This blog is based on a speech held at Europe Day 2024 at Pablo Casals Museum, Sant Salvador, Tarragona.
Once again, Europe – and specifically the European Union – finds itself at a crossroads. War has returned to Europe as a result of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. At the same time, the economic development and industrial policies of both the US and China are threatening Europe’s competitiveness. Meanwhile, the Global South is challenging the cultural influence of the West – and especially Europe – around the world. This comes in addition to climate change, which endangers the very survival of humanity while worsening global living conditions and giving rise to higher rates of migration – particularly to the EU. In societies that are increasingly being shaped by migration, special attention must be given to questions of integration.
Can culture help?
All the aforementioned challenges and threats risk leading to more divisions and antagonisms across the European continent. We need forces to counter the further risk of disunity in order not only to prevent Europe from falling back into a continent of internal strife but also to allow it to become a growing and stronger actor on the global stage. Can culture and art in particular serve as a form of protection against the centrifugal forces in Europe, and can it help to meet today’s global challenges? Or is European culture itself falling apart?
European culture, as any other culture, is a result of different streams that contribute to a common way of life and cultural perception. In Culture: A New World History, Martin Puchner states: “Culture is made not only from the resources of one community but also from encounters with other cultures. It is forged not only from the lived experience of individuals but also from borrowed forms and ideas that help individuals understand and articulate their experience in new ways.“
For Europe, these encounters have always taken place with the outside world, but the most significant encounters have been between different national and regional entities and peoples within the continent. As a result, European culture is nourished by different “identities.” This is what Europe learned after many centuries of war and especially after World War II. Europe began to recognize that prejudice – especially racism and extreme nationalism – provides the foundations for war, and this realization emphasized the importance of human rights in promoting a lasting peace. This is what the new Europe is about, as elaborated in several articles of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The great musician and humanist Pablo Casals once said: “The love of one’s country is a splendid thing. But why should love stop at the borders?” This should be a lesson for all countries and peoples, but in Europe especially we should try to prove its potential to create and preserve peace.
In this respect, the French philosopher and psychoanalyst Julia Kristeva has expressed the hope that Europe can offer some service to the world: “Although Europe resorted to barbaric behavior in the past – something to remember and examine always – the fact that it has analyzed its behavior thoroughly perhaps allows it to offer the world an understanding and practice of identity as a questioning inquietude.”
But here an internal dispute arises. The far right in Europe often questions the truth of criminal actions in the past or at least rejects the culture of remembrance and apology. In truth, Europe must find a way to balance the culture of remembrance with pride in its successes and achievements. Self-hatred and self-destruction are no basis for building a successful future – nor are forgetting or denying past crimes. A future common Europe must be built on pride for its cultural achievement, and at same time it must be proud of the diversity of its cultures. That includes the diversity of its many religions and ethnic backgrounds as well as gender.
Challenged by nihilists and fanatics
According to Julia Kristeva – and I would fully agree – European culture is challenged by “the terrible chaos of the tandem nihilism-fanaticism.” This tandem exists inside European countries but also as a dangerous challenge for Europe from the outside. Nihilism and fanaticism can be opposing forces but may can also go hand in hand. This combination is present among some terrorist groups as well as in Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and Western culture in general.
In this approach, an ideologically-driven reliance on traditional values will lead to the destruction of the “enemies” of these values. Radical Islamist preachers and the head of the Russian Orthodox Church support and bless the killing of non-believers. In India too, some radical Hindus do the same. All these actors enable nihilist violence by providing a religious justification.
But European countries are also confronted with nihilist and fanatic youths. Some are young immigrants seduced by extreme religious fanatics or desperate because of their own deprived circumstances. Inequality and discrimination are two causes that lead to such nihilist attitudes and attacks. Cultural policies must be part of any strategy to integrate these youngsters before they find themselves susceptible to radical attacks against the societies that they are part of but do not feel accepted by.
Dialogue instead of enforcement
By questioning its own actions and its past cultural arrogance, the new Europe is sending a clear message: neither domination nor exploitation is the way forward but instead cooperation, respect for differences, and dialogue. But this is not universally accepted. Many wars around the world show that force and violence have won acceptance as a means to implement and enhance interests. Respect for human rights has become negotiable and is forgotten when power is at stake. Media freedom and general freedom of expression are also in danger. While these trends can be seen predominantly in authoritarian countries outside Europe, they are growing inside the EU too.
