The meaning of Europe is defined by several metrics such as Easter enlargement of the European Union (EU). Several authors have investigated the matter and the general finding is that Europeanisation and Europe enlargement was introduced following immediate political goal and irreversible decisions. In addition, economic explanations back up reasoning for unified Europe as one of the safest ways to welfare and economic growth. In particular, Habermas (2001) and Delanty (2006) differ in some of their reasoning for Europe enlargement. Each author gives personal views on the effects of enlargement. For instance, while Delanty (2006) feels that enlargement may de-Westernise the Europe and make it less Americanisation, Habermas (2001) proposes that the Europe need one constitution as it is the case with the U.K and America. However, their findings explain that a unified Europe will settle conflicts from political, religious, cultural and economic backgrounds and foster free trade, economic globalisation among other anticipated positive impacts such as social relations, immigration and cultural diversity.
Delanty’s Argument
Delanty states that the contemporary project of Europeanisation must be paced in a wider perspective of modernity to experience different versions of civilisations. According to Delanty (2002), the enlargement of EU is one of the most significant factors, however, it should not be misunderstood that the enlargement is likely to shape or enforce the current situation. The chapter reveals a broader perspective of history that Delanty (2006) among others use to get a differentiated picture of civilisational in the modernity.[1] In the Civilisational Consequences of Enlargement, Delanty (2006) identifies that in the context of thinking about enlargement of EU, the perspectives from different authors and people show that in the direction that Europe is an intermediate process of becoming. In the same setting, the author feels that EU enlargement to south and east will lead to a difficulty in sustaining the existing modernist projects of Westernisation.[2]
Besides, Delanty (2006) thinks that the inclusion of central and Eastern Europe, Turkey, Russia and Baltic states will lead to misunderstanding of Europe as a social, cultural and geopolitical space based on the same identity.[3] Europeanisation is based on some logics such as post-national development which involves formation of societies in a cosmopolitan direction. The second logic is based on the fact that EU is known for transnational polity, hence, it would become a transnationalisation of the state. Besides, other reasons for Europeanisation is the cultural process of construction which involves articulation of expression of collective identity. The last logic is based on the fact that EU needs a geopolitical reconfiguration due to its ever-larger entity.
Delanty (2006) concludes that until now, Europeanisation has been shaped by several factors. In turn, the agenda of enlargement emerged since 1993, and, therefore, more than 75 million people have migrated to the EU, and addition of twelve languages and political systems.[4]
In essence, what Delanty (2006) tries to explain is that the perspective of civilisation suggests that a transformation in the modernity of Europe is desirable in the sense that EU reflects a specific model of modernity based on democracy, capitalism- which on the other hand challenges the heads to think in the line of modernity following a push for constellation of maternities.[5] Also, there is a consensus that enlargement suggests what will be known as post-Western Europe and in effect, the enlargement is likely to shape the identity of Europe for some time. Delanty (2006) feels that Europe is becoming a free floating signifier.[6]
Unlike past, Europe is currently reflecting a state of ideas, and in the process, it is redefined in the process of Europeanisation. The cumulative effect of enlargement is changing Europe into European and less American. As long as Europeanisation will stretch to southwards and eastwards, the process of enlargement and partnerships will make Europe become more post-Western.
How Habermas Differs from Delanty
Habermas (2001) differs from Delanty (2006) in several aspects. For instance, Habermas (2001) states that Europeanisation involves post-national developments of a cosmopolitan nature of Europe.[7] In essence, Habermas (2001) uses an approach of cosmopolitanism concentrates on the cultural and communicative dimension which does not reduce cosmopolitanism to transnational politics and globalization. Besides, Habermas (2001) approaches the forms of communication in form of social integration rather than system integration. In essence, the idea of social integration is an integration process via symbolic and normative processes such as beliefs, cultural values and systems, communication media and deeper processes of socialisation.[8] Also, Habermas states that the logics of post-national development and transnational polity are related in that transnational governance of the EU has increased the interpretation of European societies which introduce the ideas of politics that exceed conventional rationale of EU. Habermas’ (2001) explanation in the Why Europe Needs a Constitution reflects the idea that cosmopolitan possibilities are factors determining the enlightenment based on citizenship and democracy.[9]
In sharp contrast, Delanty (2006) thinks that the enlightenment of Europe is likely to initiate emergence of several versions of Europe based on xenophobia, fast capitalism and anti-democratic currents.
