By Inés García Saillard
An Interview of Robert Menasse, as introduction
Please see first this video where Robert Menasse is talking about The Capital.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rqq8Rb5K2TAInterview with Robert Menasse
COMMENTARY AND SUGGESTIONS :
Middle England v. The Capital
We have read Middle England by Jonathan Coe, a deep analysis on the reasons of Brexit success within the UK. It is a very enlightening vision of the perception by British public opinion of the EU. And specially about how the British "Establishment" through individuals like David Cameron or Boris Johnson have been able to control British politics to the advantage of their social class with populists arguments. With The Capital we enter the other side of the relationship between Nation-States and the EU. We discover how work the Brussels Communitarian institutions from within. We have the impression that the EU has no soul, that a lot of private interests have their way prior to the common ones. A lot of marketing and personal ambitions to have power and influence within the Commission and the other governing bodies of Communitarian Europe.
From the perspective of the style Menasse´s book is very different. He is a German author and writes in a total different way than British Coe. The former has a much more "heavy" style that makes it a little more difficult to read. A little less appealing from the first approach but when you get there not less thrilling. In part this is also due to the fact that The Capital is a satire.
What is a satire? According to the Oxford Dictionary a satire is “a way of criticizing a person, an idea or an institution in which you use humour to show their faults or weaknesses; a piece of writing that uses this type of criticism”. Being a satire makes The Capital quite a conceptual book. What do I mean by that? We do not have a clear narrative thread as it was the case for Middle England but the characters impersonate either a political issue (Alois Erhardt), or a moral question (Oswiecki) or a current question (Florian and Martin Susman). The chapters’ titles engrave this line connected with time and eternity.
Why have I chosen The Capital despite the fact that it is a more difficult book to read. Because it is the first book in European Literature that presents the EU from the inside. And this is an extraordinary merit, because the EU is still essentially a big market, a reality that has no charisma, as economic interests are extremely boring. To be able to develop a "narrative" on this conditions is undeniably a "tour de force". This is why Menasse's Book is worth to read.
An inside vision of the EU
Of course what we, readers, see is neither very joyful, nor reassuring. A big market is based on interests and not in ideals. Everyone fights for himself. European integration is an empty concept and it is run by cold bureaucrats, by aseptic administrators that have no heart but a brain full of numbers and statistics. For instance, the Head of the Directorate for Culture, Xenia Fenopolou, has never read a novel in her life, and besides deeply despises her current position and only dreams of escaping from it. In fact, practically every character is graduated on Economics, except Martin Susman, the intellectual character in the book.
The Capital seems to convey a sense of uselessness of EU, that make us wonder what sort of organization it is? Ambition seems to be the key word for these civil servants or END (Expert non Détaché – Experts following their Government’s orders). We may wonder what is the use of EU, joining for instance Helena Coleman from Middle England.
If Middle England mixed the intimate and the historical narratives, Menasse is essentially focused on political issues that Europe is currently confronted to. Let's put some examples:
- We know little about the characters’ personal life and when it happens it is just to contextualize their political opinions.
Example: George Moreland ‘s views on EU agricultural policy.
- Characters do not interact between them. They happen to be at the same place at an exact moment.
Example: the prologue where we meet the main characters of the book when watching the pig.
- Economic interests prevail above any human concern:
Example: The pig is a sort of conducting thread for the book. Its rumbling through Brussels starts the book and finishes it but by becoming virtual and only a figure for sensationalist newspapers. Here the Satire point reaches its peak with the contest organized by the newspaper Metro to give a name to the pig which finishes in an abrupt ending when the name given to it is Mohammed, very politically incorrect.
Topics and characters
Let me now suggest some of the topics and characters developed in Menasse's book, that may help you understanding it and broadening your vision of the EU, in a complementary way of what we have seen in Coe's Middle England.
- IS THE NOTION OF NATION-STATE COMPATIBLE WITH A SUPER STATE STRUCTURE LIKE THE EU?
You perfectly know what a Nation-State is since we have thoroughly seen it in class, its formation and its important cultural stratum. Menasse gives us in his book a practical application of what the concept of Nation-State is.
An Example: The Jubilee Project is intended to better the image of European Commission in front of European Citizens and to enhance the goodness of being European. But this project is soon faced with national interests, no country wants to be deprived of its status of Nation-State and be confronted with a part of History that has many shadows (especially concerning the Shoah). Choosing Auschwitz as the cornerstone of EU creation seems suddenly inappropriate for Austria, Czech Republic and other countries. Revisiting History could reveal some “bad” questions that political elites do not wish to openly discuss and least of all in the context of a structure like EU.
