Values and Cultures in Europe , is written by Olivier Galland , sociologist, and Yannick Lemel, general inspector working at the National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies. The book presents a sociological and anthropological synthesis on the cultural foundations and on the variety of the European's values. Although it presents a thematically rich approach to the subject, it doesn't lead the reader reach a conclusion. In fact, it gives the impression that the reader is invited to stand back and find his way through the avalanche of information, then, may be, to link up the tackled subjects, in order to find out junction points.
Why the authors have difficulty in connecting these various subjects?
The answer, in a sense, figures in the title of the book. Starting from its title, all along the book, values and cultures are always treated in plural and each country is presented as an heir of its own sacred past, of its own culture. When the point of view is set in this way, unification of values becomes very complex. It assumes that each country is different; hence the cultural unification is impossible. But, couldn't we think in a different way? Instead of comparing them in parallel, can't we find another methodology to accommodate their differences? To answer that question, we shouldn't forget that there are different ways to formulate unity which doesn't necessarily mean homogeneity. Moreover, in our point of view, the most interesting form of unity isn't the most homogeneous one, but one that results of culture's confrontation. In that case, cultures enter in conflict, in order to find out an agreement. Diversity makes up unity, without dissolving variety.
Is it the European Union's case? If yes, does this mean that we could define the plurality as European Union's identity? And if plurality defines the European identity, the arguments to reject Turkey's membership to Europe are still valid?
Why the authors have difficulty in connecting these various subjects?
The answer, in a sense, figures in the title of the book. Starting from its title, all along the book, values and cultures are always treated in plural and each country is presented as an heir of its own sacred past, of its own culture. When the point of view is set in this way, unification of values becomes very complex. It assumes that each country is different; hence the cultural unification is impossible. But, couldn't we think in a different way? Instead of comparing them in parallel, can't we find another methodology to accommodate their differences? To answer that question, we shouldn't forget that there are different ways to formulate unity which doesn't necessarily mean homogeneity. Moreover, in our point of view, the most interesting form of unity isn't the most homogeneous one, but one that results of culture's confrontation. In that case, cultures enter in conflict, in order to find out an agreement. Diversity makes up unity, without dissolving variety.
Is it the European Union's case? If yes, does this mean that we could define the plurality as European Union's identity? And if plurality defines the European identity, the arguments to reject Turkey's membership to Europe are still valid?