Master of Arts in Euroculture Thesis
Jagiellonian University (Home)
University of Groningen (Host)
September, 2011
Bringing theory into practice
European Identity within student mobility:
case study of France, Germany and Poland
Submitted by: Karla Marysol García Delgado
1060154 E-mail: mar_y_solk@yahoo.com.mx Phone number: +52 33 36211334 Supervised by: Supervisor of home university: Prof. Dr hab. Zdzisław Mach
Supervisor of host university: Dr Ralf Maslowski
Mexico, September 20th 2011
Page | 2 ABSTRACT
With the increasing phenomenon of student mobility, supported and made more feasible in Europe with the Bologna process, new expectations have been created. One of them follows a much discussed term in the sense of a higher awareness and attraction towards the so called European Identity. This topic plays an important role at the socio-cultural area of the European integration and has been a center of hard discussion both, at the political and theoretical level. It is at the theoretical level that statements including students, especially those who have had the opportunity to interact with other Europeans and realized of their commonalities are appointed to more likely identify with this identity. However, not much has been done to prove this statement. This paper tries to cover this important gap by offering an analysis and description of the level of identification with the European Identity within some students that have been abroad and some that have not. On the contrary of what has been said, this paper hypothesizes that students that have been abroad decrease their level of identification with the European identity and become more attached with their national identity. The sample was focused on three different countries, Poland, Germany and France. This with the intention of offering different perspectives and a broader picture of what the current situation is. Even if the results did not fully support the main hypothesis, important assumptions could be rescued.
Key words: European identity, student mobility, national identity, civic identity,
cultural identity
Page | 3 CONTENT Abstract 2 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 4 1.1 Introduction 4 1.2 Research question 5 1.3 Chapters overview 9
CHAPTER 2. CONTEXTUALIZATION OF THE CONCEPTS 11
1. Introduction to identity 11
2. Contextualizing European identity 14
3. Student mobility in the EU 20
4. European identity and student mobility 23
5. Summary and proposition 29
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 31 1. Data collection 31 2. Sample 33 3. Instrument 34 4. Method 39 5. Variables 41
CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 42
1. General analysis of European and national identity 42
2. Civic and cultural aspects of the identities 51
CHAPTER 5. ANALYZING THE HYPOTHESIS 59
1. Main hypothesis 59
2. Supplementary questions 60
CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER DISCUSSION 63
References 67
ANNEXES
Page | 4
CHAPTER 1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1INTRODUCTION
Meanwhile the European Union has become a wider union, many aspects have been considered as part of its main structure. In such case, the educational area has been led to establish, promote and reinforce what is called European Identity. Some of the efforts have been reinforced in different conferences carried in the area of Education. The Pisa conference of 1994 with the theme the diversity, identity and responsibility of universities in building Europe (Tabatoni, 1995) touched topics as the factor of a multicultural character of contemporary studies, the aim for all European citizens to learn at least two foreign languages and the study of relevant cultures.
The effort to orientate such a Union to a level of identification is not needlessly. Identity may seem for many of us a merely theoretical issue; however, as Mayo once stated, it is our nature to look for an identity (1974). We are created as a social animal and as such, the need of belonging to a group and territory is something that touches everyone of us. This is the point de déclenchement of this research on a topic that for long has been treated in the theory and few in the practice.
Although a great interest is stated on identity, it is not intended to go into the practice of such a broad concept. The specific topic chosen for this research deals with a young type of identity and to an extend amateur in its class, the European identity.
To this respect, Flingstein is the main source of inspiration to research on this topic, since he once stated:
If there is going to be a European national identity, it will arise from people who associate with each other across national boundaries and experience that association in a positive way” (Fligstein, 2009)
During the process of integration of the European Union, the objectives have stopped being merely political to become economical and socio-cultural (Karolewski & Kaina, 2006). With the implementation of European citizenship, common symbolism and a stronger cooperation between nation-states in social aspects, the European Union is no longer a simple agreement of powers. It is now a struggle to unify people with
Page | 5 certain commonalities, still not well defined, at a supra-national level. Regardless this effort, there is still a lot to do in the practical area.
Once two Polish people got mad when called Europeans. They argued that they do not identify themselves with other Europeans1 and that the European Identity is just a theoretical and political issue rather than a „reality‟. With the word „reality‟, they meant the everyday life of Europeans. This view definitely contrasts with all the discussion surrounding European integration and the search for a unity.
Another important part of the story is the fact that these two people are students and that they both have been abroad to other European countries. According to Flingstein (2009), young people, particularly students, have a higher tendency to consider themselves Europeans compared to other people (Lutz, Kritzinger, & Skirbekk, 2006). Therefore, the contradiction is even higher.
This is the motivation that dealt to the research question “to what extent the students that have been abroad and learned more about others are aware and identify themselves with so-called European Identity?”
1.2RESEARCH QUESTION
As commonly said, “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”, to have a better picture of whether what has been said is applied or not, one should experience it. However, my situation as non-European does not allow me to experience the European identity myself. Nor would it be possible for this research to evaluate this question on all the students of the European Union. Instead, this research focuses on students that have been abroad from three selected countries, Poland, Germany and France. A sample of n=566 was collected, the sample size was not significant to generalize to the population of the three countries mentioned. Therefore any reference to a nationality or country pertains solely to those participants who responded to the research tool in this thesis.
Still, the main hypothesis of this research states that:
Even if students have been abroad and realized of some commonalities with other Europeans, they rather reinforce their National identity than their European identity.
1 The meaning of this term in this case relates to the people living in the countries part of the European Union.
Page | 6 For a more detailed documentation on the topic, supplementary questions have been established and also analyzed in the results:
- How different is the national identity of students that have not been abroad compared to those that have been?
- Does being abroad help students to identify more commonalities with other Europeans and, thus, to increase their European identity?
- Are there significant differences between the students from Germany, Poland and France regarding their perception towards national and European identity? - If there is this differentiation, is it not longer significant when the students have
been abroad?
