Andrew Moravcsik versus Thomas Diez
The construction and conceptualization of European integration are aspects that have been a subject of continuous scholarly debates. Scholars have different approaches to this integration, and as seen in the two articles by Diez and Moravcsik, disagreements are a frequent occurrence.
The genesis of the disagreements between the two scholars is the book written by Moravcsik, titled, “the choice of Europe.” Diez comes out strongly criticizing many of the arguments made in this text. According to Diez, Moravcsik is fundamentally wrong with pointing out what is important in the discussion about European integration. He notes that the integration needs to be considered as a cultural project, where the intentions of states coming together are culturally oriented. He goes on to point out that Moravcsik through his arguments in “the choice of Europe” totally disregards the cultural aspects. To further make his point, Diez goes on to give the metaphor of the city of Brussels (Diez, 1999, p. 358). He analyzes the occurrences in this city as a portrayal of what is important in European integration. He notes that the city is vibrant, and moving towards being multicultural, where various European identities are seen through this city. This, according to him is what was happening in all the European cities because integration.
Moravcsik, in response to this criticism, points out that in the integration, countries still maintain their cultural identities. He points out that iconic buildings are still found in France and not Brussels, thus showing the fault in Diez’s argument (Moravcsik, 1999, p. 372). He further argues that the picture of a Multicultural Europe that is vividly painted in Diez’s criticism does not exist in the real world, but rather in his imagination. This, therefore, forms the first aspect of their disagreement, where Diez roots for cultural integration while Moravcsik fails to see its importance.
The next point of the disagreement between the two scholars is the emphasis or the role played by the two aspects of culture and commerce. According to Diez, Moravcsik exaggerates the role that economic interests play in European integration. According to him, Moravcsik sees the commercial aspects as the fundamental aspects of integration while neglecting the fact that national identity is an important aspect that needs to consider. Diez points at the need of adopting of a constructivist approach to conceptualizing this issue. The constructivist approach views ideals and identity as being bigger players in integration, as opposed to interests such as economic ones (Diez, 1999, p. 361). This approach looks at the efforts of European nations in trying to make different cultural identities compatible with a single European framework. The economic interest is, however, not the focus.
Moravcsik, in a rejoinder, notes that Diez has returned to the traditional views of integration, where a battle was seen between the support for nationalist ideals versus the support of European ideals. This, according to Moravcsik, is relevant but not very significant in understanding the modern day European integration. To further prove this, Moravcsik argues that he has demonstrated the secondary role of non-economic factors such as federal and geopolitical factors. Unlike the view held by Diez, however, the non-economic factors are not as important as economic aspects of integration (Moravcsik, 1999, p. 378).
The other point of disagreement between the two authors is the role of feedback in understanding European integration. According to Diez, ideas and identity of European countries need to be given more consideration in the discourse on integration. This is because they are critical to understanding the changes in the patterns of integration that occur over time. He points out that change in ideas and identities produces a form of feedback which individual countries use to inform their actions in the integration process (Diez, 1999, p. 358). In response to the attack on the disregard of feedback, Moravcsik points at Diez’s fault of not taking the empirical evidence that he has provided on the issues of feedback. According to him, constructivism, unlike what Diez says, offers evidence on the importance of feedback in understanding integration (Moravcsik, 1999, p. 380).
Another point of divergence in the views of the two scholars is the influence of critical social theory in understanding European integration. According to Diez, the work done by scholars should be judged on the ability the work has to transform, the world, as opposed to the ability of the work to explain or describe the world around the scholars. He points out that the class of thought of adopting Structural analysis in integration supported by Moravcsik amounts to being politically problematic, and leads to possible adverse outcomes of the European Union (Diez, 1999, p. 359). The adverse impact arises from the fact that a historical approach to integration may direct countries towards acting on their historical self-interests, as opposed to pursuing the ideals of integration. In a rejoinder, however, Moravcsik sees no problem with a historical approach to the integration process. He first views the criticism that Diez has on this approach to be contradictory since it goes against the emphasis he previously placed on ideas and identity. Moravcsik, therefore, sees no political problem with his arguments, since reflective analysis helps to accomplish two roles simultaneously; changing the world while analyzing it (Moravcsik, 1999, p. 368).
The scholarly disagreements between Diez and Moravcsik raise pertinent questions about how to acquire a sound knowledge of European integration. Each of the two authors views the approach taken by the other to be flawed, setting the stage for an interesting discourse on which approach to take. The first aspect touches on whether accurate knowledge is determined by the country of origin of a scholar. According to the arguments made by Diez, he criticizes the faults in Moravcsik’s works as a result of observations made by an outsider, who has no idea of what happens in Europe. In his metaphor of Brussels, he points to an environment that an outsider cannot see. In getting knowledge on European integration, therefore, there is a threat of having abstract concepts given by observers who are not aware of the truths on the ground. These ideas, based on their imaginations may be faulty.
Another pertinent question drawn from the disagreements of the two scholars is the kind of perspectives that should be considered when searching for knowledge on European integration. In any search for knowledge, it is important for researchers to narrow down to specified angles. In this case, the available perspectives are analyzing the issue from a cultural lens or an economic interest’s lens. The cultural identity perspective views the non-economic aspects such as cultural identities and ideas to be the building blocks of European integration. The other view of economic interests, held by scholars such as Moravcsik sees economic interests as the drivers of integration. With each perspective portraying empirical evidence to sup[port its arguments, it becomes difficult to establish which perspective yields valid knowledge.
Another pertinent question touching on the search for sound knowledge that is raised through the disagreements between Diez and Moravcsik is that of the place of historical analysis in the discourse. According to Diez, a historical approach may bear no benefits since any scholarly work should not just describe the world, but also change it. To some scholars, however, the reflective approach to conceptualizing European integration is good since it results in both the description and changes of the world. On the search for valid knowledge of European integration, therefore, there is the debate about whether to use a reflective approach or not.
Overall, the main point of criticism that Diez has is the fact that Moravcsik, in the process of trying to conceptualize European integration makes use of abstract concepts that are a not an accurate reflection of what integration is all about. He goes on to point at the particular faults Moravcsik is guilty of, such as having a poor selection bias when it comes to cases. He also has the error of neglecting vital data, while making various faulty conclusions or references from faulty historical records.
Despite the good arguments made by Diez, I find the arguments made by Moravcsik to be far more convincing in search if valid knowledge on European integration. This is because he counters all the criticisms leveled at him and goes on to point at the faults within the criticisms mentioned. First, he points out that a majority of the criticisms that Diez levels towards him are as a result of misunderstanding or disregard of empirical claims offered in “the choice of Europe.” He further points out that he is not a dimensional theorist as Diez puts it since he considers the influence of issues such as ideas, feedback, and political interests in integration. He, however, continues to argue that the aspects are secondary in nature when compared to economic interests (Moravcsik, 1999, p. 388). Moravcsik, therefore, is more convincing in analyzing and conceptualizing the issue of integration.
Bibliography
Diez, T., 1999. Riding the AM-track through Europe; or, The pitfalls of a rationalist journey through European integration. Millennium-Journal of International Studies, 28(2), pp.355-369.
Moravcsik, A., 1999. The future of European integration studies: social science or social theory?. Millennium-Journal of International Studies, 28(2), pp.355-369.
