So, from the moment of its emergence, Western European civilization was marked by deep internal contradictions. The principle of private property and the intensive method of management became the basis for the rapid creation of social wealth and unlimited social progress. However, at the same time they gave rise to isolation of individual cells of society and destructive discord between them. As the famous English historian reasonably noted, “the beginnings of Europe were forged on the anvil of war.” (Brown R.A. The Origins of Modern Europe. – L., 1972. – P. 93). In light of this, it is not surprising that already in the early Middle Ages in Western Europe there was a desire to unite European peoples, either through force or through persuasion (the “European idea”). It is quite natural that at each stage the authors of the idea of unification appealed to the realities of their time.
The first “unifier” of Europe was the Frankish king Charlemagne, who was crowned Emperor of the Roman Empire on December 25, 800. The ideal Charlemagne was striving for was essentially a late Roman Empire with Christianity as the official religion, ruled by a “barbarian” king and a “barbarian” pope. His empire, whose borders, by historical accident, approximately coincided with the borders of the European Community of the first six states, turned out to be short-lived and disintegrated with the death of its creator.
One of the German kings, Otto I, was guided by similar ideals, who created a century and a half later (in 962) the Holy Roman Empire, which lasted until 1806. The ideological basis of the Holy Roman Empire (from the end of the 15th century - the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation) was Catholic universalism, its goal is the unification of all Catholics living in Europe. Within the empire itself there was an acute confrontation between emperors and popes, as well as between emperors and individual monarchs.
The Renaissance marked the beginning of the weakening and stagnation of the Holy Roman Empire. Christian universalism, based on the military power of feudal rulers, had rivals - humanism and citizenship. The first humanists did not encroach on the authority of the church and sovereigns; they only tried to convince them to moderate the cruelty of the feudal order and, if possible, avoid armed conflicts. The German Engelbert d'Admont advocated the restoration in Europe of a truly unified empire led by one monarch, based on a single imperial law, as it was in the days of Ancient Rome. The great Italian poet Dante dreamed of creating an ideal state based on the voluntary submission of people to the will of the ruler , whose source of power is the will of the Lord God, and not the Roman high priest.The Supreme Ruler was supposed to rule Europe, relying on a kind of federation of states subordinate to him.
The emergence of strong national states in Western Europe turned the power of emperors into a fiction. Supporters of the European idea were forced to reckon with this fact. Some of them still hoped for an agreement between the sovereigns with the aim of establishing “eternal peace.” At the same time, they were looking for a form of organization that would make this agreement sufficiently strong, as they would say today, institutionalized. Thus, the Frenchman Pierre Dubois believed that the surest way to end wars was the creation of a confederal “Christian republic.” The Czech Jiri from Poděbrady, developing the idea of his predecessor, proposed a detailed project for a union of European states. Anticipating the realities of the second half of the 20th century, he reflected on the composition of the union assembly and the union council, proposed rotation of meeting places of the union assembly, distribution of votes in the council between individual states, principles for forming the union budget, and collective security guarantees.
The proposals of the Duke de Sully, a retired superintendent of the French king Henry IV, went in the same direction. He considered it appropriate to divide Europe into six hereditary monarchies, five elective monarchies and four republics. Fifteen European states were to enter into an alliance among themselves, guaranteeing, among other things, free trade in Europe. To manage the union, de Sully proposed creating a senate (or council) in the image and likeness of the ancient Greek amphictyony. The representation of European states on the council was to be proportionate to their size and strength. Unlike other supporters of the European idea, de Sully was a pragmatist. He was of the opinion that the unification of Europe could only be achieved through military force. He considered the main obstacle to the implementation of the project to be the Habsburgs, who should be ousted from Germany, Italy and Spain by a coalition of European states led by France. France was to play a leading role in Europe even after the end of the “War of Unification.”
The emergence of Protestantism and the split of the Christian Church in Europe into several warring branches finally undermined the claims of Rome and the emperors to unite all Europeans within the bosom of the Catholic Church. The European idea is becoming exclusively secular. As civil society developed in the first bourgeois states of Europe, the idea of curbing the ambition of monarchs with the help of law and public control was established.
The Dutchman Hugo Grotius, considering war as a natural and inevitable state of humanity, at the same time considered it absolutely necessary to put international relations, including wars between states, within the strict framework of the law and thereby reduce the suffering of people. The system of international law created by Grotius applied primarily to Europe.
