“Discuss how ‘identity’ shapes and/or complicates EU foreign policy behaviour”?
You can use any example(s) from the material we covered to answer the question above. But make sure to focus your analytical lens on “identity” to answer the question. (600 words max excluding the reference list)
urthermore, through imposing British ideas of individual liberty on these “uncivilised” communities he is being narrow minded in assuming he knows what is best for these countries and is in fact taking away the liberty of these people to decide how they interact. This is because his arguments are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the culture of Asia and Africa, which put a greater emphasis on social obligation. (Doyle 2009: 365) What’s more, through Mill’s assumption that he can educate the Indians to want self-rule and individual liberty he is contradicting his own idea that the demand for change must come from within the country. Based on this argument surely the colonisers should have suggested the idea of individual liberty, instead of imposing it, so that the people were more likely to fight to maintain this liberty as they had chosen it themselves. Mill’s response to this would be that they are not yet capable of deciding this for themselves, but it could equally be argued that slaves can only learn to be free when they are given freedom. Hence in this case people can only learn self-rule through having it. Mill’s evidence that the British system was superior was that in Britain order and unity had been established, whereas Indian rule had failed. (Harris 1964: 201) This completely fails to acknowledge, however, that two different countries often require different methods of rule, hence British ideas would not necessarily work in a country with a different culture. This continues with the previously mentioned point that Mill’s views lack perspective and could easily be seen as an attempt by Britain to merely reshape the world in its own image, which would not be giving Indians individual liberty to choose how they govern. Tunick claims, in response to this argument, that pedagogical coercion did not undermine Indian culture and merely established a rule of law in order to make the Indians into law abiding citizens that could have individual liberty. (Tunick 2006:586-611) He is still looking passed the fact, however, that the Indians may already have a law that they live by, which is just different to that which the British are proposing. Even if we accept Mill’s statement that pedagogical coercion is necessary in order to gain liberty in the long run and that this is not culturally biased, Souffrant argues that the measures that were deemed necessary to gain this ‘liberty’ were actually psychologically harming for the individual, and hence could not possibly gain the long term affect that Mill intended. (Souffrant 1995 in Tunick 2006: 596) To conclude, taking into account the critiques that could be ma>GET ANSWER