BURDA М.А., HOREVA Е.Е., LARKINA М.А., BELYAEVA V.P. National-State Identity in Modern Europe in the Context of Migration and Political Processes
DOI 10.35775/PSI.2019.33.3.013
М.А. BURDA Candidate of Sciences (politicalsciences), Associate Professor, Chair of Political Science and Political Management, “School of Political Studies ”faculty, Institute of Social Sciences, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Moscow, Russia
Е.Е. HOREVA Migration Research Team Specialist at the Moscow regional representation of the Council of young political scientists of the Russian Association of Political Science, RANEPA under the President of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia
М.А. LARKINA Candidate of Political Sciences, Russian State Social University, Moscow, Russia
V.P. BELYAEVA Deputy Director for educational work, State budgetary general education institutions of the city of Moscow "School no. 97," Moscow, Russia
NATIONAL-STATE IDENTITY IN MODERN EUROPE IN THE CONTEXT OF MIGRATION AND POLITICAL PROCESSES
The article analyzes the features of the transformation of national-state identity in Western Europe under the influence of the migration crisis. In this regard, the study examined some theoretical approaches to the issues of national-state identity that allow to identify the features of its modern transformation. The authors focus on the relationship between migration and political processes in Europe, the symbiosis of which becomes a factor in the rejection of migrants by European society and the growing popularity of political forces with conservative and partly right-populist rhetoric. Thus, the observed renaissance of “national loyalty” becomes the main factor in the transformation of national-state identity.
Key words: national-state identity, migration, migration policy, migration processes, political parties, national loyalty, nation.
Migration of the population is a complex social process that affects almost all aspects of the economic, social and cultural life of the peoples. The country's population structure is formed under the influence of natural movement and under the influence of migration processes. The history of Europe is accompanied by incoming and outgoing migration movements, such as the Great Migration of Peoples, the period of the Great Geographical Discoveries, the American rush, migration after the First and Second World Wars. However, a wave of migrants in 2015 showed that Europe is not ready for mass migration, this leads to devastating consequences, in particular, to a crisis of national-state identity.
In connection with the changing conditions of public life, the need arose to revise the theoretical and practical aspects of the problem of the relationship between external and internal factors in the formation of national-state identity. The analysis of theoretical literature and modern theory and practice indicate the presence of contradictions that require scientific and practical resolution:
– between the interests of civil society and the lack of effective regulation of migration processes by the state;
– between the EU political elite and the inefficiency of migration regulated by European authorities and organizational structures.
Past is the time when intercultural communications took place only at the level of political and financial elites. We are witnessing the creation of a new world space, a global society, changes in which are taking place faster than any scientific breakthrough of the previous generations. This leads to the fact that the macro-social relations among people go beyond the boundaries of national-state communities and become transnational in nature. The speed of these processes causes, according to E. Toffler, the “shock of the future” [14], a specific state characterized by frustration caused by the fact that an individual loses his adaptive ability in front of the rapidly changing reality. Therefore, in the era of globalization, the issue of national-state identity is especially acute.
In order to consider the national-state identity, it is necessary to determine the definition of the term “nation”.
It should be emphasized that the works of Russian authors published in recent years highlight a wide range of issues in this subject area [1; 4. Pp. 50-72; 5; 8. Pp. 69-81; 9; 10; 6].
A nation is a socio-political community of people united by the language, culture, territory in which they live, as well as the presence of their own political, legal and economic system. Such community of people should have such quality as civic consciousness, institutionalized in the form of the state.
The word nation comes from the Latin word “natio,” the original form of which is the verb “nascor” which means “to be born.” The term “nation” has been gaining political significance since the beginning of the sixteenth century, before that it was used in respect of the ethnic communities. However, after the French Revolution, the definition of this term has undergone changes and was filled with political content. Thus, “nation” began to be understood as a political community, although the ethnic component remained one of the key elements. The emergence of such a phenomenon as the state nation is not just a synthesis of the state and the nation, but a special kind of civil nation, a product of the New Age [16].
The phenomenon of a nation is closely related to another socio-historical phenomenon of “ethnos”. The encyclopedic dictionary defines “ethnos” (the “people” in Greek) as a historically established stable community of people.
The significance of ethnicity as a political factor depends on how institutionalized ethnicity is, which, in turn, is determined by many agents (state structures, social movements, etc.), takes various forms and has various consequences. At the moment, there is no scientific consensus on how to determine the phenomenon of ethnicity, however, according to V. Tishkov, there are some features of communities on the basis of which we can conclude that they have ethnicity. These features include:
• the concept of common origin and territory shared by all members of the group, existence of common spiritual, material and linguistic cultures;
• a set of ideas about the homeland and various political institutions, including the institution of the state;
• awareness by members of a group of their belonging to this group, based on various forms of solidarity and joint activity [13].
The concept of identity is widely used today in political science, philosophy, sociology, psychology and other sciences. However, in the broadest sense, this phenomenon is used to describe the awareness of an individual of his belonging of object (subject) to another object (subject), as a part to a whole, as special and universal. Another important distinguishing feature is self-identity.