The Czech Jan Amos Komensky saw the fundamental means of eliminating war and creating a just European system in improving human nature, in creating fundamentally new religion, philosophy and politics, based on the laws of universality, simplicity and voluntariness. He proposed entrusting the protection of a new, fair social order to selected prominent individuals. It is clear that these noble ideas belonged entirely to the category of dreams.
More practical were the proposals of the German Emerich Kruse. In order to resolve differences between countries peacefully, he proposed creating a kind of interstate assembly consisting of all the leading states of the world, regardless of their dominant religion. States were supposed to help each other in suppressing riots and uprisings. The main role in maintaining peace was to be played by the class most interested in it - the merchants. States had to ensure that trade was subject to moderate taxes and duties, and that merchants were ensured security. Kruse, among other things, clearly understood the important role of the single currency in the unification process.
The weak point of all the early projects of the European confederation was that their implementation was made dependent on the good will of the sovereigns. The utopian nature of this approach is obvious, since real national interests inevitably pushed states towards competition and conflict. Supporters of the European idea were faced with the task of finding forms of unification that would make it not just desirable, but also necessary.
The Frenchman Charles-Irene de Saint-Pierre justified the need for a confederation of European states by their strong interdependence. He proceeded from the fact that there is an objective “European balance” and the task is only to introduce it into the framework of law and permanent institutions. It is the “European balance” that is the key to the strength of the confederation of European states. For its practical implementation, de Saint-Pierre proposed creating a congress at which all participating states, as well as arbitration and the court, would be represented. Collective coercion was to be used as the “final argument.”
The proposals of the Englishman William Penn were even harsher. He was the first to express the idea that the united institutions of the pan-European union should have certain rights in relation to individual European states. To ensure peace and security, he proposed creating a pan-European assembly. It was supposed to resolve conflicts between powers if the latter could not resolve them themselves. Moreover, the assembly, backed by the combined power of the member states, was supposed to force individual countries to comply with and implement collective decisions. Peni believed that such a system would have absolute deterrent potential. No state would dare to disturb the peace, knowing that in this case it would inevitably face the combined might of all other powers. At the same time, Peni emphasized the need to protect the freedom of nation states. Their sovereignty was to be limited only in matters of maintaining peace. In all other areas, their powers were not to be subject to any restrictions. Peni developed in detail the mechanism of the pan-European system he proposed, including sources of funding, norms of representation, voting procedures, and meeting places.
The great German philosopher Immanuel Kant also believed that eternal peace cannot arise on its own, since the natural state of mankind is war. Therefore, peace must be “established.” This can be done by signing an agreement. But in order to guarantee its observance, republican government must be introduced in all European countries, based on the principles of freedom and equality of all citizens before the law. In other words, a treaty between states must be supported by an alliance between peoples. If the issue of peace and war is transferred to the responsibility of citizens, this will make it as difficult as possible to start wars.
The hope that democratization of government would bring closer peoples and lasting peace in Europe turned out to be illusory. The Great French Revolution ushered in a long era of wars of unprecedented scope. The “European idea” was used by the warring parties to justify their aggressive claims. Thus, Napoleon Bonaparte, having forcibly united most of Europe under his rule, intended to create a European confederation under the auspices of “Great France”, led by its emperor. The Confederation was to have a single code of laws, a high court of cassation, a common army, a single monetary system and a single system of weights and measures. Napoleon foresaw the rise of nationalism and raised the question of an orderly change in the ethno-political map of the continent to prevent armed conflicts.
The “European idea” was invisibly present in the thinking of Napoleon’s victors. They clearly saw the need to streamline international relations in Europe. Therefore, instead of a spontaneous and unstable “European balance,” they created a “concert of powers.” The purpose of this “concert” was purely reactionary - the joint protection of “legitimate” monarchies and the suppression of revolutionary movements. The guarantor of the new European system was the Holy Alliance of Austria, Prussia and Russia, which was later joined by many other European states.
An alternative to monarchical “Europeanism” was the idea of creating a United States of Europe, inspired by the successes of democracy in North America. This idea was actively supported by the liberal European bourgeoisie and radical nationalist circles who fought for the unification of the German, Italian and other divided nations. Bourgeois liberals associated the unification of Europe with plans to expand markets; nationalists hoped that in the bosom of a new, democratic European order it would be easier for them to achieve the liberation and unification of their peoples.
Dreams of creating a United States of Europe were dashed by the rise of nation-states and the sharply intensified rivalry between them. The struggle to redraw the political and economic map of the world naturally led to the First World War. The war was fought under the banner of fanatical nationalism. It is characteristic, however, that the rulers of the warring countries justified their national egoism by caring about the “salvation of Europe.”
