In the forthcoming general election, we will be voting for national parties and candidates, but underlying this, we will be called upon to choose what sort of Europeans we want to be. In a European Union with war on its borders, the prospect of further enlargement to the East, and the right of veto from which we have yet to free ourselves, the question is simple: is there such a thing as an ‘average European’ capable of withstanding this pressure? Or can Europe rely solely on its institutional mechanisms, always on the lookout for citizens who are up to the task?

We may therefore find some guidance in the thinking of Denis De Rougemont (1906–1985), a philosopher of post-war European federalism. There is no Europe without the European man (and woman, of course). This is the basic premise:the Homo Europaeus is not merely a citizen, but first and foremost a person – a free yet committed individual, an ‘antinomic man who lives in the tension between individual freedom and communal responsibility’.

But through what historical process has this European identity taken shape? Is it possible to trace it back to a ‘zero European’ to whom we might attribute the seeds that have laid the foundations for the modern European individual’s way of being?

Europe did not come into being through a clear-cut and precise founding act, nor from a territory defined in advance, nor from a common ethnicity or culture. Rather, Europe is the result of history: of centuries of changes and influences, political and religious systems, conflicts and reconstruction. Europe is the inevitable future, but also the past open to interpretation.

This is where Denis de Rougemont, the Swiss ‘godfather’ of European federalism, comes in. Whilst Monnet and Schuman’s functionalist approach focused on economic integration as a means of bringing about European political convergence as a natural consequence, Rougemont insisted that the reverse order was the correct one: without a European identity, no institution could hold together.

Homo Europaeus is someone who seeks the three European ‘cardinal virtues’: a commitment to objective truth, a sense of personal responsibility, and a commitment to freedom.

Permanent revolution

Having established this moral framework, the idea is that European identity is structurally contentious. Europe is the first civilisation to conceive of itself in dynamic terms and of history as a ‘permanent revolution’. (It should be noted that we are talking about a deeply Catholic philosopher, not a member of the occupation movement . )

Through the permanent revolution, Europe has embraced the principle of opposing power when it is unjust; it mocks it through satire and reminds it that, whatever happens, it will always be temporary. For us Europeans today, all this is normal, but the point is that it did not exist before – we invented it ourselves.

The permanent revolution has a specific driving force: the never-resolved coexistence of opposites, the antinomy between unity and multiplicity, the coexistence of inevitably differing opinions. These are natures that neither merge nor separate, not even in the name of federalism; differences that remain and are channelled so that the project of European unity does not become bogged down. Does this sound familiar?

Europe is not a place where conflicts are suppressed, but a laboratory in which cultural tension is maintained and transformed into creative energy.

For Rougemont, federalism is the mechanism that best serves this structure, which is essential for European citizens, better than the nation state.

The federalism he has in mind is not a division of powers, but a way of life: a ‘unity in diversity’ in which the European people, whom the nation states have divided, can come together again. A concrete experience involving people, European macro-regions, continental cities and cultural centres.

This is the strength that others lack: when necessary, Europe can change its form.

Straddling the line between sovereignty and Euro-bureaucracy,Homo Europaeus proposes a different path. Rather than seeking to reduce conflict, we should accept it as a normal feature of political life, transforming the tension between levels of government, identities and interests into a driving force for institutional innovation. In this sense, ‘controversial identity’ is not a disease afflicting Europe; it is its main source of inspiration.

The question today is whether the European Union will be able to come to terms with this legacy in a meaningful way. The agenda focuses on treaties, enlargement, industrial policy and defence, but rarely asks what sort of entity these institutions are supposed to represent.

To pick up where Rougemont and*Homo Europaeus* left off means shifting the focus: not just ‘what kind of Europe’, but ‘what kind of European’. Perhaps the most responsible way to vote next time will be precisely this: to ask ourselves which political forces enable us to defend the right to remain different and the desire to stay together.

Postscript

De Rougemont also wrote *Love and the West*. According to his thinking, passionate love unto death – exemplified by the myth of Tristan and Isolde – does not arise from a feeling but from a spiritual matrix that identifies love with suffering and desire with that which cannot be fulfilled. The West is said to have internalised this model, prioritising love as a tragic and consuming tension over love as endurance, fidelity and a shared endeavour built up over time. For Rougemont, however, it is precisely fidelity and enduring love that constitute the true transgression against the dominant culture of passionate love.

It’s the perfect gift idea for your European boyfriend or girlfriend!