By Gregor Peter Schmitz and Gerhard Spörl
Robert Kagan's theory of Mars and Venus has attracted a lot of attention. The play on the subtitle of John Gray's book about men and women made by Kagan's book is often ignored. It sounds very constructive: "A Practical Guide for Improving Communication and Getting What You Want in Your Relationships" Can the media help in any way? And should they expect any support from politics in the process?
For Americans, the time has come to return to the good old days of cultural diplomacy as successfully practiced in the Cold War era. This also involved fostering exchanges, travel and training as well as briefing sessions for journalists. This would constitute "public diplomacy" in the best sense. Sometimes "soft power" can provide the most convincing arguments. The American model is still the one that enjoys the greatest influence in economic, political and cultural terms. While various administrations in Washington may feel more or less inclined towards political isolationism, as a society, America is as open as ever, at least as far as Europeans are concerned.
The Europeans could also make greater efforts to wave the flag for their continent's successes, something the Americans refer to as "storytelling". The European Union is not just a breeding ground for bureaucrats, but also a modern project with numerous historical successes. There has possibly never been a better time to get those Americans who fear that their own model has lost its moral and diplomatic attraction to sit up and take notice.
Every accession of a new member state to the EU leads to massive change in the relevant country, comparable with an invasion. If this fact could be communicated convincingly, then there might be a better understanding of the delays that can characterize the European decision-making process. Andrew Moravcsik, Professor of European Studies in Princeton, offers the following analogy for US politicians and journalists who complain that Europe is too slow: "I say to them: imagine if the President of Mexico were to propose extending the jurisdiction of US Department of Trade officials, the Department of Agriculture, the Supreme Court, the Federal Reserve and a dozen other central state institutions to include Mexico. I then ask: how long would the negotiations take?" Moravcsik says that the most exciting thing is to see how people respond. They usually look at him in surprise and ask: "Is that what the Europeans do?"
When it comes to day-to-day reporting, it may sometimes be best simply to "agree to disagree". Well-known economist (and "New York Times" columnist) Paul Krugmann explains the transatlantic dichotomy as follows: "We have different views because we see different news." But the reverse is also true: Europeans and Americans live in a different world, see the world differently and therefore also register news differently. Examples of this are how they view risks and threats, as well as the death penalty or ethical questions such as abortion. In cultural terms they are more different than they might like to admit and these days cultural issues are just as important as economic ones. This is an insight propagated by the Neconservatives. When they get it right, they really get it right.
The media did not invent this difference, but simply reflect it. British historian Tony Judt has rightly pointed out that Europe and America only became a unit known as the West through the coincidence that was the Second World War. The differences and forces of attraction and repulsion go back much further. On top of this, there are differences in how the watershed that was September 11 is perceived. This day has been scorched onto the collective consciousness of Americans as the greatest terrorist act of all time. Surveys show that one third of New Yorkers think about the attacks on a daily basis. Two thirds of them are firmly convinced that another attack is on the cards. The doyen of political thinkers in Washington, Zbigniew Brzezsinski, writes that the culture of fear is widespread in America because the Bush administration believes this to be politically expedient.
A lot could be achieved if Americans and Europeans, whether from the world of the media or politics, would remember one simple, yet extremely important fact relating to the difference between major and medium-sized powers and their particular bodies of experience.
Major powers often underestimate the significance of historical experiences not their own. Medium-sized powers are aware of the dangers of over-estimating their own importance and correctly assess the significance of institutions within the global community. Major powers occasionally fall prey to the delusion that they can bend the world to their will in certain selected regions. In the past, Europe's medium-sized powers followed the same policies and now know that overweening ambition and large empires can be short-lived. Major powers like America repeatedly underestimate the overwhelming force of the strong emotions they unleash against themselves. Smaller powers have already experienced the historical consequences of such actions, so that experiences that are quite new for superpowers will often seem like déjà vu to them.
The cultural differences between major powers and smaller powers can feed a perception of "foreignness" that can lead to increasing political polarization when power starts to decline. The result is a deep rift like the one foreseen by William Kristol. However, he would be the first to admit that things don't have to stay that way. Experience shows that matters can change, sometimes for the better.
Gerhard Spörl is senior editor of DER SPIEGEL. Gregor Peter Schmitz is the director of the Brussels Office of Bertelsmann Stifung.
Post to other social networks:
Stay informed with our free news services:
| All news from SPIEGEL International | Twitter | RSS |
| All news from World section | RSS |
© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2007
All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH
