The euro and European identity: symbols, power and the politics of European monetary union

Abstract

This article assesses the relationship between money, collective identity, and European integration. The recent move of the European Union (EU) toward a common currency – the euro – seems to contradict the conventional ‘one nation/one money’ assumption about the association between states, territory and money creation. However, from a broad macro-historical perspective, the process of European monetary unification is not as exceptional and unique as it is often made out to be. I argue that the relationship between money and collective identity is reciprocal. On the one hand, money is a purposeful political tool in the construction of identities. On the other hand, in order to function properly, money requires some degree of collective identity among its users. Thus, the article examines the role of the euro as part of an explicit project to facilitate the development of a European identity as well as the required level of European identity necessary for a successful functioning of the euro. The key identity aspect at stake in the relationship between money and identity is not an affective relationship between citizens and country, but rather a relationship of trust. During the process of modernisation, trust has become rather abstract and institutionalised. To support a modern relationship of trust, identity does not have to rest on deep affective feelings of belonging. Diffuse identity, based on utilitarian or contractual factors and as part of evolving hybrid identity structures, is sufficient.

Ten years EMU: an assessment of ten critical claims

“…Eurobarometer studies do not show a major change in identity formation in the EU over the past ten years (Verdun 2010). However, these same studies do show support for the thesis by Kaelberer (2004) namely that the euro is part of the creation of a common identity. It is probably safe to say that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate (or for that matter, to demonstrate the opposite) a clear link between EMU stability and common identity.…”

“…Constructivists, such as Risse et al (1999), made the point that it was a challenge to create a single currency in Europe without having spent time building a sense of collective identity, especially if one would be asking member states to give up their national currency in favour of this new European currency without the people being able to transfer a similar sense of pride to that new currency. Authors such as Kaelberer (2004) take the analysis one step further and argue that even though the successful introduction of the euro requires that there be some common identity before-hand, the euro itself, in turn, is also part of the creation of a common public space and hence itself produces some identity formation. These points led to the following claim:…”

BRINGING THEDEMOSBACK IN

“…Yet, the present available evidence seems to suggest that a sense of common identity is not necessary for the stability of EUro(pe) (Kaelberer 2004), as long as this latter continues to be perceived as effective in its governance capacity (Kritzinger 2005).…”

EUropean attachment and meanings of EUrope. A qualitative study in the EU-15

“…Yet, in both cases, EUrope would then transform back from a post-national into a national space, either civic or ethnic. Other post-national authors, however, do not consider as relevant at all the existence of a sense of collective identity to support a democracy and its redistributive policies (Føllesdal, 2000 -see also Kaelberer, 2004).…”