Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Acknowledgements -- Contents -- Notes on Contributors -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- 1 Introduction: Towards a Multi-Faceted Approach to Politicisation in the EU Context -- 1 EU Politicisation (Re)interpreted -- 2 Tracing EU Politicisation: The Narrative and Design of the Book -- References -- Part I Politicisation of the EU as a Polity -- 2 Between Optimism and Pessimism: Rethinking EU Politicisation in Theory, Conceptualisation, and Research -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Theorising and Conceptualising Politicisation -- 3 Politicisation and European Integration -- 3.1 The Classics -- 3.2 Rethinking the Top-Down Model of EU Politicisation -- 4 Parties and EU Politicisation -- 5 Bottom-Up Politicisation -- 6 Towards a Multi-Stage (and Multi-Level?) Model of Politicisation -- References -- 3 Citizens' 'Permissive Consensus' in European Integration Scholarship: Theoretical Reflections on EU Politicisation and the Democratic Deficit Discourse -- 1 Introduction: European Integration and the Democratic Deficit -- 2 EU Politicisation and the End of the Citizens' Permissive Consensus -- 3 The Permissive Consensus in Ordinary Politics from a Historical Perspective -- 4 The Underlying Normative Assumptions Behind the Permissive Consensus -- 5 Conclusion: EU Politicisation, Representation and the Democratic Deficit -- Bibliography -- 4 Politicisation as a Speech Act: A Repertoire for Analysing Politicisation in Parliamentary Plenary Debates -- 1 Politicisation in the Language of the Parliamentarians -- 2 A Research Agenda for Discussing Politicisation -- 3 Politicisation in the Debates of Three Parliaments -- 3.1 Politicisation by Adversaries -- 3.2 Anonymous Politicisation -- 3.3 Disputes on Politicisation -- 3.4 Support for Politicisation -- 3.5 Politicisation as Opening Up of New Opportunities -- 4 The Rhetoric of Politicisation -- References.

Public spheres are very different objects from those that started the processes of globalization. One of the novel aspects of current public spheres is the growing influence of social media platforms and the disinformation that nurtures in them. In this sense they have become a central element in current political communication and electoral campaigns in particular. This article outlines a research agenda on how to investigate the construction of this new political object, both in the political debate and the regulatory framework. We propose to study this political object as a dispute in the emerging transnational field where disinformation is defined, and suggest theoretical, methodological and normative issues of this agenda. We argue that there are different pre-existing fields (journalism, international security) that are affected by the emergence of the new transnational field of disinformation and that the actors of each field will try to establish the rules of the game, and that it is precisely the pre-existence of these fields which leads the actors present in them to selectively politicize and depoliticize disinformation. ; Las esferas públicas son hoy objetos muy diferentes a los que iniciaron los procesos de globalización. Uno de los aspectos novedosos de las esferas públicas actuales es la creciente influencia de las plataformas de redes sociales y la desinformación que circula en ellas, pues ha sido un factor fundamental en cómo se desarrolla actualmente la comunicación política en general, y las campañas electorales en particular. Este artículo trata de delinear una agenda de investigación sobre cómo investigar la construcción de este nuevo objeto político tanto a nivel de debate político como de marco regulatorio. Proponemos estudiar este objeto político desde la perspectiva de una disputa en el emergente campo transnacional por definir la desinformación, lo cual tiene implicaciones tanto teóricas, metodológicas como normativas. Argumentamos que hay diferentes campos preexistentes (el del periodismo, el de la seguridad internacional) que se ven afectados por la emergencia del nuevo campo transnacional de la desinformación y que los actores de cada campo tratan de establecer las reglas del juego, y que es precisamente la preexistencia de estos campos lo que lleva a los actores presentes en ellos a politizar y despolitizar selectivamente ciertos aspectos.

The negotiations of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) saw the development of a transnational campaign that gained momentum as the negotiations reached a critical status, including in Spain. The Spanish anti-TTIP campaign is interesting in that it has gained some salience among media, civil society, trade unions and some political parties in a country where trade and EU affairs are rarely controversial. In order to explain the transformation of the attitudes of Spanish civil society vis-à-vis the EU in the case of TTIP, we formulated descriptive and explanatory research questions, respectively: how is the mobilisation against TTIP different from the traditional involvement of Spanish civil society actors in EU issues? Why have actors which did not work together in previous campaigns cooperated in the case of TTIP? We analyse the Spanish anti-TTIP campaign, and we argue that the change of positions of Spanish civil society actors in relation to the EU in the case of TTIP can be explained on the basis of a change in the field, a notion that is suggestive because of the degree of continuity in the identity of the entrepreneurs of the anti-TTIP campaign in relation to past EU-critical mobilisations. Rather than an increased political cost of EU decision-making at national level, we argue that the introduction of EU-critical ideas can lead to an 'empowering dissensus' where the ability to mobilise citizens on EU issues acquires a renewed importance. We tackle our puzzle through a combination of methods, using semi-structured interviews and network analysis ; Luis Bouza is grateful for the co-funding of Jean Monnet action 587167- EPP-1-2017-1-ES-EPPJMO 'EU Communication Policy in times of Crisis: Challenge or Miracle?' as well as the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union

La década de 2010, iniciada con la crisis financiera, continuada con la de los refugiados y culminada con la del coronavirus en 2020, ha consolidado los enfoques teóricos en torno al campo político europeo como algo más que un entorno diplomático en el que gobiernos nacionales negocian políticas comunes. Sin embargo, la crisis del coronavirus ha dado lugar a una respuesta más rápida y decisiva que las anteriores, movilizando una cantidad de recursos sin precedentes y construyendo nuevos consensos a un ritmo no contemplado anteriormente. El artículo plantea desde la sociología política que las recientes crisis europeas revelan una transformación en las formas de ejercicio de la política que llamamos «intergubernamentalidad», un proceso compatible con la transformación de los campos políticos nacionales a través de la politización de la UE.