Delimitation and justification of the research
Since identity is an already highly discussed topic, the first difficulty faced by this research relies on what to take or leave aside as part of this concept. The same happens with the European identity. Regardless its novelty much has already been written and discussed about it. Therefore, its delimitation for this research will focus on the general characteristics of the European identity and the commonalities that identify students from different countries with the rest.
When it comes to defining Europe, another big discussion makes it difficult to simplify. However, for practical and strategic reasons, this research will be developed in three countries; France, Germany and Poland.
In the case of mobility, being it also a broad concept that takes into consideration not just students, but also staff members; I will narrow it by focusing only on students at the level of bachelor degree that will be part of a mobility program and those who have already been out of their countries for at least 3 months.
Within this topic, the Bologna Process (BP) plays an important role in defining the conditions of mobility of students within the European Union. However, it is neither intended to evaluate all the process nor to see how it has been implemented in all countries. Rather, what matters for the current research are its objectives that were formulated since its beginning and how these have changed through the time; as well as the influence that this process has had in promoting mobility among students.
Even if by now the community of students who have been abroad by means of ERASMUS, represents a community of more than 2 million students (Erasmus reaches
Page | 7 the 2 million students mark, 2009). This program currently represents 1.13%2 of the European students, which is significant compared to the percentage of students in mobility for that year (2.7) (Eurostat, n.d.). Yet, as the European Commission (2010b) has already announced in its website, the ERASMUS program expects to reach 3 million students in 2012.
Regardless the high number of students that go abroad by means of ERASMUS, selecting them would not repersent a significant sample of students in mobility. ERASMUS promotes regional mobility rather than global mobility (Teichler, 1996), which also represents a limitation in covering students who have been abroad to countries outside of Europe. This is a problem that the statistics gathered by national organizations are facing and that is affected at the European level (European Commisssion, 2010a). To avoid this issue, the research includes all students regardless of the program they selected and whether or not they involve themselves in any such type of organizations.
As taking into account all the students that are part of the EU would take a rather large and timely research, the present research is intended to cover a comparison of only three countries, which have been selected due to their relevance in representing different aspects of this union and the influence that they may have for this integration process. Nonetheless, from a first sight, it may seem a random selection of the biggest countries of the European Union; this was not an intended criteria selection tool. In fact, the main reason was that being Germany and France the main founders of what would then be the EU; as well as countries with historically recognized discrepancies (Friend, 1991), this could deal to a key differentiation on the results. On the other side, Poland being one of the newest members of the Union and with one of the countries that more recently acquired its identification as nation. Moreover, the profile of each country shows to be rather characteristic of three different cultural regions regarding their language history; Romanic, Germanic and Slavic. Even if language may not be an influential factor for defining identity, the history and culture are. Therefore, it is important to consider that the history of these three countries may highlight the factors that make them at a point different.
France in this research is definitely not meant to represent the whole population of the countries with Romanic languages, but a country with a highly mentioned stereotype
2 The last statistical database created by Eurostat shows a total of 19,470,362 students in tertiary education.
Page | 8 regarding its nationalism (Seidendorf, 2003). This stereotype considers French to be rather protectors of their nationality, which at this stage is important to identify if regardless this feeling, French society is also adopting a pro-European consciousness or even a European identity. Yet, we have the idea of nationalism being conceived as two different types, as Dieckhoff (2005) puts it. On the one side, he refers to the civic, contractual and elective nation, which results from the free association of citizens and as a rational and voluntary political construction. In this side, according to Dieckhoff, are the French. On the other side, are the bases for an identity feeling, in a cultural, organic and ascriptive way attached to the nation. This type of identity refers to the basis of the German nationalism. In other words, French nationalism is essentially seen political whereas German conception is considered cultural. In this sense, both nations represent a significant example of two different ways of perceiving the idea of national identity, which for this research is a bottom line.
At a more descriptive level, according to a statistical national report of the Eurobarometer (Commission Européenne, 2008), French population showed a rather positive opinion (46%) towards the European Union, compared to a negative opinion of 21%. This can be taken already as a good point towards European integration. However, the opinion regarding the institutions may not determine an acceptance of a European identity. This is why this research takes as an example this country.
Germany was taken as the representation of the Germanic languages, but it is also considered of utmost importance at other levels. Besides the fact of Germany being one of the largest countries in Europe, its influence on the EU politics has gained the attention on the different Medias. German representatives are also the highest number at the European institutions (Eurostat), which can be seen as an advantage for their voice to be heard and their opinion to be taken into account for the rest of the countries. It is thus, that analyzing the German‟s tendency towards a European identity is vital for this research.
In the case of Poland, it was chosen since as part of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and also part of the countries with Slavic languages, it may represent a different perspective in comparison with the other two countries. Its history plays also an essential role in choosing it, since it is one of the countries that after 50 years of the Soviet domination has gained its independence and sovereignty. As Góra and Mach (2010) put it, “sharing sovereignty with supranational institutions is for many people
Page | 9 from this part of Europe difficult to accept or comprehend”. It would be then expected that Polish students may have a less favorable attitude towards European identity.
1.3CHAPTERS OVERVIEW
Before entering into the main body of this research and to make easier the comprehension of it; a short description of what can be found in each of the articles is below presented.
In Chapter 2, the reader will be submerged into the concepts and discussion that has been going on surrounding identity, European identity and student mobility. Intended is to clarify which parts of these three main concepts are taken for this research and how they have appeared. Therefore, before dealing directly with European identity, the contextualization of what identity means and how it is constructed is briefly described in the first section of this chapter (2.1). Then, a second section (2.2) is in charge of contextualizing European identity from a perspective that analyses the topic, as well as its development and the relation of it with a national identity. The next section (2.3), the concept of student mobility comes into the stage to show how important and to what extent it has reached the level of the European integration. In the last section (2.4), the combination of the two last previous concepts (European identity and student mobility) is explained in the context of how one is influenced by the other according to different authors. This clearly intended as a standpoint for the realization of this research.
Chapter 3 deals with the methodology used in order to get a clearer picture of what the situation of the selected countries is regarding the concept of European identity. It starts with an explanation of how the data was collected, followed by the description of the sample obtained, the instrument method and the considered useful variables.
