Diversity within the EU

https://doi.org/10.63189/XGKS8739

The European Union has a very attractive motto, which is “united in diversity”. This motto was first used in 2000. According to the EU, it signifies that Europeans have come together, in the form of the EU, to work for peace and prosperity, while being enriched by the continent’s many different cultures, traditions and languages at the same time.^[1]

The European Union, as it has become an identity-forming institution in its own right over time^[2], could initially be seen as an entity that poses a threat to cultural diversity because it is potentially able to melt those diverse cultures in a new one. However, the motto has instead foreshadowed a different way forward, one in which diversity as well as its acceptance and recognition has emerged as some sort of humanitarian achievement.

This motto consists of two parts: unity and diversity. What are the considerations behind this? If we are talking about cultural differences, to which diversity, the second element, refers, at least partially, and which constitute one of the most important contemporary challenges, why and in what way is unity important?

In general, unity is not about uniformity. It is about finding a common ground and shared values despite our differences. However, this is only the surface, a political slogan from the EU. What lies beneath the surface is one of the primary objectives of the existence of the state as an entity that is the ensuring of social peace.^[3]

This is the most important public issue. There is unity if we can create tranquillity and security. The state must therefore not seek solutions that would pull apart society and plunge it into chaos. If anything can create unity, it is if the realisation of this goal is ensured – whether at state or pan-European level. However, it will not work without intervention, action, complex ideas and programmes, or cooperation between actors.

How does cultural diversity relate to all this?

The EU is indisputably culturally diverse in terms of its peoples. This term is nowadays used to refer to diversity due to immigrant communities, but it has also a broader concept. At the narrowest level, European diversity is based on the dominant cultures of the Member States, the indigenous groups of Europe (like the Sami, the Inuit, maybe the Basques, then for possible future, there are the Crimean Tatars – but there is not even a consensus here in Europe as to which groups are indigenous and which are national minorities)^[4], and we come to our next group: the national and ethnic minorities, and then the different groups of immigrants.

The basis for diversity can come from any cultural characteristic. The difficulty is first of all related to the fact that these groups all have different needs. The aim of unity should be to balance these needs.

National minorities have been present in Europe for centuries, mostly perceiving themselves as a kind of distinct society and wanting to establish some form of self-government or autonomy for themselves. In contrast, immigrant communities wish to be integrated into society as equal members of society, and their demands are not specifically aimed at acquiring self-government, but rather at creating a legal environment and institutions that will eliminate their economic and political disadvantages, and ultimately help society to become more accommodating towards them. In the case of indigenous peoples around the world, we can see that they are often seen by states as groups without the necessary political development to be perceived as a nation, unable to govern themselves and in need of paternalistic protection, or even as an unfortunate ethnic group or racial minority to be integrated into society.^[5] At the same time, their demands may focus on historical justice or the restitution of land ownership, as the survival of the indigenous peoples’ distinctive culture (often called pre-modern lifestyles) is closely linked to land and resources, which in fact requires a completely different perspective. In their case, for example, they have to be protected from various influences such as modernisation, westernisation, urbanisation, secularisation, etc.^[6] The dominant cultures are obviously concerned to maintain this dominance culturally, politically and in terms of resources.^[7] And frictions can arise in any relationship.

What is our response to all this? Mostly some sort of non-discrimination politics allowing groups to be recognised and exercise their rights. Nevertheless, what this often fails to achieve is to create balance and prevent social unrest. What risks are there in these frictions? It is also group-dependent.

Indigenous peoples, for example, are smaller in number and geographically isolated, and therefore pose much less of a threat to the state from the state’s perspective, which is why their needs have not been addressed for so long. For national minorities, there are well-developed support systems across Europe, or at least we see some good examples of it, but their need for self-government and autonomy and the state’s need for sovereignty can be in sharp conflict.^[8] Maybe not in reality, only at the level of assumptions, out of mistrust, but this is enough to say that this is kind of like a landmine in this region of the EU – but not just here.

For immigrants, however, the diversity has a much wider range. Some of the cultural differences is not relevant for the state and indeed for other groups in society, as long as it remains within the boundaries of private life. The state takes note of the diversity of immigrant groups when the different cultural groups become active in maintaining their culture. In other words, when the question of belonging to a particular culture is politicised, which activates the community whose culture is perceived to have been ignored. When a community acts to defend its culture against those who ignore it, it can become a factor that triggers the need for a state response.^[9]

The resulting conflict situations ultimately threaten social peace, which was one of the most powerful reasons for the creation of the state. In addition, the question is whether it is not too late for the state to take regulatory action, to intervene, or whether it has any chance at all in a situation where it has to create a balance not only between the majority and minority, but also between different type minority groups, or not. At the same time, it is important to avoid, as far as possible, a situation in which national minorities are dissolved in the process of recognising immigrant groups and their needs, with the state losing control over this whole process.

