Productivity of Culture

You are here: Program of ECCM Symposium in 2007 » Dialogue between Cultures » "Acculturation and Citizenship: Catalysts for the European Urban Space" by Kostas Theologou » Written version by Kostas Theologou

Written version by Kostas Theologou

Expose

The attempt to include societies, citizens, attitudes, mentalities, everyday lives, myths, life experiences, local habits and communal celebrations etc within the institutional frame of a supranational organization such as the European Union presupposes a long and inventive procedure, referring to the Fernand Braudel’s longue durée. The active articulation of the multicultural supra-national formation holds a “de-constructive” effect upon the ethnic identity of the European citizen.[1]

In this paper we intend to indicate citizenship as of paramount significance for the societal unification of Europe, in the urban spaces, of course. [2] Citizenship should be enhanced by the acculturation which is of vital importance, the contribution of local tradition and local values to the Pan-European Civilization and the need to transcend nationalism and modernity: the prerequisite of a supranational citizenship consists of a post-modern tool, a catalyst for the formation of multicultural social spaces.

1.         The European Stake and Citizenship

The European construction has always been and still is an adventure, with companions and disputants in reference to the goal and content: peace within this construction, a large prosperous market, the enhancement of the democratic institutions towards a standard social model, the formation of a cultural identity, a progressive evolution of the EU declaring a dynamic presence on the international landscape. How broad could this Europe become without modifying its target and without mutating the essence of its unification? It’s important to clarify from the beginning that our thought focuses towards the perspective of an integrated Europe, the dynamics of the EU to become a state itself, integrating the supra-nation of the Europeans.[3]

If the two major cultural criteria being used to define national identity is language and religion,[4] then for the EU, it can be underlined that Christianity consists of a connecting material for its member states.[5]

Of vital importance to the formation of an integral European identity are:

a) The unification of the educational system as a mechanism for political socialization of the new generation of citizens

b) The broadened possibility of working people (professionals) not only to move, but also to work in any other place within the United Europe

c) The institutional facilitation for acquiring property in other states.[6]

Through the deconstructive procedure of the national identity of the European citizen, another equally longstanding “synthetic” procedure will emerge: the construction of the supra-national identity. The new citizenship (citoyenneté) will merge and contain the partial fragmental nationalities, i.e. the national identities. [7], [8]

A novel collective identity is thus formed through common life-experience and interaction, sharing myths and collective memories. This quasi-political identity could eventually function in integrating the fragmental nationalities and the fragmented national characteristics in a common mould of qualities for the new citizenship.[9],[10],[11]

The amalgam of identities within Europe shall create a refined and noble citizen, with a democratic consciousness and more tolerant against otherness. This citizen should have fought in advance (during a long time in history) for the institution of social solidarity, the access to knowledge via technology, and the right to work as a pre-condition for obtaining political rights. Citizenship is the most essential ingredient for virtual confederation of EU; this task will be produced within a sociological and institutional fermentation of a century or longer, for without this supra-national connective citizenship the Union will remain socially and politically wise an unaccomplished process.[12]

Europe of today is seeking to know herself, to know its soul, to become aware of what it really is in relation to the world; to express its project of post-modern future. In other words Europe is more or less confusedly seeking to step into a more adult “we”, i.e. a community of persons and nations with full and entire responsibility (Lejeune, 1999)

Europe is an Archipelagos, a large Republic divided in different islands-states, and at the same time in permanent interaction. In such a “space”, then, the centre is everywhere; within that Archipelagos the states, the cities, the demos, are really individual, really autonomous, genuinely free, to navigate eternally one towards the other so that they may know each other, or even confront each other (Cacciari, 1998).

Thus, the E.U must cease to be an ongoing, social, scientific puzzle. A federal European state founded on its broadened financial basis and its monetary union will soon have successful results in the level of international antagonisms (Habermas, 1998). The European Union offers its boundaries, competences, membership and character (all) in the process of negotiation (Bellamy, 2001). [13]

The European countries will “denationalise” themselves, only if people practically express their desire to “mingle” towards a non-ethnic, but social formation of working-class belonging citizens. This procedure cannot be determined in time, but it will surely need the perspective of a century. [14],[15]

While the international framework preserves its significance, the mode in which every national society enters this framework cannot but vary from one country to another as it is determined by national particularities (Vergopoulos, 1999).

2.         Acculturation in the Age of Europeanization

Acculturation is of frequent and important usage in the age of globalization (Europeanization, according to our issue), and it declares accurately this process of mixing people belonging to different cultural milieux, who demonstrate behaviours dictated by different cultural protocols.[16]

We perceive acculturation as love (humanitarian) procedure. We visualize the new multicultural European society as a bread of kneaded elements not as a melting pot, where identity qualities are being indiscriminately confused, producing an alloy in a blast furnace. The multi-cultural matrix of acculturation allows to the bread of our society to preserve the “tasty” characteristics and the personal “tints” being bore by individuals and groups, when related in order to achieve a common welfare and a “public benefit”.

In the world as an entity, in Europe and increasingly in the Helladic space, there is no specific mode of being citizen in a specific country. We are all human beings, and we express this common humanity in culturally different ways, both around the world and within our contemporary nation states.[17] Thus, not only is immigration a normal process, but so too is the resulting cultural diversity within our countries. These two processes provide novelty and vitality to all of us, as individuals and as communities.[18]

Early views about the nature of acculturation are a useful foundation for contemporary discussion. One formulation in particular, has been widely quoted.[19] Acculturation comprehends those phenomena which result when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact, with subsequent changes in the original culture patterns of either or both groups…under this definition, acculturation is to be distinguished from culture change, of which it is but one aspect, and assimilation, which is at times a phase of acculturation… (Redfield, Linton, & Herskovits, 1936, pp. 149-152).

