Reframing the European Other

In Search of European Identity

In order to introduce the considerable ambiguity of the term Europe, I want to refer briefly to Zygmunt Bauman. In his work on the concept of the European, Bauman manages to capture its underlying obscurity, arguing that

we, the Europeans, are perhaps the sole people who (as historical subjects and actors of culture) have no identity – fixed identity, or an identity deemed and believed to be fixed: ‘we do not know who we are’, and even less do we know what we can yet become and what we can yet learn that we are. The urge to know and/or to become what we are never subsides, and neither is the suspicion ever dispelled about what we may yet become following that urge. Europe’s culture is one that knows no rest; it is a culture that feeds on questioning the order of things – and on questioning the fashion of questioning it.⁶

Bauman emphasizes that Europe needs to be comprehended as a notion that simultaneously inspires and derives from a process of social and cultural transformation. In this context, by cultural transformation, I understand the dynamism with which Europe changes and evolves, constantly allowing for new ideas about how to conceive of its meaning. This line of thinking reappears in numerous socio-political theories of how to formulate the notion of European identity. It forms one of the key elements of Ulrich Beck and Edgar Grande’s theory of European cosmopolitanism, which calls for an acknowledgement of the multiplicity and diversity of cultures and identities as the foundation of the European Union.⁷ The idea of Europe as a diverse and heterogeneous social space also constitutes an important aspect of Étienne Balibar’s theoretical work. In his interpretation of the idea of Europeanness and the concept of European citizenship, Balibar suggests that Europeanization should be considered a form of a cultural invention, that is a process of intercultural experimentation, which would allow for a construction of pan-European, diversified social space.⁸

Both Balibar and Beck explore Europe’s potential for change as a chance to embrace its internal diversity. They oppose homogeneous conceptions of the European and work to conceive of ideas of Europe that would promote socio-cultural heterogeneity. Scholars such as Gurminder K. Bhambra, John Narayan and Meyda Yeğenoglu, on the other hand, point to the limits of such a perspective as they repeatedly emphasize that it fails to take into account the question of Europe’s colonial responsibility. Consequently, they call for an investigation of the ways in which Europe’s colonial past continues to influence and shape its contemporary socio-political reality (e.g. in the form of the current migratory flows of people). Moreover, they point out that Europe’s colonial heritage and its aftermath must be debated as an integral part of the notion of European identity and/or European cosmopolitanism.⁹

Coincidentally, many of the most recent examples of works concerned with the question of Europeanness focus on the matter of the recent migratory movements (e.g. the refugee ‘crisis’ of 2015) and the ways in which they affect the perception and conceptualization of European identity.¹⁰ Andrew Geddes, Leila Hadj-Abdou and Leiza Brumat, for instance, offer a detailed analysis of the different forms of migration (e.g. labour migration, ‘illegal’ migration, asylum seeking) which occur presently within Europe and examine how they affect the political reality and the legislative agenda of the European Union.¹¹ Vicki Squire, Nina Perkowski, Dallal Stevens and Nick Vaughan-Williams take this discussion in a slightly different direction by incorporating the findings of their quantitative study into their analysis of the migrant ‘crisis’ of 2015–2016. They use excerpts from the interviews conducted with the migrants in order to highlight not only the precarity of migration, and the ongoing impact that it has on Europe’s socio-political reality, but also the inadequacy of the EU’s response to it.¹²

At this point, it is worth also mentioning the concept of the so-called Fortress Europe, which is linked to the European Union’s policies of establishing and strengthening the EU’s political and geographical borders, especially in the context of the Schengen agreement and its consequences for the visa arrangements for non-EU citizens.¹³ This brings us to the question of the border itself which has been heavily scrutinized by many scholars recently, giving birth to the term borderscape, intended to emphasize and incorporate the multi-faceted nature of borders as, ‘mobile, relational and contested sites’.¹⁴ Giuseppe Campesi applies and further reinterprets the borderscape concept in his analysis of the European Union’s current border regime and its increasingly post-national dimension.¹⁵

