Suchergebnisse

The European Union (EU) has clearly made a difference for Civil Society Organizations (CSOs). EU officials and European political entrepreneurs have been crucial in the promotion of funding and access opportunities, but they have been proven to have little capacity to create CSOs from scratch or to use CSOs too bluntly for their own purposes. This book brings Europeanization studies closer to society by providing a sociologically-informed analysis, which challenges current assumptions and highlights neglected areas of study. It also addresses many of the methodological challenges in the empirical study of the Europeanization of interest groups, including a comparative analysis over a long time period. The book provides a comparison across three countries, France, UK and Spain, and two policy sectors, international solidarity and social CSOs

The European Union (EU) has clearly made a difference for Civil Society Organizations (CSOs). EU officials and European political entrepreneurs have been crucial in the promotion of funding and access opportunities, but they have been proven to have little capacity to create CSOs from scratch or to use CSOs too bluntly for their own purposes. This book brings Europeanization studies closer to society by providing a sociologically-informed analysis, which challenges current assumptions and highlights neglected areas of study. It also addresses many of the methodological challenges in the empirical study of the Europeanization of interest groups, including a comparative analysis over a long time period. The book provides a comparison across three countries, France, UK and Spain, and two policy sectors, international solidarity and social CSOs.

AbstractWhile feeling rules have been found to be highly relevant in social research and international relations, little is known about their role in European policy‐making. This article explores how emotions have been understood by Commission and Council officials and by Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) across policy areas over a long time period (1999–2014). Qualitative content analysis reveals the existence of feeling rules and that the appropriateness of emotions has been contested. Many policy‐makers, placing emotions in opposition to rationality, have claimed that policy‐making should be devoid of emotions, especially in policy areas such as public health, energy, and the environment. In contrast, in policy areas such as foreign policy and home affairs, emotions are often considered to be appropriate. This article also reflects on the role of feeling rules in constraining and enabling the policy process, uncovering subtle power dynamics. Data analysed include the European Parliament (EP) database (1999–2014) and the EUSpeech database (2007–2015).

European Union (EU)-based Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) are usually pictured as well-established professionalized actors basing their advocacy strategies on the provision of expertise. Does the focus on expertise imply the removal of emotions and feelings from political communication? Following the emotion turn in social movement and collective action studies, this article investigates how and why EU-based CSOs use emotions in their advocacy strategies. The article shows first how CSOs use rhetorical appeals to emotions and rhetorical appeals to reason in their communication. Secondly, the focus is directed to emotion-inspired advocacy strategies, namely blaming and shaming, fear-mongering and boosting. The choice of rhetorical appeals and strategies is mainly explained by three different inter-related factors: the logics of influence, the logics of membership and media logics. Empirical data is drawn from a content analysis of press releases and policy documents of environmental (climate change) and human rights (refugee crisis) CSOs active at the EU level and from semi-structured interviews with key CSO representatives.

Cet article questionne comment l'implication dans des projets transnationaux européens a contribué à la professionnalisation de postes de chargé de formation ou management interculturels dans le secteur social. Au travers du principe de transationalisme, la Commission soutient économiquement des communautés transnationales de pratiques et de projets communs organisés par des associations à but lucratif et non-lucratif, ou encore par des autorités infranationales dans différents États membres. Cet article montre qu'en l'absence d'un ensemble de règles et de normes, de pratiques et de routines dans le secteur social, l'Union européenne n'a pas contribué à la professionnalisation des postes de chargé de formation ou management en matière interculturelle. L'analyse des compétences interculturelles fondamentales comme la communication et la sensibilisation interculturelle montre que le management de projets interculturels se caractérise par un certain amateurisme qui peut prendre différentes formes en fonction des contextes nationaux et locaux. Dans cette analyse qualitative comparative, le développement empirique repose sur une analyse documentaire et sur des entretiens semi-directifs approfondis avec des managers de projets impliqués dans la coopération transnationale en France et aux Pays-Bas.

European Union (EU)-based Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) are usually pictured as well-established professionalized actors basing their advocacy strategies on the provision of expertise. Does the focus on expertise imply the removal of emotions and feelings from political communication? Following the emotion turn in social movement and collective action studies, this article investigates how and why EU-based CSOs use emotions in their advocacy strategies. The article shows first how CSOs use rhetorical appeals to emotions and rhetorical appeals to reason in their communication. Secondly, the focus is directed to emotion-inspired advocacy strategies, namely blaming and shaming, fear-mongering and boosting. The choice of rhetorical appeals and strategies is mainly explained by three different inter-related factors: the logics of influence, the logics of membership and media logics. Empirical data is drawn from a content analysis of press releases and policy documents of environmental (climate change) and human rights (refugee crisis) CSOs active at the EU level and from semi-structured interviews with key CSO representatives.