Despite unprecedented casualties and destruction, the First World War did not lead to the discrediting of nationalism and war as a means of achieving national goals. On the contrary, the obvious injustice of the Versailles system of peace treaties led to a powerful increase in revanchist sentiments in Germany. On the wave of offended national feeling and economic ruin, the National Socialist Party led by Adolf Hitler came to power. She advocated not only for revising the results of the First World War, but also for the establishment of a “new order” in Europe, based on crazy racial theories.
The growing danger of a new world war was actively countered by a powerful movement of Western European society, rallying around a democratic version of the “European idea.”
In 1923, the Austrian Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi published the book Pan-Europe. He proposed a coherent system of pan-European institutions: the Federal Council, consisting of representatives of states; the Federal Assembly, to which national parliaments had to send their representatives; Federal Court and Federal Treasury. The weakness of the Coudenhove-Kalergi project was that it proposed to preserve the unlimited sovereignty of the participating states and thereby made the implementation of the project completely dependent on their goodwill.
The significance of the Coudenhove-Kalergi initiative lay mainly in the fact that it marked the beginning of a pan-European movement. On the political plane, the project associated with the name of the French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand caused a much greater resonance. On May 1, 1930, he sent an official memorandum to the 26 European member countries of the League of Nations, which proposed practical steps towards the political unification of Europe. Briand suggested that his colleagues begin by holding regular meetings to exchange views on this issue, then discuss the amount of funds that should be transferred to the future pan-European organization, and, finally, sign the Pact of General Principles of the European Confederation.
The institutional structure of the confederation was to include representative, executive and administrative bodies. The highest representative body, the European Conference, would include representatives of the governments of the participating countries. An annual rotation of the chairmanship of the conference was envisaged. An executive European committee was to be formed from among the delegates.
Basic principles of the confederation:
· priority of military security and political union over economic union;
· the principle of a flexible federation that would guarantee the independence and national sovereignty of each participating state and at the same time provide everyone with the benefits of collective solidarity;
· creation of a common market, rational organization of production and circulation in Europe, progressive liberalization of the movement of goods, capital and people.
And this project failed. Its author was killed by a bullet from a Serbian extremist, and his proposed conference did not take place. The outbreak of the Second World War once again put an end to the search for European agreement. However, this time the “European idea” was not paralyzed by military action. On the one hand, most of Europe was forcibly united under the Third Reich. Hitler's ideologists tried to mobilize the support of the population of the countries they conquered under the slogan of collective resistance to “Asian Bolshevism” and predatory Anglo-American imperialism. On the other hand, in line with the liberation struggle of peoples against fascism, patriotism and Europeanism merged, and ideological movements arose that contrasted the Europe of forced labor and concentration camps with the idea of a democratic united Europe. Among those who, in the fire of war, forged a program for achieving European harmony were the Italians Altero Spinelli and Ernesto Rossi, the Frenchman Leon Blum, and the Belgian Paul-Henri Spaak. Thanks to their efforts, the “European idea” finally came closer to its practical implementation.
Summary
Western European integration is a unique phenomenon in world politics and economics. Thanks to it, the peoples of Western Europe managed to solve two fundamental problems. Firstly, the material basis of wars between states was eliminated. Secondly, the limited limits of national economic complexes were expanded and favorable conditions were created for the internationalization of economic activity. This ensures lasting peace and economic prosperity for Western Europe.
Integration became possible due to the fact that by the middle of the 20th century, the necessary prerequisites had developed in this part of the globe.
The ideological prerequisites for integration were formed in line with the so-called “European idea” - an intellectual movement that for many centuries advocated the eradication of wars in Western Europe and the political unification of its peoples and states. Among the authors of the projects were the most prominent representatives of European social thought and culture.
The material prerequisites for integration developed in the course of socio-economic development throughout the two thousand-year history of Western Europe. Its historically established civilizational features include:
· rationalistic individualism;
· personal freedom;
· law supremacy;
· equality of all citizens before the law;
· the principle and institution of private property;
· intensive method of management;
· culture of voluntary association, reasonable compromise and solidarity;
· capitalism;
· bourgeoisie as the dominant, leading class of society, possessing high social responsibility;
· civil society;
· political democracy.
Indicate the numbers of sentences that correctly convey the MAIN information contained in the text. Write down the numbers of these sentences.
1) Many representatives of different European countries came up with the idea of creating a tank, but the first to do so was the German young captain E. Swinton, when he was in South Africa.
2) Despite numerous attempts by European nations to claim that the invention of the tank belongs to them, it has been historically proven that the idea of a tracked combat vehicle appeared in 1900 and it belonged to the British E. Swinton, who successfully implemented the idea during the First World War.
3) The invention of the tank occurred simultaneously in several European countries, as evidenced by numerous projects of tracked vehicles found in different parts of Europe.
4) The invention of the tank, as historical facts say, belongs to the British E. Swinton, who in 1900 made the first sketch of this combat vehicle, and during the First World War he successfully implemented his idea.
5) The invention of the tank happened completely by accident, when the British captain E. Swinton was in South Africa and was thinking about what a vehicle should be that could move through ditches, trenches and wire fences.
Explanation (see also Rule below).
Identical information is conveyed without distortion in sentences 2 and 4.
Answer: 24|42.
Answer: 24|42
Rule: Task 1. Determining the main information of the text
Task 1 requires the student to be able to carry out information processing of text.
It is always short in length, always only three sentences and always two correct answers.
This task, like the 2nd one, tests the students’ ability to grasp the logic of the development of the thoughts of the author of the text presented for analysis. At the same time, examinees must have an idea that the same information can be presented using different syntactic structures, and task 1 of control measuring materials aims students to use the entire wealth of syntactic structures available in their native language.
To solve task 1, you need to highlight the main information of the proposed text. Then:
Condense this information into one sentence yourself;
Find at least one sentence that, in your opinion, contains ALL the information, and compare it with what you got;
Please note that in THREE of the five sentences the information will be:
a) distort the text by adding additions to it or violating cause-and-effect relationships;
b) incomplete, that is, it will convey the content correctly, but only partially;
c) too short.
Next we find the proposal, like two peas in a pod, similar in meaning to what we calculated. Same information. Same facts. But - with other syntactic constructions. For example, the attributive clause will be replaced by the participial phrase. Homogeneous predicates - participial phrases, etc.
Thus, we get two correct statements.
“He who cannot smile should not trade,” says a Chinese proverb. Each country has its own national identity. Any nation has its own mentality, traditions and customs, rules of behavior and even its own business etiquette. To avoid getting into trouble when working with foreign colleagues and partners, you need to pay attention to many little details and nuances. What is accepted here may be unacceptable in another country.
The culture of another country is not only a barrier that all visitors have to overcome, but also a shield that protects the uniqueness of each nation. We have collected the most interesting and mandatory rules of business etiquette in European countries.
Great Britain
The United Kingdom is one of the world's economic and financial centers. British financiers and businessmen are true perfectionists, they pay attention to every detail in their work and demand the same from their colleagues, including foreign ones. Even when writing letters, you must be extremely careful and attentive to all formalities.
Punctuality is almost the main quality that a person who conducts business in the UK must have. Being late is completely unacceptable, and the business meeting itself is usually scheduled several days in advance.
British humor is one of the national symbols; it is present even in the business environment. If you do not understand the joke or ironic remark of your interlocutor, then you should not focus on this, you need to smile and continue the conversation.
We should also not forget that Great Britain is a multinational country, and calling a Scot or Irish an Englishman is a dangerous step. Representatives of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are sometimes offended by even the word “British”, so we must express ourselves as correctly as possible and not touch on the topic of nations within the United Kingdom.
After the end of the working day, it is not customary to discuss work matters, even while having dinner with a colleague in a restaurant or at a family dinner at his home. Talking about work after work is bad form.
In addition to professionalism in all areas, the British are famous for their conservatism, which is also reflected in the rules of the dress code: you should not come to a meeting with partners in the office in jeans and a T-shirt, and to a dinner party - in a tracksuit.
Residents of Great Britain are reserved and balanced people. When speaking, you should avoid displaying excessive emotions and expressive statements. Even the neutral expression “I’m quite pleased” can be perceived as an extremely enthusiastic reaction.
Germany
Prudent and thrifty Germans are known as the most pedantic and hardworking specialists. Businessmen from Germany are very reserved and always act formally, even if the partners have long-standing friendly relations: it is customary to address them by their last name and “you”. If communication takes place in English, then you can address them by name.
Not only their work life, but even their personal life is scheduled not by the hour, but by the minute, so any lateness is perceived as an insult. If circumstances are such that a delay is inevitable, it is better to call your German colleague as soon as possible and explain everything and apologize.
Businesses in Germany prefer to be carried out and planned in advance and leisurely. Every German is suspicious of haste. Therefore, when working on a joint project or transaction, you should not rush, but work out all the details slowly and thoughtfully.
