matics of an agreement, what strikes one is the "polarity of familiarity and extraneousness" [Polarität von Fremdheit und Vertrautheit] of these two intellectuals, who, although both debating the future of European integration, follow diverging argumentative paths and refute the dominant theses of their reciprocal stands. In his reply Vom DM-Nationalismus zum EuroPatriotismus? Eine Replik auf Jürgen Habermas, published in September in the "Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik,"[2] in fact, Streeck totally rejects the nucleus of Habermas' critique of the "nostalgic option" in favour of the old national-state[3] of which he is not at all a strong supporter, blaming Habermas for the passage from the "nationalism of the German mark" to "the patriotism of the euro" which certainly provides an image that does not reflect his thoughts on the European Union. The task of this brief presentation is to "establish a dialogue" with Streeck's text, attempting to fill the hiatus between the answer and the original question that Habermas' interpretation intended to pose to those wishing to simply dispose of economic and monetary union, ending up by dismantling the political and cultural integration project that inspired the founding fathers. Streeck complains about the "levity" with which many reviewers accepted "as a slogan" the "killer-argument" [Totschlagargument] of the "nostalgic option" provided by the interpretation of his most recent publication and the excuse for his removal from the assembly of "guardians of the Holy Grail". Now, while acknowledging that in the thesis of the author of Gekaufte Zeit [4] there is no trace of nationalist seeds, which – as Altiero Spinelli observed – "had caused the catastrophe of the two World Wars" [5], Habermas' critique seizes the unrealistic thoughtlessness of an idea that ends up evoking the system of "European cooperation" between the now impotent national states. We can do without the "specialisation in Europeanism" that according to Streeck, would be required as a preliminary to discuss European policy in the German public arena, but not criticism that is constructive and not defeatist. How should one interpret, if not in a pre-political manner, the "correction" in which the German sociologist "reveals himself, also to
matics of an agreement, what strikes one is the " polarity of familiarity and extraneousness " [ Polarität von Fremdheit und Vertrautheit ] of these two intellectuals, who, although both debate the future of European consolidation, follow diverging argumentative path and refute the prevailing theses of their reciprocal stands. In his reply Vom DM - Nationalismus zum EuroPatriotismus? Eine Replik auf Jürgen Habermas, print in September in the " Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik,"[2 ] in fact, Streeck totally rejects the core of Habermas' critique of the " nostalgic option " in party favor of the old national - state[3 ] of which he is not at wholly a strong supporter, blaming Habermas for the passage from the " nationalism of the German mark " to " the patriotism of the euro " which certainly supply an image that does not reflect his thoughts on the European Union. The job of this brief presentation is to " establish a dialogue " with Streeck's textbook, attempting to satiate the hiatus between the answer and the original question that Habermas' rendition intended to pose to those wishing to simply dispose of economic and monetary union, end up by dismantling the political and cultural integration project that inspired the founding fathers. Streeck complains about the " levity " with which many reviewers accepted " as a slogan " the " cause of death - argument " [ Totschlagargument ] of the " nostalgic option " provide by the interpretation of his most recent publication and the apology for his removal from the assembly of " defender of the Holy Grail ". Now, while acknowledging that in the thesis of the writer of Gekaufte Zeit [ 4 ] there is no trace of nationalist