Then, in Chapter 4, the main outcomes that resulted from the implementation of such methodology are presented. First come the analyses of the general perception of both identities (national and European) accordingly to the different variables found in the survey. Then, the influence of the two main variables (mobility and nationality) is evaluated and presented in analytical and graphic modes. In the second part of this same chapter, the two aspects of identity (civic and cultural), already mentioned in the second
Page | 10 chapter are further analyzed and described. Characteristics of these two aspects are found within the survey and compared within the main variables.
After having obtained an extensive analysis of the results in Chapter 4, Chapter 5 deals directly with the main hypothesis, as well as the supplementary questions stated at the beginning of this research. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to refer to it when making any kind of inference about what was intended with this research.
Last but not least, Chapter 6, brings along the final conclusions obtained during the whole project. It also suggests some aspects of the research that can be further discussed or investigated.
Page | 11
CHAPTER 2.
CONTEXTUALIZATION OF THE CONCEPTS
In order to get involved into what is meant to be addressed in this research, the present chapter contains an explanation of the discourses that have been surrounding the main concepts, European identity and mobility. However, directly explaining these two concepts would leave aside significant information about the relevance and context in which these two concepts interact. Therefore, the chapter is split into five main sections. The first section introduces the term identity, its importance and how it is portrayed by some authors as referring two different aspects of people‟s belonging, the civic and cultural. Then comes European identity explained since its origins and the efforts that have made this concept to become a commonly discussed topic within theorists. Yet in this regard, European identity is defined with the basis of an identity that was created in the mind of the people before, national. Subsequently, these two identities are pictured at the level of transnational identities and to an extent explained how they seem to be related. The third section deals directly with student mobility, specifically in the context of the European integration. This with the aim of making clearer the focus that has been attached to this phenomenon and how it has been perceived. In the fourth section, sections two and three combine to clarify the justification of this research. It is also shown how relevant discussion surrounding these two terms‟ (European identity and student mobility) relation is. Being this relationship the cornerstone of this research, section four offers a rationalization of this study‟s relevance. Finally, in section five a summary of what is meant in this research and what to expect are further explained.
2.1INTRODUCTION TO IDENTITY
Man is a social animal who needs his own territory, and he needs to belong to a social group in which his identity is not lost. (Mayo, 1974).
From the words of Mayo, one could infer the importance that identity has in our everyday‟s life and the role that it plays even if for some it may not even be noticeable. Regardless identity being a need of every man, it has become a complex topic to be
Page | 12 defined and studied. This may be due to its rather psychological and social nature. Therefore, when we talk about identity, some may say that it is something merely theoretical and maybe not even existent. However, we have to be conscious that from theoretical discussions, practical issues may be affected.
In the case of this topic, a lot has been written. That is why, already in the nineties, Shotter (1993:188) wrote that “identity has become the watchword of the times”. However, the concept was used since before and in different senses. Thus, what could be taken as a starting point are the three basic theories that Jakobs and Maier (1998) classify. These theories are: the universalistic of Habermas, the sociological of Giddens and the social-psychology of Tajfel. In the first theory, Habermas conceives identity as dynamic, meaning that no form of identity is complete or very stable. He also sees as the result of people interacting with each other (cited in Góra & Mach, 2010: 15). In the second case, Giddens sees identity as a more or less integrated symbolic structure with time dimensions. In addition, the third theory puts interest above all in the so-called social aspects of identity originated from in different forms of association. Regardless the conception taken, there are always commonalities that can define identity. Hence, it is not possible to separate the social identity from the individual or psychological identity.3 There is only one identity, which is individual, but this identity can be co-determined by the forms of association of the individual in question. A quote from Balibar (cited in Jakobs and Maier, 1998: 4) can clarify this aspect in a useful way:
“…it is not a question of setting a collective identity against individual identities. All identity is individual, but there is no individual identity that is not historical or, in other words, constructed within a field of social values, norms of behavior and collective symbols. The real question is how the dominant reference points of individual identity change over time and with the changing institutional environment”.
Indeed, in any proper sense the concept of identity can only be used with respect to individuals. However, individuals do not live on their own, they associate in groups and communities and this association will have consequences for their identities.
In summary, one can say that identity is constructed by different aspects of a human‟s social life and his/her interaction with the others. Yet, this interaction can be at different levels, like one‟s own family, social group, city, country, region or any other
3 Not being a priority of this research to go deeper on the topic of how people socialize within an Identity, I will not go further. Nonetheless, recommended discussion about the concept of “identity” can be found in Brubaker and Cooper (2000).
Page | 13 place/group that makes you feel attached. In this regard, as said before, relevant is for this research to discover the level of attachment to a certain national and European identity. For this purpose, further information would be given in the next section.
Still, as mentioned in the introduction, it is worth to clarify a common classification of identity that may generate some confusion if we refer to any of the identities (nation and European). This classification corresponds to what is called the civic and cultural identity. On the one side, civic identity refers more to the side of being citizen and identifying to a kind of citizenship that corresponds to certain place. In a project that Jamieson (2005) carried, he mentioned this identity to be divided into two types of citizenship, the civic and the ethnic. First, the ethnic citizenship is attached to one‟s rights after being born into a specific place and society. The second type (civic citizenship) fits the most with what Dieckhoff (2005) recognizes as civic identity, since it is the voluntary, rational and results from the participation in the life of the society. As an example, Dieckhoff spots the French at the national level and at a supra-national level, it is recognized by different authors (Habermas and Delanty cited by Jamieson 2005: 34) that the civic citizenship is a potential basis for European identity, due to a kind of European „constitutional patriotism‟ implied in it. Likewise, Kantner also advocates for the case of the EU a type of „collective identity‟ demanding not a collective memory or shared culture but a common framework for citizenship and „civic affiliation‟ (Kantner, 2006). These statements may have their foundation on two significant elements: the so called Eurosymbolism (a flag, anthem, format of passport, etc.), that appeared in the late eighties as part of a large-scale European public relations campaign; and the introduction of the European citizenship with the signing of the Treaty of Maastricht (Waever, Buzan, Kelstrup, & Lemaitre, 1993).
