Taking the new melting pot for granted: An American look at the European Union

We, in the US, have been working hard to build our American dream for over two and a quarter centuries now. In that time, we have come from all over the world to live and work together as patriotic citizens of our free country. We have not always seen eye-to-eye, at times we were downright brutal to each other, and yes, there is still some hate out there; but we must admit that our society is becoming much more inclusive. It would not have happened without some brave men and women, our American civil rights heroes, standing up to fight injustice; but in a relatively short amount of time, we are finally beginning to coexist as Americans. Well, relatively short in comparison to the time it took our European brethren to get there. To some, they may be a little more advanced than us when it comes to helping our neighbor, displaying some pretty gregarious prosocial behavior through generous social policies and benefits, but such ideals have not always been espoused.

Okay, Americans...beyond what is on the news and the remnants of our vague recollections of high school history, we should dig a little deeper into European history. Indeed, an adequate historical context is paramount to a better understanding of the European Union (EU) and related European continental developments.

Europe comprises 739 million people in more than 40 countries, each composed of many unique cultural heritages. Collectively, they speak over 280 languages across a small, little continent. Throughout history, Europeans have endured war and conquering peoples disrupting their lives on a rather consistent basis, not only against each other but also from outside civilizations. Such a small area with so many differences edified by strong convictions will undoubtedly find conflict inevitable, regardless of any level of enlightenment professed by conflicting societies; that is unless they can find commonality in a superordinate identity and establish some degree of interdependence. Accordingly, a group of some 500 million Europeans, the residents of 27 countries, have entered a formal cooperative to maintain some semblance of peaceful stability against invaders and even more importantly in their economies, the most fundamental reason behind the European Union’s collaboration. The EU offers no greater benefit than what was gained by forming a single market allowing the free movement of goods, people, services, information, and capital amongst member countries under a common currency called the euro (Moran, Abramson, & Moran, 2014, p. 462).

However, the EU's vision of utopia has not been easy to implement because of the very reason why there was a need for it in the first place. For millennia, each group has maintained their cultural and national identities, esteeming them as inherently better than their neighbors’, ergo war and oppression (the plundering of others’ resources was also a problem). The recurrent existential threats made throughout history were born out of these diverse cultural identities, so cherished they are held above all others. Subconsciously, each group, inherently feels they are better than the others, an almost instinctual bias that finds them in a predicament worthy of comparison to Heller’s Catch-22. Furthermore, we can now envision a paradox created when group pride degenerates into vainglory and on to insolence, becoming the very "opposition" defined by social identity theory. Were this the limit, as it is for most groups, circumstances would be less dire; but the cycle sometimes progresses into the hegemonic oppression of other groups. This facilitates the type of intergroup conflict that hyper-focuses group cohesion in their yearning for independence by destroying there adversary, which then exaggerates their sense of pride and places them at the start of another rotation. It is evident that the cycle likely intensifies progressively, and of course, hegemony, conquest, and accumulating new wealth/resources at the expense of others are all products of this type of collective narcissism.

Somehow, in spite of what one would assume to be a hopeless endeavor, the Modern European populace has been wildly more successful than their predecessors at working together in the European Union. The EU has well-established, European-wide institutions and policies and has realized a single-market economy capable of sustaining a $16 trillion annual GDP. There are three agencies to administrate EU endeavors: the European Council, the European Commission, and the European Parliament. Charged with tremendous responsibilities, suffice it to say that the European Commission manages economic matters, leaving the European Council and Parliament to handle political policy and the meting out of justice, respectively.

More than anything else, however, their financial interdependence has eased intergroup relations the most; even though some member countries give more than others. Festering a renewed sentiment against the others and some feeling their imposition to be unfair, or their values neglected. The may desire to exit the group to stand on their own or perhaps ally with others, as in the case of Britain. Yes, being able to separate at will is a significant deterrent to fascism but leaving because of nationalist sentiment to the detriment of the rest of the group is clearly the same problem of the past; which is collective narcissism capable of doing great harm, something important to keep in check. Showing us traditional group dynamics deeply embedded in their collective psyche. So entrenched, they could only hope to find alleviation in some profound new school of thought, one readily accepted by all humanity, or the most devastating calamity that stops life as they know it.

Unfortunately, the latter occurred before the former. The European Union grew out of the ashes of WWII. The Marshall Plan and the European Recovery Act resuscitated economies and made possible the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). The ECSC was the cornerstone today's EU as a common market intended for “economic expansion, employment growth, and a higher standard of living, to be encouraged through the common market for coal and steel” (Timeline Milestone, n.d.). The European Economic Community (EEC) came next to coordinate economies outside of coal and steel, and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom) was set up at the same time to develop a nuclear industry. Eventually, the three merged and over time became the EU of today.

