Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Acknowledgments -- Contents -- Introduction -- Key Features of the Structural Constructivist Approach -- On Political Action -- Bibliography -- Part I: The Politics of Transnational Integration -- 1: Toward a Sociology of EU Politics -- Power and Resources -- A Sociology of EU Politics -- An Analysis of Political Practices in the European Parliament -- In Conclusion -- Bibliography -- 2: Exploring the Political Ontology of European Integration -- Ontology -- An Exclusive Ontological Framework -- An Inclusive Ontological Framework -- Conclusions -- Bibliography -- 3: Analyzing Integration -- Problems with Integration in IR and European Studies -- Integration in Bourdieu's Work -- Countering European Official Rhetoric -- Rethinking the European Parliament -- Conclusions -- Bibliography -- 4: Constructing Transnational Fields -- Transnationalism -- Field Analysis -- The European Parliament as a Transnational Field -- Conclusion -- Bibliography -- 5: Political Legitimation and European Public Spaces: Communication as Practice and Resource -- Structures of European Public Spaces -- Communicating Europe: Toward a 'Policy of the European Public Space'? -- Conclusions -- Bibliography -- 6: Processes of Differentiation of Political Power in the EU -- The Difficulty of Talking About the EU -- The Differentiation and Stratification of the European Parliament as an Example -- Conclusion -- Bibliography -- Part II: Reflexive Action and Knowledge Production -- 7: Intellectual Power in Europe -- Two Intellectual Cultures -- European Public Spheres -- Conclusions -- Bibliography -- 8: European Academic Identity -- Tensions in French Academe -- Primary and Secondary Worlds -- Mobility and Europe as Unfinished Adventures -- Conclusions -- Bibliography -- 9: European Political Science and Global Knowledge -- University Ranking as Symbolic Machine-Tool

Dans le champ des Relations internationales, Vincent Pouliot développe une théorie du praticable comme une théorie « matérielle » de la pratique, complémentaire à celle des conséquences, de la convenance, de l'argumentation. La logique du praticable serait paradoxalement la base non théorique de toutes les théories en ri. Comment l'approche de Pouliot, inspirée par les travaux de Bourdieu, se prête-t-elle à ce genre d'exercice ? Deux questions me semblent essentielles pour une analyse sociologique de la pratique en ri d'un point de vue « webero-bourdieusien » : le rôle du politique et de la domination, puis la logique de la pratique.

This chapter excavates Bourdieu's theoretical insights concerning political sociology to develop a theory of transnational structuration processes. The early Bourdieu implicitly imagined the state as a nationally bounded actor. Only later in his career did he begin to grapple with issues such as globalization, transnationalism, and neoliberalism; and it is this later germ of ideas that this chapter develops. Transnational social fields, this chapter argues, are not reducible to institutional or organizational structures. They require a more holistic analysis of institutions and their underpinnings. To provide an example of how Bourdieu's political sociology can be extended to transnational spaces, this chapter considers the case of the European Parliament. ; peerReviewed

A growing number of recent empirical studies such as the four contributions discussed here examine the politicization of the European Union, Europe, European integration or European governance. Two general research questions mark this emerging research field. A first one is how to theorize and conceptualize the politicization of the European Union (EU) and the reasons behind it. Does politicization have to do with a decline in EU support or Euroscepticism? Does it involve an increased salience of EU affairs within national and transnational public spheres? What are politicization's repercussions on EU institutions? And how are political parties involved? A second question is whether or not politicization is beneficial for the European integration project. Does it enhance populist, xenophobic and reactionary responses? Or does it, on the contrary, bring about a 'normalization' of EU decision making in the national arenas? The studies reviewed here, authored mostly by German scholars, link empirical and theoretical perspectives on politicization. They show a number of similarities in their approach to operationalising politicization and analysing it empirically. By politicization the authors refer to controversies driven by public debate, political parties and elections. The studies leave out the third research dimension that is usually mentioned in the politicization debate, the role of EU institutions (cf. de Wilde 2011). They argue that, in order to analyse politicization, researchers need to study the salience of issues, the polarization of opinions and the expansion of actors and audiences involved in debating or shaping European integration. By salience the authors understand the importance attributed to the EU and European integration, indicated by the number of newspaper articles dealing with European governance, the awareness of citizens of the EU, and the amount of public statements. Polarization refers to extreme positions, either in favour or against different aspects of European governance. Actor and audience expansion refers to the growing number of citizens and collective actors who invest time and money to follow and engage with EU governance. The setting of these processes include parliaments, public spheres and public opinion. ; peerReviewed

With globalization and Europeanization, profound changes have taken place in the composition and structure of elites. Once solidly tied to the nation state, elites have, following processes of differentiation and specialization, become more transnational than ever before. Their development has been conditioned by the evolving relationship between international, transnational, and national powers. In the European context, key institutional players today include the European Commission, the European Ombudsman and the European Court of Justice as aspiring representatives of the general European interest and the Council of Ministers and member states as representing national interests in the EU. Their relationship and changing interfaces are crucial when assessing the development of non-elected political elites as well as more generally the rise of an institutionalized and integrated Europe. ; peerReviewed

Publication date: March 1, 2016 ; In this article, we suggest a novel conceptual framework for understanding and analysing EU politicisation. Recent studies on EU politicisation argue that the post-Maastricht era led to the politicisation of EU integration via an increasing citizens' dissatisfaction. Contrary to this account, we argue that European integration has been from the beginning linked to politicisation, but in an unusual way. To capture its uniqueness we introduce the concepts of politisation as a precondition of politicisation and of politification as a depoliticised modality of politicisation. Politicisation is then not something new to EU integration but rather it is constitutive of EU integration itself. We further claim that under- standing politicisation requires taking a closer look at its relationship to "politics" or "political", as the interpretation of what is considered as politicisation depends on the interpretation of what is politics/political. It is thus essential to spell out the respective understanding of this key concept – Grundbegriff in Reinhart Koselleck's sense. We aim at an understanding of EU politicisation that is at once broader than what is currently discussed, more historically based, and related to an actor-oriented perspective on the political. On this basis we discuss the main conceptual weaknesses of current studies on EU politicisation and conclude by illustrating our alternative conception.

In this article, we suggest a novel conceptual framework for understanding and analysing EU politicisation. Recent studies on EU politicisation argue that the post-Maastricht era led to the politicisation of EU integration via an increasing citizens' dissatisfaction. Contrary to this account, we argue that European integration has been from the beginning linked to politicisation, but in an unusual way. To capture its uniqueness we introduce the concepts of politisation as a precondition of politicisation and of politification as a depoliticised modality of politicisation. Politicisation is then not something new to EU integration but rather it is constitutive of EU integration itself. We further claim that understanding politicisation requires taking a closer look at its relationship to "politics" or "political", as the interpretation of what is considered as politicisation depends on the interpretation of what is politics/political. It is thus essential to spell out the respective understanding of this key concept – Grundbegriff in Reinhart Koselleck's sense. We aim at an understanding of EU politicisation that is at once broader than what is currently discussed, more historically based, and related to an actor-oriented perspective on the political. On this basis we discuss the main conceptual weaknesses of current studies on EU politicisation and conclude by illustrating our alternative conception.