On the other hand, the cultural identity refers more to a certain feeling of attachments towards specific cultural values, customs, traditions, etc. In this case, Dieckhoff exemplifies the Germans as being part of this group. However, one could say that the identification of each person may be different regardless the country they are in. At the supra-national level of the EU, even if, as mentioned before, the cultural aspect is not meant to be cover by a European identity, much has been done in this regard too. Different programs emphasizing European identity from a cultural perspective have appeared on the Medias to touch its society. Therefore, it cannot be left aside.
Page | 14 2.2CONTEXTUALIZING EUROPEAN IDENTITY
The principles to unify the nations of Europe have changed across time. As Weaver stated, from beginning with merely political intentions, the European Union (EU) widened its scope to economical and socio-cultural issues (Waever, Buzan, Kelstrup, & Lemaitre, 1993). This change leaded to an increasing interest in the social integration and in a creation of a common identity. Concerns about defining an identity that differentiated Europeans from other cultures and countries started to play an important role at both, the institutional level and the theoretical area of the EU. Discussion about which characteristics to take as the so-called European Identity and whether needed/possible, rose between numerous philosophers, historians, sociologists and political scientists (Karolewski & Kaina, 2006).
Europe and the European Union
In order to define a European identity, the first significant problem comes when defining what Europe is. The concept of Europe is an issue with not a single answer. The main factors that influence its difficulties in definition are the ideology of its foundation and the question of which countries to include and which not.
In the one hand, Morin (1987) deals with the issues of defining a founding principle of Europe, which he found not to be original. He proves his thesis by suggesting that even if the Greek and Roman origins situate in the periphery, they form what can be called Europe. This also applies for the principle of Christianity, which comes from Asia. Therefore, from its foundation and ideology, Europe is a very vague notion with uncertain frontiers as Jacobs and Maier (1998) conclusively stated. As a consequence, the theme of unity in diversity has become an old leitmotif of European philosophical thinking (Trenz, 2008). It reflects the belief in the value of the individual before the general but also the insights of the embedding of the individual within the general. Europe has always been the “plural continent“, in which the perception of diversity and pluralism was sharpened. At the same time, Europe stands in a long tradition to take up the challenge of overcoming its internal differences and of conceiving societal and political order in terms of unity in diversity (Olsen, 2007).
On the other hand, the issue of defining which territory to include makes it also difficult. Europe in its current situation may be identified as the countries that form the European Union. However, this has never been a fix concept; the creation of such
Page | 15 institution has been changing since its origins. From a community of six member states at its beginning (1952), it has become an institution of 27 countries with its last enlargement in 2007. Yet, this number of countries does not include all countries regarded as part of the European continent and it is still pending to see if the candidate countries will be annexed (European Parliament, 2009 and Communication department of the European Commission, 2011).
In the political sphere, the European Union represents a double challenge to be a hierarchically organized and culturally homogeneous space with regard to the traditional thinking of a society. First, the European integration unfolds, in contrast to traditional ways of organization, a new form of governance; it has been consolidated as a non-state entity. Its main leaders are independent regulatory bodies and agencies and its governance does not rely on one central authority but on a variety of state and non-state actors, administrators and experts at the regional, national and supranational level of political aggregation (Marks, Scharpf, Schmitter, & Streeck, 1996; Kohler-Koch & Jachtenfuchs, 2004). Second, in the words of Trenz (2008) “the European Union is set out to accommodate enhanced social and cultural diversity within an open and still largely undefined societal space”. Yet, the integration of the EU aims to guarantee the social cohesion and stability of the continent. With this aim, its integration influences directly and indirectly to the solidarity of its citizens, while it represents a limitation for the integration of a national society.
With these two major challenges, the integration of the EU still depends on social issues, such as the identification and favorable interest of its people towards the supranational entity that it denotes.
Another alternative to define Europe in its territorial composition may be the so-called Bologna Process (BP), a process of integration that has its origins in 1999 with the declaration signed in Bologna, Italy (Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education, 1999). This process forms a fundamental part of this research to understand and valorize the effects that education has on the creation/reinforcement of a general European identity.
To support this statement, Steier (2006) leaves clear that at a cultural level, what will pivot the European integration is the awareness of a common identity.
The BP was established with the aim of implementing a wider or more universal educational system in order for students to be able to mobilize freely across Europe (Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education, 1999). This process has also
Page | 16 changed since its integration in number of participants, but it has been more inclusive. So far, there are 47 members that are included in this agreement. Moreover, an important characteristic of the BP, and what has been considered as a key to its success, is that it also involves the European Commission, the Council of Europe, the UNESCO-European Center for Higher Education and representatives of higher education institutions, students, staff, employers and quality assurance agencies (Bologna Process 2007-2010, n.d.).
National Identity
Before going to the idea of European identity, it is important to mention how the process of creating an identity in Europe has been. In order to do so, the factor of nation-states could not be ignored.
Despite the fact that nationalism in Europe has been a rather new topic in the last century, it has created a whole ideology with a history behind it; this intended to support the belonging to a certain Nation-State. Anderson (1983) describes the feature of Nation-States as “imagined communities”, in which a sense of commonalities within others from the same nation makes us think as a collective “we”, but without knowing who the “we” is. The 'we' is rather symbolic in this setting due to historical characteristics learnt in certain communities that lead individuals within such communities into a common future, whilst differentiating them from other communities. The distinctions between one community and other lead to the question of frontiers. Balibar and Wallerstein (1991) clearly refer to those frontiers as saying that “the external frontiers have to be imagined constantly as a projection and protection of an internal collective personality, which each of us carries within ourselves and enables us to inhabit the space of the state as a place where we have always been – and always will be- „at home‟”.
