The "Class notes":
The moderator is Dr. Christoph Markschies. He is a professor for ancient church history, President of the Humboldt University in Berlin and the Secretary of the Academy. Dr. Markschies opens the forum with the note that Islam is often viewed as a medieval phenomenon, but more and more, some scholars see Islam as a development emerging from late antiquity. What, he asks, is the identity of Europe?
Round I: Europe and Islam from the Ancient Historian's perspective:
Dr. Christian Meier has the floor first, since he is a Professor for Ancient History at the Ludwig-Maximilians-University in Munich and well known for his work on Caesar and Athens. Dr. Meier looks for the unique (eigenartig) qualities of Europe and, therefore, starts with the Greeks and the Roman Republic. Of course, Dr. Meier notes, Greece had roots in the “Orient”, but the Greeks created their own form of community (Gemeinwesen). In the 9th century Islamic civilization, carried on the Greco-Roman tradition in translated forms, but there were limits to this appropriation of the Greco-Roman tradition. Whereas “Europe”, in his opinion, would more deeply appropriate and develop the intellectual inheritance of the classical world, for example, in the discipline of philology. Moreover, Dr. Meier believes that the Greeks are the only known case in the ancient world, where a people emerged in freedom and without a monarchical form of government.
From the Medieval European Historian's perspective:
Dr. Michael Borgolte, a professor for Medieval History at the Humboldt University in Berlin, receives the chance to respond next. He has just published a new monograph in German translated here as "Christians, Jews and Muslims. The Inheritance of Antiquity and the Rise of the Occident". Dr. Borgolte starts by noting Dr. Meier’s “master narrative” on the classical tradition and its influence on Europe and the Near East. Dr. Borgolte does not want to necessarily question what Dr. Meier has already said, but does assert that master narratives open up room for alternative histories. Moreover, Dr. Borgolte wants to come back to the idea of identity. From his point of view, historians have the job of critically examining traditions of identity; not producing identity itself. Dr. Borgolte suggests that there is no canon of universal values. He also asserts that people develop identity mythologies as a result of state-building projects, not the other way around as Dr. Meier would suggest in his opening remarks. Dr. Borgolte also draws attention to the boundaries of European identity for further discussion, in particular toward the East. Finally, Dr. Borgolte asserts a dialectical relationship of unity and multiplicity in this “Europe’s” historical development.
From the Early Modern European Historian's perspective:
Dr. Heinz Schilling, a professor for Early Modern European History at the Humboldt University and known for his work on Christian confessionalization in the 15th and 15th centuries, has the final word in the first round. Dr. Schilling starts by addressing the question of identity too. Citing his training in the “Bielefelder” school of history, Dr. Schilling looks for the structural history and cultural development of identity. Moreover, Dr. Schilling wants to sharpen Dr. Meier’s assertion of a unique type of European identity. He also raises the question of “global” history, i.e., the idea of a “small” Europe and a “large” Europe as a way to approach the topic of European identity and Islam. Dr. Schilling sees methodological and periodical problems in approaching the historical relationship of Europe and Asia. Dr. Schilling also asserts that there are specific types of civilization and uses this approach to further delineate European identity. From Schilling’s point of view, therefore, Russia does not belong to Europe because Russia emerged from another form of civilization centered on the Greek-Orthodox religion, whereas Schilling claims that Europe is in fact a Latin-Christian civilization. Schilling, however, does not see this as a form of European identity but an experiment. It remains for historians to work out the properties of European identity and he asserts the important role of religion. Schilling adds that people defined Europe through conflict with Islam.
Round II:
Dr. Meier opens the second round of discussion. He believes that identity can be a useful term for analysis, but draws a distinction between the citizens of antiquity and modernity. Dr. Meier also questions the usefulness of “types” as Dr. Schilling would suggest and pleads for comparative analysis in large strokes (a point that needed further clarity). From the very beginning of the idea of “Europe”, Dr. Meier sees a high degree of pluralism through the building of monarchies, cloisters and universities. Europe had no center or monarchical center as in the case of the Orient in places like Baghdad. This plurality gave Europe a dynamic that moved it beyond antiquity.
Dr. Borgolte further questions the unified history of “freedom” that Dr. Meier suggests in the historical development of Europe. Dr. Borgolte sees breaks rather than continuities in the history of the idea of freedom. From his perspective “Europe” in the Middle Ages was in fact in a pluralistic form of identity that included both Christians, Jews and Muslims. The monotheistic cosmology of Judaism from the 5th century B.C.E. and the related idea of the “transcendence” (between this world and what lies beyond) influenced the Roman form of Christianity that emerged in the middle ages and Islam in the 8th century C.E. This triad constellation of religious world views played a key role in the emergence of European identity even as Roman Christianity would come to dominate that identity.
Dr. Schilling defends the use of “types” as instruments for comparative analysis. Dr. Schilling also sees a nonlinear development in Europe’s plurality. From his view, it is pluralistic development with major discontinuities. Europe’s current development of plurality stems from the 15th and 16th century European concentration on Christianity, especially Luther’s call for reformation of the Roman Catholic Church. Social and theological changes were already underway in the late middle ages that would lead to divisions, competition and conflict. In this context, the arrival of Islam through the Turks and the Spanish re-conquest of the Iberian Peninsula was more a matter of power politics. Dr. Schilling adds that Europe was at this time plural in terms of particularistic states and forms of belief. There was both closure and opening to the rest of the world. As a note for further discussion, Dr. Schilling suggests that Spain makes an interesting case for the further study of European and Islamic identities.
Round III:
Dr. Borgolte suggests that the modern idea of tolerance in Europe has its roots in the interaction of the three major monotheistic religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, at the time when Europe was becoming more culturally unified in the late middle ages around Roman Christianity. When Dr. Markschies asks Dr. Borgolte about the homogeneity of Europe, Borgolte responds that it was neither nor. On the one hand, the middle ages marked the convergence of a European culture in relationship to the conflict with Islam and on the other hand, the interactions between Europe and Islam generated the emergence of cosmopolitanism and the possibility for further understanding.
Dr. Schilling wants to more precisely define pluralism as the equal recognition of different views of the world. From Schilling’s view this is a modern European development. In the 15th and 16th centuries Europe was concentrating itself at the same time that it was defining itself in opposition to Islam in terms of absolute truth and eschatology. The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 marks the European leaders’ decision to develop a secularized structure for international law that would seek to remove the issue of religion from international politics. Islam, Dr. Schilling notes however, did not appropriate this idea of pluralism.
Dr. Borgolte, in reply, stresses that Islam was not solely about holy warfare and draws attention to the Islamic conquest of Sicily to raise the question of Europe’s multicultural historical development and the role of difference. From Dr. Borgolte’s view, Islamic control of Sicily marks a long period of peaceful intellectual cooperation and cultural development including universities and the translation of Aristotele, which also involved Jewish translators.
Dr. Meier adds that he still sees Europe as a unique Greco-Roman inheritance, highlighting structural developments including markets, language and philosophical concepts in Latin.
Finally, Dr. Schilling wants to draw attention to the eastern boundaries of Europe again and the relationship of the Hapsburg and Ottoman Empires. The emergence of religious fundamentalism in this conflict strikes Dr. Schilling as an interesting chance to ask how Europeans overcame the pitfalls of religious fundamentalism. Dr. Schilling also offers an observation (since he had prepared for a lecture not a discussion) that there is a difference in the historical relationship of Islam and Judaism to Europe. After the Spanish Christian re-conquest of the Iberian Peninsula in 1492, Islam withdrew to North Africa and had very little presence in Europe except for diplomatic relations (Shilling notes the presence of a tombstone for a Moroccan ambassador in the Hague for support). On the other hand, in this period Jews, although forced out of Spain, became an important presence in central Europe. Places like Amsterdam became centers of Jewish-Christian exchange.
Open Discussion:
From the audience comes a call for clearer definition of European normative values and sentiments in the first round of questions. Someone also asks about the role of the Crusades in the historical relationship of Europe and Islam and someone else asks for more comment on the particular case of
In a final note, Dr. Meier draws attention to the current issue of “radical” or Islamist politics as a point that people in Europe need to discuss further.
Where the Greeks stand in all of this and what this says about European identity remains open. The questions are all interesting, but seem to present points for further exploration and clearer connection with other voices in this project. After two hours, the group discussion appears to be over and people are heading for the exits or the reception room for drinks and snacks.
After all is said and done, it appears that there really are two distinct questions: European identity (itself a complicated question involving many regions, religions (confessions) and state-building) and the question of Islam, both in historical relationship to Europe and in current affairs. I am not convinced to what extent old Latin Christian religious structures can shape current European development. From this evening's discussion, it appears that the historical interrelationship of Christianity, Judaism and Islam have at different times contributed to the unification of European identity and its idea of plurality. At least from the historical perspective, it is not simply a question of whether Islam or Islamic countries could belong to Europe. And what about those pesky Greeks and their historical roots? There seems to be more questions here for discussion exactly along all the lines of Europe's borders, especially at key places like Spain or Greece. What can these border studies tell us?
A European identity seems quite possible, but Europe within its contemporary boundaries has the potential to develop in very diverse ways, which may be an even greater strength stemming from its historical development. The question of Turkey's candidacy for the European Union has brought some of this historical knowledge into the discussion. I have heard several voices in my travels looking for a way to draw boundaries along the old lines of a unified religion and normative values of the Occident, but I am not sure if this is the best way to frame the issue and the argument itself may be on shaky grounds to begin with. The strength of Turkish civil society seems like the more pertinent question. After all, democracy had its birth on the coast of Asia Minor and Turkish society has its own long struggle with the values of secular civil society. For this kind of question, we need other voices. The Islamicist acceptance of violence, restrictions on freedom and rejection of equality, however, seems a clearer case for drawing a line in terms of normative values that go beyond Europe.