Normally we observe these tendencies within the traditional extreme right. But due to some outside conflicts – not least the war between Israel and Hamas – new efforts to silence critical voices are growing. Instead of inviting different sides to an exchange of ideas and opinions, one side or the other is attacked and their goodwill is questioned. Sometimes this is done through allegations of antisemitism; other times through allegations of a lack of consideration for violence against Palestinians.
Both attitudes exist, and both should be challenged. But instead of debating and trying to search for common answers in an open dialogue, the prejudices of opposing opinions and their representatives are too often criminalized. This is true for individual activists but also for some state authorities and media. Beyond the obvious violation of existing laws, freedom of expression should be respected as an important element of European culture.
There is no way to solve cultural differences by promoting culture wars. They contribute to increasing divisions and alienate the majority of citizens. As shown by research done by the organization More in Common, the majority of European populations are left untouched by these “wars.” Rather than “cancel culture,” our emphasis should be to “discuss culture and art.”
Quite unnecessary and counterproductive is the debate about a “Leitkultur,” a debate which is taken up by conservative and extremist forces in Germany and Austria in particular. The enforcement of a special traditional culture on newcomers instead of encouraging debates and the exchange of ideas does little to help integration in European societies. Of course, existing laws must be accepted, but we should leave room for new forms of hybrid culture that can only grow peacefully through mutual respect. Allowing for the coexistence of different cultural approaches while learning and using local languages and accepting local history is the best way towards integration. But local populations can also learn from the history and background of newcomers.
Radical universalism
In this respect, Europe should avoid falling into the “identity trap” or “identity synthesis,” as described by Yascha Mounk: “For a culture that thinks of people primarily in relation to some collective is incapable of seeing and affirming its members in all their glorious individuality.” This further polarizes a society, which only prepares the ground for demagogues. “Demagogues thrive when societies are deeply polarized and when decision makers are out of touch with the views of average citizens.”
European culture must recognize differences and different experiences of suffering, but it must stick to the concept of “radical universalism,” to use the expression promoted by Omri Boem. The European idea has long promoted both accepting as well as transgressing specific identities. Universal values must be the basis of overcoming the crimes of the past and preparing for the future.
This attitude should also characterize the individual person by absorbing the complexities and diversity of their personality. Pablo Casals expressed this as follows: “To the whole world you might be just one person, but to one person you must be the whole world.”
The controversial role of art
Art as a means to express mainstream culture but also to question and challenge commonly- accepted principles of cultural expression is a vital element of the European way of life. Culture has the right to provoke and cross limits and borders. Of course, culture must accept laws and respect human rights. But as such, artists can and should use their power to criticize the violation of basic human rights, the neglect of socially-unacceptable conditions, and the destruction of valuable nature. Art can thus be an important supporter for the necessary transformation of our lives – not least in the richer parts of our world, including Europe. Instead of attacking art and accusing it of exaggeration, we should reflect more thoughtfully on its messages.
When we speak about culture and art, we should not forget that dramatic changes have transformed the ways we communicate. More than in past centuries, European culture has grown increasingly influenced by global social media. There is an ongoing discussion about the influence of such globalization. For some, it leads to homogenization. Others recognize elements of differentiation, and yet others speak about the development of hybrid cultures. Most likely, all three are happening at the same time.
Digital influences
Most important in this debate is the influence of algorithms, in the framework of what Kyle Chayka calls our “Filterworld”: “Whether visual art, music, film, literature, or choreography, algorithmic recommendations and the feeds that they populate mediate our relationship to culture, guiding our attention toward the things that fit best within the structures of digital platforms.” But not everyone sees the digital developments so negatively.
In their article “The Value of Art and Culture in Everyday Life,” Beth Juncker and Gitte Balling recognize the positive influence of digitalization: “the digital culture is for the most part a culture that takes place outside educational institutions, outside cultural institutions, and without gatekeepers and mediators. It is an interconnected, peer-driven participatory culture, which is voluntary and pleasurable. While this media culture may seem modern, it bears many similarities with earlier forms of cultures characterized by pleasure, interaction, participation, collaboration and community.”
And Kyle Chayka concedes: “The culture that thrives in the Filterworld tends to be accessible, replicable, participatory, and ambient.” But due to the algorithm-driven recommendations based on what immediately attracts the most attention, “Filterworld culture is ultimately homogeneous, marked by a pervasive sense of sameness even when its artifacts aren’t the same.“
So, which side is right? Probably both, in their own ways. Without a doubt, digitalization offers new possibilities for those who are able to utilize it for their own cultural expression. But the system as such has a tendency to lean towards means of expression that win majority support. Furthermore, this tendency can be manipulated in the direction of the ideas of those who develop and administer the algorithms. This means that the door is always open for influencing political and cultural developments by those who control different forms of social media.
Social media often create or at least strengthen the conditions that are used by the influencers and manipulators for their “dirty work.” Pablo Casals characterized these conditions well: “People move hectically but give little thought to where they are going. They seek excitement...as if they were lost and desperate.” In this situation of desperation and disorientation, users obtain easy answers from demagogues of different kinds.
Opennes against authoritarianism
The question is how Europe, its democratic basis, and its cultural diversity can survive when we see authoritarian forces both inside and outside Europe promoting anti-democratic and intolerant attitudes and policies. Until now, these forces have been more ready and able to use digital instruments to spread their narrow-minded version of culture and political life.
We should not underestimate the systematic spread of fake news and conspiracy theories – or rather conspiracy myths. These undermine democracy by negating scientific progress and cultural openness. Science is an important element of enlightenment that is closely connected with openness towards new ideas. And as cultural policies demand new ideas to answer to new challenges, a conservative attitude that denies scientific progress and open debate is not compatible with the role of culture supporting a new democratic Europe.
It is no accident that the spread of conspiracy myths concerning COVID overlap with pro- Russian or even pro-Putin attitudes – and often also with antisemitic attitudes. And it is not surprising that right-wing extremist parties use all these attitudes – including anti-immigration positions – in their European, or indeed anti-European, policies and strategies. This is also connected with a nationalist “cultural” policy that neglects and denies diversity and accuses many modern artists of being too provocative or political. As former French President Francois Mitterrand said in a famous speech in the European Parliament: “nationalism means war”
Progressive forces must make clear and underline the differences between these very contradictory concepts of Europe and the role of culture and art in and for the new Europe, which is just starting to be built. The readiness to enter into dialogue and open debate must be combined with a strong conviction to prevent a return to times of prejudice and discrimination.
Especially in a period when war has come back to Europe, we must adhere to those principles that can preserve what peace remains. And we must not give up hope of bringing peace back to all of Europe. This cannot be done through appeasement, which includes any kind of “cultural appeasement” to the dark forces of nationalism, authoritarianism, and the use of brute force.
One important element of preparing the ground for open discussion is, of course, education in history and art. In a recent interview with the Financial Times, the director of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam said: “My one big dream is to have art on the national curriculum, for children. And for younger adults. Even history is no longer on the curriculum. But we have to have that, as human beings. What else do we have as reference?”
In many countries, art and history are still on the curriculum, but it matters how these subjects are dealt with and how they make room for open discussion or productive debate. Either way, the main contribution of art and history education should be to inform young people who are vulnerable to nihilist and fanatic ideologies – ideologies that have destroyed Europe several times in the past and which are the basis of the present wars in both Ukraine and the Middle East.
Or to say it in the words of Salman Rushdie: “What I do know is that the answer to philistinism is art, the answer to barbarianism is civilization, and in a culture war it may be the artists of all sorts – filmmakers, actors, singers, writers – can still, together, turn the barbarians away from the gates.”
Works cited:
Martin Puchner, Culture – A New World History, 2023 Julia Kristeva,
“Homo Europaeus: Does A European Culture Exist?” The Search for Europe, Open Mind, 2015
Yascha Mounk, The Identity Trap, 2023
Omri Boem, Radikaler Universalismus, 2022
Kyle Chayka, Filterworld, How Algorithms Flattened Culture, 2024
B. Juncker and G. Balling, “The Value of Art and Culture in Everyday Life,” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 2016
Salman Rushdie, “The good guys don’t always win,” The Guardian, November 2023
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IIP), started his career in urban politics in Vienna and was elected member of the European Parliament in 1996. He was Vice President of the Social Democrat Group until 2012 and then President until 2014. He was particularly engaged in foreign, enlargement, and neighborhood policies. Swoboda is also President of the Vienna Institute for International Economics, the Centre of Architecture, the University for Applied Science - Campus Vienna, and the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute.