Suchergebnisse

Critical Social Theory (CST) in its broadest sense is a transdisciplinary approach to the social sciences that applies critique to the status quo in order to emancipate humans and the planet from the negative consequences of modernity. A broad understanding of CST includes historical materialism, Frankfurt School theory, cultural theory, poststructural theory, feminist theory, and postcolonial theory. For example, Craig Calhoun's seminal 1995 study of CST included engagements with Horkheimer, Adorno, and Habermas' Frankfurt School; Derrida and Foucault's postmodernism; Bourdieu's habitus, field, and capital; Haraway and Fraser's feminist theory; and hooks and Spivak's politics of identity and recognition. The transdisciplinary approach of CST demands the reorganisation of disciplinary practices in order to transgress and transcend pre-existing frames of knowledge organisation found in the social sciences and humanities, in particular history, sociology, economics, ecology, and politics. In this context CST is an 'interpenetrating body of work which demands and produces critique … [that] depends on some manner of historical understanding and analysis'. This historically-grounded critique is essential because 'theory is always for someone and for some purpose' since 'theory constitutes as well as explains the questions it asks (and those it does not ask)'. Scholarship and activism within CST is concerned with understanding how 'tradition', the 'status quo', and the 'mainstream' are self-perpetuating practices of modernity that have significantly negative consequences for humans, society, and the planet as a whole. As Max Horkheimer put it in 1937, these conditions necessitate a 'critical theory of society as it is, a theory dominated at every turn by a concern for reasonable conditions of life'. As discussed, CST is different to the other critical theoretical approaches in setting out a holistic, ecological, and progressive approach to the planetary politics that characterise the 21st century.

On the 11th October 2016 the opposition Labour Party presented the ruling Conservative UK government with a list of 170 questions – one for each day before Teresa May's self-imposed deadline to start the process of leaving the EU. A more realistic list of questions in the UK's 'Brexit' debate right now would consist of 17 000 questions – the four decade-old UK-EU relationship raises so many questions that it would take that many days (46 years) to address them. This briefing will focus on three factors in the UK right now – referendum context, UK gov-ernment, and Brexit debate – with a specific focus on just seven questions in the Brexit debate: legal, political, social, economic, conflict, and environmental questions. The briefing argues that the UK referendum has unsettled Britain for a generation to come. The unconvincing referendum context, the UK government omnishambles, and the unanswerable questions of the divisive Brexit debates all create a very uncertain future which further threatens the cohesion of the UK. Prior to 2016 the question of 'Europe' – the UK's membership of the EU - was long con-sidered a 'second order' issue of no real political interest to voters and politicians alike. The divisive campaign, referendum, and resulting political chaos have created a new, first-order rupture at the heart of British society and politics.

This concluding article assesses the past decade of international scholarship on the European Union (EU) and normative power as represented by the contributions to the special issue. It argues that the normative power approach (NPA) makes it possible to explain, understand and judge the EU in global politics by rethinking the nature of power and actorness in a globalizing, multilateralizing and multipolarizing era. To do this, the article assesses the past decade in terms of normative power engagement, internationalization and comparison. The article then argues that rethinking power and actorness involves reassessing global theory and pouvoir normatif in action. The article concludes by setting out three ways of developing the NPA in its second decade: macro-approach, meso-characterization and micro-analysis. Following the suggestion of Emanuel Adler, Barry Buzan and Tim Dunne, the article sets out how studying the normative foundations of power through the NPA combines the normative rethinking of power and actorness with the structural changes of a globalizing, multilateralizing and multipolarizing era.

This assessment will examine three sides of the Danish Presidency: its historical context, the Danish priorities and the most difficult challenges.2 It will conclude that the Presidency was largely a function of the political and economic context in which Denmark found itself during January to June 2012. This conclusion is broadly in line with the work of Fernández (2008) and Adler-Nissen (2012a) who argue that the Presidency must be judged in terms of the defence of community interests rather than 'national interests'. In this context, the Presidency appeared to perform relatively well in some areas such as administrative co-ordination, keeping some policies moving and the interactive role of the Minister for European Affairs. The Presidency appeared unable to do too much in areas that were outside of its reach, such as the eurozone, the budget or external action. The Presidency appeared to encounter difficulty in areas that were a 'bridge too far', such as green growth, Schengen reform and co-ordination within the trio. Could Denmark have performed better if it were a 'full member' of the EU? This is of course difficult to judge, but at least it would have stood a chance as a eurozone member, which was not the case during 2012.

The European Union (EU) faces many crises and risks to its security and existence. While few of them threaten the lives of EU citizens, they all create a sense of anxiety and insecurity about the future for many ordinary Europeans. Amongst these crises are the more obvious challenges of sovereign debt and fiscal austerity; refugees from conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria; and the rise of populist far-right parties across Europe. But behind these challenges lie less visible insecurities about economic prospects, social wellbeing, and a widespread expectation that the EU is unable to answer the challenges of twenty-first century global politics. In other words, the greatest security challenge facing people across Europe is not physical, despite the threats of Putin and ISIS, but is a sense of fear and anxiety over their daily lives.

Over the past two decades the educational practices within EU studies have been challenged by the lack of comprehensive texts on research strategy, design and method useful for study programmes. Since the 'comparative turn' of the 1990s, where we saw a shift towards applying theories, analytical frameworks and research methods known from the study of national political systems, EU studies programs have been faced with two choices when putting together curricula: either to downplay issues of research methodology in the curriculum, or to embark on the troublesome journey of putting together discrete readers of articles and papers from a limited and dispersed scholarly field. The actual practice of EU studies programmes has probably been somewhere in-between. That is, to give a lesser amount of attention to research strategy, design and method through the use of general textbooks combined with, at best, empirical examples derived from actual research projects in EU affairs. Yet, this otherwise pragmatic approach has become increasingly difficult. In this sense EU studies is at a crossroads of the meeting place between many disciplinary interests in Europe, as well as the point in time where the past weaknesses of methodology meet the future challenges of a new research agenda on Europe.