Why there can be no “European Identity” Raymond M. Keogh Abstract European identity is one of the most complex phenomena within European studies and social science. This is principally because the word “identity” is indefinable. As a result, any related term is also indefinable. The main problem can be traced to the difficulty in determining what is meant by “sameness” in older definitions. Fortunately, human genetics now provides clarity to the discussion and opens the way to an alternative paradigm of identity that overcomes most disadvantages of current approaches. However, it shows that the term “identity” is not applicable in the European context. Keywords: Identity, European identity, personal identity, communal identity, group identity, universal identity, sameness Roots of confusion There is a general consensus that there are no easy answers to the question: What is European Identity? In his book When Culture becomes Politics; European Identity in Perspective, Thomas Pedersen informs us that: European identity is one of the most complex phenomena within European studies and social science. The core of the problem resides in the word “identity” for if we cannot define this word then, by inference, we cannot define any related term like “European identity”. He opines that: Identity like culture belongs to the words that everybody uses, but very few understand (Pedersen, 2008; pp. 10, 11). According to Prutsch (2017; pp. 5, 9) author of European Identity states that identity as a term … evades any clear-cut definitions and is characterised by conceptual ambiguity. He also recognises that: The attractiveness of identity as a subject of scholarly studies is manifest in the sheer amount of literature in the field, with tens of thousands of publications addressing different aspects of the concept. But citing quantity as a measure of significance is deflated by the curt statement of Dr. Richard Bourke (2019), Professor of the History of Political Thought of the University of Cambridge who says that identity … has been incessantly invoked as a method of explanation even though it appears to explain so little. Problems with the use of identity have been pointed out by many other social scientists. Van Weringh (2005) acknowledges that: The issue of identity and identities is complex enough. We do not understand it fully yet. Fearon (1999; p. 2), on the other hand, suggests that: Even though everyone knows how to use the word properly in everyday discourse, it proves quite difficult to give a short and adequate summary statement that captures the range of its present meanings. Abdelal, et al (2006; p. 695) warn that: Despite—or perhaps because of—the sprawl of different treatments of identity in the social sciences, the concept has remained too analytically loose to be as useful a tool as the literature's early promise had suggested. Kohli (2000; pp. 114, 115) observes that it … is one of those terms that have haunted the sociological imagination because they are so exceedingly vague or even vacuous. At the same time, there is a reluctance to ditch such words because they … seem to capture such important dimensions of social life. Brubaker and Cooper (2000; p. 14) entertain no such scruples about discarding the word identity and suggest parcelling out the work it does … to a number of less congested terms. Problems tend to augment when the adjective “European” is associated with identity. Prutsch’s (2017;