"United in Diversity": The Representation and Promotion of Identities on the Stage of the Eurovision Song Contest

Summary

PDF Version

Audio

Table of Contents

Names

Timeline

Search this Text

“United in Diversity”: The Representation and Promotion of Identities on the Stage of the Eurovision Song Contest

A variety of epoch-making processes and events in the development of the European continent that have taken place during the last decades—such as the destruction of the Berlin Wall, further expansion of the European Union, and the adoption of the common European constitution—have all brought up the perennial question about the existence and the development prospects of the shared European identity. In addition to these historical factors, more lively scientific scrutiny of the subject of identity from various academic approaches both reflects and encourages further debate on European identity. The definition of “identity” and how it is shaped, changed, and reflected is often discussed nowadays. In the case of European identity, questions usually arise about whether it can coexist peacefully with the national identities, or whether national identity should be sacrificed for the sake of European integration or perhaps is too strong to be replaced so easily with some vague and ephemeral European one.

Gradually the scientific discussions have turned to the assumption that multiple identities in general, and European and national identities in particular, are compatible, as an individual may easily feel, for instance, European, German, and Bavarian simultaneously. For example, Thomas Risse (2003) demonstrates this by means of the “marble-cake” model (as opposed to the “zero-sum” and the “layer-cake” models), where identities are not seen as layered in some ordered way, but rather invoked in a context-dependent way, enmeshed and flowing into each other, and thus there are no clearly defined boundaries between local and European identities. In this sense, one is unlikely to feel oneself to be Greek without understanding Greece to be a part of Europe. Michael Bruter, for his part, going deeper into the mechanisms of coexisting identities, assumes that multiple identities are incompatible, and may perform different functions and be mutually modifying or reinforcing (Bruter 2005). These theoretical explorations in fact could be relevant for those who wish to promote European identity: on the one hand, if we reject the notion that multiple identities compete with each other, we can hope for the promotion of European identity without sacrificing national identity; on the other hand, assuming that identities are mutually reinforcing, conditions might be created for both identities to be articulated simultaneously, and thus encouraged equally. The last tactic can be expressed best by the famous EU motto, “United in Diversity.” In this article we will use the example of the Eurovision Song Contest (ESC) to describe a possible arena for such construction.

Established in 1956 by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), in imitation of the famous annual Italian San Remo festival, the ESC’s stated purpose was to “unify postwar Western Europe through music,” encourage cultural exchange and sharing, and construct a common European popular sphere.[1] Over its more than fifty-year history it has been transformed significantly in size, geography, and content, and now has developed into one of the world’s longest-running annual television programs, an impressive international arena bringing together almost fifty nations, stretching geographically from Norway to Israel and from Portugal to Azerbaijan, under the single flag of Eurovision. Undoubtedly, as any media event, the ESC must be commercially viable enough to be held on an annual basis. But the question inevitably arises what exactly makes Eurovision so successful, if not the immediate musical part.As one British reviewer claims: “The pleasure of Eurovision music has always been its absolute incompetence.” [2] So it is not only, or not so much, the songs that attract hundreds of millions of viewers, but as scientists have emphasized, the unique nature of the event, which exposes a variety of emotions including the sense of patriotism, national pride, and belonging.

Notwithstanding all efforts by Eurovision’s organizers to emphasize the cultural part of the contest, appeal to the sense of community, and move away from conflicts between European states, the fact that the ESC is highly politicized appears to be obvious to the audience, which is why observers define it as “an exercise in Continental intrigues.” [3] In this international arena, the contestants are regarded as the direct ambassadors of their countries, “behind whom sta nd not only backing groups and cliché set designs, but also Ministers of Culture, flags, prisons, border guards, and armies.” [4] The most glaringly politicized and widely discussed issue is the Eurovision voting as the direct expression of national opinions, namely the phenomenon of “block voting.” While it is hard to explain exhaustively and definitely what makes people vote for one or another country, be it a neighbour or distant “ally,” just the fact that it happens again and again gives rise to the controversy. Taking into consideration the aforementioned peculiarities of this event, Eurovision attracts more and more scientific attention from researchers in a variety of fields, including musicology, sociology, international relations, statistics, and gender studies, each finding some particular yet undiscovered area to study, and the interconnection between different types of identities is the area of special interest.

The unique nature of events like the ESC creates the conditions for the meeting of such types of identities as European, regional, and national. As we have said, the promotion of a European identity is an unofficial goal of the contest. While the reason for it may be hidden behind the commonalities in culture, common historical roots, or geographical proximity, the mechanism of block voting encourages the feeling of being a part of a particular region, and this is the key reason for the contest’s popularity. In this respect a parallel can be drawn between the Eurovision contest and sporting events. Certainly in both cases it is a matter of national pride to win the competition, but in the case of the sporting events the rules are narrowly defined and there are limited ways to appear unique other than to train hard, while the characteristics of the ESC winner in any particular year are unpredictable, thus leaving room for hope for any nation, whether experienced participant or newcomer. In addition to this the method of defining the winner, in the case of Eurovision, inevitably raises the question of “acceptance” by other European nations. From this point of view, it might be logical to expect that the contestants would wish to be understandable and closer in their performances to as many countries as possible (for example by choosing the English language or pop style). However, we can see that not necessarily all participants make this approach a priority. What then stands behind contestants’ need to express their uniqueness, even though including national elements into their performances can in fact imperil their own chance to win? We can assume that it is an expression of national identity. At the same time, this approach is not common to participants from all countries around Europe, and a closer look gives us grounds to assume a certain regionalism. I explored this phenomenon in my master’s thesis, which uses statistical analysis to examine the overall number of presentations in the period between 1999 and 2009 for two main criteria: frequency of the appearance of national languages, and inclusion of folkloristic motifs. On this basis I defined a list of countries that show signs of their national characteristics more willingly then others. The highest scores in the use of national languages are in such countries as Serbia, France, Portugal, Spain, Andorra, Montenegro, and Croatia. On the other hand it is quite evident that countries with geographical and historical proximity to Great Britain, mostly the Nordic countries, tend to use English more readily. At the same time the high ratio of the use of English is seen also in the group of ex-Soviet states, thus one may assume that here the ESC is seen as an opportunity to proclaim their affinity with the West. Participants from the southern European countries choose their national languages more frequently; this could be partly explained by the popularity of Latin music around the globe. Concerning the inclusion of folk motifs (whether in music, costumes, or dance), this practice is more popular in the case of Turkey, Croatia, Moldova, Albania, and to a lesser extent Bosnia, Hungary, and Greece.

Can one however claim that the frequent use of cultural elements, and thus a stronger representation of national identity, is a danger or a threat to the promotion of European identity? In addition to the aforementioned theoretical explorations of this issue, in practice it is not the case, at least on the Eurovision stage, because expressing one’s national affiliation does not exclude the will to participate, win, and be accepted by others. We should also consider such factors as attitude towards the ESC: many observers claim that it varies across the continent, from the skeptical desire to withdraw to total admiration as a rare golden opportunity to be presented on the global arena, and what is even better, possibly to win.Ivan Raykoff directly connects countries’ attitudes towards the competition with the historical duration of their participation in the European integration project: “For many West European nations the long process of political and economic integration … has been largely accomplished—and for these players Eurovision seems a tired concept.” [5] Of the six initial participants in 1956, Italy and Luxembourg already withdrew from the ESC in the early 90s; countries that joined the EU in the 80s and 90s (Greece, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Sweden, and Finland) “still show a fair amount of enthusiasm,” [6] but for the eastern and southeast European nations, after having been isolated, participation is a matter of national pride and assurance that they are an integral part of Europe.

Let us look finally at the issue of block voting. Such scientists as G. Yair and D. Maman (Yair 1995, Yair and Maman 1996), V. Ginsburg and A. Noury (2004), D. Gatherer (2006), and others have explored this phenomenon using statistical tools such as multidimensional social network analysis and the Monte Carlo method, and come to the conclusion that it does in fact take place, while taking into consideration the variety of reasons for it. For instance, according to some of the latest research conducted by Derek Gatherer, the so-called Balkan Block is extremely distinct, bringing together such countries a s Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, Greece, Cyprus, Romania, Albania, Macedonia, Serbia, and Montenegro (made up of a variety of cliques and partnerships). Smaller associations are between Greece and Cyprus, the “Warsaw Pact” (Poland, Ukraine, and Russia), the “Pyrenean Axis” (Spain and Andorra), etc.

From all this we may conclude that in cases where a strong national identity is expressed (through national languages and folk motifs), the European and regional identities (on the examples of special attitude and voting clusters) are presumed as well. Thus the Eurovision Song Contest demonstrates the possibility of promoting European identity by encouraging the expression of national diversity.

Bibliography

Bruter, M. 2005. “European and Sub-European Identity—When are Multiple Identities Compatible?” Centre for the Study of Democratic Government. http://oxpo.politics.ox.ac.uk/materials/national_identity/Bruter_Paper.pdf.

Coleman, S. 2008. “Why is the Eurovision Song Contest Ridiculous? Exploring a Spectacle of Embarrassment, Irony and Identity.” Popular Communication 6:127–140.

Gatherer, D. 2006. “Comparison of Eurovision Song Contest Simulation with Actual Results Reveals Shifting Patterns of Collusive Voting Alliances.” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 9.2 (http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/9/2/1.html).

Ginsburg, V., and A. Noury. 2004. “Cultural Voting. The Eurovision Song Contest.” http://www.core.ucl.ac.be/services/psfiles/dp05/dp2005_6.pdf.

Raykoff, I. 2007. “Camping on the Borders of Europe.” In Raykoff and Tobin 2007.

Raykoff, I., and R. D. Tobin, eds. 2007. A Song for Europe: Popular Music and Politics in the Eurovision Song Contest. Aldershot.

Risse, T. 2003. “European Identity and the Heritage of National Cultures.” In Shannan-Pecknam 2003:74–89.

Shannan-Pecknam, R., ed. 2003. Rethinking Heritage. Cultures and Politics in Europe. London.

Yair, G. 1995. “Unite Europe: The Political and Cultural Structures of Europe as Reflected in the Eurovision Song Contest.” Social Networks 17:147–161.

Yair, G., and D. Maman. 1996. “The Persistent Structure of Hegemony in the Eurovision Song Contest.” Acta Sociologica 39:309–325.

Footnotes

Note 1
Raykoff and Tobin 2007:xviii.

Note 2
Raykoff and Tobin 2007:5

Note 3
Raykoff and Tobin 2007:3

Note 4
Coleman 2008:132.

Note 5
Raykoff 2007:6.

Note 6
Raykoff 2007:6.