In addition, Habermas (2001) thinks that the construction of Europe is a self-creative process –it cannot be explained as a narrative of subject of history, rather according to Habermas’ idea, it is likely that post-national possibilities in that communicative forms of social integration might be possible. In essence, Habermas explains that the social theory is the centrality of the public sphere as a means of social integration.[10] Unlike Delanty (2006), Habermas (2001) feels that a constitution for America should be pursed as soon as possible following immediate need for political goals, and the current dilemmas from irreversible decisions of the past.[11]
On the other hand, Delanty feels that Europe has turned out to be a float signifier and is likely to suffer from de-Westernisation. While Habermas explains the logic of one constitution will make Europe look like UK or the U.S, Delanty reflects that Europe will tend more European and less American. According to Habermas (2001), a unified Europe is a path to economic growth and welfare. Also, Habermas thinks that there is an economic advantage of European unification given that more than material gains, culture among other aspects can be developed.[12] On a sharp contrast, Delanty is under the impression that the introduction of enlargement has resulted to influx of people, introduction of political cultures and religion and, in turn, people have differed in many aspects of culture, economy, religion and politics.
How the Two Article Interact with One Another
The establishment of Europeanisation and enlargement has led to different opinions on the effects. While some have outlined both positive and negative impacts of Europe enlargement, this analysis identifies that the enlargement and use of one constitution shall develop an open regionalism powered by protectionism, social regulations, openness, and free trade. Since the enlargement goes beyond economic considerations, it is apparent that a more stratified society such as Europeanisation will lead to hearing in international concerts that is currently dominated by different powers, and in turn, lead to a major positive impact on the economic globalisation of the member states. Habermas (2001) and Delanty (2006) illustrates that the idea of Europeanisation can overcome retarded political integration and other discrepancies in economic advancement. In addition, the two authors agree that enlargement and use of European constitution makes manifest the shift in powers that have already taken place and is also likely to foster further shifts. The creation of a European public opinion largely depends on the input of the players of the European society. In response, Habermas (2001) and Delanty (2006) explain that in the social dimension of the modern Europe, there has been conflicts between different believers, political players, economists and other cultural players.[13][14] This has been dealt with in the Europeanisation where the conflicts have been addressed from religious and political dimensions of common constitution. Conclusively, it can be observed that European constitution is desirable and feasible, given that there are right Europe of nation-states with Europe citizenships.
Conclusion
According to the scholars, for Europe unification to be a success, the vacant spaces need to be filled by political will of the competent players. Also, the intellectual from different religions, politics and culture who have not picked up the idea need to speak their basic outlooks, and bring the conflicts to a consensus that enlargement and European constitution will embrace global economics, positive relations, cultural diversity and free trade amongst the member states. Conclusively, it is apparent that the project of Europeanisation must be dealt with from the modernity perspectives to avoid conflicts from intellectuals. In a broader explanation, among many shapers of current situation in Europe, EU plays a major role in civilisational transformation in the modernity.
Bibliography
Delanty, Gerard. "Europe becoming: the civilisational consequences of enlargement." (2006): 125-145.
Habermas, Jürgen. "Why Europe needs a constitution." Developing a constitution for Europe 1 (2004): 25-45
[1] Delanty, Gerard. "Europe becoming: the civilisational consequences of enlargement." (2006): 125-145.
[2] Ibid, 127
[3] Ibid, 129
[4] Ibid, 130
[5] Ibid, 136
[6] Ibid, 141
[7] Habermas, Jürgen. "Why Europe needs a constitution." Developing a constitution for Europe 1 (2004): 25-45
[8] Ibid, 26
[9] Ibid, 30
[10] Ibid, 31
[11] Ibid, 34
[12] Ibid, 42
[13] Delanty, Gerard. "Europe becoming: the civilisational consequences of enlargement." (2006): 125-145.
[14] Habermas, Jürgen. "Why Europe needs a constitution." Developing a constitution for Europe 1 (2004): 25-45
