The aim of this paper is to introduce more conceptual clarity into the debate on regionalism and, more concretely, on the contradiction between the state-centered model of social life and the tendency toward decentralization as well as the delegation of authority to local intra-national and international, economic and cultural entities.
“Regionalism” is a term with more than one meaning. In this paper it refers to the relatively recent development, directed toward the solution of social and political problems, which ensues from the discrepancies between national and cultural borders. In many places throughout the world, for various reasons, the population of a territory, which was once unified by intense economic cooperation and exchange, as well as by cultural commonalities and affinities, turned out to be divided between two or more states. Localities, which were once a center of vibrant economic and cultural life, found themselves in a peripheral position because of the redistribution of territories among the states. In most cases this has brought about a decline in the social and cultural life of the people who inhabit these regions and also to the waste or neglect of natural and human resources present there. The recent decades have witnessed a new interest in this issue by the international community and by the regions’ populations alike. Administrative measures are carried out and economic activities are being promoted mostly on the initiative of international institutions but also as a result of bilateral or multilateral cooperation between neighboring states. This development brings to the fore theoretical issues which have to be solved or at least clarified in order to remove possible obstacles to the success of regionalism.
I am trying to answer three questions, ordered consecutively, in a cascade-like manner. The first is: what should be regarded in this context as an alternative to a rigid national identity - the ideology of liberal individualism, or the establishment of new, emergent collective identities. In the second case, how should these identities be conceived - as historical ones which have always existed but which have been suppressed by the nation-states, and are now being rediscovered, or as newly constructed cultural ones? And, if the second alternative is accepted, what are the moral limits of constructionism; in other words, where is the demarcation between identity-construction and manipulation?
Individual and collective identity
My answer to the first question is definitely in favor of the collective-identities alternative. The other option is to oppose the nationalist notion of identity as being some kind of individualism. It can be a cosmopolitan, or a pan-European individualism, which amounts to adopting a cultural identity of such scope that it is actually void of content.