I think a common label is obviously the defense of democracy the defense of human rights the defense of a let's say of the welfare state and also let's say radical defense of a civilized way of life and uh of the of the enlightenment of Enlightenment's values particularly I mean our preference for rational argue discussion uh healthy public conversations and not what we are seeing in other countries particularly in the United States right now but also in Russia a liberal or illiberal democracies where lies are simply triumphant and where lies are in a way dominating the public conversation and then how to achieve this that's another matter however I would I would put a stronger emphasis on values rather than on memory. >> Now, uh if I were to play the devil's advocate, I would say that well values have historically been embedded inside of well usually national myths. It was been the the stories of you know the triumphs and losses and they granted they definitely have been black and white stories. They have been incomplete. they have silenced something, you know, and emphasized some other things, but they've been the stories that would tell you, well, how to relate to the world, what to think, what to believe. And to kind of push maybe a little bit back on uh to what you said, aren't we trying to jump the gun, so to say, by saying, well, we need to defend the values, but at the same time acknowledging, well, we don't actually have the share shared stories that would carry the values. >> But that's true. I mean, we don't have shared stories. uh you can always go back as as far back as you know uh as you want. I mean we can always go as far back as you know as we want. We may also believe that perhaps and the Napoleonic times there was a kind of common project for Europe. I mean some authors sustain the view that Napoleon has a project for Europe apart from consolidating his personal power and the power of his family and there was a construction of European worldview. Perhaps I mean some others refer to Shakle Leman in the 10th century or but actually uh all these projects of building a European worldview were not based on democratic values there or were not always based on democratic values. They also were in a way characterized by euroentrism by obviously uh a strong disregard of all the societies outside Europe and certainly and also by the uncertainty I mean where does Europe begin and where does Europe end and in this sense well you're right uh memories and particularly Europe is composed of many multiple and national memories which trace back can be traced back to the 15th century can be traced back to the middle ages and which had been then promoted and uh imposed from above and constructed by states by nation states but or by national movements whatever. Uh yet it would be time perhaps perhaps the time has come to overcome all these differences and try to find some common elements. >> And you are a professor of history. Yes. So, so the next kind of obvious question uh to you would be well do you see any historical precedence of where memory was used in a democratic way where in other words where memory was used to bolster democratic institutions to strengthen democracy? Is there is there examples from which we can learn or from which the EU can learn? >> Of course uh you can go to the antiquity particularly to Athens. I mean democracy some Greek authors or histori and Greek historians were also writing to defend uh the values of democracy in Athens. I mean you can also refer to the French convention after the French revolution or during the French revolution where alo some measures were implemented in order to foster the knowledge of national history and to promote some values. that the problem is that it didn't last so long and that sometimes it was imposed. I mean it's not that and people were even the were even forced to accept these kind of ceremonies or these kind of values. I mean there are some precedents of course. I mean you have the the workers movement in many countries during the 19th century also try to promote some sites of memory. Even the adoption of a transnational state of memory or transnational date or commemoration day like the 1st of May could also be seen as an example of how memory is used to bolster to promote uh democratic values. But obviously you have to also to take into account that we're talking about democracy when we are talking about human rights in the past. It doesn't exactly correspond it doesn't exactly overlap with our present day concept of human rights. I mean the French revolution talk about the rights of the citizens. Yeah. But these citizens were particularly male and white and were European. So we have to enlarge our own definitions. uh let's say uh recognition of equal rights of citizenship uh access to the to the benefits of the welfare state for let's say gay lesbians homosexuals transsexuals etc. This simply did not exist in the 19th century and even during the most part of the 20th century. So in a way we cannot find precise examples or examples that fit 100% in our current definition of human rights but every time has its own semantic. I mean as a German historian Ranhar Cole always remember us or reminded us uh he always reminded us you have to take into account that concepts change over time and our current meaning of those concepts doesn't always correspond to the past meaning of these concepts. So there is an analytical use of concepts and there is a historical use of concepts. So we can look for precedents but must also be aware of the fact that many people many characters could serve as examples in the past nowadays would be considered or would not be considered to be democrats in the full sense of the word I mean Marat Rob Pierre even Jamune in some respects >> yes in other words well we do somehow have to square