R. Brubaker states that the term “identity” has five meanings.
1. Identity as the basis of socio-political development. By this we mean an opposition of personal (individual) identity to the universal social interest.
2. Identity as the most important similarity between different representatives of one group. This similarity can be seen in collective actions and general self-awareness.
3. Identity as a collective “I” indicating certain significant imperatives.
4. Identity as a reflection of the type and specifics of the collective solidarity, group cohesion, forming the basis of collective actions.
5. Identity as a result of an interaction of various discourses [2].
It should be noted that a number of scientific approaches to the understanding of national (state-national) identity are inextricably linked with the existing theories of understanding the ethnicity.
The phenomenon of state-national identity is considered in the context of three main approaches: primordialism, instrumentalism and constructivism [15].
Proponents of the primordialism regard the nation as the highest stage in the development of an ethnos, that is, a nation expanded by a kindred group, its occured at the time of formation of the bourgeois relations and liquidation of feudal fragmentation, formation of the ethnic territory and unification of people speaking the same language with a common culture and traditions. From the point of view of this concept, state-national identity is a constant identity that a person has from the moment of his birth.
Proponents of primordialism set out national-state identity objectively, therefore this phenomenon is eternal and unchanging. National-state identity is predetermined by the birth of parents of the individual. In this way, nationality is inherited in the same way as the skin color, form of the eyes, shape of the nose, etc. In other words, the primordial approach explains ethnicity as a characteristic given at birth and underling the group consciousness and behavior.
In their turn, proponents of instrumentalism regard national-state identity as an act of conscious effort on the part of the man, emphasizing its procedural nature and discursive nature, in most cases this phenomenon is a means of grouping and political mobilization of the community to achieve specific goals.
The national-state identity has a symbolic character, determined by the symbols constructed and manipulated by national elites, as a result of which it has a volatile disposition.
According to S. Huntington, national identity is an identity in which the political component is the main one. The content of national identity (national-state) is manifested by the presence of certain characteristics. National-state identity revolves around not the requirements not of material wealth or resources, but of recognition of the dignity of one’s ethnicity, religion, nation, or even personal unique characteristics. In this light, both nationalism and Islamism, that is, politicized Islam, can be considered as various manifestations of identity [7].
At the end of the XX – beginning of the XXI centuries, rapid changes are occurring, mainly related to the growing and highly controversial processes of globalization, that exacerbate the problem of national-state identity in many respects.
A direct consequence of globalization is migration flows: different living standards between north and south are an important factor in migration from poor states, areas of armed conflict and political instability for a more comfortable and prosperous life. This process cannot be stopped by repressive measures, but it is necessary to influence it through proper regulation of migration flows, which will prevent problems both in the exporting countries of the labor force and in the host countries, including the transit states through which the migration flows [12].
The European migration crisis, which has already been dubbed the “resettlement of peoples,” causes a lot of discussion. Some believe that Muslims in Europe are a political experiment in the field of cultural hybridization, while others believe that it is a “plague of the 21st century” that will swallow Europe.
The migration crisis and the demand for sovereignty from the European Union migration policy have determined a significant increase in the electoral popularity of such parties as the Freedom Party (Austria), Fides (Hungary), an Alternative for Germany (Germany), the North League (Italy), the Freedom Party (Netherlands), National Front (France), Party of Freedom and Direct Democracy (Czech Republic), Swedish Democrats (Sweden) and other.
National politics in the European countries has become populist in response to the migration crisis and economic difficulties for the ordinary citizens in Europe. Germany, which was the EU undisputed leader, has been facing serious social problems since 2015, when Angela Merkel decided to open the country's borders to what ultimately amounted to more than a million migrants. Many European states have been exposed to a wave of populism, sometimes mixed with “rightist” ideological elements.
The growth of populism also reflects the antipathy of Europe towards the mass immigration and the concern of ordinary Europeans for the preservation of the common European values [3].
A substantial part of the European society with conservative views critically perceives carriers of a different culture and ethnicity, arriving in the wave of mass migration, who, in their opinion, have an effect on the erosion of the state and national identity of European peoples.
In this regard, leader of the Netherlands Freedom Party Gert Wilders put forward the thesis that Europeans will soon have the prospect of the “genocide of traditional cultural values” [17].
One of the leaders of the Visegrád group, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, said: “There are currently two camps in the European Parliament: one led by Macron, who leads the forces supporting immigration. On the other hand, we seek to stop illegal immigration” [11].
The statements made by European politicians shows that the social and political costs of the current external migration cast doubt on the efficient use of the labor force of immigrants. At the same time, some European states oppose this process, while others, reporting on the seriousness of the consequences of immigration, can no longer abandon this practice, as this will lead to the lower living standards.
The migration crisis is the personification of the failure of the EU migration policy, as well as the policy of multiculturalism cultivated in Europe.