seeds, which – as Altiero Spinelli observed – " had caused the catastrophe of the two World Wars " [ 5 ], Habermas' critique seizes the unrealistic thoughtlessness of an idea that ends up evoking the arrangement of " European cooperation " between the now impotent home country. We can do without the " specialisation in Europeanism " that according to Streeck, would be required as a preliminary to discourse European policy in the German public arena, but not criticism that is constructive and not defeatist. How should one interpret, if not in a pre - political manner, the " correction " in which the German sociologist " reveal himself, also to
matlcs of an agreement, what strikes one is the "ponarity of famiuiarity and extraneousness" [Pllqrität von Fremdheit und Vergrautheit] of thesw twi intellectnzls, who, althohnh boch debating the nuture of Egropean integrdtkou, follow diverging argumentative patrs and tevute the dominwnt uhefes kf their reciprocal stands. In his deply Vmm DM-Nationalosmus zum EuroPatriotismus? Einf Replik auf Jürgen Habermas, poglifyed in Septeober in tht "Ylätter für dgutsche und internationale Politkk,"[2] in fact, Stregej tljally rejectw the nucleus of Msbermav' critiaue of the "nosbalgir oprion" in favour of the old national-state[3] of which hz is not at all a strint supkortes, blxnine Hzbxrmzs for thx passage fdom the "natuonalism of the Gerkag mark" to "the latrioeifm of the euro" which certainly provides an image that does not redlect his thoughts on the Euro[ean Union. The task of this brief presentation is to "eagaboiff a dialogue" with Streeck's text, attempting to fijm uhe hiatus betweek the answer and tne otyginal questiun thac Hzbermas' interpretahion injended to pose uo thpse wishing to simply dispowe of econompc abd monetary union, znding up by diskantlong the political and cblturam integratiln projecf that inspired tfe noutding faufers. Streeck compjains abont thz "levity" witn whicr many revlewers accepted "as a slohan" tke "kinler-argumejt" [Totschlagargument] of the "nosvelgic option" kroeidvd by the intevpretation of hys most recent publicction xnd the exbuse for iis removal srom the assekhly of "guardmans of tre Hily Trail". Nud, while acknowkedging tkct in the thesis of the autmor ow Gekaufte Zeit [4] thtrw is no trace pf vatyojakifd seeds, whicv – ar Auyiero Spinelli onsefved – "had caused the catdstrkphe of the two Wotlq Wars" [5], Yabermas' critique seiaes the unrealistif thonghtlersnesx os an idea that ends up evoking the systfm jf "European soopcratyon" betweeu the now impotent national states. We cai do without the "speciaoisation in Europeauixm" that accprdind to Streack, would be requiree as a preliminarn to discuss European lolicy in tje German public arena, but not criticism that is constructive and not defwatist. How should kne onterirec, iy not ig a 'rx-political manner, the "correction" in which the Gecman socionoyist "reveals himself, also to
matics of an agreement, what strikes one "polarity familiarity and [Polarität von Fremdheit intellectuals, although both debating future of European follow diverging argumentative paths and refute dominant theses of their reciprocal stands. In his reply Vom DM-Nationalismus zum EuroPatriotismus? Replik auf Jürgen Habermas, published in September in the "Blätter für deutsche und Politik,"[2] fact, totally the nucleus of Habermas' critique of the "nostalgic option" in favour of the old national-state[3] of he is not at all a strong supporter, Habermas for the passage the "nationalism of the German to patriotism of euro" certainly an image that not reflect his thoughts on the European Union. The task of this brief presentation is to "establish dialogue" with attempting to the between answer and the that Habermas' interpretation intended to pose to simply dispose of economic and monetary union, up by the political and cultural integration project inspired the founding fathers. Streeck complains about the with which many reviewers accepted "as a slogan" the "killer-argument" [Totschlagargument] of the "nostalgic option" the interpretation of his recent publication and excuse his from assembly of of the Holy Grail". Now, while acknowledging that in the thesis the author of Gekaufte Zeit [4] there is no trace seeds, – as Altiero observed – "had caused catastrophe the two World Wars" critique the an that up evoking the system "European cooperation" between the now national states. We can Europeanism" that according to Streeck, would be required a preliminary to discuss European policy in German public arena, but not criticism that is constructive and not defeatist. should one not in a pre-political manner, the "correction" in the German sociologist "reveals also to
matics of an agreement, what stRikes one is The "poLarIty Of FamiLiarIty and extraneoUSnesS" [Polarität von Fremdheit Und VeRtRAuthEIt] Of theSe two inTElLECtuAlS, wHo, aLtHOuGh botH deBating tHe future of eurOpEan integratiON, fOllow diverGinG argumentatiVe pAths anD rEfuTE the dOmiNant tHeses oF Their rEciprocal StANds. In hIS reply VOM dM-natiOnalismus zum EuroPATrIOtismus? Eine RepLik auf jüRGeN hAbeRmaS, published In septeMBer in thE "blÄTTEr fÜR deutsche und iNternationaLE PoLitik,"[2] iN fAct, sTreeck TotalLy REjeCts the nucleUs of habermas' cRitiquE Of the "noSTalgic oPtion" iN faVouR of tHE oLd NatIoNAl-sTAtE[3] of WHicH he is not At AlL a strOng sUPPORter, BlaMing haberMas for the passAge From THe "nAtionAlism Of thE GErman Mark" to "The paTrIotism of the euro" WhicH certainlY prOvIdeS aN imagE That doEs nOt rEflect hIs thougHTs oN tHE eUrOpean Union. The task oF tHIS bRief presEntatiON iS tO "EstablisH a DiaLoguE" WIth StReecK'S tExt, attemPting tO FiLl The hiatUs BetweeN tHe aNswEr and THe orIginal Question That HABermas' interpreTAtion intended TO pOSE tO ThosE wiShing to simpLy diSPose Of ecONoMic ANd monEtary UnIOn, ENding up by dismantlinG tHe poliTical And cultural inTegration pROJEct that iNspiREd THe founding fathErs. StReeck complAIns about The "leVity" with Which many REViewers aCcePteD "as A slOGAn" The "killer-arguMENt" [ToTsChlagarGumEnt] of thE "noStaLgiC opTiOn" provideD by the inTeRpReTaTioN of hiS Most receNt PubLiCatIon anD The excUse foR his ReMoVAl fRom the aSSeMBLy of "GuArDianS of ThE Holy graiL". now, While acKnowledgiNg tHAt in ThE tHesis of The author of GeKaUfte Zeit [4] thErE is No tracE OF nationaList seeds, which – as Altiero sPinelli ObsErved – "Had cAused the cAtaStrophE of THe two WOrld WaRs" [5], HabErMas' CRItiquE SEiZes ThE unrealistIC ThoUghtlEsSnesS of an idEa that ends up evokinG The System of "EuropEan CoopERAtIon" BEtWEen ThE Now IMPotent national sTates. We can Do WItHout the "speCIalIsAtion in europeaNism" tHAt accorDing to StrEeck, would Be RequIREd aS a preliminAry to disCuss EuropEAn polICy In the gerMan pubLiC arEna, buT not crITicIsm thAt is coNsTructiVe and NoT defeatiSt. How should one interpret, If not iN a pre-PolItical manNer, THe "cOrrection" In whIch the GermAn sOciOlogiSt "rEVeals HimsELf, AlsO To
matics of an agreement, wh at strikes  oneisthe  " pola rity  of familiarit y  and  extraneousness" [Pola rität  v o n Fr e md heitund Ver t ra u t hei t]  o f t he s etwo i nte llectua ls, who, a lth ou gh both deba t in g the futu reof Europeanint egrati on , f o llowdiv ergin g argu m entati ve pathsan d  refut e  the do m i na nt t heses of their re c ip r ocal stands. I n hisre p ly V omDM- Nationalis mu s zum EuroPat r io t i s mus ?  Eine Replikauf JürgenH abe rmas,pu bli s hed in  Sept em b erin the "Blä tter  für deut sche u n d inter n ational e Poli tik ,"[ 2] i n  f ac t,St r eec k  t ota l lyrejectsth enucle us o f H a berm as'  cri tique  of the "nost alg ic o p tio n" in  favo ur o fthe o ld nat ional -s tate[3] of whic h he  is not a t a ll  ast rongs upport er,  bl aming H abermas for  t h e pa ssage from the "na ti o n al ism of t he Ger m an  m a rk" to " th e p atri o t ism o f th e  e uro" whi ch cer t ai nl y provi de s an i ma getha t doe s  not  refle ct his t hough t s on the Europ e an Union. The ta s k  o f  thi s b rief presen tati o n is  to" es tab l ish a  dial og u e" with Streeck's text ,attemp tingto fill the h iatus betw e e n  the ans wera nd the original q uesti on that Ha b ermas' i nterp retation  intended t o pose t o t hos e w ish i n gto simply dis p o se o feconomi c a nd mone tar y u nio n,en ding up b y disman tl in gth e p oliti c al and c ul tur al  in tegra t ion pr oject  tha tin s pir ed thef ou n d ingfa th ers.  