Other studies of the matter of Europeanness take a more overreaching socio-political approach. Ivan T. Berend, for example, delivers a comprehensive overview of the process of European integration, beginning with an analysis of its first steps in the post Second World War era, through its expansion to the East in 2004, to its most recent ‘crises’ (the economic crisis of 2008, the refugee ‘crisis’ of 2015).¹⁶ Anna Triandafyllidou and Ruby Gropas take an even wider socio-historical approach by exploring the different meanings and definitions of the terms ‘Europe’ and ‘European identity’, spanning from antiquity to the Europe of today. In this respect, they point to the ambivalence of the notion of European identity as they discuss the question of ‘many Europes’ and various ways in which it continues to be contextualized (e.g. the European Union, the European social model).¹⁷

The aim of this book is to use the socio-political theory of Europeanness as a significant framework of the analysis of the selected films in order to illustrate how contemporary cinema represents the question of Europeanness by depicting migratory flows and changes which they inflict on the ways in which the question of socio-political identification is understood. Combining the textual analysis with the theoretical material will allow me to explore cinema’s potential for impacting on the way in which European identity is comprehended.

Notably, the problem of analysing European identity and the process of European integration in relation to contemporary European film already holds an important position in the field of film studies. Many of the theoretical analyses of European cinema seem trapped in the ongoing dilemma of what can be classified as European film. A number of critics examine the ambiguous and contradictory character of the notion of European cinema by exploring its various historical and political contexts and the multiplicity of viewpoints and positions that it generates.¹⁸ In the introduction to one of the most prominent works on the matter, namely Thomas Elsaesser’s European Cinema: Face to Face with Hollywood, Elsaesser maps out this problem by stating:

Any book about European cinema should start with the statement that there is no such thing as European cinema, and that yes, European cinema exists, and has existed since the beginning of cinema a little more than a hundred years ago.¹⁹

I think that it is worth moving away from the question of the Europeanness of European cinema and instead look at European cinema in relation to the notion of Europeanness.²⁰

In order to do so, I intend to focus on the specific type of European cinema which examines Europe’s dynamically shifting socio-political landscape and the role that migration plays in it. In this sense, my project partially relates to the work of, for example, Luisa Rivi or Rosalind Galt who look at the problem of European cinema in the context of the socio-political discussion of the matter of Europeanness, but also the work of scholars preoccupied with the so-called ‘European migrant cinema’.²¹ Interestingly, in her recent publication focused on the subject of migration in European cinema, Temenuga Trifonova attempts to reorient the study of European film by examining the figure of the migrant as ‘a figure occupying an increasingly central place in European cinema in general rather than only in what is usually called “migrant and diasporic cinema”’.²² Guido Rings, on the other hand, analyses contemporary European ‘migrant cinema’ through the lens of the concept of ‘transculturality’ and its divergent contexts (transcultural memory, cultural exchange).²³ This book takes both of these perspectives into account, as I attempt to showcase an evolution in the portrayal of the migrant Other in European cinema within the last thirty years. However, unlike Trifonova and Rings, who discuss the problem of the European in relation to films from many European countries, I decided to focus on French and German cinema exclusively.²⁴

The choice of French and German cinema in particular requires further clarification. As this work examines cinema in relation to the problems of Europeanness and European identity, it is worth briefly outlining the importance of France and Germany in terms of their socio-political role and position in Europe and the European Union. Due to the size of their populations and the importance of their economies, France and Germany are two of the main architects of the process of European integration.²⁵ Moreover, they co-operate closely not only on the political level, but also by collaborating in a number of joint cultural initiatives (an example of which is the Franco-German arts and humanities television channel, ARTE). In addition, France and Germany are amongst the main film-producing countries in the EU.²⁶

Unsurprisingly therefore, contemporary French and German cinema forms a vast landscape of thematically and aesthetically diverse films. Notably, though a growing number of French and German productions focus on Europe’s dynamically shifting socio-cultural character and the way in which these changes affect the perception of national and post-national forms of social identification. In this respect, it is worth noting that France and Germany represent two distinct approaches to the matter of citizenship and nationality. France is historically seen as an example of a country which adheres to the principle of jus soli, while Germany is considered as an example of a country which sustains the idea of jus sanguinis.²⁷ Brubaker succinctly illustrates the distinction between the two countries by observing that ‘[t]‌he French understand their nation as the creation of their state, the Germans their nation as the basis of their state’.²⁸

