This article was downloaded by: [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries]

On: 20 December 2014, At: 11:45

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Intercultural

studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceji19

Schooling a European Identity:

ethno‐cultural exclusion and
nationalist resonance within the EU
policy of “The European dimension of
education”
Peo Hansen
Published online: 28 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Peo Hansen (1998) Schooling a European Identity: ethno‐cultural exclusion
and nationalist resonance within the EU policy of “The European dimension of education”,
European Journal of Intercultural studies, 9:1, 5-23, DOI: 10.1080/0952391980090101

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0952391980090101

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms
& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/
terms-and-conditions
 European Journal of Intercultural Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1998

Schooling a European Identity:

ethno-cultural exclusion and nationalist
resonance within the EU policy of "The
European dimension of education"
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries] at 11:45 20 December 2014

PEO HANSEN

ABSTRACT This article aims to explore how the role of education as an aide in the process
of "European" identity formation is being articulated in the European Union's (EU) policy
of "The European dimension of education". After having located the EU's views on
education in the context of the neo-liberal discourse on economic globalization, the article
goes on to trace EU discussions of the European dimension of education historically.
Subsequently, it deliberates on the understanding of European culture and identity which
the European dimension of education endeavours to advance. Here a critique is developed
of the policy's ethno-culturalism, thereby excluding delineation of a collective identity in the
EU. Basing itself on a notion of cultural identity which, implicitly, includes only those who
fit certain versions of European historical "roots" and cultural "heritage", the policy, it is
argued, impedes a discussion of how a trans-ethnic identity formation could be created in
today's EU. Towards the end of the article, a scrutiny of the European dimension's
perception of the so-called "language diversity" in the EU seeks to illustrate this issue
further.

SAMMANDRAG Artikelns övergripande syfte är att studera hur utbildningens roll i försö-
ken att skapa en "europeisk" identitet artikuleras i EUs policy "den europeiska dimen-
sionen inom utbildningen". Artikeln inleds med ett resonemang om kopplingen mellan EUs
syn pd samarbete inom utbildningen och den nyliberala diskursen om ekonomisk globaliser-
ing, samt hur detta sammantaget relateras till EUs försök att skapa en gemensam kulturell
unionsidentitet. Detta följs av en redogörelse for hur EUs diskussion av "den europeiska
dimensionen inom utbildningen" har sett ut historiskt. Huvuddelen av artikeln tar sedan
sin utgångspunkt i en beskrivning och analys av hur europeisk kultur och identitet förstås
i denna policy. Har utvecklas en kritik av policyns etno-kulturella och därmed exk-
luderande karakterisering av kollektiv identitet i EU. Genom att grunda sig på en
uppfattning om kulturell identitet vilken, implicit, enbart inbegriper de som personifierar en
viss version av Europas "stolta" historiska och kulturella "arv", försvårar policyn fram-
växten av en nödvändig diskussion om hur en trans-etnisk identitet skulle kunna skapas

0952-391X/98/010005-19 ©1998 Carfax Publishing Ltd

 6 P. Hansen

i EU. Mot slutet av artikeln illustreras denna problematik ytterligare genom en analys av
den europeiska dimensionens syn pa den så kallade "språkliga mångfalden" i EU.

Introduction
In their attempts to infuse new life into lethargic election campaigns, politicians in
the West are increasingly seeking refuge in lofty commitments to education. George
Bush made a pledge to become the "education president" in 1988, and the
centre-right government in Sweden promised to create the "best school in Europe"
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries] at 11:45 20 December 2014

3 years later. More recently, Bill Clinton and his new Democrats said they would
launch a "crusade for education", so as to make American education the "best in
the world", while Tony Blair and new Labour promised to make education their
top priority—or as the campaign sound-bite had it: "education, education, edu-
cation".
In conjunction with the dismantling of the remaining welfare policies in the
United States and the downsizing of the welfare states in Western Europe, these
commitments to education have—viewed at a surface level—come to stand out as
some of the last promises still carrying a social ring during elections. But as Green
(1997, p. 30) has pointed out, within a discourse in which the role of education is
being articulated as undergoing change, education's social appeal is wearing off:

"In almost all countries politicians and others accord education and train-
ing an important role in economic development, and this has become
increasingly evident as globalization has heightened international economic
competition. However, there is now much less confidence in the ability
of education systems to perform other developmental functions such as
the cultivation of social solidarity, democratic citizenship and national
identity."

The economic survival of the nation-state in the global market-place is increasingly

perceived as a function of the quality of its education system. Con-
sequently, a gradual shift in national education systems is taking place where, as
Green (1997, p. 4) has shown, "citizen formation has given way to skills formation,
nation-building to national economic competitiveness".
If the economy-education nexus has caused much anxiety within the nation-state,
it has proven to be an even more stressful development for the European Union
(EU). As pundits and scores of economic reports keep insisting on how the EU
continues to lag behind its main Asian and North American rivals in economic
competitiveness, patent production, educational software development and enrol-
ments in higher education (cf. Commission of the European Communities [CEC],
1991; Cresson, 1996; Friedman, 1997; Ipsen, 1997), pressure is building on the EU
to integrate its education systems and so put education on a par with the overall
economic integration (Sultana, 1995, p. 126). As set forth by the European Com-
mission: "adaption to the digital age and the challenges of the Information Society,
employment and, ultimately, economic competitiveness all depend on the success of
 Schooling a European Identity 7

our policies for education and training" (CEC, 1997). Hence, the Commission is
intent on generating more support for its understanding that "to a greater extent
than before, promoting the European dimension in education and training has
become a necessity for efficiency in the face of internationalisation" (CEC, 1995b,
p. 29).
As much as the EU discussion on education is penetrated by the mantras of
neo-liberal economism and its requirements of a tighter fit between school curricu-
lum and the demands of a Euro-global business sector1 (eager to create a "flexible"
labour market for a "multi-skilled" and transnationally "mobile" work-force (cf.
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries] at 11:45 20 December 2014

