Jean-Marie Kreins: Luxembourg's identity in question
Jean-Marie Kreins, historian and author of a "History of Luxembourg" now in its ninth edition, analyses the country's evolution since its foundation and examines the definition of contemporary national identity.
©DR
When you look at the country's history from 963 to today, which episodes stand out as important?
The question is a difficult one, as nearly every major period has mattered. It all began with a founder, Count Siegfried, who belonged to a prominent Ardennes family. The foundation itself was somewhat haphazard: Siegfried did not really know which inheritance he could rely on. He had tried to forge ties with the Bishopric of Liège. He was turned away, and eventually things came together on the side of Trier. We are very close to this founding site, just 200 metres from Saint Michael's Church, whose earliest foundations were laid a few years later, in the 970s. The dynasty later died out through the vicissitudes of history. The territory passed into other hands: the Burgundians, then the Habsburgs and the emperors of territorial family origin. Each period left its mark: the Spanish on the palace façade, the French on the fortifications with Vauban. The Napoleonic era brought a great deal, with the introduction of modern law and administrative organisation. After 1815, the Treaties of Vienna created conflicts between the Dutch and Belgian crowns. Independence came in 1867. The rise of the steel industry then transformed the country profoundly.
"It is difficult to pinpoint specific moments, because this is overall a singular history of an ancient territory that is still here"
How would you analyse Luxembourgish culture?
The question catches me off guard, as defining Luxembourgish culture is extraordinarily complex. Let us start with the population. A huge wave of Italian immigration arrived, up to 25,000 workers following the launch of the steel industry. Then came a second, equally massive Portuguese wave, with around 95,000 Portuguese living in Luxembourg today. There are few countries of 682,000 inhabitants that have experienced such strong immigration over the past 150 years. To analyse a society, I use a theoretical model based on four pillars: economic, political, solidarity, and integration of individuals. A fifth pillar is added, that of the relationship with the rest of the world. If we ask what historically held Luxembourgish society together, it was Catholicism. Luxembourg was a Catholic country for centuries, and individuals were integrated around that religious model. On the economic side, the situation was dismal until 1842: a backward agriculture, poor peasants, and a small administrative bourgeoisie. It was a country of poor people, and landlocked at that. Today, we have entered a kind of hyper-materialism. We have left the church and turned towards Amazon, which is now the second or third largest private employer in the country.
With your experience as a historian, how would you define Luxembourg's identity today?
Culturally, it is difficult to define. We do have a few intellectuals who have shone recently: one at the Collège de France, another who won the Nobel Prize after becoming French. Beyond that, we are not a country particularly rooted in the arts and humanities. We have no great intellectuals, no intellectual history comparable to France with its Enlightenment and its Collège de France. We do not even have a college of any kind along those lines. I regret this, because the country has an extraordinary historical richness, a wealth of economic, social and religious history. It is an eminently European country, and it has something to say. Culturally, we are at ease between France and Germany. We are fluent in French, German and English. Historically, the answer is Catholicism without a doubt, and over the past few decades materialism. But that is not a culture. A land of integration, certainly, but what does that really mean? The population has grown from 510,000 to 682,000 inhabitants in 15 years, which is enormous. A serious in-depth study, based on solid data, would be needed to understand this contemporary identity. We can no longer continue to explain a society by looking at only one pillar in isolation.