In this sense, the painting exhibition described at the end of the book is very symbolic and poses a very interesting question: what is oblivion? Can we afford to deal into oblivion? The critics the exhibition receives show that historical issues are still polemic. The exhibition is strongly criticized for its parallelism with Auschwitz.
- EU BUREAUCRACY AND LEGISLATION: ADVANTAGE OR DISADVANTAGE?
We read in The Capital all the issues concerning pig exportation to China. That is exactly reflected in the character of Florian Susman (Martin Susman’s brother) who considers EU policy on pig exportation is in the hands of vegetarians and animals’ advocates.Every country seeks its own interest and EU does not seem to attend their demands besides having to confront a heavy bureaucracy that slows any initiative.As a matter of fact, pig exportation has to pass three Directorate Generals:
- Alive pig:
Directorate General AGRI (Agriculture and Rural Development).
- Processed pig products:
Directorate General GROW (Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs). According to Frigge, they only care about labelling.
- Pig in containers:
Directorate General TRADE.
This is one of the key points of the book. If you remember, this point was also risen in Middle England and also concerning pigs when Gail Ransome, conservative member of parliament but very Bremain, visits her chairman, Dennis who considers EU regulations for pigs feeding as utterly wrong.
What is your personal sensation when reading The Capital on EU bureaucracy?
- EUROPE HAS A COMMON HISTORY, ESPECIALLY SINCE WORLD WAR I AND WORLD WAR II.
What is Robert Menasse’s message? Europe is an idea. You may think it is a very recent idea but your subject European Union Political History shows you very clearly that the concept of Europe has been extremely difficult to achieve. Wars, need of a strong change of mentality, etc…Even today the notion of Nation-State is very difficult to leave aside.
Example: the cemetery next to the old people’s home where David de Vriend sees all the graves where the inscriptions say “Mort pour la patrie”, “Commonwealth War Graves”. It is very impressive to know how young were these soldiers when they died.
Some characters in the book are examples of the consequences of contemporary European History.
- David de Vriend (Belgian):
Concentration camp survivor. Number tattooed in his forearm.
He dies in the terrorist attacks in Brussels in March 2016.
- Alois Erhart (Austrian):
His parents were nazi supporters, he advocates for a strong European Union following his master Armand Moens.
Alois’ mother used to call him “a Lager’s child”. She referred to the warehouse where his parents stored sport articles they sold in their shop but Lager in German is a concentration camp.
At the Think-tank meeting, Prof. Erhart advocates for a European passport (see that Bohumil and Fenia consider their passports, Austrian and Greek respectively as European) and moving Europe’s capital from Brussels to Auschwitz, where European Union really began.
- Ryszard/Mateusz Oswiecki (Polish):
Member of Vatican Secret Services, his grand-father and his father have fought Nazis and Communists. It is a very interesting reference since Poland has been invaded and its frontiers have changed constantly. His strong Catholicism is the product of these constant polish territorial changes since Catholic Religion stood as a form of nationalism, of being Polish. Poland is described in the book as a country “soaked in blood”.
Oswiecki figths against terrorism and we know that this terrorism is Islamic Fundamentalism.
- Commissar Emile Brunfaut (Belgian):
His grand-father is a Résistance hero. He even has a street under his name.
His investigation of the crime is cancelled by Belgian Government.
BUT, younger characters in the book are also connected with European history.
- Fenia Xenopolou: (Greek Cyprian).
In order to leave DG EAC (Education, Youth, Sport and Culture) which she hates and considers a sort of humiliation, she will have to demand a Cyprian passport since Cyprus is a member of the EU. As a Cyprian, she has the possibility to obtain a position in TRADE.
- Martin Susman (Austrian):
European Commission civil servant, he senses that Jubilee Project should take into account Auschwitz survivors. EU has been created to unite a devastated Europe after World War II (please see the figure of Jean Monnet in your materials).
He is probably the most intellectual character but has personal problems that prevent him from being as brilliant as he could be.
- Kai-Uwe Frigge (German):
He represents the Executive EU, civil servant who has to implement EU policies even if he does not always agree with it.
He leads the average life of a high-ranked civil servant of European Commission. Very practical, his generation is the grand-sons of the Nazi period Germans.
Secondary characters are also representative of the diversity of the people living in current Europe.This mixture is one of the best assets for EU.
:- Grace Atkinson:
Head of DG COMM (Communication). British, she decides to set in motion the Jubilee Project. George Moreland, British and Head of DG AGRI (Agriculture and Rural Environment), considers she obtained this position because of positive discrimination. Grace Atkinson, belonging to British establishment, is aware that EU has given opportunities to many people coming from a different cultural background and more modest social origins.
