We have the “technocratic” vision of Europe as another efficient actor in global capitalism, we have the liberal vision of Europe as the pre-eminent space of human rights and freedoms, and we have the conservative vision of Europe as a union of strong national identities. How to orient ourselves in this mess? It is all too easy to distinguish between the different aspects of Europe, the good and the bad, adopting a stance wherein we reject the Europe which gave birth to modern colonialism, racism, and slavery, but we support the Europe of human rights and multicultural openness. Such a solution recalls an American politician from the era of prohibition who, when asked where he stands on drinking wine, replies: “If you mean by wine the drink which makes an evening with friends so wonderful, I am all for it, but if you mean by wine the horror which induces family violence and makes people jobless and degenerate, I am totally opposed to it!” Yes, Europe is a complex notion full of inner tensions, but we have to make a clear and simple decision: can “Europe” still serve as what Jacques Lacan called a Master-Signifier, as one of the names that symbolizes what the struggle for emancipation stands for?

My thesis is that it is precisely now, when Europe is in decline and the attacks on its legacy are at their strongest, that one should decide for Europe. The predominant target of these attacks is not Europe’s racist or conservative legacies, but the emancipatory potential that is unique to Europe: secular modernity, Enlightenment, human rights and freedoms, social solidarity and justice, feminism. . . The reason we should stick with the name “Europe” is not only because good features prevail over bad; the main reason is that the European legacy itself provides the best critical instruments with which to analyze what went wrong in Europe. Are those who oppose “Eurocentrism” aware that the very terms they use in their critique are part of European legacy?

 

Obviously, the most visible threat to this emancipatory potential comes from within, from the new Right populism which aims at destroying the European emancipatory legacy. The Right’s Europe is a Europe of nation-states bent on preserving their particular identity. When Steve Bannon visited France a couple of years ago, he made a speech which finished with the words: “God bless America and Vive la France!, Vive la France, viva Italia, long live Germany. . . but not Europe. We should be attentive to how this vision of Europe implies a totally different mapping of our political space.

In his Notes Towards the Definition of Culture, the great conservative T. S. Eliot remarked that there are moments when the only choice is the one between sectarianism and non-belief, when the only way to keep religion alive is to perform a sectarian split from its main corpse. This is our only choice today: only by means of a “sectarian split” from the standard liberal-democratic version of the European legacy, only by cutting ourselves off from the decaying corpse of the old Europe, can we keep the European legacy alive. To act on a global scale that is not focused on Europe—for instance in helping India and others with vaccines, mobilizing internationally against global warming, and organizing global health care—is the only way to be a true European today.

Slavoj Žižek, "A European Manifesto", in Heaven in Disorder, pág. 173-75, OR Books, Dez. 2021