In a world in search of bearings, where public debate is often marked by emotion rather than analysis, certain voices stand out. Today, I welcome one of them: David Engels. German-speaking Belgian historian, specialist in Rome and committed thinker. Chair of Roman history at the Université libre de Bruxelles from 2008 to 2023, then research professor at the Instytut Zachodni in Poznan until 2024, he has devoted his work to the intellectual history of the West and German-Polish relations. A prolific author, he has recently published "Defending civilizational Europe. A short treatise on hesperialism" (Paris, 2024). He is also a regular contributor to public debate, on Cnews, Ligne droite and at various events, notably the Iliade, Academia Christiana and recently the MEGA 2 conference in Brussels.
As a German-speaking Belgian, you're at one of the crossroads of European culture. What lessons can you draw from this?
Indeed, it's a rather atypical identity: being Belgian is not an obvious national identity, but being German-speaking Belgian (of which there are barely 70,000) is more than a minority. And yet, it's an enormous opportunity: bathed in at least two great cultures - the German and the French - I've always felt first and foremost European before Belgian. I know that's quite rare, as most Europeans define themselves first and foremost by their “national” identity, but it opened my eyes to the reality of our shared European identity, because although Romanic and Germanic cultures may seem very different, there's a lot that unites them - and my current life in Poland is broadening this horizon to the West Slavic world too.
You began your career as a historian specializing in Roman history. Can you tell us what attracted you to this period of history and how it has influenced your subsequent work?
Although I've been drawn to Antiquity since childhood, my priority has always been global history, and if I eventually ended up in a university chair devoted to the Roman world, it was rather because this “choice” was, paradoxically, the one that specialized me the least, as it was far more generalist in time and space than, for example, a specialization in the European Middle Ages.
What were the main intellectual transitions you underwent as you moved from the study of Roman history to that of the intellectual history of the West and European identity?
From the outset, comparisons between the great civilizations have been my main interest, and over the years, the theories I've developed on this subject have become increasingly clarified and perfected. Understanding Europe's current suicidal state has also led me to rediscover my own cultural heritage, and to develop my own approach to European patriotism, which I have called “hesperialism”; a patriotism that is not only political, but above all cultural and spiritual. This quest has led me increasingly back to Christianity, albeit from a rather perennialist angle, so that, for the time being at least, this interest in transcendence is at the heart of my recent research.
How has your experience as a research professor at the Zachodni Institute in Poznan influenced your intellectual approach?
Culturally, the discovery of Poland enabled me to correct my vision of Europe, which until then had been focused on the Franco-German binomial. And politically, being at the heart of the attempt to re-inform the European public about the many lies and political pressures systematically generated by the European media and elites was a rather tough, but highly informative formative phase - including the experience of the Polish conservatives' ultimate defeat in the face of this concerted action.
In your work on European identity, what are the main trends or challenges you've identified in understanding what it means to be “European” in the contemporary context?
The two main challenges, which are closely linked, are the European Union's unwillingness to define itself as a specific civilizational entity and not just as a world state located, somewhat coincidentally, on the European continent, and its citizens' lack of a general historical culture, both of which are the result of a systematic desire to deconstruct (and reconstruct) identity. Even at the height of nationalism in the 19th century, few Europeans would ever have doubted that they all belonged to a single, very specific, common civilization; today, on the other hand, in the midst of a united Europe, few Europeans have retained this awareness - it's as absurd as it is sad.
How do you see the role of the historian in the current public debate on questions of identity, civilization and multiculturalism in Europe, particularly in relation to the concept of Remigration?
It's essential, because history is at the heart of what defines our identity. European identity doesn't have to be “constructed”; it's been there since the early Middle Ages (because our civilization seems to me fundamentally distinct from the Greco-Roman one) and runs through history right up to the present day. The only problem is that, unlike many other centuries, it is no longer “conscientized”, because everything that would make it possible to do so is systematically ostracized: the importance of the Christian faith, the particularities of this typically European “Faustian impulse”, the greatness of our past history over more than a thousand years, the fundamental difference between our civilization and others, and so on. So, defining Europe in terms of human rights and denying (or discrediting) the notion of “civilizations” must automatically lead, sooner or later, to globalism and multiculturalism. Only if we finally realize what unites us as Europeans can we defend this identity - and, at the same time, create a civilizational framework in which the criteria for rejecting, welcoming and integrating migrants will be much easier to establish than in the total absence of any notion of identity that we suffer today, and which incites some to identity suicide, others to fundamentalism.
