Workshop hosted by: Centre for Global and Transnational Politics
Venue: Royal Holloway, University of London/Date: 17th February 2012
Workshop Programme
11.00 – 11.30 Welcome and introduction to the ‘Many Europes’ workshop by Prof. Chris Rumford
11.30-13.30: Panel 1: Identity, borders & multiculturalism
Chair: Chris Rumford
Speakers:
S. Anne G. Bostancı (Surrey) – EUrope and other Europes
Joanna Cagney (Royal Holloway) – Models of ‘Multiculturalism’: Identifying Difference, Differentiating Identity
Dr. Valentina Kostadinova (Birmingham) – The European Commission and the Configuration of Internal EU Borders: Passive and Active Contributions
Tamás Scheibner (Budapest) – Globalization, National Paradigms, and the Unification of Eastern Europe: The Paradox of Postcolonialism as Applied to Post-Soviet Europe
14.30 – 16.30:Panel 2: Civil society, public sphere & democracy
Chair: Chris Rumford
Speakers:
Cristian Nitoiu (Loughborough) – Fostering Union’s democratic identity through the European Public Sphere
Alistair Brisbourne (Royal Holloway) – Governing Civil Society in the Euro-Mediterranean – The Anna Lindh Foundation and EU Commission post-Arab Uprisings
Sezin Dereci (Bremen) – NGOs in the context of Turkey’s accession to EU: Explaining their divergent patterns of engagement to Turkey’s process of Europeanisation
Didem Buhari-Gulmez (Royal Holloway) EU as a ‘heuristic device’: Three-dimensional Europeanization in Turkey
Abstracts
S. Anne G. Bostancı (University of Surrey) – EUrope and other Europes
What is Europe? What does the term ‘Europe’ mean? I argue that it is meaningless. By this, I do not mean to say that it does not refer to a or many specific things. I mean that the term ‘Europe’ is an ‘empty signifier’ (Laclau and Mouffe 1985). In and of itself, it does not hold a specific meaning. Instead, it is an umbrella term that draws together a multitude of meanings from history, geography, economics, politics, society and culture and anchors them in a durable yet malleable morphology.
A variety of actors participate in the construction of this morphology; the political classes of various countries, institutions, and groups; scholars; media commentators; ordinary people in a variety of places. However, is it reasonable to assume that they all have the same understanding of the term ‘Europe’? No. This means that there is not one Europe, but many Europes. However, it is fair to say, that some Europes are hegemonic in this discourse. For instance, the European Union has such a prominent position as an actor engaged in the construction of what the term refers to that it can often get away with referring to itself as Europe. Further, it has managed to convince many others, of all the groups engaged in discursively constructing Europe, to adopt, and therefore obscure and naturalise, this unjustified equation.
In view of this fact, it is worthwhile to look in detail at what EUrope, the EU’s version of Europe in its own image, refers to. What traits, what practices, what beliefs, attitudes and ‘repertoires of evaluation’ (Delanty and Rumford 2005) does the Union construct, in its discourses, as European? A variety of ‘coordinative’ and ‘communicative’ discursive forms (Schmidt 2006) may lend themselves to studying this question. However, there is only one type of discourse that is specifically intended by the Union’s institutions to communicate what it is that they see themselves as standing for. These are the public relations brochures, i.e. the text-based political marketing material, produced mainly by the Commission. This paper suggests that in order to understand the relationship between EUrope and the many other Europes that exist, it is first of all necessary to understand what the former notion contains. Then it is necessary to draw attention to the many other Europes that exist outside these institutional(ised) discourses as a means of deconstruction. And finally it is worth analysing whether and in how far there is room for other interpretations of Europe within the EU’s discourses of EUropeanness.
Joanna Cagney (Royal Holloway) – Models of ‘Multiculturalism: Identifying Difference, Differentiating Identity
In Europe there has been a general retreat from state-sponsored multiculturalism (Joppke and Morawski, 2003 in Mitchell 2004). From the French republican model, UK multicultural model and German model of differential exclusion (Parkes, 2008 see also Castles, 1995 and Joppke 2007); in the politics of identity and multicultural recognition the European question is being intensely scrutinised (Amin 2002; Jackson 2008). With an awareness of the differences between centralised countries like Britain and France, and federal Germany mediated by Länder, the ambiguous and even disputed term of ‘multiculturalism’ highlights the complexity and instability of identity in Europe. Through a comparative investigation of the way that the UK and Germany presently define their position on ‘multiculturalism’, as examples of a centralised and decentralised model, this presentation will explore the divergent discourses and political imaginaries on this complex term. It will equally address the distinctiveness of each model to understand its implications for integration and identity-making practices in contemporary Europe. This will raise further debates around taken for granted political concepts that have become adopted and homogenised under umbrella terms like ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘integration’ , but do not necessarily articulate the everyday, multifaceted expectations and understandings of urban dwellers. Europe-wide concessions of failure around ‘multicultural’ policy bring questions of the efficacy of integration policies to the fore. Dubious policies designed to address issues of difference and diversity often serve to complicate rather than to elucidate the overall aims and outcomes. This study aims, through engagement with materials produced by policy makers and existing academic literature, to understand the ethoses and practices which shape the identity-making process. Through a comparative study of the similarities and differences of these two distinct models it is hoped that a wider understanding of the multiplicity of identity making processes in Europe will be achieved.
