Logic of pragmatism must overcome preoccupation with maps
Logic of pragmatism must overcome preoccupation with maps

Summary/Abstract: Stilian Yotov: The debates on the EU Constitution have made the question of European identity even more salient. Is a European identity possible? But then, is it really necessary? Yes it is, say those who think that after 1993, the EU needs a new model and forms of integration; no it isn’t, argue opponents, who believe that such a quest for identity is less futile than burdensome for the Union. Irrespective of the failure of the Constitution and the compromise solution reached in Lisbon in December 2007, the debates on European identity, and hence on the borders of Europe, have acquired an autonomous dimension. They are used as a frame of reference for discussing the identity and specifi city of Ukraine and the Caucasian countries, of the Western Balkans and, of course, of Turkey. A number of eminent historians have contributed to these debates. As a historian yourself, what is your view of the issue of European identity? In your opinion, what is, or what should be, the role of historians? Why the stark opposition of ‘Turkey will enrich’ versus ‘Turkey will destroy’ the EU? What do you think of the tendency to equate the issues of ‘Islam in the EU’ and ‘Turkey in the EU’?

• Details
• Contents