This balance requires the creation of solidarity between communities and through this, loyalty to society and through it to the state, a cohesive society and thus social peace can be ensured. These groups form a nation together. If they are not bound together by a certain level of solidarity, it can lead to the disintegration of society. Solidarity, loyalty, accommodation and, therefore, social peace is the goal to be achieved. However, this achievement is possible when we are really united in diversity.

It is up to each of us to decide for ourselves whether our own state is capable of mastering these processes, whether it even recognises them and whether it has at least a rudimentary integration policy that attempts to address these issues.

What if they do not? If there is tension, if there is a lack of loyalty, if there is a threat of social unrest? Then, we can talk about heterogeneity instead of diversity.^[10] Then, instead of coexisting cultures and nations, we have opposing cultural entities, each with its own nationally, ethnically or religiously defined systems, it effectively acts against the state and is a serious source of tension.

What can the state do? First, it recognises the need to intervene. For example, when the emphasis is not on the common cultural elements between culturally different groups, and thus on a sense of common belonging, but rather on cultural differences, it divides rather than unites. The range of tools is diverse. Migration policy is obviously one of them, and if it is not controlled by the state, it can only run after the outcome. However, migration policy has a major impact on the future.

In the present, for example, educational integration is a huge challenge. Every culture is basically made up of six main elements: values, norms, beliefs, symbols, technologies and language. If the state is to accommodate the needs of culturally diverse groups, it must take these elements into account and adapt its education system.^[11] It is when the question of who should be at the centre of regulation can be answered, distinguished on the basis of different needs.

The group of people who have been living in the country for centuries and the group of immigrants who do not speak the same language and/or who have significant cultural differences cannot be grouped together. Different needs arise along ethnic and linguistic, religious or sexual lines. In some cases, these aspects may even be mixed.

The vector of regulation may also be completely different: reversing the assimilation process in the case of ethnic minorities or promoting integration in the case of immigrant groups. It is not only about being sensitive to different races, cultures, social groups and cultural values, but also about a paradigm shift that involves accepting different ways of thinking as values, and simply taking pluralism, and diversity of human thought and culture for granted.

There is also the question of the level at which the solutions can be implemented. There must be room for local specificities and variations.

However, theoretically, federalism could also be a solution at the same time. At the very least, it is considered to be an ideal arrangement for nationalities striving for the widest possible autonomy, as it can be described as a constitutional instrument that balances the principles of unity and diversity: federalism can work well when territorial differences are combined with ethnic or cultural differences, as federalism allows for internal self-determination of constituent units.^[12] However, for it to work effectively, it is necessary to build a basic trust and consensus between the parties. This is the way to avoid, for example in the case of national minorities, that minority demands are perceived by the majority as an attempt to secede and majority demands as an attempt to assimilate.

In the European Union, however, such a solution would require a complete rethink of the division of powers and competencies. The issues that arise – how to deal with education, language rights, what is our response to autonomy demands, what is the scope for more multicultural units and what for those that are less culturally diverse – cannot be dealt with by increasing centralisation, interpreting principles or through the law development activities of the CJEU, but must be discussed, objectives jointly set and decisions taken by Member States and EU institutions. If there is no consensus, no clarification of competences, no clear margin of manoeuvre, no due consideration of local specificities, this could lead to disintegration.

In addition to identifying the core values that must be protected, the management of specific frictions requires a state of accommodation and balance that counteracts heterogenisation. This is the result of a kind of reasoned reflection, in which the limits of accommodation are defined. However, it must also be seen that reasonableness itself is a culturally influenced concept, and it is by no means certain that it is a practical solution to define at a central, supranational level to which differences a society must adapt in any case.

Finally, what if the society of a given state is not culturally diverse to a degree that would require significant state intervention? What if individual culturally diverse groups do not have the strength to claim recognition? In such cases, a significant degree of centralisation can lead to an outcome that is completely alien to the society of the country concerned. Just because the demand for recognition has led to results in some parts of Europe does not mean that in other parts of Europe, it is necessary to intervene, for example, in natural assimilation processes. And let us not forget that a period of crisis never pushes forward the willingness to accommodate those who are different. On the contrary! And we have been in a period of successive crises for about 15 years. There was the economic crisis, then the refugee crisis starting in 2015, the global pandemic, and now war. What happens if a future crisis destroys our efforts? Can we prepare to avoid it? Or do we not even try and just let all the flowers bloom, and what will be will be?

^[1] EU motto. https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/symbols/eu-motto_en.

^[2] Bergbauer, S. (2018) Explaining European Identity Formation, Springer: Netherlands. pp. 6-7.

^[3] Berkes, L. (2020) A kanadai multikulturalizmus mint sajátos társadalomszervezési politika és módszer. Létrejötte, alanyi köre, működése és hiányosságai. Doktori értekezés. Budapest, pp. 56., 61. DOI: 10.15774/PPKE.JAK.2020.003

^[4] See Grote, R. (2006/2007) ‘On the Fringes of Europe: Europe’s Largely Forgotten Indigenous Peoples.’ American Indian Law Review,Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 425- 443.; see also: Who are Europe’s indigenous peoples and what are their struggles? | Euronews answers. https://www.euronews.com/2019/08/09/who-are-europe-s-indigenous-peoples-and-what-are-their-struggles-euronews-answers.

^[5] Kymlicka, W. (1995) Multicultural Citizenship. A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Clarendon Press Oxford, pp. 10-11., 22.

^[6] Kymlicka, W. (1999) ‘Theorizing indigenous rights.’ The University of Toronto Law Journal Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 286-287., 288-289.

^[7] Baldwin, E., Longhurst, B., Smith, G., McCracken, S., Ogborn, M. (2006) Introducing Cultural Studies. Peking University Press, 2006 p. 17.

^[8] Biczó, G. (2004) Asszimilációkutatás – elmélet és gyakorlat. MTA Politikai Tudományok Intézete Etnoregionális Kutatóközpont Budapest, pp. 19. 84; Falk. R. (2002) ‘An Emergent Matrix of Citizenship: Complex, Uneven and Fluid.’ in Dower, N. & Williams, J. (eds) Global Citizenship. A Critical Introduction. Routledge New York, 2002 pp. 17, 23.

^[9] Cohen, A. P. (1993) ‘Culture as Identity: An Anthropologist’s View.’ New Literary History Vol. 24, No. 1, p. 199.

^[10] Schlink, B. (1997) ‘Szekularizáció és multikulturalizmus között.’ Fundamentum 1997/2. p. 33

^[11] Torgyik, J., Karlovitz., J. T. (2006) Multikulturális nevelés. Bölcsész Konzorcium, Budapest, pp. 11- 13.

^[12] Adler, J. (2002) General Principles of Constitutional and Administrative Law. Fourth Edition. PALGRAVE MACMILLAN p. 147.

References

Adler, J. (2002) General Principles of Constitutional and Administrative Law. Fourth Edition. PALGRAVE MACMILLAN.

Baldwin, E., Longhurst, B., Smith, G., McCracken, S., Ogborn, M. (2006) Introducing Cultural Studies. Peking University Press, 2006.

Bergbauer, S. (2018) Explaining European Identity Formation, Springer: Netherlands.

Berkes, L. (2020) A kanadai multikulturalizmus mint sajátos társadalomszervezési politika és módszer. Létrejötte, alanyi köre, működése és hiányosságai. Doktori értekezés. Budapest, DOI: 10.15774/PPKE.JAK.2020.003.

Biczó, G. (2004) Asszimilációkutatás – elmélet és gyakorlat. MTA Politikai Tudományok Intézete Etnoregionális Kutatóközpont Budapest.

Cohen, A. P. (1993) ‘Culture as Identity: An Anthropologist’s View.’ New Literary History Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 195-209.

EU motto. https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/symbols/eu-motto_en.

Falk. R. (2002) ‘An Emergent Matrix of Citizenship: Complex, Uneven and Fluid.’ in Dower, N. & Williams, J. (eds) Global Citizenship. A Critical Introduction. Routledge New York, 2002 pp. 15-29.

Grote, R. (2006/2007) ‘On the Fringes of Europe: Europe’s Largely Forgotten Indigenous Peoples.’ American Indian Law Review,Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 425-443.

Kymlicka, W. (1995) Multicultural Citizenship. A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Clarendon Press Oxford.

Kymlicka, W. (1999) ‘Theorizing indigenous rights.’ The University of Toronto Law Journal Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 281-293.

Schlink, B. (1997) ‘Szekularizáció és multikulturalizmus között.’ Fundamentum 1997/2. pp. 30-34.

Torgyik, J., Karlovitz., J. T. (2006) Multikulturális nevelés. Bölcsész Konzorcium, Budapest.

Who are Europe’s indigenous peoples and what are their struggles? | Euronews answers; https://www.euronews.com/2019/08/09/who-are-europe-s-indigenous-peoples-and-what-are-their-struggles-euronews-answers.