the fact that well yes in if I understand you're right yeah the ancient Greece is in some ways an example to follow but at the same time at the times of ancient Greece democracy would not be seen as an ideal right according to Plato's that this is is this what you're saying is that why well the the current use of concept >> what we want to build is not a democracy following following the example 100% of ancient Greece but obviously some elements were already there I mean the idea of the agura the idea of public conversation the idea of representation much in the same way that parliaments are born in the middle ages in the low middle ages with the argument where if we pay taxes we need representations not taxes without representation which was a typical slogan of the American revolution we have to interpret all these tenets all these slogans properly within their own context and today obviously if you do policies of memory we have to be aware of these limits but you also have to be in a way pragmatic in order to give these characters and these principles a current meaning >> and maybe maybe to wrap up the conversation because we are running out of time. Uh when we talked earlier, you had a very interesting thought. The fact that Europe can't really agree on the common memory might not be the bug. It might be the feature. Would you would you care to repeat it and to kind of express it? >> Yeah. Well, there was I mean was the conclusion at which a conference in Strasburg 20 years ago arrived? I mean there was a conference and many scholars from different fields in Strasburg was 2004 on the eve of the eastern enlargement enchment to the east. I mean the idea was okay what are the common features of European identity and one of the conclusions which was view quite a pragmatic or even quite a a a signic one was well actually we're Europeans because we cannot agree on what defines us as Europeans right um I don't know whether this is a strong element a strong feature to build an identity upon it uh but certainly a strong values, democracy, rejection for instance of the death penalty, inclusive democracy, I mean the idea that no matter where do you come from, what is your your skin color or the language you speak, your religion, your beliefs, I mean you have to adapt yourself to the basic norms of coexistence within a democratic society. A kind of European constitutional patriotism could be perhaps which was given to the term by some of its coiners like Jan Habermas the idea of a permanent vigilance of a permanent care of uh the values we are defending. I mean not a letter of a written constitution of the mastery agreement whatever uh no the actually the values that are embedded in the foundation of the European Union. This is the legacy the founding fathers uh gave us and this is the legacy we have to protect but we have to constantly update this legacy. >> I think that's a quite a positive note on which to end the podcast. Professor Sas, thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> So what did you folks think about the discussion? Oh well um what um brought my attention after the talk with Shep was his idea that we have to step away from the idea of memory to build our European identity and um in the private talk he also proposed to look at the symbols as an alternative and I do agree with him that symbols can be a great concentration of a memory and can represent a certain memory but my concern is does is there a possibility that a symbol becomes too shallow and uh commercialized or commodified and Europe is being European identity is being reduced to certain an aesthetical thing and loses it its depth. >> Do do you feel that around you that this is something that might be happening already? >> Yes. Yes, definitely. I feel that uh some young Europeans that are really passionate about European idea are confusing Europe with towed bags with European flags on it. Well, if I can jump in, I find that consideration quite interesting because when I first heard um the interview with Professor Satas, what came to my mind was that his approach to values was actually quite intangible and maybe quite challenging to grasp towards the commoner. But again, your concern on the strictly materialistic dimension can be equally problematic. So what I was thinking is um if we build the European projects strictly around these values, democracy, human rights, rule of law, that this might be slightly too demanding to sell to the common citizen. And if we sometimes criticize the European project for being slightly too elitistdriven, maybe the tangible things of everyday life would also uh be of use. This is just a consideration that came to mind. >> So what would be some of the tangible things of life? This again for instance I feel like the European flag is something quite powerful that we see when young people are on the streets and now we can see for instance uh in Serbia or in other countries when people want to have some sort of like proximity to the European project. So I do think that these things matter even though we need to look at them in a nuanced manner as you were saying. >> Yeah. I also find it interesting that the kind of cases of European flag being really powerful and really salient in the borderlands of Europe, meaning in usually the countries that aren't in Europe yet, for example, like the amount of EU flags in Ukraine or Serbia is very striking. And I would like I feel like it kind of leads to this interesting observation that well kind of the European identity is strongest at the borderlands of Europe at this time which is something that's quite paradoxical actually. >> How do you think is it problematic if our federalism at some point will become European nationalism and we will just drive away from nation states to European nations ginormous superstates. >> Yes. And