Valentina Kostadinova (Birmingham) – The European Commission and the Configuration of Internal EU Borders: Passive and Active Contributions
The study examines European Commission’s contribution to the configuration of internal EU borders. The focus is on border controls and free movement of TCNs for work purposes. Building on the debate about Commission’s ability to independently influence decision-making outcomes, I develop a theorisation of the discursive techniques that are likely to be used in Commission articulations. The analysis of Commission documents shows that in the fields of common visa and asylum policies, Commission’s contribution has been passive. In distinction, in the fields of intra-Community border controls and free movement for work purposes of highly-skilled TCNs the Commission has managed to play a leadership role and to significantly change the underlying logic on which these policies are based.
Cristian Nitoiu (Loughborough) – Fostering Union’s democratic identity through the European Public Sphere
The paper focuses on the way in which the creation of a coherent European public sphere – where unconstrained communication characterizes the relation between an institution and its corresponding public – could foster the democratic identity on which the EU is predicated upon, and which it seeks to externalize. The European public sphere is taught off as the result of two complementary processes: collective identification and discursive exchange. Both these processes are dynamic in nature and have to be assessed according to their historicity – for example through various social interactions mitigated by the sum of discursive exchange within the EU might eventually transform the latter into a coherent set of discursive practices. In relation to the former mechanism, collective identification, it is worth noting that the emergence of a European public sphere based on a common identity must be seen as indispensable for the normative development of the Union, and thus for the assurance that multi-level governance within its institution takes into account the views of the general public. However, many scholars have underlined the absence not just of a common identity that would transcend the narrowness of national interests, and that even the political will that could forge such a collective identity is no more than rhetorical. Member states and their polities are seen in these studies as being rational egoists who only support common EU approaches when they do not collide with their national interests. These arguments cast doubt over the possibility of a functional European public sphere that could deepen the European democratic culture, and give strength to the endeavor of this paper of exploring the role of the emergence of a coherent public sphere in the fostering of European democratic identity.
Alistair Brisbourne (Royal Holloway) – Governing Civil Society in the Euro-Mediterranean – The Anna Lindh Foundation and EU Commission post-Arab Uprisings
The intended purpose of the Anna Lindh Foundation (ALF) is to promote cultural dialogue between Europe and the Arab world within the context of various project areas. The origin of ALF can be found in the social and cultural ‘basket’ of the Barcelona Process and was formalized in its current form (and name) through an Egyptian proposal at a meeting of the Euro-Mediterranean Committee in 2003. The foundation promises an independent, multilateral forum for members of the EMP while relying heavily on the EU Commission in budgetary terms. Since the Arab Uprisings there has been interest from the Commission in formalizing the relationship between official EU policy, specifically the European Neighbourhood Policy, and ALF in order to resolve a current shortcoming of EU policy towards the region; a desire that is reflected in recent ALF documents, and infers a distinct form of institutionalization of socio-cultural issues by extending governance practices both across the domain and through the semblance of civil society – a process of ‘civil societalisation’. The opening section will discuss the creation of ALF by focusing on the influence in EU policy of human rights and democratization discourses. The second section will engage with previous arguments that have been made regarding the significance of ALF in EU policy and situating them within the geopolitical context of the Euro-Mediterranean since the Arab Uprisings. The third section will then engage with the concept of ‘civil societalisation’ and its relevance for the ALF-ENP relationship. The final section will summarize and provide questions for future research.
Sezin Dereci (Bremen) – NGOs in the context of Turkey’s accession to EU: Explaining their divergent patterns of engagement to Turkey’s process of Europeanisation
Europeanization literature has been mostly produced for the EU member states. This literature recently started to consider in what ways and under which circumstances enlargement and the accession process change the identity, the interests, and the behavior of governmental and societal actors. The analysis of Turkish accession to the EU provides the opportunity to test the quality of EU approaches to non-state actors outside EU’s borders. Various participatory mechanisms, capacity building initiatives funded by the EU, general frameworks dictated by the EU to overcome existing policy misfits, and exchanges at the transnational level bring a potential empowerment of non-state actors that will increase their willingness and capacities to contribute to the policy adoption process of an accession state. This research examines the consequences the EU accession process has on interest groups in Turkey, as the accession country is under investigation here. There are three questions that are given particular attention: First, to what extent are they empowered to become ‘carriers’ of Europeanisation? Second, following from the previous question, do interest groups mobilize as the catalysts for the policy adoption in the accession process or are they detached? Third, what are the conditions facilitate or constrain their involvement? In this research, civil society is conceptualized as what are called “interest group”. The organizations that I will focus on are organized in the sense of their political interests. There will be distinctions between a) NGOs or public interest groups b) economic/business associations, chambers c) trade unions. The empirical data is drawn from expert interviews conducted with the key representatives from the organizations. This paper will have the focus on the NGO sector of the civil society realm.The results obtained so far indicate that the link between material and political opportunities that the EU might offer and domestic adaptation or mobilization of Turkish interest groups is not reflexive. Their mode of Europeanisation resonates from both external opportunities (i.e. the influence of the EU) and internal constraints inherent to the respective organizations and their specific policy realms. Apparently, Europeanisation processes have created uneven results for the Turkish civil society politics. Counter-reactions to the European impact are in many forms with various practices, understandings. This study will highlight the fact that Europeanisation is also a process leading to multiple productions and creative usages of the ‘Europe’ by the civil society actors of the accession states.