It is imperative to base our work on acculturation by examining its cultural contexts. We need to understand, in ethnographic terms, both cultures that are in contact if we are to understand the individuals that are in contact. Thus, a linkage is sought between the acculturation of an individual’s group and the psychological acculturation of the individual.[20]

Not all groups and individuals undergo acculturation in the same way; there are large variations in how people seek to engage the process. These variations have been termed acculturation strategies.[21] At the cultural level, the two groups in contact (whether dominant or non-dominant) usually have some notion about what they are attempting to do (e.g., colonial policies, or motivations for migration), or what is being done to them, during the contact.

Similarly, the kinds of changes that are likely to occur will be influenced by their strategies. At the individual level, both the behavioural changes and acculturation stress phenomena are now known to be a function, at least to some extent, of what people try to do during their acculturation. The long-term outcomes (both as psychological and socio-cultural adaptations) often correspond to the strategic goals set by the groups of which they are members. Integration can only be “freely” chosen and successfully pursued by non-dominant groups when the dominant society is open and inclusive in its orientation towards cultural diversity (Berry, 1991).[22] These two basic issues were initially approached form the point of view of the non-dominant ethno-cultural groups. However, the original anthropological definition clearly established that both groups in contact would become acculturated. [23],[24]

Having a positive sense of oneself, linked to the two cultures that surround a person, and maintaining a balance between them, is the most adaptive way to pass through the process of acculturation.

3.         The Local Tradition as a Contributor to the European Civilization

We will refer to the value of contribution from the local to global tradition (cultural heritage) and to the value of “regional heritage” in the age of globalization and pan-Europeanization. We’ll try to point out the importance of memory as an inseparable part of creative progress for a society in an age of rapid developments in communication and the diffusion of information. We’ll focus our attention on the following notions and we’ll also refer to the importance of memory as an ingredient for creativity and progress in a multiethnic and supranational society, in this age of rapid evolutions in communication and information diffusion.

Knowledge that has been accumulated by humankind, the spectacular developments in the field of technology, wonderful chances presented by the society of information in our age, all these marked to a large extent the only at first glance unlimited economic development, the exploitation of the weak, the destruction (spoiling) of natural environment. We created a society founded on knowledge (rather on ephemeral knowledge under the notion of news or of elementary information). We didn’t base it on the respect for nature, the environment and fellow human beings. On every occasion or manifestation our knowledge leads, I think, to comprehending the meaning of tradition. As centuries pass by local traditions have developed useful experience, techniques of environmental protection and managing skills regulating social conflict,[25] that comprise together a treasure of knowledge shared by all mankind.  At first glance globalization with its ways of developing communication at high technological level seems to contribute to international cooperation and to conflict prevention.

But it’s obvious up till now that globalization is a form of economic and cultural neo-colonialism not only for Third World countries but wherever it has been able to uproot and extinguish local traditions.[26] Actually it doesn’t extinguish them but assimilates them into a homogenized mass culture, obliterating them through informatization and through the introvert everyday life of the individual citizen.[27]

The danger lurking here is that this kind of development ignores the cultural identity of local society (collectiveness, minorities included), restricts their right to their own cultural heritage, their right to use their own language, their right to wear their traditional costumes, to practice their ritual customs, to believe in different moral values, to have different myths. So to put it in a nutshell, we are speaking about unset (non-formulated) negation of collective cultural rights and freedoms.[28]

Although the notion of “tradition” is commonplace in social science, it has not been awarded the deserving analysis and attention. Cultural heritage is perceived as a source of constructive democratic commitment and as sustained development and subsequently as a platform for the well-being and unity of the diverging variety existing among the peoples of Europe (among nations and their communities).

A serious problem for peaceful coexistence between different national groups, besides human rights, could be traced in the freedom to express and to proclaim their collective or religious identity. It is impossible to suppress the urge that emerged in certain peoples to become unique and respectable in the world with their own rights. Increase of newspaper circulation, expanding of university education, reformulating of hereditary right, proliferation of folkloric connections are all elements which define collective behaviour labelled as nationalism.[29]

Nationalist ideologies take advantage of cultural inventions to prove the procedure of collective self-defying, and to cultivate the feeling of proud and hope related to symbolical persons so that it becomes possible to describe them-selves at a conscious level, to develop and to celebrate their own selves.[30]

Neither it is possible to evolve without getting to know the cultural traditions of others. Events of the last few years make it evident that exactly this “abstract” aspect of culture is the one undergoing slow but steady change.[31]

But we ought to understand that there are cultures where respect for the community, for the tradition and for the past have a priority compared to the individual and the present. In a society deeply rooted in tradition it’s not the short-term but long-term goals that are important, not rapid development (usually accompanied by catastrophe), but the slow process of constructing and preserving certain equilibrium.

Obviously, cultural traditions have preserved the necessary elements so that a multitude of national groups could express their identity. These elements are not simply comprised of the brick and stones of ancient ruins or by other traces of the rest of the material cultural heritage. These elements belong to the field of “abstract” heritage as well.

In many cases these non-material spiritual traditions that are constructed in a difficult manner - sometimes they could only be sung or danced – are of greater importance than anything else, because people feel deeply attached to them. So it is precisely wars and national conflicts between our leaders that have made us to suddenly realize what intellectual tradition means to some peoples; the myth about which a story is created or the very myth that generates history. It is of less importance to which extent these myths are true or not. They are able to mobilize human masses, to trigger a war and to construct ideological bastions which are not rooted on any material foundations.

Interactions between and through different cultural heritages, communities and environments should be perceived more as sources of creative dialogue than as reasons for clashes while mutual knowledge and understanding of specific cultures and inherited traditions could expand and deepen our common prospect for coexistence in the frame of our common European values.

Or, to put it simply: local value systems of faith (or conviction), or mythology, or prejudice and differences in customs and religious confessions could potentially comprise a field for clashes. It’s not our cultural traditions per se but ignorance and false knowledge about these, and our negation to adopt their existence, and our attempt to un-root them, the causes that produce sentimental extremities.

In a Europe of various national shades it is necessary to provide for arrangements on Education, Culture and Scientific Documentation that will facilitate our coexistence: Let’s educate younger generations in respecting other national traditions; it’s a primordial first step towards the direction of a pacific symbiosis together with other ethnicities different that the one we belong to. Let’s organize cultural meetings where one could distinguish the values of local traditions and encourage nations to get acquainted with each other and promote their mutual level of knowledge about their specific cultural features. Knowing about the cultural diversity and variety is a fundamental part for extinguishing intolerance against the Other (Alius). Documentation of the local traditions and cultural heritage (an everlasting concern) consists of a one way option in order for us to inherit a tangible spirituality for future generations. It is of great importance to encourage this “preservation” by taking advantage of the modern technological achievements (video, multimedia, digital processions etc), so that our data and conclusions are easily spread to the rest of the world. Respect of the local culture and tradition (each state its own entire culture, but also the cultural inheritance of national and religious particularities and minorities) reads as defense of our local cultural identity. Apart from Europe the entire world admits the vital significance of culture and of cultural heritage in all aspects of everyday life.

Every national entity as a European country contains a variety of particularities. Italy is a different country up North and a different country down South. Greece being geologically divided preserves a vast variety of local traditions and heritage, being cut by mountains, rivers, valleys, canyons and seas. Crete can be a particular local tradition; Cyclades on the other hand are an entity and every single island an entire particularity.

Europe contains many cultural communities being founded outside Europe and vice versa in the world there are many cultural communities being rooted in Europe’s past. Many civilizations of the past that have influenced the development of our societies transcend our national borders. The abridgment of geographical distance is essential and cultural cooperation with the larger international community can and should consist of a parameter of pacific symbiosis and politically stable regime.

  1. 4. Epilogue

Constitutional parity, equity between citizens, should consist of a common plan that percolates the various endless pressures of society, which seek for the consolidation of inequality. Citizen in modern democracy is not a partner to the Republic; stays a subject to a state sovereignty. [32]

There remains to walk through an important path, urging us: the alley to the new citizenship. The notion of solidarity consists of an important foundation, stating that people, truly, cannot line in isolation without owing to others. Since they receive they ought to liquidate their debts. Still this is something to be agreed by all parties. This agreement cannot be constructed without fermented with the common consciousness which, due to empathy, is in dialectical discourse with the sense of right and justice.

A society of right cannot be defeated unless its members do not arise to offend themselves. Citizenship owns all qualification in order to act against xenophobia and chauvinism, severe   side effects of nationalism. The emancipation progress (from the feudalistic organization of society) deviates to hatred and exclusion for the Other. During their (national) emancipation peoples had been inspired by the values of liberty. In their nationalist frenzy the values of tradition, of civilization and of culture are contorted to weapons against the neighbour, in order to exclude diversity.

Our basic hypothesis, though, is that the be-quested “unification” can only be attained through an osmotic social chemistry, through interpersonal relations and the trend to form multinational families , scattered in societies being so far “nationally pure”.[33] The nation once used to relate people, nationalism still disassociates and excludes. Citizenship with its supranational dimensions emerges to act as the equivalent of a “national liaison” in a smaller scale territory; it will merge the present nations of the Europeans to a supra-nation of the European Confederation, i.e. a new state.[34]

Bibliography

  1. Anderson B., Imagined Communities, Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, revised and extended edition, London-New York: Verso, (1983) 2002
  2. Argyriadis D., The Role of Civil Society in the Modern State, The International Journal of Technical Cooperation, vol. 4, nr 2, 1998, p. 237-245
  3. Beiser, M. Strangers at the gate. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000
  4. Bellamy R., The “Right to have Rights”: Citizenship Practice and the Political Constitution of the European Union, 2001, Working paper 25/01, in: http://www.one-europe.ac.uk/pdf/w25bellamy.pdf
  5. Berry, J.W, Poortinga, Y.H., Segall, M.H., & Dasen, P.R.. Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications (2nd ed 2002). New York: Cambridge University Press˙ στα ελληνικά: Marshall H. Segall, Pierre R. Dasen, John W. Berry, κ.ά. Δημήτρης Γεώργας (επιμ.), Διαπολιτιστική ψυχολογία: Η μελέτη της ανθρώπινης συμπεριφοράς σε παγκόσμιο οικολογικό πολιτιστικό πλαίσιο, μτφρ. Μανίνα Τερζίδου. Αθήνα: Ελληνικά Γράμματα, 2η έκδ. 2002 (1996)
  6. Berry, J.W. & Kim, U. “Acculturation and mental health”, στο P. Dasen, J.W. Berry, & N. Sartorius (επιμ.), Health, and cross-cultural psychology (σελ. 207- 236). Newbury Park: Sage. 1988.
  7. Berry, J.W. & Sabatier, C. Psychological acculturation of second generation youth in Montreal. Εισήγηση στο Συνέδριο IACC, Montreal. 1996
  8. Berry, J.W. & Sam, D. “Acculturation and adaptation”, στο J.W. Berry, M. H. Segall, & Kagitcibasi (επιμ.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. Vol 3, Social behaviour and applications (σελ. 291- 326). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 1997
  9. Berry, J.W. “Marginality, stress and ethnic identification in an acculturated Aboriginal community”, στο περ. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 1970, p. 239- 252.
  10. Berry, J.W. “Psychological aspects of cultural pluralism: Unity and identity reconsidered” στο περ. Topics in Culture Learning, 2, 1974, σελ. 17- 22.
  11. Berry, J.W. Human ecology and cognitive style: Comparative studies in cultural and psychological adaptation. New York: Sage/Halsted, 1976
  12. Berry, J.W. Acculturation as varieties of adaptation, στο: A. Padilla (επιμ.), Acculturation: Theory, models and findings (σελ. 9-25). Boulder: Westview, 1980
  13. Berry, J.W. “Multicultural policy in Canada: A social psychological analysis”, στο περ. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 16, 1984, σελ. 353- 370.
  14. Berry, J.W. “Psychology of acculturation”, στο: J. Berman (επιμ.), Cross-cultural perspectives: Nebraska symposium on motivation (σελ. 201-234). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1990
  15. Berry, J.W. “Understanding and managing multiculturalism”, στο περ. Journal of Psychology and Developing Societies, 3, 1991, σελ. 17- 49.
  16. Berry, J.W. “Acculturation and adaptation in a new society”, στο περ. International Migration, 30, 1992, σελ. 69- 85.
  17. Berry, J.W. “Immigration, acculturation and adaptation”, στο περ. Applied Psychology, 46, 1997, 5- 68.
  18. Berry, J.W. “Conceptual approaches to acculturation”, στο K. Chun et al. (επιμ.) Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement and applied research, 2003, σελ.15- 37. Washington: APA Press.
  19. Berry, J.W., Kalin, R., & Taylor, D. Multiculturalism and ethnic attitudes in Canada. Ottawa: Supply & Services, 1977.
  20. Berry, J.W., Kim, U. Minde, T. & Mok, D. Comparative studies of acculturative stress, στο περ. International Migration Review, 21, 1987, σελ. 491- 511.
  21. Berry, J.W., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M., & Bujaki, M. “Acculturation attitudes in plural societies”, στο περ. Applied Psychology, 39, 1989, σελ.-206.
  22. Berry, J.W., Phinney, J.S., Sam, D.L. & Vedder, P. Immigrant youth in cultural transition: Acculturation, identity and adaptation across national contexts. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006.
  23. Birman, D. Acculturation and human diversity in a multicultural society, στο E. Trickett, R. Watts, & D. Birman (επιμ.), στο περ. Human diversity (σελ. 261- 284). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994
  24. Bourhis, R., et al.,  Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach, στο περ. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 1997, σελ. 369- 386.
  25. Bugajski J., Between Ethnicity and Citizenship: Eastern Europe’s Cross Border Minorities, Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Wilson Centre Conference, April 2001, in: http://www.macalester.edu/¬jkozak/romabugajskiwilson.pdf
  26. Burbules N.C and Torres C.A., (editors), Globalisation and Education, Critical perspectives, London: Routledge, 2000
  27. Cacciari M., [in French], Etudes, tome 384, mars 1996, p. 357-366 [in Italian,1998], L’Arcipelago, Milano: Adelphi and in: http://www.lyber-eclat.net/lyber/cacciari/archipel.html
  28. Chryssochoou D. N., Towards a Civic Conception of the European Polity, working paper 33/2001 in:  http://www.one-europe.ac.uk/pdf/w33chryssochoou.pdf
  29. Connelly J. and Smith G., Politics and the Environment, From Theory to Practice, London: Routledge, 1999
  30. Cotter B., Hannah Arendt and “the Right to Have Rights”, 2002,  in: http://www.isanet.org/noarvhive/cotter.html
  31. Fischer M. M.J., Cinema as Ethnography and Cultural Critique [in Greek, 1998], in Anthropological Theory and Ethnography, ed. Madianou-Gefou D., Athens: Ellinika Grammata p. 109-152 [Ανθρωπολογική Θεωρία και Εθνογραφία, Σύγχρονες Τάσεις, επιμ. Γκέφου-Μαδιανού Δ., Ελληνικά Γράμματα, Αθήνα].
  32. Fowler C., “A durable concept: Anthony Smith’s concept of “National Identity” and the case of Wales”, in PSA 52nd Annual Conference: “Making Politics Count” University of Aberdeen 5-7 April 2002.
  33. Geertz  Clifford, The Interpretation of Cultures, Basic Books, 1973, σελ.237-252, ελλην. έκδ., Η Ερμηνεία των Πολιτισμών, μετφρ. Θ. Παραδέλλης, Αθήνα: Αλεξάνδρεια, 2003.
  34. Georgas, J. Berry, J.W., Shaw, A., Christakopoulou, S., & Mylonas, K. Acculturation of Greek family values, στο περ. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 1996, σελ. 329- 338.
  35. Graves, T. “Psychological acculturation in a tri-ethnic community”, στο περ.  South-Western Journal of Anthropology, 23, 1967,σελ. 337- 350.
  36. Habermas J., Die postnationale Konstellation, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1998
  37. Havel V., About European Identity, 1994, in: http://www.eurplace.org/diba/citta/havel.html
  38. Ho, E. “Chinese or New Zealander? Differential paths of adaptation of Chinese Adolescent immigrants” in New Zealand, στο περ. New Zealand Population Review, 21, 1995, σελ. 27- 49.
