EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION Open Access

This special issue¹ reflects, and seeks to contribute to, two recent developments within social science. The first is a growing, if belated, recognition of the significance of Europeanization – however problematic the notion (Jachtenfuchs and Kohler-Koch 2004), and of EU integration in particular, for the ways in which we model and seek to explain state formation and societal development. While the tendency, of sociology especially, to equate ‘society’ with national society, and thus with the boundaries of the nation state, has been criticized for some time and the weaknesses of ‘methodological nationalism’ (Beck and Schnaider 2006) acknowledged, Europeanization appears to provide a clear example of the limits of the conceptual apparatus that we have inherited from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The second development is the growing recognition of the importance of spatial aspects of social relations, thanks largely to contributions from geographers and from urban studies.

There is, of course, also a more immediate and political context for our discussion. On the one hand the EU's eastward enlargement (the accession of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007 being the latest step) and the ongoing debate on the ‘Turkish question’ have opened up a set of concerns regarding cultural roots, borders, identities, belonging, and citizenship. On the other hand, there is a renewed sense of crisis following the French and Dutch referenda ‘no’ to the proposed EU Constitution (see, Nicolaidïs 2005).

The concept of ‘Europeanization’ contains at least three closely related elements. First of all, Europeanization is understood as a process which involves all the discursive modalities of the adaptation and reception of European norms. It is thus more than the impact of institutions ‘above nations’ or beyond national systems (Olsen 2002; Radaelli 2004). In this sense, where an institution or a group of actors acknowledge European norms it is useful to inquire into the discursive processes via which a sense of identification between different individuals is built. Secondly, Europeanization is conceptualized as a process which leads to changes in the structures of meaning for, and in the social representations of, individuals (Breakwell and Lyons 1996; Scartezzini 1998). It is therefore necessary to understand the cognitive basis of individuals’ reference to Europe as a new social reality and the patterns of their socialization into it. Thirdly, Europeanization can be conceived as a process of continuous changes in EU borders in the course of which the definition of a political and public space is constantly being redefined and transformed. In this way new territorial spaces, and consequently new societies, become Europeanized in the sense that they are drawn into active involvement in the adaptation and transformation of internal social, political, and cultural relations. This happens within the so-called multilevel structure of the EU in which different actors and institutions play diverse roles (Soysal 2002; Bee and Bello 2007). In considering the EU as a multilevel system, it must be emphasized that the participation of its citizens in the European integration process, although necessary, does not imply the existence of a European demos in the traditional sense – i.e., a common European identity or a single common cultural space. In fact, identity formation becomes differentiated and is situated at various levels: the city, region, nation, EU. Nor is this necessarily the product of conflict (e.g., European identity versus regional identity, cultural versus political identity), but rather can be the result of the different roles, functions and interactions in which individuals are involved.

It is also important to bear in mind that the EU is the most conspicuous attempt to create a supranational order insofar as sovereignty, in particular areas at least, deriving from nation states is pooled. In constructivist terms, it is a process in which a set of institutions have been expanding their functions and thus producing forms of socialization into a new set of conditions and defining a new social reality, one which did not exist prior to the end of the Second World War. The social anthropologist Chris Shore, for example, emphasizes these important aspects by examining and criticizing the development of the new symbolic reality shaped by the definition of the so-called ‘agents of consciousness’ such as European citizenship, the common currency, common symbols, such as the flag or the European Hymn. These elements – like the ‘traditions’ of the nation state – have been consciously invented, in this case by the European Commission with the aim of forging a new European imagined community and developing a sense of transnational belonging at various stages of the European integration process (Shore 2000).

This issue opens with a broad and anthropologically informed discussion by Richard Jenkins of Europe's boundaries. Rather than treat the ambiguities in mapping Europe as a symptom of immediate ‘crisis,’ he asks whether this is not a normal situation viewed historically, where the arbitrariness and shifting definitions of ‘Europe’ become transparent, and, indeed, whether these are not normal features of a social formation which is not – and cannot be – based upon the homogenizing principles of the nation state. Consistent with this view, and based upon his ethnographic research, particularly in Denmark, Jenkins resists the temptation to divide the population of the EU into locals and cosmopolitans. In line with the argument briefly sketched above, he argues that actors’ higher level identities – e.g., as Europeans – are dependent upon lower-level – e.g., regional and national – identities and identifications. He does not rule out crisis, but emphasizes that in the transition from nation-states to a pan-ethnic, pan-national society (or ‘post-sovereign’ state) the potential for conflict and crisis is likely to be a long-term companion to the process of integration; that it is many respects a normal condition.

