Sunday, July 25, 2010

Reflections on my European Adventure

Part 1, Europhilia

This is the first in an I-don't-know-how-many-part series in which I will attempt to bring coherence to my thoughts regarding my 11-month European adventure.

I recently looked back at my first few posts upon my arrival in Europe, and I was unsurprised to see how sophomoric my views of this continent were. It's impossible to view them as anything other than abject Europhilia. I was in love with this place for no reason other than fresh food, its general place on the political spectrum, and the coffee. But what a neophyte I was! You don't learn a culture on two weeks of vacation. Most likely, you don't even learn a culture in a lifetime. I've spent years in American culture, and I'd say I probably have learned more about it in the year I've spent away from it than in the previous 20 (with a two year hiatus) I spent living it. But here I want to focus more on Europhilia and how my opinion has become more nuanced.

It must be the case that I began to be a bit more realistic in my attitudes towards Europe earlier on in the time I spent here, but the research paper I wrote about racism in football really alerted me to some of the major problems. I had always been aware of the racism, and talked about it with a number of my American friends in Málaga where the lack of diversity was truly startling, even coming from a rather homogeneous background in the US, which I do. But what I found in my research was truly startling - that there was a fascist rally at a football match in December that featured 20,000 supporters of three clubs, none of which were playing (but a Jewish club and a Basque club were), that as late as 2006 there were incidents in Western European countries of fans throwing bananas and making simian at African players, that most teams' supporters sections feature at least one right-wing Neonazi or fascist group, etc., etc., etc. Everywhere I looked the data were more alarming. Eastern Europe, for which there isn't good data, is apparently even worse. More recently, the vitriol of the French public (specifically the right-wing supporters of the party of the Le Pens) at their team's ignominious exit at the World Cup shows how vibrant this racist streak continues to be.

If this understanding of Europe's greater degree of racism was the primary motivator behind my shift away from shameless Europhilia, there were other elements as well including a heightened understanding of the differences between European and American individualism. The US is consistently stereotyped as an individualist society in which each person/family looks out for himself/itself, and I by and large agree with that characterization. The US IS too individualistic, but the myth of European communalism is significantly overblown. It could more rightly be dubbed collective individualism. The rural Spanish farmer has just as much disregard for the urban Spanish lawyer as the rural American farmer has for the urban American lawyer and the small-town German shopkeeper has just as much disregard for the city Germany janitor as the small-town American shopkeeper has for the city American janitor. The difference is that in Europe, because of the greater strength of the unions, the rural farmer cares about other rural farmers and the janitor cares about other janitors. The idea, however, that this translates into some heightened sense of duty to act in favor of the collective good is utter nonsense. The frequency of strikes throughout these countries is high evidence of that.

This isn't to say that the US doesn't suffer from the same issues or that Europe doesn't have many great things going for it. I'm still hugely in favor of the state run system of medicine. Healthcare is a much smaller percentage of GDP in Europe and it's of a higher quality. City planning and infrastructure investment is another area where Europe far exceeds American standards. High-speed rail is now the norm in most of Western Europe, and the airports are newer and more efficient. And of course, the secularization is a treasure. It's lovely to have conversations in which you're not constantly beat over the head with the oddity of not having a standard set of religious beliefs.

And then there's the whole list of stereotypes that educated Europeans harbor about Americans while managing to conveniently overlook the fact that these same phenomena occur in their countries too. Americans are fat. On average we are fatter than Europeans, but not in all regions of the US, just like some European countries are fatter than others. Americans are stupid. There are plenty of stupid people everywhere. Just like those clips of Americans not knowing who George Washington or Abraham Lincoln is, El Intermedio, a Spanish satirical television program found Spaniards who knew nothing about their own country. Americans all eat McDonalds. Guess what one of the most popular restaurants is in Málaga. Americans are loud. Spain just got named the second loudest country in the world (Japan was first).

And yet, despite all of this, I still find something inherently attractive about Europe. I am left thinking that this must have to do strictly with me being able to be comfortable being an outsider. Before, I thought I wanted to be European. Now I realize, I want to be an ex-pat. If I were a European, I would suffer from Amerophilia. I am reminded of an American I met at the economics conference I went to last summer who was married to a German woman. He said to me one day, "the great thing about being married to a foreigner is that she mistakes all your eccentricities for national traits." This is the advantage of being abroad is that your eccentricities aren't important and where you're from is. I know that I would be unusual in any culture, so having this assumed about me from the start enables me to act more freely. This, I believe, is what I find so appealing about Europe. It provides all the accommodations of the developed world and yet I can be accepted as being unusual because I am by nature of my birth.

More to come tomorrow...

7 comments:

  1. Oh there we go again...

    Racism is the bastard child of fervent nationalism + large groups of unbelievably stupid people. The Americans have had much more experience with it, since the country's been diverse for way longer than Europe. Hence why you have developed some degree of at least superficial (read: visible) resistance to it. In Europe, large influxes of immigrants (esp. ones that are different race or religion, etc. etc.) are a much newer phenomenon, hence why the public hasn't developed a mechanism to deal with it yet.
    As for football, it's the "opium of the masses" (for lack of a better expression)in Europe, so it is the natural habitat for the aforementioned stupid people in large groups to thrive.
    So, basically, it's the same thing on both sides of the ocean - in US you have people being racist behind closed doors and putting a tolerant face outside; in Europe you have sort of the opposite, except "outside" means the football stadium. But the "racists" are the same in both cases.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Relegating the masses or public opinion to the ranks of "stupid people" (on top of the fact that it's disrespectful) fails to understand cultural-political phenomena. Once the intellectual elite (who I assume are those juxtaposed to your stupid masses)fall into the trap as characterizing mass conservative political mobilization as sheer ignorance, they have overlooked a very real component. As much as I despise the Tea Party Movement, denying that they are real people who are angry about real things won't solve anything. Their anger is misdirected, certainly, but one must understand it as being caused by real events and not simply the result of their alleged stupidity.

    As for football being the "opium of the masses", this too indicates a faultiness in your characterization of the masses as stupid. One would be hard pressed to find Marx accusing the proletariat of being stupid. Regardless, there is still the problem that rampant public racism doesn't exist to the degree it does with European football in any public venue in the US.

    And then what of the blatant racist discrimination of the new bans on Islamic facial coverings in Europe? Sure, the US has its own Islamophobia (as can be seen in the Tea Party and their protest against the proposed mosque being built near Ground Zero), but this is nowhere near on the scale of the burqa and minaret bans in Europe.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm not relegating the masses or the public opinion, only those who are racist. And yes, there are both smart and stupid people out there, and yes - racism excludes the presence of intelligence in 99% of the cases. I know very well where their racism comes from and in many cases it has nothing to do with actual "race", yet that doesn't mean I should tolerate it or care for it.
    And saying Tea Partiers are dumb does not mean I don't understand where they come from or what they stand for (often more so than the vast majority of them do, but that's a different story). However, understanding them does not mean they are any less idiotic. It also does not mean taking a middle road or a conciliatory POV; sometimes understanding means realizing how bad/stupid/dangerous/etc. something is.

    Football is the "opium of the masses" and I'm certainly not the first to make that particular comparison. Speaking as a fan for many years, I like getting that opium on a daily/weekly basis myself.
    However, I do not go to the stadium to fight, destroy, provoke the police, kill, etc. I'm also part of those masses, yet I like to exercise my brain functions more regularly than many "ultras" fans. Hence why I state that those particular elements (who are also responsible for 90% of all the shit you see on European stadiums) are about as intelligent as a brick wall, but sadly, more dangerous.
    The Islamic coverings are partially a racist issue, I agree. However, most American commentators fail to see that there's quite a bit more to it, apparently you included. A burqa ban could be easily dismissed as OMG RACIST EUROPEANS LOOK AT US WE'RE SO DIFFERENT EXCEPT WE'RE NOT, but that just shows that you fail to understand what's really going on.
    Which gets us nowhere, so one of us must be wrong. Wanna take a guess? :D

    ReplyDelete
  4. what is really going on concerning burqa bans?

    you should read this for a really good response to your comment...

    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/veiled-threats/

    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/beyond-the-veil-a-response/

    ReplyDelete
  5. Agreed. Those two Nussbaum articles are excellent. I even referenced them in a previous post.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would point out precisely how wrong she is, but it would be too long and then many people have stated small parts of it already. Look at the comments below the 2nd article. "Dancing around" the issue, going in theory rather than practice, not understanding both the burqa and the particular European situation, and not to mention the whole "religious freedom" debate. Also, she's flat out wrong on some of her "5 reasons people point out" - she's been talking to the wrong people then.
    As I said, decent piece theoretically, and the part about Locke was informative, but once we get into the real world it becomes dangerously misinformed.

    ReplyDelete
  7. How can you reject her entire method of analysis (by taking five of the most common reasons people give to support the burqa ban and then debunking them)without explaining why it's faulty? "She's flat out wrong" isn't an argument; it's an opinion. You can have your opinion, and that's lovely, but I'm concerned that you feel that statement helped to prove whatever point it is that you're making. It seems that your argument must surely be lacking, though, because the easiest thing to do (in your situation) would be to point out other justifications for a burqa ban that she's not addressing. I, personally, haven't heard of another reason supporting the ban that doesn't entail the same logic as one of her five.

    Furthermore, neither is it the case that the comments posted beneath Nussbaum's article successfully articulate why it is that the European situation is different enough from the American situation to warrant a ban on burqas. Nor do I find their arguments on the disconnect between theory and practice compelling. Like with these odd closed religious groups, we may never know how many women are forced to wear the veil and how many wear it voluntarily, but Nussbaum explains (convincingly) why this is not a valid logical argument for their banning. And I don't have a clue what you mean when you say ""religious freedom" debate". It seems to me that the arguments for freedom of religion don't support your point remotely.

    I'm curious to hear what it is that find so "dangerously misinformed" about Nussbaum's article. Presenting your own analysis of these weak spots would be an excellent place to start.

    ReplyDelete