  39. Huckle John, Education for Sustainability and Ecological Citizenship in Europe: a challenge for teacher education in the 21st century, paper given to conference at the University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, May 2001, in: http://www.john. huckle.org.uk/documents/greece2.doc
  40. Karlsson I., Is there a European Identity?- a lecture given at the seminar “EU for journalists” in Istanbul on February 25th 2002
  41. Kitromelides Paschalis M., “The Dialectic of Intolerance. Ideological Dimensions of Ethnic Conflict”, Journal of the Hellenic Diaspora 6, 4, 1979, σελ. 5-30
  42. Korthals Altes E., What is it? Why do we need it? Where to find it? in working paper Reflections on European Identity, ed. Jansen T., published by the European Commission, Forward Studies Unit, 1999, p. 51-56.
  43. Kristeva J., Julia Kristeva: Interviews (ed. Guterman R. M.) New York: Columbia University Press, 1996, p.41.
  44. La Torre M., European identity and citizenship, in working paper Reflections on European Identity, ed. Jansen T., published by the European Commission, Forward Studies Unit, 1999, p. 81- 88
  45. Lazarus, R.S. & Foldman, S. Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer, 1984
  46. Lefebvre H., « La classe ouvrière est-elle révolutionnaire? » In Sociologie et Revolution, colloque de Cabris, Paris: ed. Anthropos, 10/18. 1975, p. 259-272
  47. Lejeune C., From poetic citizenship to European citizenship, in working paper Reflections on European Identity, ed. Jansen T., published by the European Commission, Forward Studies Unit, 1999, p. 89- 98
  48. Lekkas P., The Nationalist ideology [in Greek] ed., Athens: Katarti [Λέκκας Π., Η εθνικιστική ιδεολογία, Πέντε υποθέσεις εργασίας στην ιστορική κοινωνιολογία, Β΄ έκδοση, Αθήνα: Κατάρτι, 1996]
  49. Lévy J., Vers une société civile mondiale? In : L' identité - L' individu, Le groupe, La société. Paris: Sciences Humains, 1998, p. 363-368
  50. Llobera J. R., Recent Theories of Nationalism, working paper 164, Institut de Ciéncies Politiques y Sociales, Barcelona 1999
  51. Makrydemetres A., State and Civil Society, [in Greek], Athens: Metamesonykties Ekdoseis, 2002, p. 59-65 [Μακρυδημήτρης Α., Κράτος και Κοινωνία των Πολιτών, Διασταυρώνουν απόψεις για το θέμα ο Νίκος Μουζέλης με το Δημήτρη Δημητράκο, Αθήνα: Μεταμεσονύκτιες Εκδόσεις]
  52. Mitsos A., the European Commission’s Director General of Research quoted in There is such a thing as society, Euroabsracts, 2002,vol. 41-2/2003, p. 7 (Brussels: Published by the European Commission, Enterprise DG),
  53. Mooradian M., “The Meaning of Ethnic Identity”, The Pacific American review, Vol. 2, winter 1996, page 2, in: http://www.thepaf.org/review/EthnicIdentity.htm
  54. Oberg, K., “Cultural shock: Adjustment to new cultural environments”, στο περ. Practical Anthropology, 7, 1960, σελ. 177- 182.
  55. Phinney, J., Chavira, V., & Williamson, L., “Acculturation attitudes and self-esteem among school and college students”, στο περ. Youth and Society, 23, 1992, σελ. 299- 312.
  56. Postman Neil, Technopoly, 1992, ελλην. έκδ. Τεχνοπώλιο, Η υποταγή του πολιτισμού στην τεχνολογία, μτφρ. Κ. Μεταξά, Αθήνα, Καστανιώτη, 1999.
  57. Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. Memorandum on the study of acculturation, στο περ. American Anthropologist, 38, 1936, σελ. 149-152.
  58. Rex J., National Identity in the Democratic Multi-Cultural State, 1996, Centre for Research in Ethnic Relations, University of Warwick, 2/7/96, in Sociological Research on Line, in: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/1/2/1.html
  59. Sabatier, C. & Berry, J.W.. Perceived discrimination and family acculturation in France and Canada: The protective role of parents, στο περ. European Journal of Developmental Psychology (2006).
  60. Sands, E. & Berry, J.W. Acculturation and mental health among Greek-Canadians in Toronto, στο περ. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 12, 1993, σελ. 117- 124.
  61. Schmitz, P. “Acculturation styles and health”, στο S. Iwawaki, Y. Kashima, & K. Leung (επιμ.), στο περ. Innovations in cross-cultural psychology (σελ. 360- 370). Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitinger. 1992
  62. Schneider D. A., Regional and ethnic Movements in European Politics, 1998,  in: http://www.geocities.com?CapitolHill/8366/ethno.html
  63. Searle, W. & Ward, C. “The prediction of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural transitions”, στο περ. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 1990, σελ. 444-464.
  64. Smith A., National Identity. London: Penguin, 1991, p.9
  65. Strasser J., «L’ouvrier et la nation» in: Bauer O., Nation et lutte de classe, Paris: Anthropos, 10/18, 1975, p. 111.
  66. Theologou K, Citizen and Society in the E.U : an approach to the supranational features of the European Citizenship, [in Greek] Papazissi, Athens, 2005
  67. Theologou K, “Memory and Tradition in the Age of globalization: the local tradition contributor to the European Culture” [in Greek] in Aeropos, vol. 62, July-August 2005, p. 41-43
  68. Thurnwald, R.C. “The psychology of acculturation”, στο περ. American Anthropologist, 34, 1927, σελ. 557- 569.
  69. Tilly C., “Transformations of Europe” in European Revolutions 1492-1992, [in Greek, 1998], Athens: Ellinika Grammata, p. 57-110.
  70. Veikos Th., Nationalism and National Identity, [in Greek 1999,], Athens: Ellinika Grammata [Εθνικισμός και Εθνική Ταυτότητα, Ελληνικά Γράμματα, Αθήνα], p.22
  71. Vergopoulos K., “The Myth of Europe”, in Globalisation the Great Chimera [in Greek] Athens: Nea Synora- Livanis Press, p. 173-197 [Βεργόπουλος Κ., 1999, Ο Μύθος της Ευρώπης, στο Παγκοσμιοποίηση η Μεγάλη Χίμαιρα, Αθήνα:«Νέα Σύνορα» Λιβάνης]
  72. Ward, C. & Kennedy, A. “Psychological and socio-cultural adjustment during cross-cultural transitions: A comparison of secondary students overseas and at home”, στο περ. International Journal of Psychology, 28, (1993a) σελ. 129- 147.
  73. Ward, C. & Kennedy, A., “Where’s the “culture” in cross-cultural transition? Comparative studies of sojourner adjustment”, στο περ. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24, (1993b) σελ. 221-249.
  74. Ward, C. “Acculturation”, στο: D. Landis & R. Bhagat (επιμ.), Handbook of intercultural training (2nd ed., σελ. 124-147). Newbury Park: Sage, 1996
  75. Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A, The psychology of culture shock. London: Routledge, 2001.
  76. Warleigh Alex, Managing Difference in The European Union: Towards The Europeanization of Civil Society? 2001, in: http://www.ex.ac.uk/shipss/politics/research/strategies/civic3-01.pdf

