Michal Vít: THE VISEGRÁD IDENTITY TAKING SHAPE.

The question of the (non-)existence of the V4 identity regularly becomes the object of interest of various expert discussions. The demand for a satisfactory answer is possible to detect not only in the individual V4 countries, but also among other actors attempting to define and interpret the V4 region. Historians emphasize the role of the Middle Ages in forming the Central European consciousness and the role of the Habsburg monarchy as the initiating integrative element. In the larger consciousness of the current society the V4 identity is being constituted by the interaction of three phenomena – the common communist experience, to some extent forced cooperation, and subsequently the common integration efforts with regard to the EU and NATO. In the last decade the phenomenon of a political demand arose, one that amounts to the need for common integration and common search for interests. It is possible to identify the latter element as dominant in the mutual integration efforts in the last 25 years. The existence of a political demand and its role in the creation of a V4 identity is a very interesting element in the process of the creation and shaping of a V4 identity – it amounts to a top-down process, with a common political effort and the declaration of common goals serving as its basis. As such, it may be considered as embodying the same approach which is involved in the creation of a European identity at the EU level that is often criticized. This gives rise to several fundamental questions of interpretation: What are the fundamental elements of the V4 identity and in what ways is it being formed?

Turning to the genesis of the particular conception of identity in the V4 region, it is possible to conclude that elements generally considered as identity-forming are to a large degree absent. May we talk about the countries’ shared culture? Is it possible to find a shared geographic unit as it is the case with the Scandinavian or Alpine identity? Can we speak of sharing a language or certain linguistic moments? Because the answers to these questions tend to be rather negative, in the political context we need to rather talk of the existence of a political V4 identity or, at minimum, a demand for such identity. What elements substitute the creation of identity in the absence of the more basic elements mentioned above?

The process of identity creation necessarily has to overcome the various forms of the existing incongruity in the concerned region. The V4 region is a suitable and telling example – the political motive for the creation of a common identity highlights a naturally-occuring disharmony. We may observe the mutual exchange of ideas on the form of elements that are to serve as the basis for the common identity. The divergent understanding and interpretations of the inter-war period in the respective V4 countries serves as a classical example of the difficulties inherent in the attempts at the common interpretation of the year 1918. The conceptions are hardly comparable – the developments marking the year are understood as the culmination of democratization efforts (in the case of Czechoslovakia), national-ethnic liberation (in the case of Poland), but also the defeat of national pride (in the case of Hungary). Yet the process of identity creation may be under way only under the condition that harmony in interpretation is gradually attained. In other words, only when a common approach to perceiving and assessing concrete phenomena is achieved, can we talk about the possibility for a common identity. Yet it is always the case that such process has to be goal-directed and purposeful.

Under the condition of the absence of a shared culture and language, it is therefore necessary to ask what substitutes these elements of identity-creation (as this process is generally accomplished through the search for common elements). These can be empirically existing in the real world (such as economic ties or the infrastructure interconnectedness) or abstract (such as political allegiance). Upon a deeper investigation into the genesis of the notion of identity and its use, it is possible to understand it as an organic aspect of the society. It is developed under the condition of the natural environment of a shared culture, language, or ethnicity. On the other hand, an extreme use of identity may lead to the birth of nationalism. If it is the case that the identity construction is artificial, that is, one that has not emerged from the bottom up, then such identity may serve to legitimize a political construct. To a large extent, that is the case of the V4 identity construction.

In the case of the V4 identity, its construction is not entirely artificial – it has not emerged without any links to historical and social developments. In the case of the V4 region, what undoubtedly constitutes this naturally existing connection is the post-war development of the respective V4 societies – not only their shared communist past, but also the subsequent common interest in the form of the countries’ integration into the NATO and the EU. In fact, it could be argued that it was precisely this shared experience that became one of the main factors constituting the current shape of the V4 identity. In other words, we may above all speak of a political and ideological aspect of the identity that contributes towards the sense of togetherness in the region. Other aspects of the V4 identity are only secondary. Serving a supporting function, they are the following:

a) At first, it is the geographic location linking the East with the West. At the same time, this geographic aspect may be considered as limited by the lack of clarity with regard to the notion of the “Central Europe.” Where exactly can we find its borders? Are the cultural or historical frontiers salient? The issue with the fluid concept of the Central Europe aside, this idea also has the function of refusing the label of “Eastern Europe” — what we can observe is a case of delimitation vis-a-vis the outside.