As Stivachtis (2008) puts it:
Nationalism is indeed culturally, and politically, constructed, but what really matters is how, from what, by whom, and for what it is constructed. At this historical juncture, the explosion of nationalisms, some of them deconstructing multinational states, others constructing pluri-national entities, is not associated with the formation of classical, sovereign, modern states. Rather, nationalism appears to be a major force behind the constitution of quasi-states; that is, political entities of shared sovereignty, either in stepped-up federalism (as in the Canadian case) or in the “nation of nationalities,” (the Spanish case) or in international multilateralism (as in the case of the European Union). (p. 9)
Page | 17 This leads us to the consideration of three important groups of attachment for people in Europe: their nationality, their region, and Europe. This classification has become useful in the methodology applied in this research. Thus, some of the questions refer to the belongingness and attachment to a nation, region, and Europe.
In order to support what the main hypothesis of this research states about a stronger national identity compared to the European one, the words of Keith Cameron (1999), in his book National identity, give to an extent a reason of why this may happen. She concludes with an important reason for the European identity not to be supported by the EU citizens: “As the European Union becomes more unified through its legislation and interstatal trade and movement, there is a centrifugal movement in a number of Member States as individuals begin to feel threatened and to think that they are losing their national identity”. Even if this statement stays at a general level of the population, it becomes important to understand the current phenomenon that may be obstructing the creation/identification with a European identity.
Evidencing a no very favorable point of view for the national identity, Delgado-Moreira (1997) is conscientious that according to the historical background of European identity, it becomes easy to regard nationalism or any form of racism as a neo-Nazism. This may be at a point, a plus for the creation of European identity that intends not to continue with these neo-Nazi ideas.
European identity
After having contextualized what has lead to the so-called European Identity, it is now turn to go deeper into what is it and how can it be measured.
European identity is clearly a difficult topic to establish a meaning. The starting point is the three basic theories already mentioned in section 2.1 about Identity: the universalistic of Habermas, the sociological of Giddens and the social-psychology of Tajfel.
Regardless the conception taken, there are always commonalities that can define identity. Identity is not only the fact of belonging to a certain group and sharing commonalities, it is also “a cultural frame that tells us who we are and how we ought to act” (Fligstein, 2009, p.138). That is why the importance of dealing with identity becomes stronger. If the attachment of students to a European Identity were stronger, then their behavior would be lead by what a European is. To clarify what a European is
Page | 18 and how s/he ought to behave becomes a hard question to answer4. Nonetheless, what is important to highlight is that the sense of being European exists, since some people claim themselves to be European.5
Moreover, Jenkins (2002) sees the issue of social communities as imagined, but nor as something no real, being the differences and similarities the touchstones that position us with respect to other people. Here, the concept of identity relates to the identification of an individual within one or more groups according to what s/he perceives to be similar to him/her. This identification makes possible categorization as imposed by factors that may or may not be powerful. There is moreover, a hierarchy in categories, from those, one that may certainly be important for people nowadays is the identification with a State or a certain region that may influence other identification factors.
The creation of a European Identity has become a crucial policy goal in the European Community political agenda. Beyond the existing icons of Europeanization, there is a circulating idea regarding the need of consciousness of European Identity, an issue systematically sponsored by the Administration6 of the European Union. In the early seventies, the development of a supra-national identity reached a top place of the European Community (EC) political agenda as the future of European integration. The factor of a common European consciousness was seen as inevitable in order to successfully transform the EC into a genuine supra-national political union. In the eighties, this idea lost its importance, favoring the prospect of a single European economic field and single market. Nonetheless, the idea of a strong European Identity continued, and in the late eighties, this translated in a large-scale European public relations campaign and the introduction of a wide variety of Eurosymbolism (a flag, anthem, format of passport, etc.). A next important step with the signing of the Treaty of Maastricht was the introduction of the so-called European citizenship, a new kind of supra-national legal status; followed by the introduction of the common currency (Waever, Buzan, Kelstrup, & Lemaitre, 1993).
4 Regarding the feeling of European, more information appears in the works of Bruter (2003)
5 For more information about what it means to be European, refer to Fligstein (2009) and Bruter (2003). 6
The European Union Administration, in the broadest sense, includes the activity of the Commission, Council, Intergovernmental Conferences, and Reflection Groups.
Page | 19 Relationship within European identity and national identity
When dealing with national identity and European identity, it may seem that they are two different concepts. However, it is worth to recognize the discussion that different theorists and researchers have brought to support/contradict this idea.
On the one side, from the political and institutional view of Herrmann, Risse and Brewer (2004), it is easier to understand how the idea of a European identity has been forged by the creation of the European Union. The concept applied for this kind of identity is called transnational, since it goes beyond what is meant by a national identity. Nonetheless, Herrmann et al.‟s contribution goes in the direction of searching how the institutions, such the EU, shape members‟ identity and if this is accepted. In their point of view, they see national and European identities as nested, which means that one is subsumed into the other. Thus, their existence can overlap and is not necessarily exclusive. However, within this regard, Bellier (1997:147) also found that these two identities are separatist and according to him; national identity still keeps a bigger importance within the people in the European Union. This shows that even at the institutional level, where the European identity would be expected to start, is not reflected.
Then, for Checkel (2001:187), nationality is clearly different from citizenship, which is attached to nationhood and national identity. However, at the level of Europeanization, the distinction within citizenship and nationality (in this case Europeanization) is not clear, since the EU only gives the European citizenship to individuals who are nationals of EU member states. Moreover, the nationality is still defined by member-state nationality laws. Therefore, the case of European identity may still appear to the people as a question of citizenship, rather than free attachment to some commonalities shared. On the other hand, at a rather anthropological level, in the Yearbook of European Studies (2000), the authors point out that there are at least eight distinct senses of the term Europanization that may be seen in Literature, being the reconstruction of identities the seventh one. When describing Europeanization as the reconstruction of identities, Harmsen and Wilson (2000:155) mention that is the broadest usage of the term, but that ironically it is also seldom found beyond the field of anthropology. They refer as it being the reshaping of identities in contemporary Europe that relativizes national identities, without necessarily supplanting them. Within this context, it is important to highlight the work of Borneman and Fowler (1997: 487) who have seen Europanization „as a strategy of self-representation and a device of power‟, which at the
Page | 20 time is „fundamentally reorganizing territoriality and peoplehood, the two principles of group identification that have shaped the modern European order‟. Yet, Habermas suggests that „It is neither possible nor desirable to level out the national identities
of member nations, nor melt them down into a “Nation of Europe”‟ (quoted in Fossum 2001: 2). Thus, the idea of nested identities that Hermann et al. suggested would not be an answer.