Footnotes:

[1] For a complete approach see: Theologou Kostas, Citizen and Society in the E.U : an approach to the supranational features of the European Citizenship, [in Greek] Papazissi, Athens, 2005 and for a concise reference see: Theologou Constantinos, “The New Citizenship in Europe: A Discussion on the Emergence of a “Supra-Nationality” in the European Union” in: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Ethnic Idetities and Political Action in Post-Cold War World: What is Ethnic Identity?, A Multidisciplinary Approach, July 16-18 2003, Xanthi (to be published). Our future goal is to place citizenship in the wider context of the clash between Modernity and Post-Modernity in the European periphery.

[2] We plumped for citizenship and study it as a right that accomplishes (promotes) citizen to a partner of the State. We aim to dynamically enrich the intermediated representation (pseudo or unattained democracy) to an essential involvement of persons, who are part of a people, to the decision making process. The under formation supra-national European confederation is becoming gigantic (to a quasi state) and the challenge of citizenship is becoming very important.

[3] About the history of European institutions and the beginnings of EU, see: Pfetsch, Frank R., Die Europäische Union: Geschichte, Institutionen, Prozesse, Wilhelm Fink Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, 1997

[4] Jacques Le Goff stands for the theory that Middle Ages is the decisive moment that gave birth to Europe, but ths dos not imply that people at the time had ever conceived or had an intension to form a united Europe. The idea on the medieval origin of Europe was introduced before the WWII by two French historians, founders of the journal Annales, Marc Bloch and Lucien Fèbvre. Middle Ages for the specific historians and for Le Goff is a turning point, signifying the idea of authority and culture transfer from East to the West together with the sentiment of excellence of the European Culture being held by many Europeans during the next centuries. The proem of his book “The age before Middle Ages” comprises his argument in: Jacques Le Goff, [in Greek] Was Europe born in the Middle Ages? transl. by E. Zei, Polis, Athens, 2006

[5] If religion, for the Christian states, no longer constitutes a fundamental if not a merely crucial criterion of national identity, then language features as the only sufficient defining criterion of ethnicity. Whatever has been naturally divided by language, custom, and character cannot be led towards an artificial unification via the political chemistry or the institutional framework of a technocratic supra-structure.

[6] “Identity no longer presents itself as ‘given’ by nature, nor as the simple content of a tradition with which individuals identify. It is no longer only based on belonging to ‘normatively regulated associations’ (state, parties, and organizations). Individuals and groups through their action participate in the formation of identity, which is the result of decisions and projects, rather than conditioning and bonds” writes Melucci in 1982, (see bibliography Schlesinger 1991:155).

[7] William Hazlitt’s (1778-1830) maxim: In other places I forget myself, but in France I am always an Englishman, always comes to my mind. These kind of emotions should be blunted. This aphorism of Hazlitt refers to the (not politically correct) rivalry between English and French, Turks and Greeks, etc.