- Romolo Augusto Massimo Strozzi:
Italian aristocrat, Cabinet chief of staff of the President of European Commission, he knows how to move in European Commission and who exactly does he have to meet to disrupt Jubilee Project. His training in fencing is a good asset and he understands politics as a game.
- The Salamanders:
Members of the Task Force Ukraine that Bohumil has defined “not as Europeans but as parvenus in European Institutions”. They impersonate EU Foreign Policy which doesn’t seem very solid.
As you see, the book grasps many issues, and not only political but also philosophical as in the case of David de Vriend of Alois Erhart, both old, both lonely. Man faced to eternity. It also shows very different attitudes in life on behalf of the old characters in front of the young ones. The old ones have lived Second World War, the young ones work at the EU.
- WHAT ARE THE NEW ISSUES EUROPE HAS TO COPE WITH?
- Terrorism:
David de Vriend dies in terrorist attacks of March 2016 in Brussels’ underground. In the prologue, we meet with Gouda Mustafa, a Muslim who helps Prof. Erhart after he failed. Gouda Mustafa is outraged an impure animal has touched him, his father has prevented him against Europe. Robert Menasse shows in this character a strong commitment to Islam.
Remember that Molenbeek is an Islamic ghetto in Brussels. As a result of the attacks on March 2016, it was an area practically on a state of siege.
- Xenophobia and “micro racism” inside EU:
The mysterious pig becomes famous and Metro decides to launch a contest to give a name to the pig, almost a symbol for Brussels. The winning name is Mohammed.
Micro racism inside EU is exemplified by Xenia Fenopolou. As a Greek national, she has been punished and exiled to the Culture DG because she belongs to a problematic and ruined country. That implies that EU is ruled by the powerful and rich countries that get all the important DGs and so can have a stronger power to take decisions, a detriment to poorer countries and especially Southern Europe.
- Increasing discontent with EU linked to the perceived incompetence
Bohumil, Martin’s colleague, is devastated since his sister is going to marry what he calls a Fascist and especially a ferocious anti-EU activist.
Florian Susman is not an anti-EU activist but he certainly considers that EU is more an obstacle than a help as far as trading is concerned: too much legislation, and a disconcerting prices policy which in his opinion is harmful to industry.
Maurice Géronnez, responsible for communication of DG ECFIN (Economic and Financial Affairs) is sick at hospital because he had to defend policies he could not agree with at all. He reads a document untitled “The impact of Fiscal Austerity on Suicide Mortality”, a study on the application of austerity programmes for Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. Géronnez considers UE as a murderer since it has failed in its protection of European citizens.
- Refugees:
The mobilization present at the airports and in the plane to prevent a dissident chechenian to be deported to Russia where it is very likely he will be tortured.
Florian Susman has a car accident when he is heading to Budapest to attend the European Pig Producers’ meeting. Florian is saved by a refugee woman: “La Pietá” as journalists name her.
We see refugees’ desperation to reach European Union (taxi driver who provokes the accident is exploiting these people’s need by making them extra money on them).
- Think tanks:
American President F.D.Roosevelt was the first head of State and Government to use Think tanks to face critical issues, as the 1929 crisis that lead to the adoption of the revolutionary New Deal. As a matter of fact, think tanks have considerably developed within EU. They a are a kind of laboratory of ideas, aiming to help providing new ideas on economic and political problems.
Robert Menasse does not offer in The Capital a very favourable view on think tanks through Prof. Alois Erhart who is invited to attend one named “New pact for Europe”. The imaginary think tank created by Robert Menasse is a vehicle for advertising European Commission policies. No criticisms is to be found there, no innovative ideas, just repetition of orders given by EU presidency.
And besides that Think tanks are, in some cases, a vehicle for lobbysts to have influence on EU policies.
Finally, I bring you some questions that I would ask you to think about after reading Menasse's book:
1. The Capital is strongly critic towards EU but on your opinion: is it constructive or not? Menasse believes in the EU or not?
2. Do you agree with the idea that Auschwitz should be the foundation of European Union? Explain what is the purpose of it. What do you think of Prof. Erhardt’s speech at the meeting of “New Pact for Europe”?
3. Are we Europeans ready to have a shared view on our recent past? This is a question asked by Robert Menasse. What would be your answer as young European students, having perhaps benefited of an Erasmus scholarship in another European country?
4. In your opinion the European Union would make Nation-States weaker or stronger in the long run? When we come across a huge crisis as the one provoked by the Covid19 virus who do you think will face it in better conditions: the UK or the 27 member States? Give concrete arguments.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario