Is There Still An East/West Divide in Europe

Angela

Angela

Elite member
Messages
21,823
Reaction score
12,328
Points
113
Ethnic group
Italian
I had a discussion about this recently. Is it true? Was it once true?

Liebeck and Bauboch, 2010
http://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/13587

"It is common in the literature on nationalism and citizenship to distinguish between civic conceptions of the political community that are seen to prevail in Western Europe and North America and ethnic ones that are said to be characteristics of Central and Eastern Europe. EUDO CITIZENSHIP has invited scholars to answer the question whether this contrast is merely a Western stereotype or can be traced in national citizenship laws and policies. In his opening article, Andrè Liebich highlights several important historical conditions shared by the former communist accession states to the European Union. Among these are not only long periods of authoritarian rule, but also the comparatively recent formation as independent states and a lack of recent experience with and recognition for ethno-linguistic diversity. Liebich observes a dramatic difference between Western and Eastern European states specifically with regard to birthright acquisition by ius soli or ius sanguinis and predicts that the new member states will find it hard to adapt their citizenship regimes to the fact that they, too, are now becoming countries of immigration. Five authors respond to André Liebich’s analysis, partly pointing to empirical evidence of strongly ethnic conceptions of citizenship in some of the “old” EU member states, and partly challenging the attempt to fit countries with quite different histories into geographical blocks that are then contrasted with each other. The debate concludes with a rejoinder by André Liebich in which he replies to his critics."
 
I think, from what I know. Western Europe, Scandinavia, and some parts of Central Europe are seen as "more developed" than Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Likewise, in history these areas have almost never been at peace; if you count by say, at least 50 years.

I would say, from my perspective, France and the UK are probably the most developed "big" nations in Europe with the least shady/controversial history. I think I would add especially Switzerland and Greece to the list, too. They have had rough times and wars over centuries, but are mostly "safe" countries.
 
Angela said:
I had a discussion about this recently. Is it true? Was it once true?

Liebeck and Bauboch, 2010
http://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/13587
Click to expand...

Personally I am not very fond of this term 'west' and 'east'. Probably it finds its roots with the Roman Empire divide in its late stages that somehow became to represent two styles of governance that still echos today. When one considers that the Soviet Union was dismantled only in 1991 the transactions are very recent. These countries were under soviet system for just around 70 years and before that I am not under the impression that their political and economic systems were much different to what we call Western Europe. Some of the histories are even intertwined especially in central Europe, but even beyond.

Migration is a natural process. People from 'West' Europe migrated in millions to the new worlds (as they were perceived) from countries that are today considered to have strong economies, but the trend diminished in later years of course.

The divide has got much narrower in short period of time considering so much has happened in a relatively short span. Have these countries improved since they joined the capitalist system? My opinion and general impression I get is yes, but always good to hear more from the horses mouth.
 
First divide was set between Catholic church against Orthodox. Second one was recent, between Nato and Soviet influence.
 
LeBrok said:
First divide was set between Catholic church against Orthodox. Second one was recent, between Nato and Soviet influence.
Click to expand...

Yes, but Angela's question was only partly about how true the divide was and partlyabout the extent to which that divide still exists. And of course the two divisions you mentioned aren't identical, and that may make it harder to answer either question. Russia of course was Orthodox and still is to some extent and was the heart of the old Soviet Union, and is perceived to be quite different from the west, but to what extent is Poland or Greece still "eastern" rather than "western" in outlook? Because of course Greece was and to a considerable sense still is "eastern" in an orthodox sense and Poland was a Catholic country in Eastern Europe and was part of the Soviet bloc. Are or were there two different and only partly overlapping versions of Eastern Europe?
 
Poles always identified themselves as belonging to Western Culture. I'm not sure about Greeks.
 
Angela said:
I had a discussion about this recently. Is it true? Was it once true?