Tamás Scheibner (Budapest) – Globalization, National Paradigms, and the Unification of Eastern Europe: The Paradox of Postcolonialism as Applied to Post-Soviet Europe
In the past decades, Postcolonial Studies emerged as one of the most popular new universalizing languages of the Humanities and the Social Sciences. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that, from the mid-1990s, renewed attempts has been made to the application of the terms ‘postcolonial’ or ‘postcolonialism’ on ‘postcommunist’ societies and cultures. The discourse was established primarily by exiles and scholars from Western universities—often originating from Eastern and Central Europe—with the intention of redefining the region in a theoretical space where Cold War frameworks ceased to function, and of placing the region on the map of multiculturalism and Global Studies. However, most contributions fail to recognize that Eastern and Central European discourses of national self-representation and independence historically have often relied on imagery borrowed from extra-European colonialism. This system of metaphors was already commonly used in the 18th century and has been widely employed since: every epoch created its own version of it and these ideas continue to shape the way local elites understand their country’s role in international politics even today. Arguably, the idea of having been colonized tended to be a major factor in the efforts of national communities to conceive their history as continuous. When it comes to contemporary postcolonial discourses, one can recognize a certain duality already inherent in past discussions about colonial subjugation. On the one hand, these provide a proper set of rhetorical tools for advertising solidarity towards the global community on a universalistic basis. On the other hand, they may well serve particularistic aims by strengthening the cohesion of smaller communities. Postcolonialism, firstly, unifies the Post-Soviet space without regard the great differences of local histories, and, secondly, may well affirm the traditional sense of victimization of East and Central European nations, and fostering nationalism.
Didem Buhari Gulmez (Royal Holloway) – EU as a ‘heuristic device’: Three dimensions of Europeanization in Turkey
The EU is a ‘heuristic device’, useful in enabling an understanding of a complex phenomenon: the co-existence of ‘multiple Europes’. When one becomes aware that the EU has been objectifying, decontextualizing, or spatio-temporally ‘fixing’ (Biebuyck and Rumford 2011) the idea of Europe, one notices that rather than a single community, Europe refers to a ‘polycentric’, complex, and dynamic system that involves multiple types of actors operating in (at least) three realms: strategic (the realm of interests), normative (the realm of norms), and cognitive (the realm of intellect).
By emphasizing its polycentric character, the paper moves away from three types of approaches to the European system: a unipolar Europe run by ‘Brussels’ or a ‘Franco-German engine’; a bipolar Europe that involves a competition between eastern and western, North/core vs. South/periphery, as well as old vs. new Europe divide; and finally a ‘multi-level’ Europe that assumes a predetermined hierarchy between different national, regional, and institutional actors that operate at various territorial ‘levels’.
Secondly, by advancing the analytical distinction between strategic, normative, and cognitive domains in which the EU represents many Europes, the study aims to introduce a three-dimensional model of Europeanization in Turkey. The mainstream scholarship on Turkey’s Europeanization in particular, and Europeanization in candidate countries in general, overemphasizes the strategic dimension (EU-ization or ‘thin Europeanization’ based on official membership criteria), rarely looks at the normative dimension (‘thick Europeanization’ largely driven by ‘post-material values’), and is almost unaware of the cognitive dimension (“ritualized Europeanization” a term that is inspired by ‘Stanford School on sociological institutionalism’ in order to uncover Turkey’s search for external/global legitimation, and the processes of socio-political redefinition of what was traditionally ‘taken-for-granted’).
After providing detailed accounts of the suggested three dimensions in Turkey’s Europeanization, the paper intends to show that the multiplicity of European actors operating at three different realms affects the EU’s projection of its authority abroad, and paves the way for the trifurcation of the processes that influence society and politics in candidate countries like Turkey. The empirical findings largely derive from expert surveys and elite interviews, conducted with Turkish respondents by the author in 2010 as well as public speeches and parliamentary minutes.
Keynote article: Biebuyck, William & Chris Rumford (2011), “Many Europes: Rethinking multiplicity” European Journal of Social Theory 15(1), 3-20.
