Definitions of Europe

What Defines Europe?

I’ve long understood the boundaries and definitions of Europe according to its traditional geographic location as the lands west of the Straits of Bosphorus, Ural, and Caucus Mountains.  But given the history of the land and the constant comings and going of peoples not only native to Europe but to Asia and Africa, it is perhaps necessary to reevaluate the definition of Europe.  In years past, scholars used to define Europe by its religious history as the bedrock of Christian control.  However, that definition is difficult to support given the waining support for christian institutions across the continent and the legacy of Islam in Iberia, Central, and Eastern Europe.  I believe that the best argument to provide a definition of Europe is to describe it as the lands and peoples who throughout all of history have striven to maintain and build off of the Greco-Roman societies of the ancient world.      

The ancient Greek city states and later Roman Republic & Empire exported their culture, religion, and ideas across the whole of the Mediterranean world, rooting their values deep into conquered societies.  But following the collapse of the Western Empire in 476 AD and the waining power of the Eastern Empire in the middle east and north Africa, some societies were transformed by new powers while others kept the legacy of Rome alive.  For example, Charlemagne’s new Frankish Empire sought to be the successor state in the west and roll back the tide of the dark ages, providing a brief renaissance before his death.  Meanwhile, the Byzantine Empire exported greco-roman culture to slavic nomads and the nordic/slavic city states that would become Russia.  Conversely the Mongol, Turkic, and Arab conquests eroded and replaced Roman legacy for their distinctly different culture and societal makeup.  In some places like Iberia and Russia these changes were temporary, while northern Africa and the middle east became the bedrock of the new cultures. 

All European nations since have sought to incorporate some of this greco-roman legacy into their civilization.  Be they Germanic, Slavic, Romance, Greek, Celtic etc., these peoples share in a common historical legacy that spans nearly two thousand years.  Understandably there could be some concern with this definition as it can be argued that other countries might model their societies off of the greco-roman legacy.  However, I don’t see this to be truly the case, given how Asian & African countries have their distinctly different heritage and former colonies in the Americas and Australia share a hybrid heritage from Europe, Africa, and the Natives.  Having this connection across geography and ethnic culture is what truly defines these lands as European while separating them from their neighbors in Asia and Africa.

2)

For my case study I will be looking into how Austria is handling the migration crisis and how it’s altered the political discourse surrounding European integration.  This calls into question just who gets to be European and whether or not anyone can shed their previous identity to adopt a new one.  Despite being the largest refugee crisis since the second world war, many European countries have been hesitant to let in and settle these people precisely because they question their ability to become European.

The essential argument here revolves around the Clash of Civilizations theory in international politics.  Proponents of this theory believe that the distinct cultural differences between civilizations, in this case European and Islamic, prevents peaceful coexistence between those people in the same space.  Though it doesn’t necessarily say that the civilizations can’t interact with one another, it heavily discourages the intermixing and liberal ideas of diversity.  Of course the obvious danger of this theory is that it only emboldens racist and ultra-nationalist voices who still strive for ethno-national purity.       

In Austria, where as much as 82% of the population are ethnically germanic/austrian, only 7% of the population is muslim.  During the first year of the migration crisis, the Austrian government would permit 90,000 asylum applicants, before lowering the number to 37,500 for each of the next four years.  Increasingly the Austrian government would enact harsher restrictions against migrants and refugees including the construction of a border fence along its Slovenian border, issuing a daily migrant cap, denying food and water for denied refugee applicants, and most recently the seizure of mobile phones from migrants.  All of these actions are meant to restrict and limit the amount of non-Austrians from entering and settling into the country.  

Broadly speaking, the rhetoric and actions taken across the region seem to alienate those refugees who are specifically muslim.  These far right politicians are so convinced that muslim refugees will be unable to assimilate and become proper Europeans that they are trying to utilize every legal measure available to inhibit the ability for these refugees to settle in Austria.  Should other European neighbors prove that integration between the two societies can be successful and peaceful, then one can only hope that the Austrian government would roll back some of these damaging policies and embrace greater humanitarian values.