ABSTRACT
Contributing to research on civil society elites in the EU context, this article focuses on the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC). It explores who the main actors are, what roles they play, and what resources they use, value, and compete for in this arena. The theoretical starting points are grounded in Bourdieu's notions of field and capital and a Goffmanesque approach to drama. Based on semi-structured interviews with EESC members and administrators, observations at EESC meetings, and document analysis, the study explores the types of capital linked to different actors and roles, stages, and scripts in the EESC field. The most valued capital across EESC stages are social capital in the form of personal networks, and cultural capital in the form of negotiation skills and issue-specific knowledge. Actors are supposed to follow a script of being pro-European, representing organised civil society in Europe, and aiming at consensus. Being active at the EESC stages, at least in leading roles, gives actors a kind of EESC-specific capital in the form of access to influential EU decision-makers.
Introduction
Civil society actors are expected to contribute to the strengthening of democracy and to play an important role in handling major societal challenges, such as climate change, increasing inequalities, violent conflicts, and human rights abuses. Much research on civil society focus on its positive contributions, and its function as a counter-weight to political and economic elites. Relatively few studies acknowledge the possible development of elites within civil society. Civil society research has seldom been informed by elite theory and elite research has often assumed that civil society leaders do not have sufficient power and influence to merit attention in elite studies. Yet, merging these two fields of research into studies of civil society elites promises a novel perspective of civil society, highlighting internal power struggles over valued resources within this social sphere. At the same time, elite studies can be enriched by exploring a societal sphere that has so far been understudied in mainstream elite research. This article aims to contribute to emerging research on civil society elites, that is people who, by occupying formal or informal leading positions in large and influential civil society organisations (CSOs), including labour unions and employers’ associations as well as other nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), enjoy substantial status and prestige and/or have the potential to significantly influence political decisions (cf Johansson and Uhlin 2020; Lindellee and Scaramuzzino 2020).
The European Union (EU) is widely considered a prominent scene for the interaction of political and economic elites. Civil society actors also play an important role in EU politics. There is a large literature on civil society in the EU context (e.g. Smismans 2006; Ruzza and Bozzini 2008; Kohler-Koch 2009; Johansson and Kalm 2015; Oleart and Bouza 2018). Scholars have been particularly interested in the access European CSOs have to various EU institutions, the influence they have on EU policymaking, and what this implies for the democratic legitimacy of the EU. Some research on EU civil society has paid attention to power disparities among CSOs and the dominance of certain Brussels-based umbrella organisations and platforms. For example, Johansson and Kalm (2019: 67) note that some Brussels-based CSOs are so embedded in the EU institutional system that they appear as an ‘insider elite group’. This observation raises important questions about the possible development of a civil society elite in the EU context.
A potential arena for a civil society elite in Brussels is the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC). With its tripartite structure representing the interests of employers, workers and other civil society groups, the EESC claims to be ‘the house of organised civil society in Europe’. It is an arena that connects national and supranational elites. Through its treaty-based mandate to produce advisory ‘opinions’ to the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament, the EESC has a privileged position in the EU. While research has concluded that the EESC has rather limited policy influence on the larger EU scene, we argue that the Committee might still provide certain civil society actors with a powerful platform. In terms of formal status and access to key decision-makers, the EESC has a unique position in the EU civil society field. Hence, we expect this field to involve power struggles between different types of civil society actors, thus being a suitable case for exploring EU civil society elites. There is surprisingly little research on the EESC so analysing interactions within this EU-body promises an innovative empirical contribution. Previous research has analysed the EESC from a deliberative democracy perspective (Smismans 2000), described the functioning of the committee (Panke 2019) and analysed its impact on EU policy making (Hönnige and Panke 2016), but not explored the inner workings of the EESC in the way that this study does. See however the recent study of career trajectories within the EESC (Johansson et al. 2021).
The purpose of this article is to contribute to research on civil society elites in the EU context by focusing on the EESC as an arena for elite interaction. We explore who the main actors are, what roles they play, and what resources they use, value, and compete for. In doing so, we combine a Bourdieu-inspired field analysis with Goffman's dramaturgical sociology. Bourdieu's field approach is well established in the research area of EU-elites. Although providing useful ‘thinking tools’ also for the analysis of civil society elites, it tends towards a structural interpretation of what defines the elite. In order to shed light on the dynamics of elite interaction, we propose a non-structural reading of Bourdieu that seeks inspiration from Goffman's dramaturgical sociology. In order to capture field dynamics, our approach is to observe elite interaction as drama, drawing on concepts such as role, stage and script. Hence, the threefold aim of this article is to explore EESC actors as potential civil society elites in the EU-field, to analyse elite interaction in the EESC arena, and to evaluate the dramaturgical field approach as an analytical framework.
Below, we develop our theoretical starting points. Then follows a section outlining our methodological approach and material used. The empirical analysis is organised into three sections: actors and roles, stages, and scripts. We conclude with a discussion of the theoretical and empirical implications of our findings.
Elite interaction as drama in a field: towards an analytical framework
There is a growing literature on the EU in general, its elites and on European civil society that make use of Bourdieu's notion of field. A prominent example of a field approach to EU elites is a volume on the field of ‘Eurocracy’ (Georgakakis and Rowell 2013), which argues that actors’ career trajectories, locations in the field, and logics of actions depend on the positions they occupy in the field. They highlight ‘resources, skills, networks, credibility and credentials’ (Georgakakis and Rowell 2013: 2) and find specific forms of ‘European capital’ (Georgakakis and Rowell 2013: 9). European civil society, argues Georgakakis (2015), is part of the field of Eurocracy. Following Bourdieu, researchers have identified different forms of capital that are gained and used in the EU civil society field and may give certain actors elite status (Johansson and Kalm 2015; Lindellee and Scaramuzzino 2020).
