Kraus, Peter A.: A Union of Diversity: Language, Identity and Polity-Building in Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008, 229 pp., $32.99, ISBN 978-0-521-85939-4
Focusing on how the European Union has regulated linguistic plurality in a transnational political space, Peter Kraus begins by exploring the challenges of plurality and democracy in today's EU. Kraus’ analysis flows from first determining the various implications of linguistic diversity on political orders before settling on those most relevant to the EU's institutional framework. In an attempt to resolve these identity issues, Kraus then investigates the actual ‘political communication in the transnational civil society’ (p. 139) and abruptly concludes that only subsidiarity programs could reconcile democracy, demos and identity. Therefore, arguing that language is politics, Kraus explains that the EU's concentration on political matters led to its failure in creating any European identity pattern through defined symbols, citizenship and education. The EU, by separating politics from identity, has promoted utility to the detriment of culture.
Challenging John Stuart Mills’ thesis that linguistic diversity goes against administrative efficiency and democratic legitimacy, Kraus seeks to understand how the EU can institutionalize linguistic diversity. In order to grasp the ‘uneasy relationship’ between cultural heterogeneity and the democratic nation-state, Kraus believes that it would make sense to find a balance between those who believe that culture does not matter because diversity has no political implications (the Cosmopolitans), and those who believe that a democratic plurality must be based on one common cultural identity which depends on the institutional character of the state (the Westphalians).
After arguing that language is fundamental to the creation of a legitimate political order in Europe, Kraus’ major contribution is to address linguistic diversity through subsidiarity programs. This federalist principle is based on the idea that those competences that can be better carried out at a national level or regional level should not be assigned to the EU. This, Kraus argues, will lead to a better Charles Taylor-like ‘politics of recognition’ as it is neither a Westphalian nor Cosmopolitan approach. The goal would be to establish an acceptable balance of citizenship as well as diversity protection, thus ‘denationalizing’ the identity question. But readers will be left wondering: Will denationalization bring legitimacy to EU structures? Kraus fails to make this crucial link between the first part of his chapters and his conclusion.
Kraus explains that state formation, particularly in Europe, was synonymous with political attempts to introduce and maintain standardized communication codes. Yet, the EU is different. No longer encompassing traditional market regulation, it now addresses more political concerns, some of which have been the traditional domain of nation-states. The EU's largest challenge, as it moves beyond ‘negative integration’ and towards ‘positive integration’, is understanding the role that language plays in creating and consolidating identities and how to find balance between respecting cultural diversity and creating a common one.
Kraus’ argument is influenced by Taylor and Wilhelm von Humboldt who both ‘highlight the social component of the expressive dimension of language’ (p. 79). The EU, he argues, must have a minimum degree of multilingualism in order to symbolize the actual diversity of Europe at the institutional level. Kraus argues against monolingualism, as it fails to take into account the national dimension of language and its importance from the point of view of identity politics. Kraus is particularly against the use of English as the language of the EU, arguing that the use of English has nothing to do with cultural identity but rather with utility. In that sense, people learn English to advance their careers but not because they associate themselves with it.
Kraus states that while multilingualism is reflected in all of the EU's institutions, the ambiguity behind the EU's institutional language regime makes it prone to such language conflicts as the 1999 German–Finnish language dispute when Finland planned to use English, French and Finnish as conference languages during Finland's presidency of the EU Council, and Germany insisted that German be used, too. When Finland refused, Germany and Austria boycotted the meetings. While a compromise was eventually reached, a whole new set of problems was created as Spain decided that if German was to be used than Spanish should be too. Kraus rightly explains that because the EU does not have a clear mandate on language and identity politics, these seemingly banal language issues quickly become synonymous with nationalism trumping pragmatism. Furthermore, language conflicts, due to their identity component, are often associated to hegemony struggles and conflict.
Explaining that culture remains a sensitive issue in European politics as states continue to exercise their sovereignty over ‘identity affairs’, Kraus suggests that if a true European polity-building is to be created then the challenges of how European institutions tackle identity issues must be analyzed. This problem is clearly manifested within different European treaties, charters and program declarations. Kraus demonstrates that while banknotes were devoid of any specific national symbol (unidentifiable bridges or sceneries), coins were another story. Though one side showed the EU stars, calling upon a common European identity, each member state was allowed to design the back of the coins. Thus, on one side was Europe and on the other were independent nation-states: an intriguing situation of common union versus independent diversity. It is such contradictions that must be addressed.
The identity question should be embraced by both nation-states and the transnational movement of the EU thus blending both Westphalian and Cosmopolitan approaches. But it has significant problems. One simply cannot, after reading A Union of Diversity, see how the EU will remain immune to nationalist pretences and create the bases for a ‘large-scale transnational communication in Europe’ (p. 197), nor how Kraus’ subsidiarity principle should be implemented. While there is merit in Kraus’ attempt to address how EU institutions could better protect diversity and at the same time create a ‘demos’, the actual link between the two is never clearly made. Moreover, when certain languages are privileged as working languages, how will those not chosen be compensated? Not all languages can be used, this much Kraus agrees with, but how and who should decide which ones should be privileged? Is this up to the EU or is this up to nation-states? While Kraus’ analysis goes in the right direction many questions remained unanswered. Nonetheless, European Societies readers will appreciate the explorative character of Kraus’ analysis as it blends the fields of political theory, political sociology and comparative politics in order to analyze not only Europeanization but also the obscure relationship between cultural diversity, language diversity and democratic integration.
Saya Hautefeuille, Université de Montréal, Canada