Juozas Kasputis

This paper philosophically explores the possible introduction of an alternative analytical approach to European integration. It is an invitation to reflect critically outside the mainstream paradigm. An extensive amount of scientific literature and research papers focuses on the EU, but it is quite easy to get lost amidst this stream of abundant writing. Meanwhile, the EU has been experiencing serious challenges since the previous enlargement, which has led to a broader definition of the “European project.” Numerous discussions have failed to deliver the expected results. It is an interesting paradox that the EU has been proposed globally as a model of peacebuilding in the context of the Nobel Peace Prize 2012. However, since then, no clearly defined model of internal EU integration has been implemented apart from some basic premises. The Monnet method has become formalized within the official framework of the EU, thus justifying top-down institutional engineering, which is contrary to the concept proposed by Jean Monnet. The paper offers a metaphorical reasoning as an intellectual counterbalance to the unreflective application of integrational models, thus enriching analytical and critical discourse.

Universities have always been part of political and public discourse in one way or another. The EU has assigned universities a new model role as ultimate integrators for the designated European Education Area and European Research Area. In this sense, Homo Academicus must reflect on new arrangements, as the previously occupied position of an omniscient detached observer is no longer valid. It is doomed to remain an unaccomplished and misleading idealization. The European Council has introduced the idea of the European University as a bottom-up network of universities across the EU. It presents education as everyone’s favorite muse, but it is not a silver bullet. The education system is entangled in national and supranational interests, constantly shifting between the public and private sectors. The academic community is experiencing one of the biggest existential conflicts in choosing between two options: 1) scholastic supra-civic detachment, ivory tower escapism, and elitist stance, or 2) intellectual social engagement and civic education. Unless this conflict is resolved, future universities will not be able to foster transversal skills and prepare accountable citizens.

The growth of knowledge has always included opposing worldviews and clashes of distinct interests. This includes different rationalities which either have served or disserved the State. A Copernican world defied the Catholic Church. Cartesian philosophy and Newtonian physics incited a major split between an allegedly knowing subject and external realities. As an outcome, many dualisms emerged: subjectivity/objectivity, particular/universal, etc. Hegelian dialectics elaborated such approach to its most extreme. The pretension of social science to be value-free assumed a neutral observer collating external facts. Yet both Hume and Adam Smith challenged Descartes cogito as banal, stressing that it is not because we think that we are but rather than how we think is who we have become through the values, dispositions and beliefs that we have consciously or less than consciously acquired from life experience, and that no perception is neutral. Hume anticipated Bourclieu both on habItus and also on reflexivity in his concept of the reflexive mind" yet this then was lost by the presumption, such as by Bertrand Russell, that Hume was a "mere empiricist". Logical positivism then claimed that an appeal to 'facts' could dismiss metaphysics, invoking the logical atomism of Russell and the early Wittgenstein. But which Wittgenstein transcended not in the sense of transcendental metaphysics, though he was deeply influenced by Schopenhauer, but - after a road to Damascus encounter with Sraffa - coming to realise that meanings depend on context and that their context needs to be understood. Which we suggest in this paper is that these issues are highly relevant to the troubled relationship between rationality - or rationalities - and the State.

The practice of social studies continues to be a complicated scientific endeavor. From an epistemological point of view, the social sciences, unlike the natural sciences, do not conform to the predominant definition of science. The existing differences among expositions of “science,” “inquiry,” and “studies” lie with the contested role of the intellectual who is embarked on understanding the social realm. The “maturity” of the social sciences is usually discussed in the context of objectivity and rationality. But continuing epistemological debates would be insufficient without reference to the scholar as a human studying humans. The philosophy of science has focused mainly on the procedures of knowledge accumulation, neglecting social context and its implications for inquiry. To address this neglect, this essay sets out first to retrace doubts about the role of the scholar that emerged with the institutionalization of the social sciences at the outset of the twentieth century and then to rethink these issues in terms of recent scientific developments. What surfaces is a new, participatory role for scholars that demands responsible contextualization and a broader conception of causal stories.

The existential insecurity of human beings has induced them to create protective spheres of symbols: myths, religions, values, belief systems, theories, etc. Rationality is one of the key factors contributing to the construction of civilisation in technical and symbolic terms. As Hankiss (2001) has emphasised, protective spheres of symbols may collapse – thus causing a profound social crisis. Social and political transformations had a tremendous impact at the end of the 20th century. As a result, management theories have been revised in order to deal with transition and uncertainty. Francis Fukuyama's (2000) approach is supportive of hierarchical organisation as the best solution when facing a 'disruption'. The notion of Homo Hierarchicus has been based on, allegedly, rational presumptions. This paper contributes to the discussion on hierarchy within contemporary organisations. It criticises so-called 'natural' and 'rational' necessities justifying hierarchy. A key issue identified by the paper is the formalisation of language in claiming value-free knowledge and 'detached' observation as the basis for neutral rationality and aspired efficiency. This should be seriously reconsidered as hindering rather than aiding understanding of social complexity. All in all, Homo Hierarchicus appears to be misleading rather than helping symbolic sphere or construct.