Summarizing, even if theoretically the European identity seen as transnational would represent the inclusion of its member national identities, in the practice it is still far from being a reality. Therefore, what remains to be discovered is to which extent is the people already involved into the attachment to this European identity and if this attachment overlaps with their national identity.
2.3STUDENT MOBILITY IN THE EU
As Nordenbo (1995) once expressed, the European integration process in the last 20 years, can not only show that “the incentives to co-operation within education have grown considerably from the mid-1980s but also that primary and secondary education has been affected by the harmonizing process more than ever before”. He could be seen as a supporter of education as something else than a transferring of knowledge. In his essay on what is implied by a ‘European curriculum’?, he also supports education as a creator of a critical attitude and a commitment with it. However, he does not only refer to a critical attitude towards what is thought, but towards one‟s own culture. The commitment should also focus on “a discussion of the value of rational European culture and the implications of the values of rationality in itself”. In this sense, education is an important societal contributor in wide sense within Europe.
According to the European Commission, “higher education (HE) plays an essential role in society, creating new knowledge, transferring it to students and fostering innovation” (European Commission, 2010c). This idea has contributed to the creation, implementation and reforms on different programs that the Member States and the main stakeholders in HE have welcomed. In the same line, student mobility has become an important issue for the European Union in developing the European dimension of HE. Recently, with the Lisbon Strategy, three important reforms have been done the main fields of HE: curricular, governance and funding. Mobility appears within the curricular
Page | 21 field, where the reform is intended to standardize the three cycle system, the competence based learning and recognition (European Commission, 2005). In this act that within the Vocational Education and Training (VET), mobility is a major player too. A central part of the reforms refers to the development of common European frameworks and tools to enhance the transparency, recognition and quality of competences and qualifications, making the mobility of learners and workers easier. Mobility is also seen for the European Commission as a strengthening of “Europe's competitiveness, building its knowledge-intensive economy and deepening the sense of European identity and citizenship”, which are also part of the specific objectives in VET (European Commission, 2010c)
From the words of Baumgratz-Gangl (1996), mobility can be seen as both, “a means to produce certain intellectual and attitudinal effects on individuals” and as “a means of inducing institutional change”. The second definition is perceived from a political standpoint, especially from the EU. These statements clarify better the reasons why mobility has became so important for the EU and other institutions.
As a follow up, Papatsiba (2004) mentions four rationales that underlay student mobility in a research that she carried out in the Rhone-Alps French Region within the EU context. Regarding her research, student mobility appears like:
– A means to promote the European labor market. Within this conception, student mobility would have positive impact in future professional mobility. It would predispose the individuals to cross the borders during their professional career more easily;
– A means to support the transfer of skills and technology of one country to the other, through individuals having acquired new qualifications, in order to contribute to the development and the improvement of the local technological performances;
–A means to reach international understanding and to create a European consciousness;
–An educational means allowing acquiring international competencies such as language mastery and intercultural competence as well as cross-cutting personal competencies (autonomy, initiative, resilience, and so on). (p.4)
These rationales can be also shown as the main reasons why student mobility is important at the European level. Farther, a more practical example can describe also this importance, the Bologna Process.
Page | 22 The beginnings of the Bologna Process (BP) date back in 1998 when the ministers of four countries (the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Italy), called for the harmonization of degree structures. This was the initiative that triggered the BP launched in the signing of the Bologna Declaration by 29 countries one year later (Marginson & van der Wende, 2007). Relevant is to mention that Germany and France were also founders of this new process, as they did once for the European Union.
Since the sign of the BP, intended to create a European Higher Education Area (EHEA), greater focus has been set on the area of mobility. This is stated as the first objective of the EHEA. As the official website of the BP (2010) anounces:
The envisaged European Higher Education Area will:
Facilitate mobility of students, graduates and higher education staff;
Prepare students for their future careers and for life as active citizens in democratic societies, and support their personal development;
Offer broad access to high-quality higher education, based on democratic principles and academic freedom.
Furthermore, in 2002, the goal of increasing student mobility remained important at the political level in the same context of the BP. The Prague Communiqué announced “ministers reaffirmed that efforts to promote mobility must be continued to enable students, teachers, researchers and administrative staff to benefit from the richness of the European Higher Education Area including its democratic values, diversity of cultures and languages and the diversity of the higher education systems” (Prague communiqué, 2002).
Indeed, from the point of view of higher education institutions but also of ministries of Education, employers and students it was shown that “the promotion of mobility is clearly the most concrete, easily interpreted and uncontroversial aim of the Bologna Process” (Reichert & Tauch, 2003).
As stated in the Bologna Process‟ website:
More than two million young people have already used EU programmes to study or train in another European country. As a result, the EU schemes for educational exchanges and trans-border partnerships like Erasmus and Leonardo are bywords among students and other learners. (European Commission: Directorate-General for Communication, 2009, pg. 3)
Student mobility is already a common topic within students and the programs that offer this opportunity have increased their fame from the beginning of the BP.
Page | 23 Regardless this success, student mobility is not a new phenomenon (Teichler, 1996). Experts say that it has existed since the 20th century. In the medieval universities, students with talent, wealth and the willingness to adventure studied abroad for part or the whole of their courses. This has continued and expanded throughout the world. Europe, for example, in the efforts of bringing Europe together by means of the socio-cultural aspect, a broad scheme of cooperation programs in different European states originated on the levels of education, research, and the arts. Within the area of education, it is important to outline the programs as ERASMUS (European Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students), Socrates, and Leonardo, just to mention a few7; because they deal with a key part of the society. These programs facilitated the movement and exchange of students within different European countries. It should then be clarified that although mobility and exchange are different terms, they are used indistinctly to refer to students studying abroad8. As is mentioned on the European Students‟ Union website, “Student mobility refers to a study period taken mainly abroad and returning home afterwards” (European Students Union). The word exchange is used “because originally the goal was an exchange of students between different countries” (European Commission, 2009). However, nowadays, no trade-off is required in order for a student to go to another country.