Lunch in Germany is an important necessity. Many workers, students and even schoolchildren go home or to a cafe in the middle of the day to have lunch. Therefore, most business meetings are often held over lunch, and dinner, in turn, is customary with the family. Private life and work are clearly separated: in Germany, business partners are rarely invited to a family dinner, as is often the case in the UK or France. However, if an invitation has been received, you must bring a small gift to the house: a bottle of expensive wine or a box of chocolates.
Don’t be offended if a German colleague doesn’t treat anyone to his breakfast brought from home, or closes his office right in front of his nose: violating personal space and sharing things is not accepted in Germany.
When addressing a person, it is important to mention his academic degrees, titles, and so on. Personal achievements here carry a lot of weight, and the fact that a work partner knows about this will show him from the best side.
And of course, in conversations not related to work, you should avoid the topic of World War II. For Germans this issue is extremely painful.
France
The French are famous for their sense of tact and style; they are real neat people in everything, including work and business. Even the word “etiquette” itself comes from the French language. Failure to follow simple rules of behavior at the table or when communicating causes a negative reaction. And the appearance of a business partner and colleagues must be impeccable, so before a business meeting you should carefully select your wardrobe.
Punctuality is taken seriously in France, but not as strictly as in Germany or the UK. It is allowed to be late by 10-15 minutes, but no more.
Business meetings are almost always scheduled over breakfast, lunch or dinner: it’s not for nothing that France is considered a country of gourmets. Important detail: work issues are discussed only after drinks are served.
When you first meet a French colleague, you should definitely give him your business card. If possible, all personal achievements should be indicated on it: the French respect people with ranks and titles.
The French are immensely proud of their culture and their language, so they prefer to conduct conversations even with foreigners in French. If the interlocutor does not know the language, he should learn at least a couple of phrases, address his colleague in French and ask permission to switch to English. This formality is of great importance.
French businessmen are very scrupulous. Therefore, when meeting or making a deal, you need to prepare for the fact that your partner will ask a lot of questions and begin to find out even the most insignificant details.
Knowledge of French culture will be a big plus for a foreigner. If a partner, in a conversation on an abstract topic, can talk about Matisse, Hugo or Debussy, then the French colleague will be flattered, because the art of France is a matter of national pride.
Italy
Italian businessmen, contrary to popular belief about the nation, are extremely prim and formal.
When meeting, everyone addresses each other by last name and shakes hands. They even shake hands with women.
Like the French, Italians are very sensitive to their language, so it is better to write even the first official letter with a partnership proposal in Italian.
Italy is the birthplace of fashion. Therefore, a good company suit or dress, watch, jewelry and even an expensive fountain pen can endear an Italian colleague to a foreigner. At the same time, the dress code does not have strict restrictions on colors, as in the UK: a suit for a meeting with Italian partners can be in light colors, and a dress can be in a bright shade.
A business meeting, which is usually held over dinner, begins with small talk. Topics that Italians like to discuss: art, architecture, football, family and travel. Punctuality is not of great importance, so a meeting can be scheduled even a few hours in advance, and can last until late in the evening. Italians are leisurely and often late.
Ireland
Despite its proximity to Great Britain, Ireland has its own business etiquette, which is opposite to its neighbors.
Too formal clothing is not encouraged here, so you can dress more informally for a meeting: dark jeans, a shirt or polo, but you must have a jacket.
Business meetings and negotiations are often scheduled in bars, so do not be surprised if an Irish business partner is waiting for his foreign colleague with a glass of beer at the bar.
The Irish are not very obliging: they are often late and cancel appointments. But expressing displeasure about this is bad form.
Finland, Norway, Sweden
The rules of business etiquette in the northern countries of Europe are almost no different.
Finns, Norwegians and Swedes are reserved and not too emotional. They never talk about family and personal life. But at the same time, in communication they are often addressed by name and “you”. Northerners love simplicity and value straightforwardness. They are reliable, their words never diverge from their actions. Scandinavians do not tolerate boasting or flattery.
Most business meetings are held in the sauna. This is a national Scandinavian tradition. After the sauna, the meeting moves to a restaurant or cafe.
If a partner invites a foreign colleague to a family dinner, be sure to present a bottle of wine and a bouquet of flowers for the wife of the owner of the house.
Spain
Spaniards are energetic, hardworking, proactive and determined. Business in Spain is carried out confidently and quickly. Spanish businessmen value these same qualities in their foreign partners.
