Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe article argues that the European Union, despite being a different kind of polity, has political myths that are similar to those that have characterised nation‐states. It examines two types of political myth – foundation and exceptionalism – and demonstrates that they have been used in an attempt to make the European Union understandable and acceptable as a form of governing. The article also argues that political myths about the EU have had limited success not only because they are based on the same content as national myths but also because they do not always conform to recognisable narrative forms. The EU, with its ambiguous aim of creating 'an ever closer union', does not provide the basis for sacred narratives that become normative and cognitive maps that make the new polity 'normal' and provide the EU with ontological security.

AbstractThe EU, as is commonly held, is a different form of political rule: a polity based on rationality and functional interests, not emotional appeals. Without reference to the narrative of the nation or the state, the question emerges as to whether the European Union needs or has myths? If it does, what are they and how successful have they been? The aim of this article – indeed of the special issue – is to explore the role of political myth in creating normative and cognitive foundations for governing in the EU and to examine whether these are applicable to the case of the European Union.

The descriptive-explanatory efficacy of the notions of transformation & adaptation in politological studies attempting to provide viable accounts of the challenges & changes the state underwent in the post-WWII era is examined. The rise & crisis of the Western welfare state, democratic transitions in the states of the former Soviet block, the state sovereignty issue in the European Union integration processes, & the question of the social & economic prerogatives of states in the era of globalization are found to evade a plausible explanation in terms of either transformation or adaptation. It is argued that transformation & adaptation should not be treated as competitive but complementary, & the explanation of the challenges to the states in the second half of the 20th century cannot be in terms of either transformation or adaptation. Also, transformation & adaptation should refer to ideas rather than institutions, ie, be treated as cognitive & normative maps instead the outcomes of governmental institutions or public policies. Within this reinterpreted framework, transformation & adaptation become efficacious arguments in explaining the rise of a postnational, postpolitical, & postsocial competitive state in the 21st-century Europe. References. Z. Dubiel