b) This is related to another aspect – conceiving of Central-Europeanness as a phenomenon delineated primarily not in geographic terms, but as a cultural space between the East and the West. What is at its center is a continuing discussion and negotiations over the mutual influence, the adoption of culture and social norms – not only inside the V4 region but also from the outside. Through the consolidation of the Central-Europeanness the aim is not only to achieve certain neutrality in the context of advancing globalization, but also to take advantage of it in cementing this shared awareness.

c) This awareness strengthens another aspect, the shared legacy of communism. The prevailing negative connotations with regard to this period underscore the role of of this element.

d) Associated with the legacy of the past is another element – the legacy of Austria-Hungary that tends to be often recalled. This nostalgic heritage becomes particularly evident in the heart of the V4 region directly affected by Austrian influence. This heritage is still sustained by historical art monuments, architecture, existing links in infrastructure, as well as cuisine. Especially in Krakow – close to the geographic center of Europe – it is possible to observe the nostalgia that characterizes the reminiscing about the Habsburg monarchy. Instead of fulfilling its original functions, the infrastructure that used to connect the different parts of the monarchy has in the past twenty-five years been marked by the organization of events where nostalgia for the monarchy often plays out.

The V4 region may be thus generally characterized by containing elements that both help constitute, but also disrupt the creation of a common V4 identity. To support the creation of a V4 identity, it is therefore important to facilitate the integration of elements and fields that are not the object of excessive pressures or great expectations. In other words, integration should take place in areas that enable a natural contact between individual countries, such as cooperation in science, culture or tourism

In a search for a similar geographic entity that latently contributes towards the birth of a regional identity, it is possible to look up to the Scandinavian cooperation between Denmark, Norway, Sweden and, somewhat detached, Finland. The similarities in language, culture and to some extent also the geographical character of these countries provided a framework for a much wider regional cooperation, the dissolving of common frontiers and an intensive sense of individual regional affiliation towards the rest of the region. It is precisely such natural, broad allegiance that serves as an essential factor in successful identity-creation. From the perspective of choosing the development of integrative elements may the V4 identity, if perceived through the lens of the Scandinavian identity formation, understood to be at the beginning of its development and subsequent gradual consolidation.

Looking over the developments over the 20th century, the recent decision to strengthen the V4 identity in the region may be described as successful. We can observe not only a gradual approximation of countries that share a similar historical heritage – this cooperation above all illustrates that differences in understanding the period of the formation of nation-sates may be overcome. In the current context characterized by the EU integration project often being called into question, it is possible to pinpoint another positive development – the regional consciousness is being artificially solidified without necessarily provoking aggressive criticism.

The existence of the V4 identity can be undoubtedly disputed, as can the forms of its manifestations. This text was not meant to provide a comprehensive account of the phenomenon, but rather to sketch out the departure categories for additional observation and further analysis.


Михал Вит
ЗАРОЖДЕНИЕ ВИШЕГРАДСКОЙ ИДЕНТИЧНОСТИ

Сегодня на уровне общественного сознания представления об идентичности Вишеградской четверки складываются в результате взаимодействия трех факторов – присутствующего у этих стран общего коммунистического опыта, предыдущего навязанного им сотрудничества и последующего совмещения усилий по интеграции в ЕС и НАТО. В последнее десятилетие, однако, появился политический спрос на этот феномен, свидетельствующий о необходимости дальнейшей интеграции и поиска общих интересов. Последний элемент можно выделить в качестве доминирующего в интеграционных усилиях последних 25 лет. Наличие политического спроса и его роль в создании вишеградской идентичности представляет интерес уже в том отношении, что может рассматриваться как процесс, направляемый сверху вниз и считающий совместные политические инициативы и декларации достаточным доказательством существования общих основ. Как таковой он может рассматриваться как воплощающее подобного подхода при создании Европейской идентичности на уровне ЕС, которая часто подвергается критике. Существование вишеградской идентичности, вне всяких сомнений, может оспаривается, также как и как и формы ее проявления. Однако автор и не претендует на исчерпывающее описание явления, а лишь предлагает набросок для дополнительных наблюдений и дальнейшего анализа.


Vit, Michal, PhD, Prague Institute for European policy EUROPEUM.

Contribution to the 10-th International scientific conference “Russia and Central Europe in the new geopolitical realities”. Moscow, RAS Institute of Europe. Sept. 10-11, 2015.