[8]Multinational identities are about to be merged in a new identity-quality taking into account all discourse about nationality, nationalism and its deviations. The liaison citizen is a political liaison established on the democratic relation with political authority: simultaneously it is égalitaire, including the element of social equity (one man one vote), and ouvert, open (tending to include, based on the global -abstract- rights). This new citizenship is a historical challenge which allows us to preserve optimist perspectives in relation to the federal formation of Europe.

The role and the essence of nation-state are being transformed within the institutional framework of the EU. The model of citizenship being established on the national identity and the embedded idea of a nation-state, is being systematically raked-up. Our perspective pertains to the Conventions producing, promoting, the emergence of non-national attributes of the EU citizens; still, our thought is nourished by the social imaginaire. Social chemistry can efficiently enhance the institutional framework interwoven by the central administration attempts to appropriate the social tissue of a multi-national, multi-lingual, multicultural and multi-doctrinal organization. See Theologou Kostas, Citizen and Society in the EU. An approach to the supranational characteristics of European citizenship, (in Greek: Πολίτης και Κοινωνία στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Προσέγγιση στα υπερεθνικά χαρακτηριστικά της ευρωπαϊκής πολιτιότητας) Papazissi, Athens, 2005, pp 74-76 and 95-105.

[9] If there was a word in Italian (just like πολιτιότητα into Greek) this word wouldn’t be produced from cittadino (citizen) or cittadinanza (=national status of a citizen), but from civita (=republic), i.e. civilità close to civiltà (=civilization). Probably it would be more correct to form the word cittadinità. There is also a word in German (Bürgerschaft) meaning the citizen’s union or something like that. We adopted in Greek the word πολιτιότητα, from a P.E. Lekas’ book Το Παιχνίδι με τον Χρόνο (The Play with Time), Athens, 2001, p. 102.

[10] The discourse on the notion of citizenship commenced 55 years ago with sociologist T. H. Marshall, at the London School of Economics. Marshall in his treatise Citizenship and Social Class, 1949 introduces the theory of citizenship.  Academic interpretations and political exploitation or abuse of this spermatic but illuminating and controversial work of the British sociologist had been plenty. Despite the vivid interest on the research and academic field of social sciences in the middle of 80’s, there haven’t been crystallized (in the past 20 years), some canonical interpretations nor a paradigmatic theory on citizenship in its contemporary version. Perhaps a critical revision of Marshall and his critics is needed.

[11] In this paper we did not select the theory of historical evolution of citizenship, bur attempted to trace the tools and its outline towards the formation of a united Europe. We started in a more philosophical context, but directed it to ideas and practical suggestions which could facilitate the every day life of us citizens. Our aim is to contribute to the discourse of transcending the nation-state, by suggesting the establishment and the development of the supra-national citizenship, towards the formation of a trans-cultural man, a cosmopolite, even if not a traveller in the Globe’s Oecumenic space. In Greek bibliography one could also read Professor’s Georgios D. Kontogeorgis’ Citizen and City. The Meaning and Typology of "Citizenship", (Πολίτης και πόλη- Έννοια και τυπολογία πολιτιότητας) Papazissi, Athens, 2003.

[12] We had an earlier possibility to become acquainted as translator and editor with the “Formation of Europe” (an international series directed by Jacques le Goff); we had mentally met with Charles Tilly (The European Revolutions 1492-1992) and Peter Brown (The Rise of Western Christendom 250-1050). The five centuries of Tilly’s treatise and the millennium of Brown’s study have taught us many valuable lessons.

[13] The eventual affiliation of a Muslim state in the EU would belie or cancel the features and various osmotic potentials towards European unification, and the parallel emergence of the supranational qualities of the European citizen.

[14] It is important to retain and pass on to succeeding generations all such factors that make up "us" to prevent identity from being lost. The European peoples should be assimilated into what is normally dictated by the majority or into an amalgam configured by those who hold the power.

It would be a prerequisite for future generations to develop a collective memory different than ours. The socio-economical stratification of classes and the national features of an identity do not seem to consist of adequate tools of educational and knowledge management systems. The formation of a different collective memory would facilitate the achievement of a larger and Europe-focused approach to citizenship. See Theologou, K., Citizen and Society, op. cit, p. 114-125.

[15] A universal, trans-national principle of Humanity that is distant from the historical realities of nation and citizenship constitutes, on the one hand, a continuation of the Stoic and Augustinian legacy, of that ancient and Christian cosmopolitanism that finds its place among the most valuable assets of our civilization and that we henceforth must go back to and update. But above all and on the other hand, such upholding of universality, of a symbolic dignity for the whole of humankind, appears as a rampart against a nationalist, regionalist, and religious fragmentation whose integrative contractions are only too visible today. See also: Kristeva Julia, Interviews, ed. Guterman R. M., New York: Columbia University Press, 1996, p.41. [16] We adopted for this argument the lecture by Prof. Em. Psychology Department Queen’s university Kingston, Ontario Canada, Berry J.W., titled Acculturation and Adaptation Among Immigrants: Learning to Live in Another Culture, given to the Alumni Association of the Onassis Foundation, 2006 (to be published into Greek in our translation).

[17] Berry, J.W, Poortinga, Y.H., Segall, M.H., & Dasen, P.R.. Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications (2nd ed. 2002). New York: Cambridge University Press [also in Geek see bibliography: Marshall H. Segall, Pierre R. Dasen, John W. Berry, et al. D. Georgas (ed. in Greek),  2002 (1996)].