if I can also contribute to that regard um sometimes we look at texts for instance I'm thinking of Milan Kunda and I mean we do have a Czech person on the table when uh he wrote his essay on the tragedy of central Europe. Basically what some of the critics say nowadays is that he just moved the border of otherness a bit more towards the east. But deep down if we really say that the European project is about democracy and pluralism and human rights then this could have like some sort of universal dimension. And now we see that Canada was actually discussing in the public sphere in a survey would we consider joining the European Union. So is the project really about a geographical Europe? Is it about the values and how can we uh somehow trying to balance this in order not to have an imperial dimension to this which could be very problematic. Right. >> So interesting thing with Kunda and what you said with him kind of pushing the boundary of otherness of like what's the non us against which we define ourselves against. I think you're right that he tried pushing it more to the east. The big question that I kind of see coming from that is well can you have a European identity without the sense of the other or do you always need something other against which to kind of you know like rally around? >> Well I I think there are two ways if you look conceptually on how federations come to be. So uh for instance if you look at the US you have states that in the face of like external pressure they decided to come together you know to have some sort of like more common uh defense capabilities and like to better cooperate and then if you look at states like uh Germany a federal state it was exactly the opposite how can we decentralize from what it was uh create these regions where there's also like power to them instead of having such a strong center to it. So I do understand your question like do we need to always build the European project in some sense of comparison to the other like for instance now more than ever we have this narrative of a geopolitical commission is the European project going to be built in the next decades based on the separation of the other I don't know this is an interesting reflection for sure >> yeah yeah that's a good case of the United States because that's where the other was kind of essential right and in Germany as well it was kind of the bismar's fabricated war that kind you know the creation of the French other and the need to the need of this French other to kind of actually create unified Germany. So yeah the sense of other is definitely looming large in that kind of uh discussion. any other points that uh that's kind of the discussion yesterday. >> Uh I want to talk about the symbols most of it. Uh when we talk about the Europe we tend to think about treaties, institution or policies but in reality one of the most subtle sub form of unity is built through symbols. Uh take for example the flag of the European Union. Uh the 12 stars do not represent the the member states but rather the idea of unity and perfection. It is a symbol that does not reflect the political reality but aspires to an idea, a coherent, stable and united Europe. We also have the Euro currency. Not all the member states use it. But what's interesting is that the design of these banknotes, it has bridges and windows and they are not real monuments but imaginary ones. uh that says a lot about uh Europe because uh it doesn't base its unity on a perfect shared past but on idea of connection also uh the most emotional symbol in the European anthem uh based on OS to joy by Ludovik Fangan it has no lyrics yet it is recognized across all member states so it is an example of cultural memory uh transform into a political symbol >> and um if I can add as well nowadays I saw that there is uh this uh discussion on changing the design of the euro bills and apparently one of the ideas that I believe won was one that would encompass birds and the design of different bird species which I think it's incredibly poetic considering that birds also migrate and know no borders. So it's a perfect metaphor I would say >> interesting perspective. Yeah. >> It's also a great bridge to considering ecology and nature as a memory of Europeans. Well, we all have a shared memory of going to the forest or living next to the nature and the landscape of Europe is kind of similar to to from country to country. So, I think if we think about a common European memory, we can consider nature and our relationship to nature is one of them. >> Are you optimistic or pessimistic? >> Well, I'm neither optimistic or pessimistic, but I think our strength is in the doubt in not being able to decide where our memory begins or our identity as Europeans begins or ends. Our constant re-evaluation of ourselves. I think this is what makes us Europeans. >> Well, that is a beautiful way to put it. And uh also building upon what we were discussing outside, I think now that Europe is becoming ever more cosmopolitan and even embracing people from other cultures that originally were not European, we do need to have some sort of flexibility if we want to make a pluralistic identity and encompass for everyone making sure that everyone feels Europe as their home. >> Thank you so much for listening. >> Thank you. Cheers. Talking memories is a production of the school on European memories. Produced by Fernandez Anuzi, Morit [music] and Natalia Papayoru. Original idea by Fernando Zanuzi and Chesm. Recording in post-prouction Benjamin Samama. All episodes were recorded at the Jeet House from May 4th to 6th, [music] 2016 during the fourth school on European memories. This podcast was made possible with the support of the European Commission and the European Parliament. However, the views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions.