Personalismen. Köbenhavn, 1952.
30 See in particular Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self. The making of modern identity. Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 506ff.
31 Nicolas Berdyaev, The Beginning and the End. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1952, p.14.
32 Ibid. p. 59.
33 Ibid. p. 69.
34 Ibid. p. 76.
35 Gabriel Almond & Sydney Verba, The civic culture. Princeton University Press, 1963.
36 Roberto Garcia Jurado, “Critica de la teoria de la cultura politica”. Politica y cultura, otono 2006, no. 26.
37 Ibid. p. 142.
38 Martine Abdallah-Pretceille, “Interculturalism as a paradigm for thinking about diversity”. Intercultural education. Vol. 17, no. 5. December 2006, p. 479.
39 Ibid. p. 478.
40 See the excellent survey in Katherine Fierlbeck’s review of Pauline Marie Rosenay, Post-modernism and the Social Sciences: Insights, Inroads and intrusions. History and Theory; Vol. 33, no. 1. February 1994.
41 James T.W. Marks, “Theory, Pragmatism and Truth: Post-Modernism in the context of Action”. Canadian Journal of Sociology; Vol. 17, no. 2. Spring 1992.
42 See Malcolm Bradbury, “What was Post-Modernism? The Arts in and after the Cold War”. International Affairs London; Vol. 71, no. 4. Special Anniversary Issue, October 1995.
43 Robert J. Brym, “The end of sociology? A note on Post-modernism”. Canadian Journal of Sociology. Vol. 15, no. 3. Summer 1990.
44 A view shared by Marks, ibid.
45 M. Thompson, G. Grendstad & P. Selle, Cultural Theory as Political Science. London: Routledge, 1999 p. 1
46 Ibid.
47 Joseph I.H. Janssen, “Postmaterialism, Cognitive Mobilization and Public Support for European Integration”. British Journal of Political Science; Vol. 21/4. October 1991, p. 458.
48 See i.a. the works by Alan Milward and Andrew Moravcsik.
49 Janssen, op.cit. p. 465.
50 Michael Zürn, “The Challenge of Globalization and Individualization: A view from Europe”. In: Hans-Henrik Holm & Georg Sorensen (eds.), Whose World Order? Boulder: Westview, 1992.
51 James E. Cameron, “A three-factor Model of Social Identity”. Self and Identity, Vol. 3, 2004.
52 Bid.
53 Adrienne Héritier, “Composite democracy in Europe: the role of transparency and access to information”. Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 10/5. October 2003.
54 E.g. in M. Maffesoli, “La connaissance ordinaire”. Precis de Sociologie comprehensive. Paris: Librairie des Méridiens. 1985.
3. DO EUROPEANS REGARD THEMSELVES AS EUROPEAN?
Culture and democracy are closely related phenomena. As I shall argue, cultural identity has acquired a strong, personalized layer. Political culture used to be measured as a purely sociological phenomenon, each social grouping being assumed to possess certain cultural characteristica. In contemporary Europe the reality is much more messy and complex. It would be going too far to argue that cultural identity has become entirely individualized. We can all point to examples of similar responses to given social challenges across borders in Europe. Yet, it is equally true that globalization for instance has very different consequences upon different individuals. Some embrace it; others fight it. New technologies have empowered many more – though not all – citizens. As a result, socialization is becoming less important. Institutions are also losing importance as explanatory variables. Against this background, how are we to continue using rather vague and highly aggregate concepts such as organizational culture or post-modern nations. Clearly there is a need for differentiation. A need for more precise, conceptual language.
If – for better or worse – (political) culture increasingly overlaps with democracy in Western societies, this has several implications: First, it means that prediction becomes more difficult. Secondly, it means that researchers must pay more attention to the attitudes of citizens, even when studying longer term trends. As culture becomes democratized, citizens become constitutive in a new sense. Please note that my argument is not normative: It may well be that we ought to lament the blurring of the borders between elite and citizen. However, it appears to be a fact, at least in some parts of the world. Thirdly, to the extent that agency is becoming more important, context- and situation-specific logics are gaining in importance at the expense of group-logics. It may soon be more important to analyze typical situations confronting individuals than to analyze typical forms of group consciousness.
Do European citizens feel that they belong to a community called “Europe” – represented by the European Union? Obviously, “Europe” and the EU are not identical concepts and may mean different things to different people – and nations. We tend to assume that Europe has a common, political language, but is it really the case, once we move beyond generalities? In other words, the ubiquitous diversity in European culture may not only be caused by historical legacies but also by cultural democracy or, to be more precise, by a more individualist version of cultural democracy, better informed and less patient with democratically elected leaders.
To enquire about European identity begs the questions, which identity? Although Eurobarometer polls are often very useful, the questions asked are not always the most relevant, and they are based upon a number of specific, theoretical assumptions regarding the sources of identity. We still know little about European cultural identity apart from scattered evidence on European symbols and values. Eurobarometer has, however, recently broadened its repertoire of questions somewhat. In a 2006 report it thus deals with what it calls “new