Just how problematic such issues can become, is clear from the contribution of another social anthropologist, Sabine Strasser. Where Jenkin's takes a broad view, Strasser focuses down on ‘selfing’ and ‘othering’ within political discourse and everyday life in Austria. While we, as social scientists, may argue for multiple identities and multi-level cultures as well as governance, on the ground many people operate with quite different schemata. The possibility of Turkey's accession to the EU sharpens these potential conflicts, particularly in countries, such as Austria, with a history, even one far back, of struggle against Turkey and with strong right-wing populist parties willing and able to mobilize both ancient and recent resentments. But Strasser is also concerned with the ways in which the Turkish Diaspora responds to this context and emphasizes the gender and class, as well as the more obvious religious and ethnic, aspects of these dynamics. These two opening papers complement each other by showing – at a macro and a micro level, respectively – the complexities of Europe's cultural spaces.

Returning to a more macro mode of analysis, but this time in a quantitative vein, Ettore Recchi describes and analyzes intra-EU mobility. He addresses a puzzle: why are levels of intra-EU mobility higher than one would expect on an economic model of migration given the increasing convergence of economic conditions and standards of living across the EU? One partial answer lies in the fact that intra-EU mobility is itself part of the political project of European integration. It is seen as desirable for economic reasons (e.g., movers as innovation triggers), but also because it is thought to increase the identification with Europe, at least among movers and their immediate social circles. As such it is actively encouraged via schemes such as Erasmus–Socrates. Thus, he notes, ‘giant steps have been taken in the direction of turning cross-state movements in the EU from international to internal migration’ (197). Recchi's contribution not only provides information about and analysis of the amount of movement, but also – arguably more important for addressing the issue of European cultural spaces – about who moves: which age groups and with which level of education.

The argument that Recchi makes with respect to internal migration, namely that cultural effects are in part the product of policy, is taken up again by Monica Sassatelli, this time in relation to an explicitly cultural policy: the European Cities of Culture programme. The programme reflects the discovery of culture as a policy instrument, and Sassatelli traces bot h the – sometimes mythical – origins of its discovery by policy makers and the, often paradoxical or unpredictable, effects of the implementation of the resultant policies. Such cultural policies are driven by simple ideas, perhaps even clichés, such as ‘unity in diversity’. But much in her account depends less on the intentions of policy makers than on how these policies are interpreted and implemented: ‘unity in diversity is appropriated but redefined, its ambiguity used to actually far exceed what the EU's had in mind’ (225). In line with recent literature, Sassatelli examines the role of symbolism in attempts to encourage identification with Europe, but emphasizes the diversity of their effects.

The articles by Recchi and Sassatelli are a reminder that cultural effects are institutionally embedded and can be, at least in part, the result of instrumentally rational policies. They are also reminders of the continued centrality of political institutions. This is important in relation to the spatial concerns of this special issue. The increasingly influential notion of ‘new state spaces’ (e.g., Brenner 2004) within urban studies, for example, provides a much more persuasive model of state transformation than did the premature ‘death of the nation state’ type arguments of the 1990s. Like much of the discussion here, the growing significance of sub-national levels (e.g., ‘city regions’ that can cross national borders) within post-Keynesian ‘state spaces’ is emphasized. However, rooted as it is in regulation theory, the new state spaces argument tends to marginalize culture by privileging the interactions between state and economic spaces, and, while care is taken to note the diversity of the spatial effects of contemporary governance styles and shifts in state capacities, there is little attempt to examine the grounds and mechanisms through which the impact of policy can become so (spatially) uneven. Sassatelli's piece already provides some clues, and our concluding paper, an analysis of social policy regimes across Europe by Yuri Kazepov, goes further.

Kazepov's contribution again stresses the multiplicity of European spaces by examining the continued, and in some cases increasing, divergence of social policy regimes across Europe. Moreover, he considers this diversity as having long-term consequences: moulding homogenous processes of change – such as the ‘subsidiarization’ of social policies or Sassatelli's cultural policies – have an uneven impact; they are transformed by the national and sub-national frames through which policies are implemented. Although dealing with what appear to be two quite different cases, and although the style of analysis is quite divergent, Kazepov and Sassatelli both resist functionalist logic (residual elements of which linger in the new state space analysis) by emphasizing the variety of effects that even conscious efforts at standardization can produce. Kazepov concludes with a case study of social policy reform in Italy in which these, often paradoxical, effects can be seen.

Whereas Joseph Bailey (1992) sought an answer to the question: is there a European society? The contributions to this edition of European Societies appear to agree that this is a misleading question to propose at the present stage, both from a speculative and an empirical point of view. What traditionally constitutes a national society are those elements that construct the sense of common identification within a state such as the structure of citizenship, a public sphere based on a common language, the existence of cultural roots and of a cultural heritage (however constructed) to which people can refer, the definition of a constitution which represents and embodies the principles which create a sense of imagination; of belonging to the same community. In contrast, the EU remains, as Offe and Preuß (2006) have argued, a polity without a demos and even attempts at standardization can produce a variety of – often unforeseen and divergent – consequences. The EU is thus likely to remain a plurality of spaces, institutional as well as cultural.

Guest Editors

Alan Scott, Cristiano Bee, Riccardo Scartezzini