How would you present your book?
David Engels: The essay represents a summary of the hundreds of articles and numerous collective works I've written in recent years; it's a kind of concise systematization of my thinking on European identity and above all on the current situation of our civilization. First, I describe the historical roots of our civilization, then its fundamental “Faustian” identity, and finally the importance of the quest for transcendence for any healthy civilization. I then show how the abandonment of the notion of transcendence as early as the 16th century subsequently deconstructed all our bonds of solidarity, culminating in the present nihilism. I then sketch out the possibilities of a final, “hesperialist” synthesis between these two dialectical phases of our history (and, ultimately, of the history of every civilization), ending the essay with a few remarks on current political challenges.
Can you explain the concept of “hesperialism” and its implications for the future of Europe?
David Engels: At the moment, continental political choices seem to boil down to two options: Europeanism, a kind of syncretism between globalism, entitlementism, liberal-leftism and multiculturalism that has turned European institutions into a political bastion and usurps European identity to further its aims; and sovereignism, which derives from the Europeanist instrumentalization of Brussels the need to abandon European integration and return to the “good old nation-state”. Both options are self-destructive: the first, because it dismantles European identity from within; the second, because a return to thirty or so nation-states will not solve our ideological problems (the UK is as “woke” now as it was before it left the EU), and risks transforming our continent into a chessboard for the interests of other great empires, with the real risk of seeing our small nation-state, on average scarcely bigger than a Chinese city, played off against each other. Hesperialism sees itself as a third way: a European patriotism that places the notion of European civilization at its core.
How can we defend our European heritage and keep it alive?
The EU needs to show its strength on the outside by guaranteeing our freedoms on the inside, instead of doing exactly the opposite. On the one hand, this means reforming its institutions to give it the means it needs to defend our strategic interests in the world, while at the same time limiting its powers once again in the face of the regions, metropolises and nations. But much more importantly, we need to replace the universalist ideology that is eating away at our institutions with a genuine European patriotism that is proud of its age-old heritage, rather than discrediting it. It is this last battle that is the most important, and it will not be won on the political terrain, but above all on the cultural one. In this area, the right has a great deal to learn, and must first and foremost shed the liberal illusions that it is the economy, not culture, that determines political success. And of course, we have to start with ourselves and live our ideals in everyday life, as I showed in my book “Que faire” (What to do).
What is your outlook on Europe's future in an increasingly globalized and multipolar world? What challenges should it take up to preserve its cohesion and identity?
As European civilization weakens, other great civilizations, which have been systematically strengthened by our industrial delocalization and the sell-off of our technological know-how, will take their place; a “multipolar” world is inevitable, because the hegemony of the United States is well and truly over. But let's not delude ourselves about what such multipolarity implies for Europe: certainly, such a situation promises new balances and, perhaps, a certain emancipation of Europe from its transatlantic ally. But at the same time, such multipolar balances between great empires, especially in a globalized context, are always highly unstable and require a certain “will to power”, a serious military presence, real collective patriotism and an excellent diplomatic corps. For the moment, we have none of these - and we shouldn't delude ourselves that, from China through India and Russia to the Muslim and African worlds, the other great civilizations are driven by an instinct of resentment, even revenge, towards us.
Shouldn't we be building more and more of a European Vorfeld?
Indeed: it's vital that European patriots stop allowing themselves to be divided by anachronistic nationalist impulses, and focus instead on the immediate threats that concern them all, by defending their common European identity against internal and external threats. Paradoxically, it is now at European level that what remains of the nation-state can be defended. Schools, universities, academies, publishing houses, works of art, model communities, businesses, media, social solidarity systems - everything needs to be built if we are to create a hesperialist society strong enough to withstand the great economic and ideological crises that are fast approaching.
Thank you David !
Voxeuropa Herald is an initiative that shares the voices shaping Europe today: elected officials, essayists, philosophers, activists, artists and influencers. These portraits are collective responses to the crises shaking our Europe. Faced with the major upheavals of our times, Voxeuropa Herald gives a voice to those who, throughout Europe, share solutions and visions for the future. The message is clear : European realities call for European responses.
🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram | TikTok
🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.