Spanish colleagues show interest not only in work and position, but also in the personality of their partners. Therefore, during a business meeting, you need to be prepared for personal questions.
The Spaniards are not at all punctual, they are often late and do not always keep their promises. When concluding deals and contracts, you need to be as persistent as possible and discuss all the details and obligations of the parties.
Do not forget about the traditional Spanish siesta, especially in relation to small towns: from 14 to 16 hours meetings are usually not scheduled, this time is intended for relaxation. Spaniards meet with their partners only during dinner, which starts quite late, around 21.00.
The Spaniards are democratic in their clothing and do not make strict demands on their foreign colleagues.
When in Rome do as the romances do
Every country and its culture is unique. When communicating with foreigners, you need to at least be aware of cultural and language barriers and differences and be respectful of any nation or country. Compliance with even basic rules of etiquette will allow you to maintain international partnerships and work around the world without restrictions.
In the 18th century in the justification of the European idea, the role of economic motives increased. This was influenced by the progress of technology, the development of trade and European colonial conquests. At the beginning of the 18th century. The French philosopher Abbé came up with the concept of a union of all the monarchs of Europe called the European Union Charles de Saint-Pierre (1658-1743). In the three-volume work “Project for the Establishment of Perpetual Peace” (1712), he analyzed the causes of European wars and proposed the creation of an “eternal union” of all European monarchs. De Saint-Pierre denied the possibility of European unification under the rule of any monarch, arguing that previous historical experience had demonstrated the futility of such attempts. Therefore, it is possible to unite Europe only on a confederal basis. Unlike Sully's plan, which excluded Russia, de Saint-Pierre's project considered it on an equal basis with other European states. European monarchs were asked to delegate their powers to a permanent European Senate, representing all the states of the continent within the framework of the “great Christian republic.” The key task of the Senate was to resolve the most important political, financial and military issues, mutual disputes that threaten the stability and peaceful development of member states. The role of the European government was to be performed by a special commission composed of five senators. De Saint-Pierre considered the European Union to be a guarantee of cooperation between the states of Christian Europe, ensuring their security and freedom of trade. He proposed to locate the capital of the union in the Dutch city of Utrecht. The most important factor integrating the union was to be the development of trade, for which the creation of appropriate coordinating institutions was envisaged. The Saint-Pierre Plan was the first project for the unification of Europe to receive wide public attention. True, Voltaire, Leibniz, and the Prussian king Frederick II assessed his plan very skeptically. But Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant are considered the ideological heirs of de Saint-Pierre, and some historians trace the influence of his projects on the creation of the Holy Alliance in 1815 and the Customs Union in Germany in 1834.
New ideas of European unity were formulated by the famous French thinker of the Enlightenment. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). His principles of political philosophy, consisting mainly of a social contract, provided for the creation of a union of free peoples in accordance with a special agreement of the inhabitants of the continent. Rousseau advocated resolving controversial issues between European peoples in the form of concluding treaties, and considered the cantons of Switzerland to be an example of the future structure of European affairs. His ideas even went as far as abandoning the names of individual nations and creating a single European society. Thus, rejecting hope for the good will of European monarchs inclined to conquer foreign territories and expand their own power, Rousseau for the first time connected the unification of Europe with the revolutionary struggle of peoples, anticipating the actions of revolutionary France and Napoleon Bonaparte.
In the 18th century In Europe, the role of nation states grew, and at the same time the modern understanding of European identity was consolidated. Enlightenment thinkers expressed the secular nature of the state and a separate sphere of church activity. The development of science opened up new horizons of knowledge, but the Christian worldview continued to remain the dominant motive for the development of the European idea. The French Revolution and subsequent Napoleonic Wars spread the slogans of freedom and brotherhood of European nations contained in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man. After the French Revolution, ideas of European integration also began to be expressed by associations and political movements.