God forbid there is ever another catalyst akin to the one that prompted such harmony. Modern Europeans are extremely fortunate to have never witnessed the atrocities committed by previous generations. They have been gifted a method to break the cycle, to doom the past to the history books, but today, we see waves of Nationalism spreading across the continent with citizens clamoring for closed borders and economies. In essence, the same behavior carried out over and over by their forefathers for thousands of years. Ration dictates we should not be surprised by what aligns perfectly with thousands of years of European history. Only very recently has there been any hope for permanent change, a way to establish a solid foundation of peace that is resistant to dictators and despots but, regrettably, history looks to be repeating itself. The closed borders of Soviet Europe and restricting the movement of commerce/people did not help the East win over the West. No, the wall came tumbling down.

Centrally controlled economies are not efficient. The closed governments imposed by Stalin and Mao Tse-tung led to millions of deaths by starvation, Kim Jong-un is likewise starving those he has trapped inside the borders of the DPRK. Modern nationalists are not envisioning something so severe, but it is a movement in that direction, one opposite to progress. Some EU-exit proponents profess the EU as having become this type of closed economy headed by a small group in Brussels who impose their laws on member countries, challenging their sovereignty but these claims are over-exaggerated, and the members can shape EU-wide laws from the inside. EU member states retain their sovereignty and collectively rule themselves under the EU umbrella, and there, we find their cooperation has created a new melting pot where ideas and commerce move freely across the continent.

The famous economist Friedrich Hayek writes, “The peculiar character of the problem of a rational economic order is determined precisely by the fact that the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form, but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess" (Hayek, 1945, Sec. H.3).

Here, Hayek defines the attempt to design and carry out a well-thought-out economic plan as a “rational economic order” that is managed by a central authority. The problem becomes evident as Hayek describes the state of all knowledge across all societies as “dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge.” What this means is that not one single person ever has full knowledge of every intricate detail of every piece of information. Rather, all knowledge is wholly held collectively among everyone in fragmented states at the individual level. One person has one piece of the puzzle; someone else has another, which may be contradictory to the other, and so on spanning the whole of our human race. It matters not that one’s knowledge counters another’s; the shared bank of knowledge miraculously evens things out on its own accord. It is quite impossible for one single entity to possess a complete understanding of all factors that affect an economy.

Individuals have a unique understanding of their personal, best use of resources which cannot be shared wholly to another mind tasked with the aggregate resource allocation to everyone else. “Or, to put it briefly, it is a problem of the utilization of knowledge which is not given to anyone in its totality” (Hayek, 1945, Sec. H.3). The minimum information needed by economic planners is the sum of all the information known to individuals, and they must realize the inevitability of change. People only need to know the facts of relative importance to them and have no reason to comprehend the entire cause and effect relationships occurring system-wide. Trying to understand everything is pointless. It is empirically impossible to gather all the unique circumstances known by everyone individually, then place them in some data set to be statistically analyzed, and finally conveying the results to a central authority. There is simply too much data.

A closed market cannot be sustained indefinitely. Free movement is crucial for an efficient economy because it allows the market to correct itself. Our great melting pot’s converging ideas were imperative for a successful American free market. The EU has the same advantage in their new melting pot, but it appears that some are taking it for granted with an ideology based on knee-jerk reactions above sound strategy. Hiding like hermit crabs makes you feel safe now, but future generations are the ones who will suffer the consequences of disbanding the most. That confidence you have to go it alone was actually boosted by having been protected in the larger group, get ready to lose that sentiment, and oh yeah, check out resurging Russia over there. You might want to line up as much help as you can get.

In the end, to obtain a clearer understanding of the dynamics behind differing groups' conflicts, one should engage in specific research regarding their societal development. It is necessary to discover other points of contention for certain peoples, but one cannot neglect the other historical influences that shaped European societies such as environment and epidemiology. Climate change and plagues were good reasons as any for forced commingling. By shedding some light on the situation, the intent of this article is to inspire further research into how diversity and differing perspectives affect the European Union and why it is necessary to have some understanding of European history to stay informed with issues shaping our world. Europe has many groups that have been around for a very long time, and they are all vying for control of their piece of dirt on their little continent. Once put into historical and sociological contexts, we Americans can begin to grasp the groups’ logic and competitive tenets, which, built upon thousands of years of culture has only recently started viewing the world from a collaborative, global perspective instead of one of social dominance. Nevertheless, they must be wary of ideology being used to shape policy. Reason and collaboration provide safety to many and they all but guarantee economic success in an ability to compete on a global scale. As proud as they are, they cannot successfully compete with America and China without pooling their resources. 

References

Hayek, Friedrich A. "The Use of Knowledge in Society." 1945. Library of Economics and Liberty. Retrieved January 24, 2016 from the World Wide Web: http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html

Moran, R. T., Abramson, N. R., & Moran, S. V. (2014). Managing cultural differences. London and New York: Routledge.

Timeline Milestone. (n.d.). Retrieved February 25, 2017, from http://www.euintheus.org/timeline-milestone/?post=13256