Since the argumentative turn in EU studies, research has shown that civil society activists can challenge frames promoted by EU institutions and incumbent groups, and influence public opinion in the EU. However, most studies of civil society mobilisation on EU issues have focused on the vertical framing of issues from Brussels to national capitals, rarely analysing mobilisation beyond Brussels. This article builds upon ongoing research on Spanish civil society activism on the TTIP (Bouza & Oleart, 2018) and framing EU issues on Twitter (Bouza & Tuñón, 2018), contributing to the study of the role of national activists in the horizontal translation of EU-wide mobilisation to national publics. We argue that national actors play an influential role in the discursive struggle to define 'Europe' and the EU in the (national) public spheres (Díez Medrano, 2003). Building on our previous analysis of national activism on TTIP in Spain, we analyse whether activists have engaged in a process of frame bridging (Snow et al., 1986), in order to expand the mobilisation against TTIP towards new issues and constituencies relating to the broader trade strategy of the EU. The present research addresses the role of the Spanish anti- TTIP social movement in the emergence, circulation and bridging of critical frames on the TTIP negotiations in the Spanish Twitter sphere. The article combines quantitative and qualitative methods –network analysis and framing analysis– in order to analyse the role of the @NoAlTTIP network in the building and diffusion of frames challenging the EU institutions discourse on trade in the Spanish context ; This article is part of two projects funded by the European Agency for Education, Culture and Audiovisual (EACEA) of the European Commission, Jean Monnet (Erasmus +): Jean Monnet Module EUCOPOL (reference: 587167-EPP-1-2017-1-ES-EPPJMO-MODULE); and Jean Monnet Network OPENEUDEBATE (reference: 600465-EPP-1-2018-1-ES-EPPJMONETWORK). This article is also part of another project (FAKENEWS) funded by the Spanish Research Agency, from the Science, Innovation and Universities department (Reference: RTI2018-097709-B-I00).

Since the argumentative turn in EU studies, research has shown that civil society activists can challenge frames promoted by EU institutions and incumbent groups, and influence public opinion in the EU. However, most studies of civil society mobilisation on EU issues have focused on the vertical framing of issues from Brussels to national capitals, rarely analysing mobilisation beyond Brussels. This article builds upon ongoing research on Spanish civil society activism on the TTIP (Bouza & Oleart, 2018) and framing EU issues on Twitter (Bouza & Tuñón, 2018), contributing to the study of the role of national activists in the horizontal translation of EU-wide mobilisation to national publics. We argue that national actors play an influential role in the discursive struggle to define 'Europe' and the EU in the (national) public spheres (Díez Medrano, 2003). Building on our previous analysis of national activism on TTIP in Spain, we analyse whether activists have engaged in a process of frame bridging (Snow et al., 1986), in order to expand the mobilisation against TTIP towards new issues and constituencies relating to the broader trade strategy of the EU. The present research addresses the role of the Spanish anti-TTIP social movement in the emergence, circulation and bridging of critical frames on the TTIP negotiations in the Spanish Twitter sphere. The article combines quantitative and qualitative methods –network analysis and framing analysis– in order to analyse the role of the @NoAlTTIP network in the building and diffusion of frames challenging the EU institutions discourse on trade in the Spanish context.

El referéndum del Brexit es un buen ejemplo de la especial vulnerabilidad del proyecto europeo ante la desinformación. Por ello las instituciones han desarrollado una serie de iniciativas durante 2018 para definir una estrategia europea contra la desinformación que enfatiza la responsabilidad de las redes sociales en la denuncia de los contenidos falsos. Además, ante la debilidad de la esfera pública europea, las instituciones europeas apoyan la creación de redes europeas de fact checkers. Esta estrategia implica la denuncia de las mentiras en lugar de una de creación de marcos alternativos, lo que autores como Lakoff (2004) consideran un error desde la perspectiva del framing. Empíricamente demostramos mediante un análisis de las principales redes de actores en este asunto (académicos, fundaciones, think tanks, medios, plataformas de redes sociales y fact checkers) que existe una disputa para definir la mejor forma de combatir la desinformación a escala europea. ; The Brexit referendum is a good example of the particular vulnerability of the European project when fighting disinformation. Therefore, EU institutions have developed a series of initiatives throughout 2018 to define a European strategy to counter disinformation that emphasizes the responsibility of social networks in reporting false content. In addition, given the weakness of the European public sphere, the European institutions support the creation of European networks of fact checkers. This strategy implies the denunciation of lies, rather than the promotion of alternative interpretive frames, which authors like Lakoff (2004) consider an error from a framing point of view. Empirically, we demonstrate through an analysis of the main networks of actors on this matter (academics, foundations, think tanks, media, social network platforms and fact checkers) that there is a dispute to define the best way to combat disinformation at the European level.