Kairamo, 1989)), the Commission has been fast to point out that its argument for
greater educational convergence is not premised on economic considerations alone.
Unlike the Western European nation-states, arguably, the EU has also been hard at
work to carve out a cultural role for education in the Community. Answering the
alleged criticism against the Commission's White Paper on Education and Training
(CEC, 1995b) "for putting too much emphasis on purely economic issues" (CEC,
1996, p. 6), the Commissioner in charge of education, Edith Cresson, thus contends
that the issue of education at the EU level "is as much cultural as industrial. Not
only must Europe defend its interests, it also has an identity to preserve.... 'Europe
is a cultural ideal which should be promoted,'.... That is the real issue" (Cresson,
1996, p. 3).
As I will come back to at a later stage, Cresson's statement is indicative of a
conviction—gaining in momentum within the EU since the early 1980s—which
holds that in order to create public consent* and legitimacy for the Community
project the EU cannot continue to define itself in primarily economic terms, as an
organization of economic interests and consumers. Instead, the EU must be reimag-
ined as constituting a cultural unit as well, where a sense of shared identity and
citizenship can thrive (CEC, 1985, 1987, 1988a, 1995b; European Parliament,
1988). In this process of creating a cultural community and "European" identity
formation—where "Community measures in the cultural sector is also an economic
necessity" (CEC, 1987, p. 1)—the argument continues, education has a pivotal role
to play. Indeed, as the White Paper on Education and Training puts it: "Education and
training provide the reference points needed to affirm collective identity" (CEC,
1995, p. 51).
My objective in this paper, then, is to study how this role of education as an aide
in the process of identity formation is being articulated in the Community policy of
"The European dimension of education". So far this task, in particular, but also the
task of studying the EU and education in general, have failed to attract any
substantial interest among researchers (Sultana, 1995). Also, to use Sultana's (1995,
p. 116) wording, "most of the literature that addresses the subject has been marked
by an uncritical acceptance of the goals and processes of European unification".2
One obvious, although not sufficient reason for this meagre research interest can be
attributed to the fact that the EU still lacks any real formal harmonizing powers in
the field of education. As stated in the Treaty, the Community role in education is
limited to the enhancement of "cooperation between Member States" and to
"supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the responsibility
 8 P. Hansen

of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organization of education
systems" (Council of the European Communities, CEC, 1992, p. 47).
Yet, in spite of this formal "exclusion of any possibility of harmonisation" (CEC,
1993a, p. 9), Sultana argues that:

"the non-legally binding resolutions and recommendations have, never-

theless, been effective in ... extending the Commission's influence....
[increasingly European ministers of education meet to discuss the same
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries] at 11:45 20 December 2014

situations and preoccupations, aim at the same goals, follow similar

directions, and adopt similar policies." (Sultana, 1995, p. 129)3

One concrete case in point that lends support to Sultana's thesis is, of course, the
development of the Commission's ERASMUS programme which, despite the lack
of formal EU competence in education, has been able to grow remarkably over the
years—both in terms of reach and funding (O'Leary, 1995, p. 168; Sultana, 1995,
p. 127).
Given this, there is thus a strong case for engaging seriously in a discussion about
the collective identity that the EU aspires to form in and through education. In what
follows I will focus specifically on the "European dimension of education", begin-
ning the paper by tracing EU discussions of this policy historically. In the second
and major part of the paper, I deliberate on the particular understanding of
European culture and identity which the European dimension of education endeav-
ours to advance and build on. Herein, I develop a critique of what is discerned as
the policy's excluding delineation of collective identity in the EU; a delineation
which is reminiscent of a particular nationalist discourse founded on notions of
ethno-cultural identification. Owing to a view of cultural "heritage" and
"civilization", it is argued, the European dimension of education thwarts a construc-
tive discussion of how an inclusive trans-ethnic identity formation could be envi-
sioned in the EU of today. Towards the end of the paper, a scrutiny of the European
dimension's perception of the so called "language diversity" in the EU seeks to elicit
this issue further.

The European Dimension in Education: the development of a Community

policy
In attempting to trace the European dimension in education historically, one point
of departure is to be found in the work conducted by the Council of Europe.
Although the Council's activities fall outside the scope of this paper, they merit
mention here because of the long duration of co-operation in the field of education
between the Council of Europe and what is now the European Union (cf. European
Economic Community [EEC], 1976; Shennan, 1991). According to the Council,
the discussion of the European dimension in education was initiated in the early
1950s (Stobart, 1991, p. iii; cf. Ryba, 1992, p. 11). Whether this holds true for the
EU 4 as well, is more difficult to determine. Considering, on the one hand, the
immense sensitivity that surrounded the topic of education within the EEC
 Schooling a European Identity 9

discussion during the 1950s and 1960s (McMahon, 1995, pp. 3-4), it seems rather
unlikely that this should be the case. On the other hand, when digging further into
the EU documents there are indications provided that Council of Europe activities
concerning the European Dimension actually had spilled over into EEC discussion
already during this "sensitive" era. Also, on at least one occasion this does not stop
short of indications but gets spelled out in a clear statement. Speaking on behalf of
the Commission in 1988, Commissioner Marin made the following affirmation:
"The Commission has been stressing the importance of the European and Com-
munity dimension in education since 1959. Since that time it has worked with
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries] at 11:45 20 December 2014