[18] Berry J.W., Acculturation and Adaptation among Immigrants…op. cit.

[19] The initial interest in acculturation grew out of a concern for the effects of European domination of colonial and indigenous people (Thurnwald, 1927, see bibliography). Later, it focused on how immigrants (both voluntary and involuntary) changed following their entry and settlement into receiving societies. More recently, much of the work has been involved with how ethno-cultural groups relate to each other, and change, as a result of their attempts to live together in culturally plural societies. Nowadays, all three foci are important, as globalization results in ever-larger trading and political relations: indigenous national populations experience neo-colonization, new waves of immigrants, sojourners and refugees flow from these economic and political changes, and large ethno-cultural populations become established in most countries.

[20] For Graves (1967, see bibliography), psychological acculturation refers to changes in an individual who is participant in a culture contact situation, being influence both directly by the external culture, and by the changing culture of which the individual is a member. There are two reasons for keeping these two levels distinct. The first is that our field insists that we view individual human behaviour as interacting with the cultural context within which it occurs; hence separate conceptions and measurements are required at the two levels. The second is that not every individual enters into, and participates in, or changes in the same way; there are vast individual differences in psychological acculturation, even among individuals who live in the same acculturative arena.

[21] Which strategies are used depends on a variety of antecedent factors (both cultural and psychological); and there are variable consequences (again both cultural and psychological) of these different strategies. These strategies consist of two (usually related) components: attitudes and behaviours (that is, the preferences and actual outcomes) that are exhibited in day-to-day intercultural encounters.

[22] Thus a mutual accommodation is required for Integration to be attained, involving the acceptance by both groups of the right of all groups to live as culturally different peoples. This strategy requires non-dominant groups to adopt the basic values of a wider society, while at the same time the dominant group must be prepared to adapt national institutions (e.g., education, health, labour) to better meet the needs of all groups now living together in the plural society.

[23] In 1974, a third dimension was added: that of the powerful role played by the dominant group in influencing the way in which mutual acculturation would take place (Berry, 1974; 1980-see bibliography). Assimilation when sought by the non-dominant acculturating group was termed the “Melting Pot”, but when demanded by the dominant group, it was called “Pressure Cooker”. When Separation was desired by the acculturating group it was termed “Withdrawal,” but when forced by the dominant group it was “Segregation”. Marginalization, when sought by members of a group, is termed “Marginality” but when imposed by the dominant group it is “Ethnocide”. Finally, Integration, when diversity is a feature of the society as a whole, is termed “Pluralism” and when this diversity is desired by the various ethno-cultural groups, it is called “Multiculturalism” (Berry, 1984). With the use of this framework, comparisons can be made between individuals and their groups, and between non-dominant peoples and the larger society within which they are acculturating. Inconsistencies and conflicts between these various acculturation preferences are sources of difficulty for acculturating individuals. Generally, when acculturation experiences cause problems for acculturating individuals, we observe the phenomenon of acculturative stress. See: Berry J.W., Acculturation and Adaptation among Immigrants…op. cit.

[24] In some countries, the integrationist perspective has become legislated in policies of Multiculturalism, which encourage and support the maintenance of valued features of all cultures, and at the same time support full participation of all ethno-cultural groups in evolving institutions of the broader society. What seems certain is that cultural diversity and the resultant acculturation are here to stay in all countries. Finding a way to accommodate each other poses a challenge and an opportunity to social and cross-cultural psychologists everywhere. Diversity is a fact of contemporary life; whether it is the “spice of life”, or the main “irritant”, is probably the central question that confronts us all, citizens and social scientists alike.

[25] Theatre, sports, local customs, rituals and traditional methods of therapy, are only to mention but a few of these.

[26] Two sides of the post-colonial era are mentioned by Etienne Balibar in “The alternative possible world is found in Europe”: “…It would have been possible to find an equilibrium between a Europe that persists in security, violently oppresses immigration, that is generated by Europe itself, and a Europe without frontiers, open to wild immigration, the one that is adjusted in totalitarian way by the market of human instruments”, in “Entos Epoxis” of newspaper H Epoxi, of 22 July 2007, p. 6 [our translation].

[27] For a very interesting analysis the book by Neil Postman, 1992, titled: Technopoly, is recommended. For a more detailed commentary on informatization, see Theologou K. «Ο τεχνολογικός παράγων στην αυτονομία του πνευματικού πολιτισμού» in the journal Elliniki Philosophiki Epitheorisi (under approval) “The technological factor in the autonomy of spiritual civilization”.

[28] The fact that only but a few years ago UNESCO suggested to its member states and they started joint procedures for protection of lots of cultural monuments and sites of natural beauty of the world cultural heritage, is not a coincidence.

[29] For further reading on nationalism we suggest: Elie Kedourie, Nationalism, 1960, (also in Greek 22003, Ethnikismos, transl. S. Marketos, Katarti Publ., Athens.)· Ernest Gellner, 1997, Nationalism, (in Greek 2002, transl. L. Papadaki, Alexandria Publ., Athens),· P; Lekas, (in Greek) The nationalist ideology (I ethnikistiki ideologia), Katarti Publ. Athens, 1992 (2nd ed. 1996).

^ Top

« "Acculturaltion and Citizenship: Catalysts for the European Urban Space" by Kostas Theologou | Greek version »