Jei nebūtų Europos, ar ji neišvengiamai būtų išrasta? Kada ir kaip kilo Europos idėja? Ar gali europinis tapatumas tapti kolektyviniu, gebančiu mesti iššūkį neatsiejamoms nacionalizmo jėgoms netapdamas nei vartotojiška, nei oficialia anoniminių institucijų kultūra? Į šiuos ir kitus aktualius klausimus šioje studijoje mėgina atsakyti garsus kultūros istorikas.
Delanty admits in his preface that his book is meant more for political scientists than it is for historians but I found his over exaggerations and lack of historical nuance hard to read. Sentences such as "The idea of civilization did not survive into the Twentieth Century" (109) are blatantly wrong.
In terms of argument, Delanty posits that 'Europe' as an idea was constructed through an othering of non-Europeans, such as Jews or Russians. Whilst this is convincing, it is also little that is new to us, even in the 1990s when the piece was written, and hasn't been new to us since Said. Delanty argues that Europe must now throw off nationalist individualism and embrace the cosmopolitan. A nice idea, but easier said than done.
Ne tiek analizė, kiek ideologinis pamfletas. Viskas apie Europos idėją yra blogai - europiečiai rasistai, šovinistai, nacionalistai, Europos idėja pavojinga, bloga, nes reiškia europiečių dominavimą prieš viską, prieš ką galima dominuoti. Kapitalizmas, nacionalinės valstybės, revoliucijos, Europos Sąjunga - viskas blogis, nes nėra socializmas. Sovietai užimdami Europos dalį iki Berlyno ne puolė, o gynėsi. Blėniai.
This man sees Europe like a formation. And it's constantly invents itself. his words are kinda heavy. So i think i read like a part of it. But i liked it.
This book is a brief summary of what happened to the idea of Europe during the ages. In this sense it is a very good one, moreover because it consideres the idea of Europe from a global point of view and it attempts to deconstructed the idea of unity that the bureaucracy of the EU is attempting to impose. But I do not appreciate the considerations on the "Mitteleuropa" concept, based on some simplifications and mistakes: it tends to considerate the germanic power similar to the austrian one (that were not), it doesn't understand that Slovenia was under the Habsburg Empire for 600 years and not only 100 as Croatia (so was not for the split of the Hungarian and Austrian power that Slovenia tends to considerate itself more westernized) and it's not true that Northern Italy is embracing the nostalgia of "Mitteleuropa", just three cities as Bolzano, Trieste and Gorizia that were under Austrian Empire for 500 years...and Lega Nord has nothing to do with it, on the contrary it is considered an enemy for every mitteleuropean. So...some considerations are wrong maybe because he doesn't know the context.
Įdomus skaitinys. Knygoje radau labai aušto abstrakcijos lygio Europos idėjos apžvalgą. Labai įdomūs buvo istoriniai momentai. Tekstas parodė įdomią perspektyvą bei atvėrė naujus horizontus galvojant apie pamatinius klausimus, kas po velniais yra ta Europa ir kas įtakoja jos sprendimus bei problemas. Tikėtina, kad atėjus laikui šią knygą atsiversiu dar kartą.
Vienas dalykas, kuris man kelia nerimą, yra tai, kad knygoje istoriniai momentai pateikiami deklaratyviai ir gana vienareikšmiškai. Todėl tikėtina, jog fakto klaidų ir pernelyg grubių supaprastinimų nebuvo išvengta.
Delanty goes through the history of Europe, building on an European identity based on the legacy of Christianity and the construction of "the Other" as a common enemy. You may think that he abuses a bit of making everything fit into his thesis, but it's undeniable that the book provides a great account of European history through the lenses of what Europe has meant for European society since the age of the ancient empires. I definetely enjoyed the reading.