All this allows us to conclude that the anti-migrant rhetoric of political parties and individual politicians, supported by a substantial part of European society is not only the result of dissatisfaction with the consolidated migration policy of the European Union, unable to ensure Europe’s security and traditional way of life and also ineffective in face of the challenges mass illegal migration poses. The negative attitude to the open door migration policy was largely due to the renaissance of “national loyalty,” which became possible in the European society due to the crisis of national-state identity as a result of the rejection by the society of the grotesque forms of tolerance.
REFERENCES:
1. Astvatsaturova M.A., Vorontsov S.A., Zorin V.Yu., Ponedelkov A.V. Doktrinal'nyye printsipy i empiricheskiye resursy sovremennoy etnopolitiki v Rossiyskoy Federatsii (regional'nyy aspekt) [Doctrinal principles and empirical resources of modern ethnopolitics in the Russian Federation (regional aspect)] // Issues of National and Federative Relations. 2018. V. 8. No. 3 (In Russ.).
2. Brubaker R. Etnichnost' bez grupp [Ethnicity without groups]. M.: Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics, 2012 (In Russ.).
3. Burda M.A. Migratsionnyye protsessy v Yevrope i fenomen rosta vliyaniya pravykh politicheskikh partiy [Migration processes in Europe and the phenomenon of growing influence of right-wing political parties] // PolitBook. 2017. No. 4 (In Russ.).
4. Dolzhikova A.V., Moseykina M.N. Sravnitel'nyye issledovaniya upravleniya migratsionnymi protsessami: opyt Rossii i zarubezhnykh stran // V sbornike: Yevropa i Rossiya v usloviyakh mnogofaktornogo krizisa: voprosy ekonomiki, geopolitiki, migratsii, regional'nogo razvitiya. Sbornik materialov VI Mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii [Comparative studies of the management of migration processes: the experience of Russia and foreign countries // In the collection: Europe and Russia in a multi-factor crisis: issues of economics, geopolitics, migration, regional development. The collection of materials of the VI International scientific and practical conference]. M., 2017 (In Russ.).
5. Drobizheva L.M. Rossiyskaya grazhdanskaya identichnost' v nauchno-politicheskikh diskussiyakh i obshchestvennom mnenii [Russian civic identity in scientific and political discussions and public opinion] // Issues of National and Federative Relations. 2018. V. 8. No. 4 (In Russ.).
6. Frolov I.D. Migratsionnyy krizis v YES kak faktor usileniya vliyaniya Rossii v yevropeyskom regione [Migration crisis in the EU as a factor in enhancing the influence of Russia in the European region] // Issues of National and Federative Relations. 2018. V. 8. No. 4 (In Russ.).
7. Huntington S. Kto my? Vyzovy natsional'noy amerikanskoy identichnosti [Who are we? Challenges of national American identity]. M.: AST, 2004 (In Russ.).
8. Medvedev N.P. Etnos, natsiya i politika: yeshche raz o sushchnosti [Ethnicity, nation and politics: once again about the essence of concepts] // Political Science Issues. 2011. No. 3 (3) (In Russ.).
9. Mikhailov V.A. Strategiya gosudarstvennoy natsional'noy politiki Rossiyskoy Federatsii: voprosy teorii i prakticheskikh deystviy [Strategy of the state national policy of the Russian Federation: questions of theory and practical actions] // Issues of National and Federative Relations. 2013. No. 2 (In Russ.).
10. Pain E.A. Voprosy realizatsii Strategii gosudarstvennoy natsional'noy politiki RF v sisteme gosudarstvennogo upravleniya [Issues of implementation of the strategy of the state national policy of the Russian Federation in the system of public administration] // Issues of National and Federative Relations. 2013. No. 2 (In Russ.).
11. Pelosi G. Europa, l’asse Salvini-Orbán si salda contro migranti e Macron // https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/notizie/2018-08-28/europa-l-asse-salvini-orban-si-salda-contro-migranti-e-macron-203224.shtml?uuid=AEA05UgF&refresh_ce=1.
12. Telagisova D.Sh. Perspektivy mezhgosudarstvennykh protsessov v usloviyakh YEVRAZES [Prospects for interstate processes in the conditions of the Eurasian Economic Community] // Regional development. 2014. No. 1 (In Russ.).
13. Tishkov V.A. Etnologiya i politika [Ethnology and politics]. M.: Nauka, 2001 (In Russ.).
14. Toffler E. Shok budushchego [Shock of the future]. M.: Publishing house AST, 2002 (In Russ.).
15. Tuaeva K.G. Filosofskiye osnovy natsional'noy identichnosti [Philosophical foundations of national identity] // University Herald. 2014 (In Russ.).
16. Werner K., Gschnitser F., Kozelleck R., Sheneman B. Narod, natsiya, natsionalizm, massa [People, nation, nationalism, mass] // Dictionary of basic historical terms and concepts. T. 2. M., 2014 (In Russ.).
17. Wilders G. Nederlands frykt for Eurabia // https://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kronikk/i/Ba6P7/Nederlands-frykt-for-Eurabia--Ketil-Raknes/.