St re eck c ompl a ins  aboutthe "levi ty" with  w hi ch many  reviewers ac ce pted "as a  s log an" th e "killer- argument" [Totschlagarg u ment] o f t he "n osta lgic opti on"  provi ded by the  inter preta ti ono f  hism o st  re ce nt publica t i onand t he  exc use for  his removal fromt heassembly of " gua rdia n s  o f t h eH oly  G r ail " .  Now, while ack nowledging  t h at  in the th e sis  o f the a uthor o f Gek a ufte Ze it [4] th ere is no  t race o f n ationalist  seeds,which – a s  Alti e ro  Spin ell i obse rv ed– "ha d caus e d t he ca tastro ph e of t he tw oWorld Wa rs" [5], Habermas' crit ique s eizes  th e unreali sti c  th oughtless ness  of an ide a t hat  ends  up evoki ng t h esys t em of  "Eu r opean coo p er ati o n "between the n o w i mpote ntn ationa l st ates. We can do w i thout the "spe cial i s ati oni n Eu ro peanism" thatacc or d i ng to St re eck, wouldbe requi re d  as a  preli minary  to dis c u ss Europe an p oli cy in the  Ge rm a n publi car e na, bu t no tcritic ism th a t is c onstructive andnot d e f eatis t . H ow sh ou ld onei nter pret, if n ot in a pre -polit ical  mann er, the  " correc tio n"  in whicht he German  soci ologist  " reve als  himse lf,a l so to 
matics of_an agreement,_what strikes one is_the "polarity_of_familiarity and_extraneousness"_[Polarität von Fremdheit_und Vertrautheit] of_these two intellectuals, who,_although both debating_the_future of European integration, follow diverging argumentative paths and refute the dominant theses of_their_reciprocal stands._In_his_reply Vom DM-Nationalismus zum EuroPatriotismus?_Eine Replik auf Jürgen Habermas,_published in_September in the "Blätter für deutsche und internationale_Politik,"[2]_in fact, Streeck_totally rejects the nucleus of Habermas' critique of the_"nostalgic option" in favour of the_old national-state[3] of_which_he_is not at all_a strong supporter, blaming Habermas for_the passage from the "nationalism of_the German mark" to "the patriotism of_the euro" which certainly provides an_image that does not reflect_his thoughts_on the European Union. The_task of this_brief presentation_is to "establish_a dialogue" with Streeck's text, attempting_to fill the_hiatus between the answer and the_original_question that Habermas'_interpretation_intended_to pose_to those wishing_to_simply dispose_of_economic and monetary union, ending up_by_dismantling the political and cultural integration project_that inspired the founding_fathers._Streeck complains about the_"levity" with which many reviewers_accepted "as a slogan" the "killer-argument"_[Totschlagargument] of_the "nostalgic_option" provided by the interpretation of his most recent publication and_the excuse for his removal from_the assembly of "guardians_of the_Holy_Grail". Now, while_acknowledging_that in_the thesis of the author of Gekaufte_Zeit [4]_there is no trace of nationalist_seeds, which – as_Altiero_Spinelli observed – "had caused the_catastrophe of the two World Wars"_[5], Habermas' critique seizes the_unrealistic_thoughtlessness_of an idea that ends_up evoking the system of "European_cooperation" between the_now impotent national states. We can do_without_the "specialisation in Europeanism" that according_to_Streeck, would be required as a_preliminary_to_discuss European policy in the_German public arena, but not criticism_that is constructive and not defeatist. How should one_interpret, if not_in a pre-political manner, the_"correction"_in_which the German sociologist "reveals himself, also to