"I am convinced that only a transformation in the way we understand the concept of politics in relation with the idea of “power” will allow us to begin to escape the aporias affecting the notion of a “European policy,” and to give a realistic content to the notion of a “European mediation,” which combines such opposite demands as increasing Europe’s specific role in world affairs, and deconstructing the myths of European closure and exclusive identity (“Fortress Europe,” to quote its most aggressive formulation). How then both to individualize and de-substantialize Europe? Is that really possible?"
Étienne Balibar - Europe: Vanishing Mediator? Download file
I found this article helpful, especially the “vanishing mediator” concept itself. If I understand correctly, the idea is that Europe (along with other increasingly interdependent regions around the world) can change the concept of political power, not by defining themselves against something, but by harnessing the ideological bond of interdependence that is currently available.
Balibar suggests Europe can move away from the current concepts of military and economic power, which he portrays as a dead end - unreachable, impractical and undesirable, given globalization and the lessons of history.
I am having trouble, however, trying to imagine the new, preferable political system he asks Europe to consider. Let’s say Europe follows his advice – what then? How does that new entity communicate its wishes in the global theater? What is its “big stick? – How is it effective?
But beyond this question – I was glad to see Balibar address the fact that all integration questions seem rooted in conflicts of identity and I’m hoping we can discuss this part of the article in class.
CORRECTION - a change to my comments and a question
As I now understand it, Balibar does not suggest that Europe harness an ideological bond as a unifying identity - he asks for a "collective agency." This agency is defined, using Foucault, "as power acting upon power" - but this is still a little confusing, I don't get a clear picture of why he thinks this will work.
Part of the reason it's difficult to picture is that he's not actually presenting a program, he's presenting "priorities" that, once set, will lead to a new, happier, indestructible type of political power - he's stretching the mind to envision something that doesn't yet exist. But even so - some of the "priorities" seem unattainable, like partial disarmament. This obscures his immerging picture of a new type of power because - if we take the situation exactly as he lays it out - he says (1) US force make EU pacifism possible, and (2)US weapons undermine human rights and democracy and end up in the wrong hands, etc. In order to really understand why his suggestions are practical I'd have to understand how he reconciles both statements - how do we get out of a place "where security and the promotion of a liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might."
Also - when he's talking about the second European lesson, the lesson of otherness ("that the other [the exterior] is a necessary component of its [Europe's] identity, therefore its future identity, its power")- is he hinting that one picture of the new power through agency is a policy of military intervention in the name of human rights?