Liebeck and Bauboch, 2010
http://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/13587

"It is common in the literature on nationalism and citizenship to distinguish between civic conceptions of the political community that are seen to prevail in Western Europe and North America and ethnic ones that are said to be characteristics of Central and Eastern Europe. EUDO CITIZENSHIP has invited scholars to answer the question whether this contrast is merely a Western stereotype or can be traced in national citizenship laws and policies. In his opening article, Andrè Liebich highlights several important historical conditions shared by the former communist accession states to the European Union. Among these are not only long periods of authoritarian rule, but also the comparatively recent formation as independent states and a lack of recent experience with and recognition for ethno-linguistic diversity. Liebich observes a dramatic difference between Western and Eastern European states specifically with regard to birthright acquisition by ius soli or ius sanguinis and predicts that the new member states will find it hard to adapt their citizenship regimes to the fact that they, too, are now becoming countries of immigration. Five authors respond to André Liebich’s analysis, partly pointing to empirical evidence of strongly ethnic conceptions of citizenship in some of the “old” EU member states, and partly challenging the attempt to fit countries with quite different histories into geographical blocks that are then contrasted with each other. The debate concludes with a rejoinder by André Liebich in which he replies to his critics."
Click to expand...

In many eastern euro countries like Czech, Slovenia, Croatia, Slovakia there are no significant differences to west euro countries, except the normal cultural and language differences which every country has. Wages are still lower though.

The Balkans resembles more the south european countries, which are also west european to some extent, but economic development in many balkan countries is a problem and probably will even worsen. The Balkans also still shows some ottoman legacies, which further separate it from the rest of europe.

I think orthodox religion represents a major cultural difference of the east, not because it is especially alien, but because it is exclusiely eastern. Orthoxy separates many eastern countries, like protestantism separates northern countries from the rest of europe. Although religions are rather insignificant for europeans, they still represent a source of values which strongly influence mentalities for work ethic and alike.
 
I've done bussiness with eastern Europe and southern Europe.
I'd say re mentality, there is a bigger north/south divide than east/west
 
Yes. There is still a division, unfortunately. What is happening those days with Greece is part of this issue.
 
I'm not sure about Greeks.
Click to expand...

Greeks belong to Eastern European culture because they were the ones who actually created it (later on, together with Russians).

Since Hellenistic times and throughout Byzantine times, Greeks defined what Eastern European culture meant.

It was only after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, that Moscow became "the second Constantinople".

Early Russia adopted Eastern Christianity from the Byzantine Empire. As well as much of its architecture.

Poland-Lithuania also can't be considered as "fully Western". They were "between the West and the East", with their own flavour.

I guess Central Europe is a useful concept in this case.
 
Tomenable said:


Greeks belong to Eastern European culture because they were the ones who actually created it (later on, together with Russians).

Since Hellenistic times and throughout Byzantine times, Greeks defined what Eastern European culture meant.

It was only after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, that Moscow became "the second Constantinople".

Early Russia adopted Eastern Christianity from the Byzantine Empire. As well as much of its architecture.

Poland-Lithuania also can't be considered as "fully Western". They were "between the West and the East", with their own flavour.

I guess Central Europe is a useful concept in this case.
Click to expand...

After fall of Con/polis Greeks left to Venice Genua Murcia Province(France)
search better where the Greeks scholars moved, 1/3 of Wienn was Greek Makedonian and Trieste was 80% Greek,
in Corsica only moved unknown Greek population,
you are combining Orthodoxy/Catholisism with term EAST/WEST,
Greek is South,
anyway even if you follow religion affairs, Agia Sofia holy table and relics were transfered to Saint Marco Venice, and in Santa Sofia in South ITALY
only Pontic Greeks due to geografical reasons moved to Sohum and Tiblis (Tyflida) and Ossetia Georgia and Ukraine/Crimea Odessa was like second capital for them
 
I did not write anything about movements of Greek (or any other) people, though.

I wrote that the Byzantine Empire (and its cultural successors) was - in times when it existed - associated with Eastern Euro culture, while Charlemagne's Empire (and its cultural successors) with Western Euro culture. Byzantium was the opposite of Francia, the former was "personification of the East", while the latter was "personifcation of the West" - you cannot claim both of them as part of the same cultural zone. As for movements of scholars - Italy has anyway lost its importance in European science by year 1600.

According to Charles Murray's 2003 "Human Accomplishment":

1) from 1400 to 1600 greatest scientific contribution was by: Italy
2) from 1600 to 1800 greatest scientific contribution was by: Britain* and France
3) from 1800 to 1950 greatest scientific contribution was by: Britain**, Germany, France and Russia

If you claim that Italy is a cultural successor of the Byzantines (rather than of Charlemagne), then Italy is Eastern too (of course this is only the case if we apply this simplistic East/West divide, rather than dividing Europe into more parts than two).

*In period 1600 to 1800 most of British contribution was from England.
**In period 1800 to 1950 most of British contribution was from Scotland and England.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 9720 times.

Back
Top