2.4 EUROPEAN IDENTITY AND STUDENT MOBILITY
Since already forty years ago, the notion of education being a tool for increasing a European integration appeared in the mind of some authors like Inglehart (1970). In one of his research, he stated that: “If one of the key consequences of cognitive mobilization is an increasing ability to relate to remote roles and situations, then the expansion of higher education may have important implications for European integration”. Although Inglehart‟s main focus stays at the political level of the European integration, it can be considered as an important contributor to further actions taken by the European Community and its institutions.
In 1988, the European Community (EC, now the EU) launched a directive which required that a European dimension be realized in the schools of the member states (The Council and the Ministers of Education Meeting with the Council, 1988). Although this
7 For further information about the programs for going abroad see: Burn, Cerych and Smith (1990) 8
This is the case of the information obtained from the websites of organizations such Erasmus mundus (2011) and ESN.
Page | 24 European dimension focuses mainly on the design of a more consensual curriculum, great emphasis is placed to the promotion and reinforcement of the so-called European identity and not a national one as an aim of education. This aim leaves the doubt as to what extent this European identity can be created by education and whether it has had an impact on students.
It is in the last treaty, where the European Commission shows its support for education as a contributor of the European identity. As stated in one of the acts from the Lisbon Strategy, "The search for knowledge has always been at the heart of the European
adventure. It has helped to define our identity and our values, and it is the driving force behind our future competitiveness” (European Commission, 2005). The potential of
education is not only seen as a mean of acquiring and transferring knowledge, but also as a societal contributor in defining such identity.
In fact, since 1988, the development of the „European dimension‟15
in education, in order to reinforce the European identity / citizenship, to increase awareness of common socio-political issues, to enhance knowledge of the historical and cultural aspects of Europe, had become an EU leitmotiv. The educational communities particularly welcomed this approach. A few years later, the White Paper on the „Learning Society‟, affirmed that “education and training will increasingly become the main vehicle for self-awareness, belonging, advancement and self-fulfilment (European Commission, 1995). Education was considered to have the broadly conceived political mission of socialisation of youth. Indeed the EC asserted that: “education lays the foundations of awareness and of European citizenship” (p. 10)
The main defender and contributor to this idea is Flingstein. He states that “not everyone in Europe is likely to adopt a European identity…those who have this opportunity tend to be the most privileged strata of society: managers, professionals, white-collar workers, educated people and young people” (Fligstein, 2009). This statement represents an exclusive way of dealing with a topic that touches every human being, identity.
The question is then, if the European identity is just for some, are those privileged actually adopting it? To analyze all the groups that Flingstein mentions as the privileged ones would require a study longer than a thesis; it is therefore that I have focused on students. Students are part of the young and educated population, thus they become a double-privileged part of the society.
Page | 25 Flingstein goes even further by touching the point of interaction with other Europeans as a mean of acquiring a bigger attachment and acknowledge of the European identity. In his work he states:
If there is going to be a European national identity, it will arise from people who associate with each other across national boundaries and experience that association in a positive way…it is the people involved in this routine interactions who are most likely to come to see themselves as Europeans and involved in a European national project. They will…see that their counterparts in other countries are more like them than unlike them, and to relate to their counterparts as part of an overarching group in Europe, “Europeans”. (p.136) In the website of the European Commission, it is also stated that: Many studies show that a period spent abroad not only enriches students' lives in the academic and professional fields, but can also improve language learning, intercultural skills, self-reliance and self-awareness. Their experiences give students a better sense of what it means to be a European citizen. In addition, many employers highly value such a period abroad, which increases the students' employability and job prospects. (European Commission, 2010b)
Still, in Loveland‟s interview with Jan Figel (2008), the European commissioner for education, training, culture and youth supports what the Flingstein‟s idea states. He mentions that: “By boosting mobility, we continue to forge a new generation of Europeans ready to cope with the new global challenges, with a strong sense of European identity, openness and cooperation”. For him it is clear that the European identity will be stronger within students that have participated in mobility and makes it obvious when repeating the idea in his standpoints. This however, cannot be taken as a fact yet. Regardless the number of articles that have been written about European identity and all the extended discussion around it; research referring to student mobility and its influence on this issue is limited and very recent. Authors such as King and Ruiz-Gelices (2003), Sigalas (2009), Papatsiba (2004) and Mol (2009) have shown their findings on this issue from different perspectives.
King and Ruiz-Gelices (2003) clearly states that it is not clear to obtain an European identity from student mobility, even if his study just focusses on British students going to European countries. That is stated when he mentions:
It is certainly not straighforward to determine the extent to which students‟ social and academic experiences whilst abroad might have contributed to changes in their feelings of attachment to their host and home countries, even more so to their adoption of some kind of „European identity‟ or
Page | 26 „consciousness‟. ..the YA9
is largely regarded as an opportunity for personal development and to explore another country‟s culture and learn its language; and these are subsequently seen as the most valued aspects of the YA experience. Exactly how YA students acquire any enchanced sense of „feeling more European‟ is not entirely clear, although social interation with host-country (and other international) students probably plays a key role. (p.240)
However, in some of the statistical results that he presents, it is clear to an extend that students do increase their sense of belonging to a European cultural space. This increasement seems higher on students that stay abroad.
Yet, in one of the conclusions they mention that “YA graduates are more likely to see their identities as at least partly European. However, these findings are only indicative, and gloss over a number of complexities and alternative outcomes relating to socialisation patterns before and during the YA, and the possibility of dual or multiple identities”. With this last remark, they leave space for further research on the topic and an undefined position of whether mobility does influence or not European identity. Therefore, with this research, it is meant to cover a bit more of this empty space on the analysis of such topic.