Importantly, the two countries also differ in the ways in which they transitioned from countries of emigration into countries of immigration. While a significant number of French migrants came from its former colonies in the aftermath of the country’s decolonization, Germany actively encouraged migration in the form of the so-called Gastarbeiter [guest-workers]. Both approaches had very different legal and socio-political consequences for the respective countries as well as for the process of European integration. Moreover, France and Germany also approached the European refugee ‘crisis’ of 2015 in contrasting ways, symbolically shaping two distinct positions within the EU. By considering cinematic works from two countries representing such contrary legal, historical and political approaches to the matter of nationality and migration, I will be able to investigate the dilemmas posed by the concepts of nation and migration by referring to the works of, for example, Rogers Brubaker and Benedict Anderson, as well as Jeffrey Hou and Parag Khanna, respectively. I will examine how the different films depict the changeability of existing national forms of identification and how these changes affect our understanding of the European.

I will thus focus on the type of French and German cinema which is non-nation specific and which instead seems to form a category of its own, a type of post-national, pan-European filmmaking. Films which represent this cinematic trend, repeatedly problematize the idea of the nation in a variety of socio-cultural contexts. They are of predominantly urban character; they take place mainly in the setting of Europe’s major cities. Europe’s ever-growing agglomerations with their socially and culturally diverse populations function as the perfect background for narratives focused on dynamically shifting European societies. The authors of these films have different, often quite ambivalent, or problematic relationships with the national contexts to which their films belong. This book looks at the works of, among others, Claire Denis, Michael Haneke, Paweł Pawlikowski and Fatih Akin, none of whom could be unambiguously categorized in terms of their nationality and the type of filmmaking they practice.

Furthermore, these films are always, to a certain degree, multilingual. Their main characters come from many European and non-European countries and speak diverse languages, from French and German, through Russian and Polish to Maninka, Tamil and Turkish. In addition, they are often examples of multinational pan-European cinematic co-operation. Consequently, I will refrain from defining the films discussed in this book as French- or German-language narratives, as they seem to switch between and emphasize the multiplicity of languages spoken nowadays in Europe. Instead, I will use the term French and German film, but only to group the narratives according to the way they are usually categorized, not to define them.

Arguably, the prominence of the motif of the migrant Other, as well as what could be described as a more transnational approach to the question of Otherness prevalent in numerous French and German films, further distinguishes those cinemas from their European counterparts. In this context, this project offers a unique opportunity to consider how and to what extent, the national traditions of French and German film could be seen as evolving into a new type of post-national, European cinema. More specifically, this book explores films which themselves question the national categories to which they ‘belong’ as they incorporate varied European perspectives instead. It considers, for example, Fatih Akin’s Auf der anderen Seite [The Edge of Heaven] a German-Turkish-European film in which the matter of Europeanness resurfaces in multiple socio-political contexts (multilingualism, post-migrant identities, gender politics, asylum policies, the borders of Europe).²⁹ Accordingly, the notion of French and German cinema and the problematic aspect of its categorization, particularly in reference to the concept of Europeanness, will itself become a matter of reflection and a point of analysis throughout the book.

While the type of French and German cinema analysed in this book is thematically relevant to the discussion of the changes occurring in contemporary European societies, the task of analysing the films in relation to the notion of European identity is nonetheless in many ways problematic. One of the first questions that comes to mind in this context is whether and how cinema can engage with the notion of European identity? In his essay analysing the question of the Europeanness of European cinema, Paul Hainsworth cites Wim Wenders’s interesting but rather obscure statement, ‘There has been no better expression of European identity in this century, than European cinema.’³⁰ This vague comment opens up a number of questions, namely is there such a thing as European identity, and if so, what is it? Can cinema partake in its possible construction or deconstruction? What is the role and significance of the European Union in this context? How does the idea of European identity relate to other forms of social and cultural identification?

Before I clarify my perception of European identity, I want to consider briefly the problem of identity itself.³¹ The concept of identity represents one of the most intriguing questions explored in this book, but also perhaps the most problematic one. In order to introduce my perception of this question, I want to refer briefly to Stuart Hall who, in his article on the cinematic representation of identity, observes: