Search

In a time of increasing debates regarding the future of the European Union and Europe in general, the questions regarding ways to promote common identity gain in popularity. In such a time, the responsibility of the educational systems to provide answers to those pressing issues becomes very important because education can serve as a tool for promoting tolerance and understanding as well as a drive towards commonality and togetherness. In order to do so the educational interventions need to be carefully planned and based on a well developed paradigm. However, such paradigm is still not well defined. Therefore, this paper will start by exploring the Social Identity Theory to provide a baseline understanding on how identity is conceptualized and developed. It will then move towards discussing the educational paradigms aimed at promoting multicultural education in different contexts. By doing so, the paper will try to provide a unique cohesion of different approaches to promoting mutual identity. As a result, the paper will try to uncover certain conclusions from each paradigm that can be of help when trying to design a program that can help in promoting a common European identity through education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Union finds itself in a paradoxical situation: The Lisbon Treaty is supposed to provide it with new impetus and institutional capacity for becoming a global power, however, confronted with current events in world politics, the bloc seems to be more disunited than ever. Regardless of a 60-year long process of integration, citizens still seem to identify more with their nation-states than with the European Union, all the more so under the auspices of the current economic crisis. For a long time, analysts and politicians thought that a "permissive consensus" among the citizens would allow the elites to push forward the integration process step by step. However, since the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty through the French and Dutch population, this no longer seems to be the case. The paper explores the central themes of the debate around a European identity, discusses the different propositions and concepts put forward by intellectuals and academics, and examines their current relevance. It scrutinizes the relation between national and European identity, pointing out that the nation state and the European Union are ultimately competitors for sovereignty and identity. Thus, a political identity of the European Union can only grow if the member states renounce more of their sovereignty [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European identity has been the topic of a significant volume of research. Scientists focus on different identity aspects in an attempt to measure the establishment or viability of an EU identity. This paper, however, is going to take a different stance on the issue. It will take one of the basic theories on the components of national identities (ascribed vs. voluntarist components, Jones and Smith) and use it as a magnifying glass to examine those components. The theoretical framework will be enhanced by the findings on the role of symbols in generating national identities. The coupling of these two theoretical propositions would provide the apparatus needed for the examination of the degree to which the specific components are established and developed. The main thesis of the paper is that there is no single European identity to be studied. On the contrary -- there are numerous variations. There are, however, two lines which signify that division. On the one hand, there is a clear-cut division line between old and new member states. Therefore, I claim that the European identities in old and new member states clearly vary. The validity of this statement will be studied through the examination of identity components in Belgium, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) and Bulgaria. On the other hand, there are significant variations among old member states themselves. The EU identity in Belgium is most probably different from the one in the UK. The comparison between data on the components of identities shall verify the truthfulness of the supposition. After ascertaining the variations between components in the three countries, the paper will briefly elaborate on possible causes for those variations. The conclusion will summarize the findings of the research and make proposals for possible further approaches to strengthen the EU identities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For the countries on the continent, the EU constitutes the most important foreign policy context. The non-military character of the organization and the soft power of its political and economic stability are highly attractive for small entities. Through institutional integration they are able to avoid marginalization in international affairs at the same time as preserving their national identities. Once inside, small member-countries are more easily able to exert influence beyond their borders than by staying out and performing individually. There is no dilemma that the foreign policy of the Republic of Macedonia should be to strive for full-fledged membership of the EU in order to compensate for its substantial 'traditional deficit' of power. However, in the last two years some tendencies in the foreign policy of the country have deviated from the traditional patterns of the so-called double integration agenda (EU and NATO). The ultimate aim of this paper is to expose the structural weaknesses of multi-vector foreign policy when applied by countries with the size and capacities of the Republic of Macedonia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]