Whereas King and Ruiz-Gelices stay in the general idea of European identity, Papatsiba (2004) deals with other effects of mobility. Papatsiba‟s major findings go on two sides: the general impact on students‟ identity and on European identity from the political perspective. On the one side of his research, Papatsiba found that “for some students the effects of the cultural immersion remained benign and superficial, but for others they were deeper, redefining their personal and social identity” (p.11). This shows that mobility does not necessarily has an impact on students‟ identity. On the other side, his research from the political perspective of European identity centered ist attention on European citizenship. He argues that due to the low presence of the political approach of mobility in various discourses of the institutional actors and not many actions taken to facilitate students increase their awareness of their civic participation; students reflected their experiences more in the personal area. In conclusion, Papatsiba stays that
9 YA refers to Year Abroad
Page | 27 “…student mobility like a means for international comprehension and as an act enabling young Europeans to internalise a feeling of belonging rather than the economic interest or other utilitarian arguments, represents a fragile objective” (p.16). From this statement, what is important to highlight is that his analysis shows that what the European Commission mentions in different articles as important regarding mobility, is not being done. This is also part of what is meant to be shown by this research, but from a different methodology, instead of analysing students discourses, this research will evaluate students answers to specific questions meant to meassure European identity at a general, political and cultural level.
Another important author contributing to this area of research is Mol (2009). He, besides of showing the impact that European student mobility has on European identity, looks to identify the impact on further migration. The great aportation that he does to this topic states that even if student mobility does have an influence on the formation of the European identity, it is just a catalyser, since the European identity already exists in the students even before being abroad. His research may look very similar to what is intended in the present. However it does not compare the effects that student mobility has on European and national identity, an importan pillar for this research.
The only author that seems to have more similar objectives to the ones in this research is Emmanuel Sigalas (Sigalas, 2009). Still, important differences can be found. On the one hand, Sigalas limits his research on students that have been abroad by means of an ERASMUS program and excludes students that took other programs or did an exchange by their own means. Still, the results of his research showed that the ERASMUS experience helps university students improve their foreign language skills and their knowledge of other European countries, but produces mixed results with regard to a European identity. Sigalas argues:
Against popular expectations, I find no evidence that the ERASMUS experience leads students to adopt a European self-identity. On the contrary, what is clear is that ERASMUS students are more likely to see themselves as primarily European, that is, European only or first European and then nationals of their country, than non-mobile students, but not because of the study abroad experience itself. (Sigalas, 2009)
From Sigalas‟ research, it is half-supported, half-denied what is intended to explore on this article. First, it supports the idea that mobility of students does not conduct to an adoption of a European Identity. Then, it denies the idea that national
Page | 28 identity stands stronger on students that have been abroad, which opposes what has been stated by our hypothesis.
Last, but not least, what students have to say is also part of what is aimed by this research. As an introduction of how some of them conceptualize the experience of being abroad, some comments used on the European Commission‟s website (European Commission, 2010b) to promote exchanges, were taken:
- "I realised that the experience made a whole new person of me and that I would never look at the world and Europe, my home, as I did before."
- "ERASMUS life for me is about opportunities. Every opportunity I had, I took it and I thank ERASMUS for it."
- "It is true – when you're in ERASMUS, you find out a lot about yourself." - "ERASMUS is a lot more than a studying experience. For me it is a way to look
at the world with new eyes, to feel and discover new emotions and learn what is not written in the textbooks."
- "If I look at my experience from a distance, I can say that I would definitely do it again, and that apart from (or maybe because of) minor problems along the way, this semester has made me a stronger and more enthusiastic person!"
It can merely be seen that what is promoted from the experience is a rather individualistic growth and knowledge. The only comment that has a tendency towards European identity is the first. Here the student states that the exchange has changed the way he/she perceives Europe and the world, which at a point could be seen as an influence on identity. However, no assumptions can be taken from this statement.
Then, by looking back to the intentions that the European Commission once stated regarding HE at the European level, it is taken for granted that mobility contributes to the transmission and development of the European identity (Commission des Communautés européennes, 1991). The statement goes as follows:
It is a fortunate event that the actions intended to support the training of the graduates for mobility and for a successful career within the single market, also contribute to the process of cultural transmission and development of the European identity (Commission des Communautés européennes, 1991).
From this last statement, one can notice how important mobility is for the creation and transmission of European identity, which according to the main hypothesis of this research is meant to be contradicted.
Page | 29 2.5SUMMARY AND PROPOSITION
Starting with exhibiting how important it is to acquire or feel attached to an identity, it has made clear that identity is not only a theoretical issue, but something that has an impact on everyone‟s life. It was also shown that this topic has not only one definition and/or classification, which makes it difficult to synthesize the whole concept. Therefore, a selection of what better fits to the purpose of this research was obliged. By going a bit deeper into how identity can be identified on individuals, two main aspects were relevant for this research, cultural and civic. Even if the use of these two aspects at this point has only been descriptive, it becomes more analytical and clearer when doing the analysis in chapter 4. Yet, as stated at the beginning, identity per se is not the main objective of this research, but it served to introduce the concept of European identity and to make easier the evaluation of its components.
Then, the topic of European identity is also complex to define. Nonetheless, by making comparisons within different theories, one can have a deeper idea of what is intended by this research. That is why a general contextualization of how this idea emerged and has been conceptualized was also needed on this chapter. Moreover, when dealing with European identity, the concept of transnational identities becomes apparent by going further than a national identity. At this point, specific ideas on how this identity is meant to be acquired deals with the main hypothesis of this research. Hence, other theorists were consulted and a core idea became clear. The conclusion that can become apparent is that this European identity is only meant to be obtained by those who have access to a higher level of information and can share with others their perspectives and life. This statement refers to a high extend to those students that can go abroad and share part of their life with other Europeans.
Taking different researches dealing with the effects that student mobility has on European identity as reference, a mixture of significant contributions were found. However, even if they approached to the focus intended by this study, none of them have gotten to the point of seeing how the impact of student mobility is at both identities (national and European). This is what primarily inspired the development of this research.
In the following four chapters, it is expected to provide the reader with information regarding the most relevant variables (i.e. nationality, age and gender, and mobility status) that influence European and national identity; the analysis of these results and how they were found. Moreover, a deeper analysis regarding the two main parts of