At the beginning of the 19th century. The greatest influence on the shape of Europe was exerted by the activities of the French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821), who continued the expansionist traditions of the Roman Empire and the Carolingian monarchy. Using the army and the cultural influence of France, he tried to unite Europe around Paris. Having subjugated almost all of Europe from Portugal to the borders of Russia, he tried to create a confederation of states centered in Paris. Vassal or dependent states were formed around France, which were headed by members of the emperor's family or his loyal allies. Thus, Napoleon's stepson Eugene Beauharnais was appointed viceroy of Italy, and the emperor's brothers Jerome, Louis and Joseph became kings of Westphalia, Holland and Spain, respectively. And the Emperor's brother-in-law Murat received the Kingdom of Naples. The allied states (the Duchy of Warsaw, the Confederation of the Rhine), which formally remained independent, were completely controlled by Napoleon and did not pursue an independent foreign policy. In the subject countries, Napoleon introduced a new system of government, regulated by the civil code (Napoleonic Code), legislation in the manner of the French. It provided for the equality of citizens in relation to the law, the elimination of feudal privileges, and retained its influence after Napoleon's empire collapsed. Already in exile, Napoleon wrote: “One of my main intentions was to unite all those peoples who had disintegrated or were divided by revolutions and politics... I wanted to create a single state organism from all these peoples. In such a state of affairs there would be greater opportunity to introduce uniform codes, principles, opinions, sentiments, views and interests everywhere. Then, perhaps, thanks to that widespread enlightenment, dreams of the adoption by the great European family of the principles of the American Congress or the Greek Amphictyony would become real.”. These thoughts, however, contradicted Napoleon's previous military and political activities. Despite the failure of Napoleon's attempt to unite Europe, his activities contributed to the widespread dissemination of the idea of European unity.
On the initiative of Tsar Alexander I in 1815 in Paris, Russia, Austria and Prussia created the first pan-European Holy Alliance . In 1816-1821 he was joined by all other European monarchs except the Pope, Turkey and England. The monarchs declared “indissoluble brotherhood in the name of defense of religion, peace and justice.” The Holy Alliance sought to establish a kind of system of “supervision” over Europe and the creation of an international tribunal that would resolve all disputes in the “great family of European nations.” Thus, a kind of “international of monarchs” emerged with the goal of stabilizing the European order. The Holy Alliance revived the myth of medieval unity, directed against the aspirations of the peoples of Europe for change. The work of the Holy Alliance was an attempt to create in post-Napoleonic Europe a free confederal union operating on the basis of jointly established principles. It can serve as an example of an emerging interstate community.
In contrast to the conservative Holy Alliance in the 19th century. New concepts of European integration appeared, put forward by socialists and republicans. Many of them used the experience of the United States, anticipating in the future an increase in economic rivalry between the Old and New Worlds. These writers and philosophers opposed the ideas of unification of peoples to the ideas of cooperation between European monarchs. The most developed integration ideas were presented by the famous utopian socialist Count Claude Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825). Analyzing previous integration ideas, Saint-Simon came to the conclusion that it was necessary to create a union of the peoples of Europe, while maintaining the independence of each of them separately. He proposed making the pan-European Great Parliament the supreme power, “standing above all national governments and empowered to resolve disputes between them.” This parliament was to consist of two chambers: the House of Deputies (in the manner of the House of Commons) and the House of Peers (in the manner of the House of Lords). Its meetings would be held under the leadership of an elected king - the ruler of all Europe.
He played a major role in the development of the European idea Giuseppe Mazzini and the secret organization “Young Europe” created by him in April 1834 in Bern, which he saw as the prototype of a “federation of European nations.” Its goal was to promote cooperation between representatives of democratic and national liberation movements from Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Poland. She represented a program of struggle for national liberation and the creation in Europe of a republican system modeled on the United States. Mazzini's "Young Europe" lasted barely a couple of years and did not receive wide publicity. The Young European movement was too small a force to bring about political change, but it helped to establish in the minds of Europeans the need for close cooperation between the free states of the continent. One of the active supporters of the “Young European” idea was the great French writer Victor Hugo. He pointed to the possibility of creating a United States of Europe and its close cooperation with the United States. At the Congress of the Friends of the Peace in Paris in 1849, he called for the federalization of Europe, crowning the process of development of the Old Continent. With his characteristic pathos, he said that the brotherhood of the peoples of the continent would come and the day would come, “in which no other battlefields will exist except markets open to trade and minds open to ideas. The day will come when two great blocs, that is, the United States of Europe and the United States of America, will stand opposite each other, shake hands across the sea, and exchange the products of their trade and production, their culture and their geniuses.". He believed that the capital of the planned SHE should be Paris, and attributed the main role in the construction of the future continent to France. The creation of the United States of Europe was also advocated by such prominent figures as Lajos Kossuth, Adam Mickiewicz and Giuseppe Garibaldi.
