the European Community’s identity and its image both for its citizens and for the rest of the world, thus contributing to the “realization of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe.” It therefore proposed: the foundation of a European Academy of Science, Technology and Art, an institution with international influence able “to highlight the achievements of European science and the originality of European civilization in all its wealth and diversity”; the creation of community symbols such as a flag and an anthem; the formation of European sports teams; the confirmation of 9 May as Europe Day; the use of European stamps; the minting of a European coinage (the ECU); the launching of a Euro-lottery, “to make Europe come alive for the Europeans”; and the setting-up of a center displaying European achievements and the common heritage, backed up by a collection of documents and works relating thereto (Adonnino 1985: 22, 24). The publication of the “Adonnino Report” was the first explicit step toward selling the Community. As a result, the marketing of Europe as a kind of “brand product” became the key strategy through which the Community sought to tackle its problem of image and communication. These initiatives contradicted the official rhetoric that portrayed European integration as a “natural process.” Furthermore, the artificial creation and promotion of European symbols, starting in the mid-1980s, as part of the so-called “A People’s Europe” project is justly portrayed by Chris Shore as a form of (illegitimate) ideological indoctrination by European institutions (2000, 2001).
Pascal Fontaine’s A Citizen’s Europe (1991) expressed conviction about the irreversibility of the process of European unification and its metamorphosis from a purely technocratic process into a “profoundly humanistic enterprise”:
The goals of “A people’s Europe” have been achieved. Who would fail to recognize the European flag symbolizing European unification? Who would not feel moved when listening to Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, the future anthem of a united Europe? Who does not enjoy following the “European Community” sign in airport arrival halls and possessing a uniform passport, and of course, “What European would not feel at home visiting Europe’s high spots of culture and savoir-vivre?” (Fontaine 1991: 44)
These and other symbolic measures are not purely decorative according the document. They fire most Europeans’ imaginations; they are similar to national symbols that represent state sovereignty and “testify to the substantial progress made by an idea which has now been transformed from myth into reality” (Fontaine 1991: 7). What proves the triumph of the EC’s cultural policy, asserts the author, is the emergence of Homo europeus. To increase the number of “new Europeans,” citizens must be enlightened through public information and consciousness-raising programs; they all need to gain awareness of the positive aspects of European integration and then be ready to “push ahead,” to leave behind the “hamstrung and impotent” community and create a new powerful one, based on a single currency, “the most visible sign of the unity and power of Europe” (22). Bearing in mind Jacques Delors’s comment—“nobody falls in love with a growth rate” or a single market—the document calls for the need to make sure that a “people’s Europe” exists in Europeans’ hearts (23, 40). To this end, it demands more investment in the use of the magic instruments of television, cinema, and videos that transmit culture through images capable of shaping citizens’ mindset day by day.
A year later, in 1992, the Maastricht Treaty conferred to the European Community prerogatives in the realm of cultural policy. According to Article 128, “The Community shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the member states, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore” (Council & Commission of the European Communities 1992: 48). The Treaty formally enabled the organization to intervene and propose measures in the fields of education, youth, and culture. As a result, in order to promote awareness of the European integration project, education and training programs (Erasmus, Leonardo, Tempus, and Socrates) were launched to reinforce the “European dimension” in educational discourse.
The document most revealing of the fantasies underlying European federalists’ palingenetic agenda is entitled Reflection on Information and Communication Policy of the European Community (De Clercq 1993). Officially, it was conceived as a contribution to the debate on the present and future of Europe in the period of the adoption of the Maastricht Treaty and as a response to citizens’ growing perplexity about the image of the European community. From this document’s diagnosis the reader can learn that the community is sick because its members are questioning the worthiness of the “good project” (i.e., European construction and integration), because there is little feeling of belonging to Europe. The causes of the illness are to be found in the EC’s failure to communicate to the citizens the “good project” in a relevant and persuasive way (so that everyone can understand and appreciate the benefits of a united Europe). The attempt to “sell the ‘wrong product”’ (i.e., the Maastricht Treaty), the lack of clarity about what must be communicated to whom and why, the absence of a clear and plain message with precise stimuli able to guarantee the desired reactions, and the failure to make a long story short are listed as factors contributing to the fiasco of trying to engrain European identity in peoples’ minds.
To build public awareness and approval of the European Union and to help win back credibility and trust in European institutions, a new communication and information strategy was proposed that would take into account citizens’ needs, hopes, and preoccupations. Bearing in mind that perhaps the deepest hope is return to maternal womb—the most heartfelt desire, especially in times of crisis and flux, relates to the prospect of enjoying again the idyll of primordial paradise—the De Clercq-led expert group came to the conclusion that European institutions “must be brought close to the people, implicitly evoking the maternal, nurturing care of ‘Europa’ for all her children” (De Clercq 1993: 9). Rather than offering more information, fewer electrifying and warm messages are needed to excite, motivate, move, and change the attitude of people (10). The Commission can launch these warm messages only if it possesses a “human face” and turns into a sympathetic, warm, and caring maternal figure that can guarantee the (physical and psychological) well-being of the citizens of Europe (15). While in the 1970s and 1980s, the goal was to bring European institutions closer to citizens, with De Clerq the mission was more ambitious—they had to exist together; they needed to form one inseparable dyad, reestablishing the perfect primordial unity:
Inherent in the notion of Union are the concepts of solidarity, harmony, common action. In human and personal terms, these can be expressed in the single concept “Together”. This is not just an adverb defining the relationship necessary for achieving objectives; it is also an imperative, a rallying call for action: “Together!” (De Clercq 1993: 14)
“Togetherness” became the new symbolic dogma, the inspirational credo that was supposed to appeal to the emotions, the common sense, to the hearts and minds of European citizens, and “involve us all in the great enterprise of building Europe” (22). “Mother Europe must protect her children”—narrates the document—so that the “European way of life,” the European heritage based on human rights, tolerance, democracy, and savoir-vivre, and the European culture “make us the envy of the world” (24). The star that was meant to show direction during Europeans’ journey back to the maternal womb is a “billboard” fabricated by experts of American marketing strategy. It suggests the promotion of the European Union as a “good product” (13), the positioning of the “good product” in the minds of the people as “the largest democratic, socio-economic, and political entity in the world,” and the selling of the European Union to target audiences. The document emphasizes the need to call on board PR experts to launch “total and continuous” programs covering television, radio, and press relations, editorial support, advertising, public relations, direct marketing, public speaking, interviews, visits by special-interest groups, special-issue EC postage stamps, the publication of specific-interest pamphlets, etc., in order to explain European citizenship in “acceptable, motivating terms” (awarding personalized certificates to all newly born babies attesting their birth as citizens of the European
