European Multilingualism: Political Scope

In the past 20 years and since the foundation of the European Union, the plea for EM has been a prominent feature of policy making (cf. High Level Group 2007: 22). Policy makers and stakeholders have been seeking to establish EM as a normative goal and, more recently, as a cross-cutting policy framework that relates to the major values and principles to which the European unification project adheres. Respecting the existing linguistic diversity and enhancing the multilingual competences of the European citizens have been conceived as important premises on which integration into a Union bound together by common values should be fostered. Following this politics and the normative stance it pursues, one might be inclined to argue that the EU has invented EM in order to ensure its goal of an ever-closer political and economic integration. It would appear, therefore, that EM has come to be an ideologically driven concept and that over the past two decades, its conceptualisation has undergone substantial changes. This is particularly true for the 1990s, when the issue of Europe as an information society was raised, and the new millennium, in which the scope of this politics has been widened towards integrating aspects such as migration, social cohesion, intercultural dialogue and lifelong learning. As yet, however, some crucial issues, for example, the role of minority and migrant languages (cf. Nic Craith 2006: 56; Extra et al. 2004: 395) or the question of language hierarchies within the EM project, have remained unclear (cf. Nic Craith 2006: 40–56; Phillipson 2009: 64–65). Apparently, EM has come to be an ideologically driven concept which in its functional top-down approach is not yet established well enough in the grass roots and in civil society at large.

The debate on EM relates directly to the diversity principle of the EU. The term 'linguistic diversity', often taken to be synonymous with EM in public and official debates, is used in a double sense. On the one hand, it is used descriptively to refer to the many languages that are actually spoken in Europe and particularly within the EU. On the other hand, it is used ideologically to refer to a central value to which the EU adheres in its treaties, declarations and related documents, and which constitutes a promotional objective and a political goal that the EU seeks to achieve. 'Linguistic diversity' is an integral part of 'cultural diversity' (cf. also Lo Bianco 2010: 39–54), and both are assigned crucial significance within the European unification process since the aim is to achieve political integration into the ever-closer Union without compromising the cultural distinctiveness and the linguistically defined identities of the member states.

In what follows, we will focus in more detail on how the plea for EM has evolved from the diversity debate in the EU's economic and political integration process. We will then further elaborate on how EM has come to be introduced into the EU's political agenda as a matter of policy in its own right. Finally, we will conclude by considering the main positions and challenges that arise in the pursuit of a policy which aims at respecting and promoting linguistic pluralism in Europe.

1.1 Multilingualism and the Diversity Debate

From a historical perspective, languages can be seen as intimately intertwined with the rise of national identities in Europe. The adoption of a common language has contributed crucially to the fostering of social integration and cultural centralisation within the European societies (cf. Gellner 1983). This is the reason why languages are so closely associated with cultural diversity in Europe (cf. Grimm 1995).

The EU is a multinational conglomerate which is being directed towards an ever-closer economic and political unification. The question naturally arises as to how such supranational unification can be achieved while at the same time ensuring the maintenance of cultural diversity at the national level, and finding ways of protecting pluralism without setting limits to the European unity has become an important political and legal issue (cf. Bogdandy 2007). It also needs to be noted that against the background of the enlargement and the continuing institutional and political transformation of the EU, 'cultural diversity' provides for a framework from which the overall identity and legitimacy of Europe would evolve (cf. also Weiss 2002: 62–63).

Originally, the EEC started as an economic community, which, however, soon became aware of the significance of the cultural dimension, since it provides the common basic elements and patterns of collective identification that would legitimise the promotion of the unification process. This is one of the reasons why from the 1970s onwards recurrent references were made to the common cultural heritage and to European identity based on the diversity of the national cultures and languages. The Declaration of European Identity, which was adopted at the Copenhagen Summit in 1973 (cf. Bull. 12-1973), is an early example for the perceived instrumental significance of culture in the process of integration. In the mid-1980s, a similar instrumental significance was attributed to language abilities within the framework of the European market and a solidarity Community. The Report by the Committee on a People's Europe (cf. Bull. Supp.7-1985) submitted to the European Council (which was approved by the Milan European Council 28 and 29 June 1985) underlines that 'the languages spoken in the Community form an essential part of its cultural heritage and contribute to its richness and diversity.' The subsequent Council Decision of 28 July 1989, establishing an action programme to promote foreign language competence in the European Community (cf. OJ 1989 L 239: 24–32) notes that 'greater foreign language competence will enable the Community's citizens to reap the benefits of competition of the internal market and will enhance understanding and solidarity between the peoples which go to make up the Community, while preserving the linguistic diversity and cultural wealth of Europe'.

In the 1990s, it became evident that the European unification process had to go beyond the establishment of the Common Market and that political integration into an ever-closer Union was to be consolidated on the basis of a common cultural identity project (cf. Kraus 2008: 43). However, the plea for a common European identity was by no means to imply that the national identities were to be replaced by a supranational European identity. It was believed that they would coexist complementary to the latter (cf. OJ 1997 C 340: Art. 6.3). This explains why cultural and linguistic diversity came to constitute a major value or principle, as enshrined in the founding treaties of the EU (cf. Toggenburg 2003: 19–21). It also explains why the diversity issue has been accorded a prominent place in the various declarations and documents issued...