For Europe, lessons about identity in Britain’s exit vote

Europe’s long history in defining new collective identities will continue as it deals with the effects of Britain’s vote to ‘leave’ the European Union.

A woman holds a sign in Westminster, in central London, Britain June 24.

For centuries, Europe has provided lessons for the world on how to define a collective identity. Its people have gone from being medieval serfs to imperial subjects to citizens of nation-states to “members” of the European Union. They have gone from being the center of Christendom to an exporter of secular values enshrined as “human rights.” Now, after Britain’s June 23 vote to leave the union, Europe may once again show how diverse societies, beset with new challenges, discover the foundations to bind themselves around common ideals.

As Britain sorts out the terms of a new relationship with the Continent, its vote to “leave” the EU has opened debates elsewhere on what constitutes identity as a body politic. Will Scotland vote for independence from Britain in order to stay within the EU? Will Northern Ireland seek to join Ireland? Will other EU members follow Britain and drop out? Will Britain’s move dampen the interest of Ukraine, Turkey, and others to join the EU?

Within the EU itself, Britain’s vote will probably drive a debate on policies that were aimed at forming a European identity. Was it wise to open internal migration within Europe so quickly? Did the EU centralize too much unaccountable authority and step too harshly on national sovereignty?

Most of all, are the EU’s primary missions – to prevent wars like those in the 20th century and to create a giant single market – not grounded enough in shared moral ideals to form a continent-wide identity?

Much of Britain’s referendum debate focused on problems of immigration and whether EU membership brings economic benefits. While worthy issues, these only hint at issues of identity. In saying “No” to the EU, we can hope that Britain was saying “yes” to its hope of embracing and protecting its rich inheritance – its open system of parliamentary democracy, its historic pattern of absorbing foreigners, and its attractive legacies in culture and landscapes.

When entire peoples split apart – the American Revolution is one example – it means that conditions were not right for using the word “we,” as in “we” Europeans. For that to happen, a society must offer something that is worthy of sacrifice or that helps individuals find salvation.

Identity cannot be imposed. The fact that Britain decided to hold a popular referendum on EU membership was a reminder that only individuals, through such measures as voting, can seek a consensus on their bonds of attachment. Europe’s grand experiments in identity formation may now make history again.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to