Projects of a union or European federation in the 19th century. aroused only limited interest and, without the consent of the great powers, could not count on widespread support. They developed mainly among the cosmopolitan part of the European aristocracy, as well as leaders of “Young Europe” and socialists who were most inclined to abolish borders and overcome national divisions. At the same time, European rulers, the young national bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie and the clergy expressed primarily national interests. By the end of the 19th century. concepts of European integration of a hegemonic and nationalistic nature also appeared. Their initiators defended primarily the interests of their own states and sought to subjugate their neighbors. A striking example of this was the concept Mitteleurope, created in the middle of the 19th century. and developed at the beginning of the twentieth century. German theologian and publicist Friedrich Naumann . In a book of the same name published in 1915, he proposed the creation of a confederal union of states under the supremacy of Germany, combining the principles of a free trade zone, political and military alliances. In a similar way, Pan-Slavist ideas sought to unite the Slavic peoples under the royal scepter. However, the processes of historical development showed that all plans for the forceful unification of Europe were doomed to failure, and by the end of the First World War it became clear that the only possible way to unite the continent was peaceful integration based on common ideas, values and experience.
Communication between representatives of different cultures is always an etiquette situation. If this is business communication, then it requires knowledge of cultural specifics and adherence to strict rules so as not to accidentally offend partners.
- Communication. Every nation has its own sign language - different gestures often have opposite meanings in different cultures. In addition, even individual words and expressions have different semantic content. Even in English-speaking countries the word "yes" ( yes ) can evoke different associations - from “maybe someday I’ll think about it” to “completely agree.”
- Conflict. Some peoples consider conflicts a positive phenomenon, others try to avoid them at all costs. In the United States, it is customary to resolve conflicts through personal and open discussion; in some Eastern cultures, open conflict is unacceptable.
- Completing tasks. The differences are due to many reasons, including differences in the understanding of time, success criteria, etc. For example, Asians and Latin Americans place more emphasis on building interpersonal relationships than Europeans and Americans. Residents of Europe and North America prioritize the completion of a joint task, expecting that relationships will improve themselves in the process of working together. This does not mean that people work better or worse.
- Making decisions. In the USA, it is customary that a boss delegates part of his powers to a subordinate, who is fully responsible for completing a particular task. In many southern European and Latin American countries, the boss makes all decisions himself. In the case when a decision is made collectively, in the United States it is customary to accept the point of view of the majority. In Japan, the parties are trying to find a compromise that suits everyone.
- Openness. In some cultures, the boss and colleagues are aware of the personal life of the employee, in others - private life is a “closed zone” into which only those closest to him are allowed. If a conflict arises, knowing or not knowing a person's biographical details can play a huge role, as victims may feel they are being treated unfairly simply based on what co-workers know or don't know about their family problems.
- Knowledge. Representatives of different cultures acquire knowledge and skills in different ways. Europeans tend to impose strict criteria on the process of cognition; they draw information from reliable sources, paying less attention to certain a priori ideas about the subject. Africans pay more attention to certain symbolic evaluations and imagination. In Asian cultures, transcendental methods are considered the best way to acquire knowledge. As a result, to obtain information about a subject, Europeans will prefer to go to the library, Africans will seek to familiarize themselves with the situation on the spot, and Asians will try to find an expert.
Pakistani Farid Elashmavi ( Farid Elashmawi ), author of the textbook "Multicultural Management", published in the magazine Ceitified Management Digest simple tips on how to do business with American managers. When meeting an American for the first time, don't get too personal. It is important to come across as a friendly person, but nothing more. In business negotiations and correspondence, be brief and precise. You should speak directly to an American boss. The American boss values the ideas of his subordinates. Always expect feedback from your American colleagues and superiors. You should be able to answer all their business questions regarding your work. Americans have several types of friendship. Know what place you occupy in the lives of your partners and colleagues.
Basic rules of intercultural communication
- Human behavior carries enormous information: body language, clothing style, manner of speech, gestures, posture - all these are signs of communication containing hidden and open information. It must be taken into account that different cultures attach different meanings to these signs. Communication occurs where there is understanding. Understanding occurs when two people interpret symbols, words, and gestures in the same way.
- For many cultures, the first place is the context in which communication occurs (place, time, setting).
- The communication process is irreversible. It is not possible to get information sent back. Therefore, it is necessary to watch yourself: for example, in Saudi Arabia and many other eastern countries, expressing disagreement with a person in the presence of others is considered impolite, and the impression this leaves can be difficult or even impossible to correct.
- Communication is a dynamic, active and constantly occurring process.
If previously it was believed that cultural differences acted as a barrier to joint activities, today competent managers turn this specificity into a source of additional resources, for example, increasing the competitiveness of their organization. On the other hand, ignorance of cultural specifics can be the cause of conflicts and problems.
Today, all the world's leading brands belong to transnational corporations operating in different regions of the world.
