Euro 1050 - a Cultural Diverse Europe

Culture has never been a easy concept to define. Historically, dominant culture has been synonymous with the rise and fall of empires, national sovereignty, lingual differences and religious disputes etc. While cultural diversity still exists on many different social planes, people are still fascinated by the idea that culture as we have known it, is dead, or at least dying. The histories of homogenous cultures in Europe and throughout the world is varied. As we look back to empires that ruled and dominated, we can note how their (imperial) culture spread through the occupied territories. When investigating the trend of European homogeneity we must look critically at how the dominant culture is either coexisting with, or oppressing the local culture.

Culture can be said to be specific to nations. In cultural geography a nation is a culture group often living under one sorverign state with other nations (culture groups) for economic necessity and political power (Knox, Marston, Nash, 190). Thus from an understanding of cultural geography we see that no European countries can consist of a monoculture. In respect to the subject at hand, culture can be seen as defining geography. The main aspect of European unity is the European Union. The E.U has transformed the way Europeans identify and relate to one another. Yet lest we forget the original function of the E.U was for economic co-operation not cultural assimilation. Food and music are integral forms of cultural identification and the features of music culture and food culture are not unchanging over time and space in Europe. And lastly globalisation effecting Europe in much the same way the rest of the world making this phenomenon seem as if is is European. Therefore the creation of a united Europe will not undermine cultural diversity.

For the most part in Europe, it is the diversity of linguist groups and cultural ridings that have created a divided Europe. Meaning that the countries that we associated Europe with today have come of being because of different aspects of culture that nations display and thus the ones that are most different separate, and ones that are more alike (sharing important cultural aspects) unite; created a sovereign nation state. This is the logic behind culture defining borders. Religion seems to be more than anything else a dividing factor in Europe. Italy is a good example of this. Prior to unification it was split into mini kingdoms and dukedoms. Italians themselves are rather diverse. People from the north are almost totally different than those from lets say Sicily. But larger aspects of their relative differential cultures brought them together to unify in the 1700's. Likewise can be seen as documented in central Europe with Germany, Belgium, and Austria-Hungry. There are several reasons for such unification movements; the three biggest can be identified as language, religion and race. Since all of Europe is of the same racial background, there is no need to discuss it. It is fair to comment thought that the factor of race (and religion) is barricading Turkey's bid for European membership. Thus counter-arrguning that Europe is becoming less diverse. Religion and language are conceivably the two bigger factors of union in Europe. In the case of Italian unification in the 1700's it was the sharing of a common language and religion that catalysed unity. King Louis XIV of France saw himself and was portrayed as the unifier of Europe, "...the sun king as the most powerful of the Christian princes and the greater defender of the republic christiana." (Wilson, 42). Europe was under siege from the expanding French empire. All these unification in Europe that we see during this period are due to a will to co-operate and read life as separate nations in the same script. Uniting their slight cultural differences so as to progress on the bigger cultural similarities. This kind of homogenous society can not be realised in a pan-european sense. For example countries such as Northern Ireland and Ireland have ensued in a long winding conflict based on differences in religion. They share a common history, language, general norms of society, these would be considered important aspects of culture yet they cannot accept a unified Ireland. The still firmly state that they are different and have no will to find common ground or compromise. Europe is evidently not a melting pot. Maybe European nations might practice this 'creation of a single citizen' the E.U is clearly for economic reasons only.

The economy is not part of culture. Some may argue it is, but many studies at how the economy in different cultures is created would differ. Many people including Europeans themselves mistake the unification of a united Europe with the unification of culture and borders. The flag miss leads them; 25 stars with a solid ocean blue background, the feeling of pan-europeanism. A creation of a new being "the European man/woman." In reality all this romanticising of a country called Europe is a foregone conclusion. The truth of the matter is the European Union was established for economic reasons only. Commerce and diplomacy drive the E.U and its decision making policy. Looking at the first meeting In Rome (1957), this was the meeting that initially established the European community. This meeting was highly successful, establishing a Customs union, common agricultural policy, competition policy, and development assistance policy. All these agreements have economics and business in common. (Dinan, 331). Dwelling on the earlier subject of linguistics the reason for this emergence of bilingual and trilingual Europeans is solely for the practical purposes of business transactions, trade opportunities and diplomacy. Documents in the E.U are scripted in all 25 official languages of the member states, diplomats are free to speak in any of the languages they choose during meetings. This has adversely encouraged schools to teach more languages and professional individuals to learn. The E.U cannot possibly be seen to have or on the path to having a homogenous culture when so many languages are spoken. The chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel is a good representation of what a lot of Europeans but Germans and French people commonly do to portray nationalism and therefore diversity. Chancellor Angela Merkel despite knowing and having studied English to great extents, prefers to engage into discourse in German. Regardless if she is in Washington for diplomatic talks or at Downing street with the British premier, she would rather talk her language and leave the rest to a translator. The Chancellors reason for this; if she speaks another language (especially English), she loses her sense and as the chancellor, Germany's sense of sovereignty

...