organizations at national and European level to promote better treatment of that

dimension." (European Community, 1988b, p. 6)
Another route one can take to trace the origins of the European dimension in
education would go via the so-called "European schools"; the first ones were
established during the late 1950s and early 1960s. These were schools set up to cater
"for children from families that were professionally mobile" across Community
countries—such as those working for the Commission (Neave, 1984, p. 131).
Although I have not found any explicit mention of these schools accommodating
a European dimension until 1976, it still seems safe to say that from the outset
the curriculum in the European schools contained several elements that would fit
the later definition of the European dimension of education (cf. Neave, 1984,
pp. 131-2).
Speaking in more clear-cut policy terms, however, the birth of the European
dimension in education within the EEC most probably dated back to the early
1970s, when attitudes towards education, within both Community institutions and
the member states, slowly began to loosen up. Prior to this, as was mentioned above,
education loomed as a delicate subject within the Community (Neave, 1984, p. 6).
Indeed, without any mention of education in the Treaty of Rome—and conse-
quently no supranational Community competence in the area—and due to edu-
cation's intrinsic links to the vigorously defended notion of national sovereignty, no
real Community initiatives had been pursued in the area up to the beginning of the
1970s (Ryba, 1992, p. 11; McMahon, 1995, pp. 3-4).
Therefore, when the ministers of education met within the Council for the first
time ever in 1971, this signified a breakthrough for education in the Community.
Put differently, the implications of this meeting can be seen as momentous, since it
made clear that education now constituted a field in its own capacity, and that it
qualified to be treated as such within the Community institutions (McMahon, 1995,
P. 4).
Shortly thereafter, the Commission asked the former Belgian minister of
education, Professor Henri Janne, to draw up the primary goals for a future policy
of education at the EEC level. In 1973 this resulted in the Janne Report (For a
Community Policy on Education). Although the Janne Report did not gain status as
an official EEC statement, it proved very influential for the development of a
Community policy in certain areas; it affirmed that the European dimension of
education constituted an important one. "It is in this area that the impact of the
recommendations of the Janne Report are most obvious" (McMahon, 1995, p. 7).
 10 P. Hansen

Out of this emerged the first contours of a European dimension of education as

an area of specific interest for the Community. In a communication from the
Commission, drawn up in 1974 (Neave, 1984, p. 8), four areas were identified as
constituting the backbone of the policy: (i) furtherance of foreign language teaching;
(ii) promotion of the study of Europe as part of the ordinary curriculum; (iii)
co-operation between bodies of higher education across the Community; and (iv)
expanded support for the European schools (McMahon, 1995, p. 7; Neave, 1984,
pp. 8-9). One should keep in mind here, however, that education still figured as a
sensitive area, and when the ministers of education met within the Council later that
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries] at 11:45 20 December 2014

year they specifically ruled out a development towards harmonization of the diverse
education systems in the member states (Neave, 1984, pp. 9-10). Hence, as argued
by McMahon (1995, p. 4), "[t]he goal of the Community action in the area of
education was to be co-operation rather than harmonization of existing policies and
systems".
The next stage in the development of the European dimension in education can
be found in the 1976 resolution of the Council "comprising an action programme
in the field of education" (EEC, 1976). With its expanded interpretation of the
European dimension, the resolution has been characterized as a notable achieve-
ment. This, also, since it elevated the wider subject of education on the Community
agenda (Shennan, 1991, p. 19; cf. McMahon, 1995, p. 11). More than this, the
European dimension was now reflective of the new official perception—yet an old
idea—of the Community as an entity that should consist of cultural, social and
political areas, as well as functioning as an organ for economic co-operation
(McLean, 1990, p. 5; Neave, 1984, p. 123). As such, education was now considered
"central to the full and healthy development of the Community" (EEC, 1976).
In the resolution, the European dimension was given a more detailed and
extended content. Now, for instance, primary and secondary education were em-
phasized alongside higher education. Also, foreign-language teaching was specified
as the teaching of "the languages of the Community". Furthermore, the resolution
stated that:

"[i]n order to give a European dimension to the experience of teachers and

pupils ... in the Community, member states will promote and organize: ...
mobility and interchange of pupils and teachers within the Community ...
contacts between the authorities of establishments concerned with teacher
training [and] educational activities with a European content." (EEC,
1976)

Notwithstanding the 1976 "action programme in the field of education", the

European dimension, as Mulcahy (1994, p. 85) phrases it, "remained vague for at
least another decade, its implementation was haphazard, and it encountered strong
opposition" (cf. McLean, 1990, pp.4, 6; Ryba, 1992, p. 12). As pointed out by
Commissioner Richard, speaking on behalf of the Commission in 1984: "the
resources available for the promotion of a European dimension in school curricula
 Schooling a European Identity 11

are very small, and have been considerably reduced in recent years" (EEC, 1984,
p. 16).
Also worthy of notice here is that, even though the European dimension sought to
be reflective of a Community that aspired to define itself in cultural, social and
political terms—and not merely in economical—this reflectiveness continued to
appear vague and, at most, implicit. In the 1976 "action programme terms" there
was no reference to education's role in promoting a "European cultural awareness"
or in fostering a "European identity". Actually, the words culture and identity did
not figure at all in the resolution on education. Conversely, there was also no
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries] at 11:45 20 December 2014

mention of education in the 1973 Community "Declaration on European identity"

(CEC, 1973). Taken as a whole, this points to a marked difference in the EU's
articulation of education in general, and of the European dimension in particular,
between the mid-1970s and the present, where, as will be shown in the next section,
firm discursive links have been established between education, culture and identity.

Culture and Identity: redefining the role of education

During the second half of the 1980s, major changes occurred at the Community
level that would spur the articulation of, if not an altogether new, then at least a
considerably more defined role for education. Animated by the push towards the
adoption of the Single European Act and the objectives behind the launching of "A
people's Europe", the field of education experienced a renewed and increased
activity. Thus, "pressures began to build for a reinvigoration of the Commission's
European Dimension in Education Program" (Ryba, 1992, pp. 12-13).
According to McMahon (1995, pp. 14-16) this, what he calls, "turning point" in
the Community's perception of education, should largely be attributed to the work
of the ad hoc Committee on a People's Europe, chaired by Pietro Adonnino. This
committee had been set up by the European Council in 1984, and was asked to
focus on future Community manoeuvres that would meet the "expectations of the
peoples of Europe by adopting measures to strengthen and promote its identity and
its image both for its citizens and for the rest of the world" (cited in CEC, 1988a,
p. 6). In its second Adonnino report, the committee included proposals for action in
the fields of education and culture that would help promote a European identity
(CEC, 1985). The committee's proposals were subsequently approved by the
European Council in 1985, and resounded less than 4 months later in the Conclu-
sions of the Council "on the enhanced treatment of the European dimension in
education". In the Council Conclusions a summary of statements was made which
pointed to the first substantial steps taken towards the articulation of education in
the context of culture and identity (see Council of the European Communities,
1987, pp. 143-4).
The conclusions of the Council were developed further in the 1988 Resolution of
the Council "on the European dimension in education" (European Community,
1988a). As Mulcahy (1994, p. 85) notes, "the resolution of 1988 provided, es-
pecially in its statement of objectives, important clarification that was hitherto
lacking". Indeed, according to the Council the explicit purpose of the European
 12 P. Hansen

dimension had now become to help "strengthen in young people a sense of

European identity and make clear to them the value of European civilization and of
the foundations on which the European peoples intend to base their development
today" (European Community, 1988a). Moreover, with particular reference to the
Council decision on "A people's Europe", "the image of Europe in education" was
to be reinforced by, among others, such measures as:

"the promotion of school initiatives and extra-curricular activities.such as

Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries] at 11:45 20 December 2014

school twinning and the formation of 'European clubs' ... the participation
of schools in activities organized as part of the Europe Day ... the partici-
pation of schools in the European schools' competition ... increased
cooperation between the member states in the area of school sports."
(European Community, 1988a)

On the whole the 1988 Resolution breathes more decisiveness than its predeces-
sors. A wide array of new measures—including symbolic ones, as was proposed by
the ad hoc Committee (CEC, 1985)5—were incorporated while old measures were
elaborated in greater detail than before. Of more significance for the discussion here
though, is that the "People's Europe" initiative and the 1988 Resolution combined,
testified to the fact that education, in general, and the European dimension of
education, in particular, were explicitly linked to questions pertaining to culture and
identity in the Community. Further illustration of this is provided by a Commission
communication, also published in 1988, entitled "A People's Europe". Here, the
reasoning behind the increased weight the Community has assigned to the field of
culture, and the accompanying undertaking to locate education more firmly in this
field, were spelled out:

"The main aim in the fields of culture and communication is to emphasize

the essential elements of the European identity and the Community image
... European integration will not and cannot be a success unless our young
people are interested and involved as well. Hence the value of education,
foreign language teaching, exchanges and sport, and the need for Com-
munity action to look beyond economic issues to the major concerns of
day-to-day life." (CEC, 1988a, p. 7)

As the 1980s drew to a close we see how "culture" increasingly was being framed
as constituting the future foundation upon which Community integration was to be
built. Citing the Commission again, it is action in this field that will "help heighten
the sense of belonging to a European culture and thereby strengthen the European
identity" (CEC, 1988a, p. 11). Hence, as the Commission's reasoning above makes
clear, the economic argument or stress on "common market" was de-emphasized in
favour of a stress on "common culture" (cf. Laffan, 1996; Morley & Robins, 1995;
Shore, 1993; Shore & Black, 1992).
 Schooling a European Identity 13

Cultural Essentialism and the Essentials of Culture

During the 1990s, the efforts to create a Community identity based on a sense of
belonging to a European culture have been intensified, making the European
dimension a central point of reference in Brussels' endeavour to rally popular
support behind the EU project. The Maastricht Treaty (or Treaty on European
Union) testified to this by giving the European dimension in education specific
mention under the Treaty's first Article (126) of education ever (Council of the
European Communities, CEC, 1992). In 1993, as a direct result of the inclusion of
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries] at 11:45 20 December 2014

education into the Treaty's legal framework, the Commission presented the Green
Paper on the European Dimension of Education.6 Although the Green Paper does not
add much in terms of actual content, it is undoubtedly the most substantial
articulation so far of the purposes behind the policy.
According to the Green Paper, the European dimension's primary objective is to
stimulate an awareness of what it conceives of as a common European culture and
heritage, so as to make students more prone to identify as Europeans: "Introducing
this [European] dimension requires teachers: ... to learn to share and pass on the
wealth of European cultures; to develop a European perspective alongside national
and regional allegiances; to make use of the shared cultural heritage ..." (CEC,
1993b, p. 10). But as the quote clearly indicates, the furtherance of a European
perspective in schools across the Union is not intended to obliterate or dissolve the
national and regional cultural identities. Instead, these three cultural attachments
are said to have a harmonizing effect and should be given equal treatment.
The effort to establish a discourse where the relationship between the "European"
and the "national" comes across as a non-conflictual one has been visible in EU
discussions on education since the outset in the early 1970s, and can be seen as part
of a Commission strategy of assuring the member states that the EU has no
intentions of infringing on national sovereignty in the field of education. This comes
across with great clarity in the Commission (CEC, 1988b) document Enhanced
Treatment of the European Dimension in Education-?

"This European cultural model is ... distinguished by the fact that it is not
designed to supersede or replace national cultures.... In the relationship
between European culture and national cultures there is no substitution,
no transcendence, no conflict or even compromise, simply reciprocal
enrichment and cross-fertilization." (CEC, 1988b, pp. 5, 6)

With the Maastricht Treaty a (third) regional cultural dimension was included to
form part of this non-conflictual cultural relationship; arguably a result of the
regional lobby groups' rapid expansion in Brussels (cf. Laffan, 1996; Marks et ah,
1996). As stated in the Treaty's Article 128 on Culture, the Community is intent on
"respecting" its "national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the
common cultural heritage to the fore" (Council of the European Communities,
CEC, 1992).
To sum up the thrust of the argument put forth by the Green Paper, the main
 14 P. Hansen

purpose behind the European dimension of education is then to generate a greater

sense of identification with European culture, which—as we gather from the state-
ments above—-gets construed as something palpable, seemingly fixed, exemplary and
simply "out there" for people to discover and add on to their similarly construed
national and regional cultural identities. To borrow from Shore (1993, p. 792), "the
Commission's representations of 'European identity' seem to reflect an essentialist
model of identity as ... something organic, fundamental, historically given and
bounded". These, he adds, "are the ideological underpinnings which resonate
throughout the Commission's category of 'European cultural heritage' ".
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries] at 11:45 20 December 2014

As we move closer to the present the emphasis on this particular understanding of

"culture", and its inherent conjoiners "heritage" and "civilization", has become even
more marked. In 1994 the Parliament and the Council asserted that the European
dimension in education is a theme "concerned with cultural heritage", "based on the
cultural heritage of the Member States", which "should contribute to strengthening
in pupils and students a sense of European identity" (European Union, 1994,
pp. 61, 52). Finally, in the ensuing White Paper on Education and Training, the
Commission, as it explains why knowledge and admiration of European culture,
heritage and civilization are essential for today's students, also embarks on a
discussion concerning the actual content, or the characteristics, of this culture:

"Knowledge of history ... is essential to everyone if they are to come to

terms with their roots.... The penalty society pays for forgetting the past is
to lose a common heritage of bearings and reference points. It is not
surprising that, not knowing the history of European civilization, that such
expressions as, 'being out in the wilderness', 'having a cross to bear',
'Eureka!', 'the judgement of Solomon' or 'the tower of Babel' have lost
their meaning.... European civilization has a long history and is very
complex ... the legacy of a tradition which made Europe the first to bring
about a technical and industrial revolution and thus change the world....
Being European is to have the advantage of a cultural background of
unparalleled variety and depth." (CEC, 1995b, pp. 12, 50, 51)

Towards an Ethno-cultural Model of Community Formation?

This provided, it is not far-fetched to argue here that embedded in the insistence on
safeguarding a national and regional cultural diversity when a common European
identity is being formed—often expressed as the principle of "unity in diversity" in
EU rhetoric—there also seems to be a conscious attempt on the part of the EU to
dissociate its conception of education from the homogenizing role that was given to
education during the consolidation of the European nation-states. As maintained by
the Commission, an EU identity must be developed "without succumbing to the
colourless uniformity of 'Europeanism' or to the temptation of blindly imitating the
past" (CEC, 1991, p. 5). Yet, as I will argue below, despite the attempt to foster an
identity through education that—and contrary to how most nation-states tried to
"school" national identities in the nineteenth century—would seek to embrace
 Schooling a European Identity 15

cultural difference and multiple identifications, the EU, through its comprehension
and application of "culture", still adheres to some of the key components of the
nationalist discourse it seeks to evade.
Given the difficulty in speaking about nationalism, and other practices utilized to
form cohesive communities, as appropriating only one uncompounded and unitary
discourse (cf. Parekh, 1994), I will here refer to the EU education discourse as
resonating with one particular nationalist discourse among other possible ones;
rather than with a vague notion of nationalism at large. Taking this a little further,
Habermas' (1996) discussion of the different and often contradictory principles
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries] at 11:45 20 December 2014

around which the nation-state and national identity can be structured and mobilized
offers guidance here.
According to Habermas, the nation-state is fraught with an inherent "tension
between the universalism of an egalitarian legal community and the particularism of
a cultural community joined by origin and fate" (1996, p. 131). In short, this tension
can be formulated as one between an inclusive and an exclusive model of com-
munity formation: the former seeking integration and cohesion by means of consti-
tutional and socio-political rights; the latter by means of invoking a sense of
hereditary or ethno-cultural identification with an organic and prepolitically consti-
tuted community. It must be emphasized here though, that these two models are
always more or less instituted and articulated simultaneously, and therefore no
nation-state can, empirically speaking, be said to be founded solely on one of the two
models. And as noted earlier, Habermas speaks of a "tension" within the nation-state
between these two models. This granted, Habermas argues that in order for a
community formation8 to be inclusive of ethnically, culturally and religiously dis-
similar groups—or to be equipped with a foundation which at least harbours such a
potential—mobilization around constitutional rights and a sense of "shared political
culture" has to gain the upper hand over an identity mobilization on ethno-cultural
grounds.
Leaning partly on Habermas' reasoning then, the discussion in what follows
attempts to trace and examine more closely the model of community formation that
the EU advances in its discourse on education.

A "Grand Old" Heritage for a New Ethno-cultural Identity

If education, as it was instituted in the evolving nation-state, became one of the
primary devices used by the state to transmit a glorified and highly selective
depiction of the national culture, traditions and history that were under construction
(cf. Green, 1997; Hobsbawm, 1983, 1990; Heater, 1990), we can now begin to see
why this seems to square quite well with how the EU understands the function of
education today. Hence, drawing from the White Paper cited above, the Commission
contends that in order to successfully construct a European identity, students must
learn to take pride in what gets outlined as Europe's civilization, cultural heritage
and historical achievements. Looking once more at the White Paper—this time citing
an "eminent European historian"—helps elucidate this further:
 16 P. Hansen

"The Europe of the Middle Ages and post-medieval times had to face
up to the Byzantine world, the Arab world and the Ottoman Empire.
The struggle today is fortunately set in a more pacific context. Never-
theless, the existence of protagonists in history gigantic by their size or
by their economic strength, or indeed both, means Europe has to
achieve a comparable scale if to exist, progress and retain its identity....
Fortunately, Europe has the weight of its civilization and its common
heritage behind it. Over 25 centuries European civilization has, in suc-
cessive stages, been creative; and even today, as one slogan goes,
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries] at 11:45 20 December 2014

Europe's main raw material is unquestionably its grey matter." (CEC,

1995b, p. 50)

Seeing too that the EU, as did the nation-state, seeks to form a cohesive
community by appealing to a taken-for-granted notion of organic culture, the fact
that this European culture is said to build on multiple (national and regional)
cultural sources—as opposed to the nation-state's claim to a singular cultural
source—does not make the EU identity discourse logically different from this
particular nationalist discourse. Stated differently, a "European" cultural identity
comprises cultural diversity exactly because the elements representing this diversity,
that is the national and regional cultures, are described as sharing a common
historical heritage, a common origin. The EU discourse and the specific nationalist
discourse referred to here are thus modelled on a similar ethno-cultural comprehen-
sion of what constitutes a community's identity. According to the Commission
then—and while holding forth on the importance of raising young people's aware-
ness of the common European identity through education—the "European identity
is the result of centuries of shared history and common cultural and fundamental
values" (CEC, 1988a, p. 7; see also, European Parliament, 1988, p. 207). Likewise,
in its "Opinion on the Citizens' Europe", where the issue of education was discussed
at some length, the Economic and Social Committee held that, among other things,
"The key to a citizens' Europe is ... its Christian heritage" (Economic and Social
Committee, 1992, p. 34).
As a natural consequence, the EU's particular, and indeed lofty, articulation of
"our common culture" also bears likeness to the nation-state's in the sense that it
unavoidably (not necessarily intentionally though) comes to masquerade as class
neutral, as just an upright expression of what "we" have in common, and therefore
something which seemingly should enthuse and be equally meaningful among
school children and students from dissimilar social backgrounds.
However, once we turn to the issue of ethnicity and the European dimension of
education, the articulation of "culture" gives the impression of being less prone—
whether knowingly or unknowingly—to masquerade as ethnically neutral and inclus-
ive. Looking, again, at the earlier cited White Paper on Education and Training (CEC,
1995b), the Commission shows no signs of trying to hide the fact that it defines
contemporary "Europeanness" as an inherited identity and quality. In other words,
the ability to trace one's "roots" to an illustrious European past seems to become
a prerequisite for a sense of belonging to the European culture of today. Thus,
 Schooling a European Identity 17

and as I have argued elsewhere (Hansen, 1997), the "European" in the European
dimension of education takes on an ethno-cultural meaning, which leaves out of
view the presence of particularly those (non-white) pupils who, per definition, do
not impersonate the required historical "roots", the "cultural tradition", the (Chris-
tian) "civilization", and who cannot become part of "the legacy of a tradition which
made Europe the first to bring about a technical and industrial revolution and thus
change the world" (CEC, 1995, pp. 12, 50).
In his work Teaching History in the New Europe Slater, (1995) develops a similar
argument against having such a conception of European culture form the basis of
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries] at 11:45 20 December 2014

today's teaching about Europe. Culture, he argues,

"is essentially exclusive ... it can be, and has often been, a self-fulfilling
concept, and that is not only unhistorical but terribly dangerous. 'Culture'
becomes a form of qualification, an entree, a testimonial. Those who do
not share it are not, or not quite, 'one of us', not wholly 'European'."
(Slater, 1995, p. 10 [italics in original])

In relation to this Slater holds the concepts of European "heritage" and

"civilization" to be equally problematic as educational guides, seeing the former
as mainly constituting "a rag-bag of hygienic and comfortable past, ... demanding
our respect and uncritical loyalty", and the latter as "altogether too smug and
complacent, racist even, with its implicit undertones of superiority" (Slater, 1995,
p. 8).
Furthermore, the perspective entertained in the European dimension of education
closely resembles what Coulby & Jones (1995) have termed a "traditionalist
view" of European culture and history, which, rather than entering into a critical
relationship with these matters, seeks to celebrate them as containers of a unique
civilization's achievements. As such, they point to the traditionalist view of
European culture as "ethnocentric in its core and formation. The voices which it
excludes are actually those which offer it any possibility of greater depth" (Coulby
& Jones, 1995, p. 100). As an alternative to this "traditionalist" perspective on
Europe, Coulby & Jones suggest an approach to education in the European Union
that instead would include and seek to stimulate a critical discussion of such subject
matters as "the history of non-dominant groups and regions, women's history, oral
history, [and] the records of resistance to European colonisation and exploitation"
(1995, pp. 137-8). Their suggestion ends on a negative note though: "Whether the
incorporation of the European dimension will encourage this approach remains to
be seen but the past record does not give too many grounds for optimism." (Coulby
& Jones, 1995, p. 138).
Before extending the analysis further—by looking at the question of language
and education in the EU—a conclusion to be drawn already at this juncture is then
that the EU education discourse can be said to prioritize what was referred to above,
with Habermas (1996), as the exclusive or ethno-cultural model of community
formation.
 18 P. Hansen

Multilingualism with Restrictions

Integrated in the EU's discussion of education and its role in nourishing a European
cultural identity is, of course, also the issue of language. The importance ascribed to
this issue was reflected in a Common Position adopted by the Council in 1994,
where the Council and Parliament placed the learning of the Union languages at the
heart of the European dimension of education, stating: "The promotion of language
skills is a key factor in establishing an open area for cooperation in education and for
strengthening understanding and solidarity between the peoples of the European
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries] at 11:45 20 December 2014

Union without sacrificing any of their linguistic and cultural diversity" (European
Union, 1994, p. 63).
What this means—and which the line about "linguistic and cultural diversity" is
a direct reference to—is that apart from the teaching of the Union's official or
majority languages, the European dimension should also, and especially so, promote
the teaching of the so-called "regional", "minority", "autochthonous" or "least
widely used" languages that are spoken in the member states. One of the strongest
supporters in the European Parliament for the recognition of these languages, Mark
Killiea, motivated the decision as follows: "After having experienced discrimination,
marginalization and alienation, in many cases for centuries, the speakers of Europe's
regional and minority languages are finding their rightful place in the shaping of a
Europe of peoples—of all its peoples" (cited in Contact Bulletin, 1994, p. 2).
However, as a Commission Communication from 1994 entitled Lesser Used Lan-
guages of the European Union clearly indicates, "[t]he European dimension to min-
ority languages" does not embrace all languages spoken by minorities in the EU.
Instead, only those minority languages—such as Frisian, Breton, Sorbian, etc.—
which are deemed "indigenous to the European Union" (CEC, 1994a, p. 9) are
included. A year later, in a call for proposals concerning "action to support regional
or minority languages and cultures", the Commission made this division explicit,
stating: "The languages intended to benefit from under this heading are the
autochthonous languages traditionally spoken by a part of the population of any
Member State of the European Union. They do not include the languages of
immigrants or artificially created languages." (CEC, 1995a, p. 18).
Reid & Reich (1995, pp. 4-5) have criticized this separation made by the EU
between "indigenous" minority languages and "immigrant" minority languages,
seeing it, among others, as reflective of the lack of a serious discussion of how to
construct a language policy in the EU that would be ready to acknowledge and deal
with the present-day reality where languages such as Turkish and Arabic now have
more speakers in the EU than several of the recognized "autochthonous" minority
languages.
Moreover, the fact that only a portion of the multitude of minority languages in
the EU is construed as "a key element in the Union's cultural wealth" (European
Parliament, 1994), substantiates the argument developed above about how Euro-
pean culture gets delineated in the European dimension of education. As such, the
view of language forms part of what we now might speak of as a larger discourse
which informs much of the formulation of the European dimension in education. In
 Schooling a European Identity 19

this discourse we discern how certain Union inhabitants and what are seen as their
cultures and affiliated languages are identified as "European" and so included in
the process of defining the future EU identity, whereas certain other inhabitants—
meaning those who can neither be grouped as majority "nationals" nor as minority
"regionals"—are left out of this definition of the "European" and what a future
Union identity could embrace.
This is not, however, to imply that the EU in any way denies the presence of other
minority languages in the Union—what the Commission refers to above as the
"languages of immigrants"—or that it has not taken initiatives to promote these
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries] at 11:45 20 December 2014

languages (cf. CEC, 1994b). The crucial point argued here is instead that, despite
these "other" minority languages' audible presence in today's EU, the policy
discourse of the European dimension of education fails to see them as part of the
Union's contemporary European culture. Having said this, one may well argue here
that the EU, rather than breaking with the legacy of discriminatory principles of
language selection that permeated the formation of European nation-state and its
education systems (cf. Hobsbawm, 1990; Heater, 1990; Weber, 1976), it is actually
in some important respect working in compliance with these same principles.
Because, although the EU and its European dimension of education have opted
in favour of language pluralism—"[m]ultilingualism is part and parcel of both
European identity/citizenship and the learning society" (CEC, 1995b, p. 44)—as
opposed to most nation-states' insistence in the nineteenth century on having just
one out of the many spoken languages constitute the only accepted national
language, the EU is still involved in a selection process where some languages, such
as Frisian and Breton, are considered "European" whereas such commonly used
languages as Persian and Kurdish are not.
Finally, it is thus important to keep in mind that when references are being made
to "minorities", "minority cultures", even "ethnic minorities", within the EU's
discussion of the European dimension of education, these are not necessarily
all-inclusive categories. Instead, and especially when language and culture are on the
agenda, they more than often only refer to those particular groups of minorities
which are seen as "European", or as the European Parliament (1994) has formu-
lated it, as those "minority languages and cultures" which form "an integral part of
the Union's culture and European heritage".

Conclusion
What I have tried to show here is that the articulation of the European dimension
of education has been moving in an ethno-cultural direction, where, accordingly, the
main purpose of education becomes to convey a collective identity which bases itself
on a transnational dissemination of uncritical and historically dubious versions of
European traditions, heritage and civilization.
Taken as a whole, the cultural configuration of the Union made manifest in the
European dimension of education can be seen as indicative of an incapacity, if not
disinclination, on the part of the EU to expose traditional and indeed debarring
meanings of "Europe", and their ties to a Union identity, to a redefinition and
 20 P. Hansen

renegotiation that would take into consideration the entirety of the Union's present-
day inhabitants, instead of merely complying with old notions of trans-European
white ethnicity. As a consequence, the common cultural identity sought by the
EU—through the increased co-operation in the field of education—fails to pertain
and appeal universally to those living in the EU. In some principle meaning then,
Hobsbawm's (1990, p. 93) argument about late nineteenth-century nationalism and
the attempts to legitimize the newly consolidated national communities, may very
well be put to use in the context of late twentieth-century efforts to secure legitimacy
for a supranational community, in that in both cases the project of identity forma-
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries] at 11:45 20 December 2014

tion refers "not to the 'country' [i.e. all state residents, respectively all EU residents],
but only to its particular version of that country: to an ideological construct".

Address for correspondence: Department of Political Science, Umea University; S-901 87

Umed, Sweden. Tel: + 46-90-7867937; Telefax: + 46-90-7866681; e-mail: peo.hansen
@pol.umu.se

Notes
1. For an illustrative picture of the neo-liberal influence on the EU's views on education see CEC
(1991, p. 4; 1995b, pp. 22, 26).
2. Besides Sultana (1995), for critically oriented discussions on EU and the issue of education,
see also Coulby & Jones (1995) and Slater (1995).
3. For a similar argument see Miiller & Wright (1994, p. 6).
4. Unless discussed in a context that specifically refers to the time prior to the Treaty on
European Union, the name European Union or EU will be used throughout this paper.
5. In reference to symbolic measures, the European Parliament—in its 1987 "Resolution on the
European dimension in schools"—stressed that "young Europeans should be made aware that
they are part of one community", and called for "the European anthem to be taught in all
schools in the Community" (European Parliament, 1987). See also CEC (1988a, pp. 7-11),
under the subheadings "Symbols" and "Consciousness-raising".
6. As stated by the Commission (CEC, 1993b, pp. 2, 13): "For the first time, a legal framework
exists which allows the Community to propose cooperative actions in the area of education
...", and "this Green Paper is intended to stimulate discussions on the possibilities offered by
Article 126 of the Treaty".
7. According to Mulcahy (1994, p. 85), this document provided "the thinking that lay behind"
the 1988 Resolution of the Council on the European dimension in education.
8. For a similar argument pertaining more specifically to the EU, see Habermas (1994).

References
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (1973) Declaration on the European identity. Bull.
EC, 2 (Clause 2501).
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (1985) A people's Europe: reports from the ad hoc
Committee. Bull. EC, Suppl. 7/85.
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (1987) A Fresh Boost for Culture in the European
Community. COM(87) 603 final, Brussels, 14 December.
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (1988a) A people's Europe: Commission
communication. Bull. EC, Suppl. 2/88.
 Schooling a European Identity 21

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (1988b) Enhanced Treatment of the European

Dimension in Education. V/751/88-EN, Brussels.
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (1991) Memorandum on Higher Education in the
European Community. COM(91) 349 final, Brussels, 5 November.
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (1993a) Commission Working Paper: Guidelines for
Community Action in the Field of Education and Training. COM(93) 183 final, Brussels, 5
May.
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (1993b) Green Paper on the European Dimension of
Education. COM(93) 457 final, Brussels, 29 September.
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (1994a) Lesser Used Languages of the European
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries] at 11:45 20 December 2014

Union. COM(94) 602 final, Brussels, 15 December.

