What do you think?
Rate this book
Building Europe
The development of the European Union has been one of the most profound advances in European politics and society this century. Yet the institutions of Europe and the 'Eurocrats' who work in them have constantly attracted negative publicity, culminating in the mass resignation of the European Commissioners in March 1999.
In this revealing study, Cris Shore scrutinises the process of European integration using the techniques of anthropology, and drawing on thought from across the social sciences. Using the findings of numerous interviews with EU employees, he reveals that there is not just a subculture of corruption within the institutions of Europe, but that their problems are largely a result of the way the EU itself is constituted and run. He argues that European integration has largely failed in bringing about anything but an ever-closer integration of the technical, political and financial elites of Europe - at the expense of its ordinary citizens.
This critical anthropology of European integration is essential reading for anyone with an interest in the culture and politics of the EU.
In this revealing study, Cris Shore scrutinises the process of European integration using the techniques of anthropology, and drawing on thought from across the social sciences. Using the findings of numerous interviews with EU employees, he reveals that there is not just a subculture of corruption within the institutions of Europe, but that their problems are largely a result of the way the EU itself is constituted and run. He argues that European integration has largely failed in bringing about anything but an ever-closer integration of the technical, political and financial elites of Europe - at the expense of its ordinary citizens.
This critical anthropology of European integration is essential reading for anyone with an interest in the culture and politics of the EU.
- GenresAnthropologyCultural
270 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
1 person is currently reading
24 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
September 23, 2018
Cris Shore undertakes an anthropological study of European beaurocrats, in an attempt to gleam insight into the culture in which they operate and into the culture which they wish to pass on to the European people.
He argues that the EU's leaders' aim has always been to build a European culture and identity to supersede the nation state. The subtle nature of the task has led to the creation of a culture of secrecy, which runs the risk of alienating the people of Europe and causing a backlash.
My biggest problem with Shore's study is that he assumes that EU leaders understand the system and playing it. I wonder whether there is a lot more 'muddling along' that occurs as beaurocrats try to steer a system quite unlike any we have seen before. The emergence of a European culture is happening, but slowly, and in a way very different from the new Soviet man whom Shore consistently brings up.
Quotes:
1.
“The politicization of culture in the EU arises from the attempt by European elites to solve the EU's chronic problem of legitimacy... culture is the fundamental bedrock upon which political legitimacy is established. What is often termed the EU's ‘democratic deficit’ is symptomatic of a deeper ‘cultural deficit’; a deficit vividly reflected in the absence of a European public.” (3)
2.
“Unlike most nation-states, what the EU conspicuously lacks is a common culture around which Europeans can unite. There is no popular ‘European consciousness' to rival that of the nation-state or lend support to those economic or legal foundations. Moreover, those cultural elements which give unity and coherence to existing national identities tend to divide rather than unite fellow Europeans.” (18)
3.
“The abortive attempts by the USSR to forge a new kind of ‘Soviet Man’ through state propaganda and a strong unitary structure are testimony to the fragility of trying to mould a ‘demos' out of different nationalities through the prior establishment of state-like institutions. The pioneers of the European Community undoubtedly knew this, but for various reasons the instrumentalist neofunctionalist approach that dominated policies towards furthering European integration for much of the post-war period ignored this important lesson.” (20)
4.
“Like the vision of the classless society at the ‘end of history' that once inspired intellectuals to uncritical adulation of Soviet communism, the EU's supranational idealism, it’s evolutionary conception of itself and it’s sense of European integration as an unfinished project of social and political engineering, all combine to obstruct critical and intellectually honest thinking about its institutional shortcomings.” (207)
5.
“As Anderson (1992) argues, the processes of dissolution set in motion but the collapse of the multi-ethnic, multinational, and multilingual empires of the Middle Ages has still not run its course: the emerging ‘New World Disorder' will thus be one shaped increasingly by the break-up of old policies into smaller nation-states. If this interpretation of history is correct, then the European Union- like the former USSR- represents but a temporary ‘blip' in an otherwise continuous process of dissolution and fragmentation in the age of late nationalism. If that is the case, then talk of Europe's ‘federal destiny' is not only a dangerous myth, it is also profoundly anti-historical.” (232)
He argues that the EU's leaders' aim has always been to build a European culture and identity to supersede the nation state. The subtle nature of the task has led to the creation of a culture of secrecy, which runs the risk of alienating the people of Europe and causing a backlash.
My biggest problem with Shore's study is that he assumes that EU leaders understand the system and playing it. I wonder whether there is a lot more 'muddling along' that occurs as beaurocrats try to steer a system quite unlike any we have seen before. The emergence of a European culture is happening, but slowly, and in a way very different from the new Soviet man whom Shore consistently brings up.
Quotes:
1.
“The politicization of culture in the EU arises from the attempt by European elites to solve the EU's chronic problem of legitimacy... culture is the fundamental bedrock upon which political legitimacy is established. What is often termed the EU's ‘democratic deficit’ is symptomatic of a deeper ‘cultural deficit’; a deficit vividly reflected in the absence of a European public.” (3)
2.
“Unlike most nation-states, what the EU conspicuously lacks is a common culture around which Europeans can unite. There is no popular ‘European consciousness' to rival that of the nation-state or lend support to those economic or legal foundations. Moreover, those cultural elements which give unity and coherence to existing national identities tend to divide rather than unite fellow Europeans.” (18)
3.
“The abortive attempts by the USSR to forge a new kind of ‘Soviet Man’ through state propaganda and a strong unitary structure are testimony to the fragility of trying to mould a ‘demos' out of different nationalities through the prior establishment of state-like institutions. The pioneers of the European Community undoubtedly knew this, but for various reasons the instrumentalist neofunctionalist approach that dominated policies towards furthering European integration for much of the post-war period ignored this important lesson.” (20)
4.
“Like the vision of the classless society at the ‘end of history' that once inspired intellectuals to uncritical adulation of Soviet communism, the EU's supranational idealism, it’s evolutionary conception of itself and it’s sense of European integration as an unfinished project of social and political engineering, all combine to obstruct critical and intellectually honest thinking about its institutional shortcomings.” (207)
5.
“As Anderson (1992) argues, the processes of dissolution set in motion but the collapse of the multi-ethnic, multinational, and multilingual empires of the Middle Ages has still not run its course: the emerging ‘New World Disorder' will thus be one shaped increasingly by the break-up of old policies into smaller nation-states. If this interpretation of history is correct, then the European Union- like the former USSR- represents but a temporary ‘blip' in an otherwise continuous process of dissolution and fragmentation in the age of late nationalism. If that is the case, then talk of Europe's ‘federal destiny' is not only a dangerous myth, it is also profoundly anti-historical.” (232)
Displaying 1 of 1 review