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (1994b) Report on the Education of Migrants'
Children in the European Union. COM(94) 80 final, Brussels, 25 March.
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (1995a) Call for proposals for action in the field of
regional or minority languages and cultures. Official Journal of the European Communities,
No. C 79, 31 March.
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (1995b) White Paper on Education and Training:
Teaching and Learning Towards the Learning Society. COM(95) 590 final, Brussels, 29
November.
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (1996) Questions to open up the debate. Le
Magazine, No. 5.
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (1997) The European Union's Policies for Education,
Training and Youth (DG XXII), http://www.europa.eu.int/pol/educ/en/info.htm.
Contact Bulletin (1994) European Parliament reaffirms its support for our languages, 11(1).
COULBY, D. & JONES, C. (1995) Postmodemity and European Education Systems: cultural diversity
and centralist knowledge. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (1987) Conclusions of the Council and of the Minis-
ters for Education meeting within the Council of 27 September 1985 on the enhanced
treatment of the European dimension in education. In European Educational Policy
Statements, 3rd edn. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities.
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (1992)
Treaty on European Union (signed in Maastricht on 7 February 1992). Luxembourg: Office
for Official Publications of the European Communities.
CRESSON, E. (1996) Information technology: devil or saviour? Le Magazine, No. 5.
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE (1992) Opinion on the citizens' Europe. Official Journal of the
European Communities, No. C 313, 30 November.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (1988a) Resolution of the Council and the Ministers of Education
meeting within the Council on the European dimension in education. Official Journal of the
European Communities, No. C 177, 6 July.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (1988b) Answer given by Mr Marin.... Official Journal of the European
Communities, No. C 121, 9 May.
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (1976) Resolution of the Council and the ministers of
education, meeting within the Council, of 9 February 1976 comprising an action pro-
gramme in the field of education. Official Journal of the European Communities, No. C 38, 19,
February.
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (1984) Answer given by Mr Richard ..., Official Journal of the
European Communities, No. C 344, 24 December.
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (1987) Resolution on the European dimension in schools. Official Journal
of the European Communities, No. C 345, 21 December.
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (1988) Resolution on the founding of a centre for European culture and
civilization. Official Journal of the European Communities, No. C 262, 10 October.
 22 P. Hansen

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (1994) Resolution on Linguistic and Cultural Minorities in the European
Community. A3-0042/94.
EUROPEAN UNION (1994) Common Position ... with a view to adopting European Parliament and
Council Decision 94./EC of ... establishing the Community action programme "Socrates".
Official Journal of the European Communities, No. C 244, 31 August.
FRIEDMAN, A. (1997) 2 Views of a Europe striving to compete: bad grades on job front.
International Herald Tribune, 21 May.
GREEN, A. (1997) Education, Globalization and the Nation State. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
HABERMAS, J. (1994) Citizenship and national identity. In: STEENBERGEN, B. VAN (Ed.), The
Condition of Citizenship. London: Sage.
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries] at 11:45 20 December 2014

HABERMAS, J. (1996) The European Nation State. Its achievements and its limitations. On the
past and future of sovereignty and citi2enship. Ratio Juris., 9.2.
HANSEN, P. (1998) The cultural short cut, a road to exclusion?: notes on identity politics in the
European Union. In: GUNDARA, J. & JACOBS, S. (Eds) Interculturalism in Europe. Aldershot:
Arena (forthcoming).
HEATER, D. (1990) Citizenship: The Civic Ideal in World History, Politics and Education. London:
Longman.
HOBSBAWM, E.J. (1983) Mass-producing traditions: Europe, 1870-1914. In: HOBSBAWM, E.J. &
RANGER, T. (Eds) The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HOBSBAWM, E.J. (1990) Nations and Nationalism since 1780. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
IPSEN, E. (1997) 2 views of a Europe striving to compete: losing edge on business. International
Herald Tribune, 21 May.
KAIRAMO, K. (Ed.) (1989) Education for Life: a European strategy. London: Butterworths, in
collaboration with the Round Table of European Industrialists, Brussels.
LAFFAN, B. (1996) The politics of identity and political order in Europe. Journal of Common
Market Studies, 34(1).
MARKS, G., SCHARPF, F.W. & SCHMITTER, P.C. (1996) Competencies, Cracks and Conflicts:
Regional mobilization in the European Union. In: MARKS, G., SCHARPF, F.W. & SCHMIT-
TER, P.C. (eds) Governance in the European Union. London: Sage.
MCLEAN, M. (1990) Britain and a Single Market Europe: Prospects for a common school curriculum.
London: The Bedford Way Series.
McMAHON, J.A. (1995) Education and Culture in European Community Law. London: The Athlone
Press.
MORLEY, D. & ROBINS, K. (1995) Spaces of Identity. London: Routledge.
MULCAHY, D.G. (1994) Social education in the European Community. The Social Studies,
March/April.
MULLER, W.C. & WRIGHT, V. (1994) Reshaping the state in Western Europe: the limits to retreat.
West European Politics, 17(3).
NEAVE, G. (1984) The EEC and Education. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
O'LEARY, S. (1995) The social dimension of community citizenship. In: ROSAS, A. & ANTOLA, E.
(Eds.), A Citizens' Europe. London: Sage.
PAREKH, B. (1994) Discourses on national identity. Political Studies, 42(3).
REID, E. & REICH, H. (1995) Language policies in multilingual societies. European Journal of
Intercultural Studies, 5(3).
RYBA, R. (1992) Toward a European Dimension in Education: Intention and Reality in European
Community Policy and Practice, Comparative Education Review, Vol. 36, No. 1.
SHENNAN, M. (1991) Teaching about Europe. London: Cassel.
SHORE, C. (1993) Inventing the "people's Europe": critical approaches to European Community
"Cultural Policy". Man, 28(4).
SHORE, C. & BLACK, A. (1992) The European communities and the construction of Europe.
Anthropology Today, 8(3).
SLATER, J. (1995) Teaching History in the New Europe. London: Cassel.
 Schooling a European Identity 23

STOBART,M. (1991) Preface. In: SHENNAN, M., Teaching about Europe. London: Cassel.
SULTANA, R.G. (1995) A uniting Europe, a dividing education? Euro-centrism and the
curriculum. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 5(2).
WEBER, E. (1976) Peasants into Frenchmen: the modernization of rural France 1870-1914. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries] at 11:45 20 December 2014