A field, according to Bourdieu (2020: 186), is ‘a structured and hierarchical space’. Inherent to any field are relationships of inequality and struggles for power (Thomson 2012). This relational approach defines elites as those ‘who occupy a dominant position within social relations’ (Khan 2012: 362). Actors within a field engage in continuous struggles to gain control over resources (or capital) considered essential to that field. In line with Bourdieu's analysis of state commissions as fields, we find it appropriate to perform a similar analysis of the EESC, which like a state commission is a body of people that have been mandated to perform a mission (Bourdieu 2014: 24, 44).
Capital is the ‘social energy that operates in a determined space and can be concentrated in the hands of a few’ (Bourdieu 2020: 223). Bourdieu (1996) identifies three main forms of capital: economic capital (money, property etc.), cultural capital (education, cultural knowledge, symbolic codes, etc.), and social capital (group membership and networks). To succeed in a field you need a specific form of capital. There are as many kinds of capital as there are fields (Bourdieu 2020: 227). Hence, an important task for our analysis is to identify the field-specific forms of capital in the EESC. Of particular interest are forms of cultural capital that enable expert-based negotiations in a supranational setting as well as institutionalised social capital understood as ‘formalised contact patterns and meetings between members in formal positions in organisations’ (Denord et al. 2011: 91).
While we find the field approach useful for studying civil society elites, it directs attention to positions rather than interactions in the field (Bourdieu 2020: 250). Bourdieu has been criticised for being overly structural, not paying sufficient attention to the dynamic interaction of actors, making it difficult to apply his theory empirically as it does not easily capture the complexity and fluidity of the object of study (Leander 2011). Leander (2011) suggests that a Goffman-inspired conceptual apparatus may enable a truly dynamic understanding of fields, actors and relationships (see also Hedling and Meeuwisse 2015). Following this, we apply concepts such as stage, role, and script, to analyse elite interaction and the power struggles within the EESC field. These concepts help us organise the analysis to bring out the dynamics of field interactions.
The drama metaphor builds on an understanding that social interaction is a performance, framed by a setting – a stage – with roles and scripts that support the performance (Goffman 1990). The stage, with the audience, props and scripts, gives cues as to how the role is to be performed. However, it is up to the actor to interpret norms and expectations. The performance thus expresses both current norms and the actor's interpretations, abilities and intentions. This perspective supports our understanding of elite interaction within the EESC as being charged with power in both implicit and explicit ways.
Central to Goffman's dramaturgical metaphor is the role. The role can be understood as ‘the particular image that a single actor wants to convey’ (Kivisto and Pittman 2013: 274). Playing the role always involves a measure of uncertainty where the actor seeks signs from the audience of what is expected (Goffman 1990: 242). At the same time, the actor must use the occasion to ‘dramatically highlight and portray confirmatory facts that might otherwise remain unapparent or obscure’ (Goffman 1990: 242). While Bourdieu avoided the word ‘role’ as ‘it implies the logic of a plan and its execution’ (Bourdieu 2020: 64), we find the idea of the role as explained by Goffman to resonate well with Bourdieu's argument that knowing the positions of the agents in a field and the dispositions typically associated with these positions, we may predict the stances that the agents will adopt (Bourdieu 2020: 182–3).
The performance requires a stage and actors may move between the different stages within the field. The frontstage/backstage distinction is important (Goffman 1990: 114). The main action is at the frontstage: this is a scripted setting where the actor addresses the audience. The script includes directives as to how the interaction should be conducted. Interaction of a different kind, away from public scrutiny, takes place backstage. Goffman describes how this space offers an opportunity for ‘play-acting’, with the purpose to refine or challenge the performance (Goffman 1990: 114). Power is implicitly involved in backstage interactions as it invites negotiations regarding how roles should be played to give the best effect.
This study is concerned with social spaces in which elite interaction occurs. By exploring actors, roles, stages and scripts, we can identify both the social spaces and the type of capital at the heart of power struggles that are central to Bourdieu's field theory. The social space can be conceptualised as stages on which leading civil society actors interact. Through outlining key roles and scripts, we can understand what capital underpins status and power. In this way, the drama metaphor offers a dynamic approach to field analysis.
Methods and material
We follow Bourdieu (2020: 8) in viewing theory as a ‘method of thinking’. The analytical framework combining concepts from Bourdieu and Goffman helps us specify our analytical focus and provides ‘thinking tools’ enabling an analysis of elite interaction in the EESC field. Our starting point, however, is empirical. Identifying the main actors, what roles they play, and what capital is at stake at the EESC, requires in-depth qualitative data. First, documents produced by the EESC. The EESC website contains rich material on the visions and activities of the Committee, background data on its members, and substantial documentation of EESC events and meetings.
Second, we draw on 24 semi-structured interviews with current and former EESC members and administrators. Interviewees were selected to include a variety of national backgrounds (from Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Sweden and the UK), representing different civil society sectors. Interviewees include people in leading positions (Presidents of the Committee, Groups, and Sections), ordinary members and administrative staff. We included informants from all three major EESC Groups (employers, workers, and other civil society actors), but with a strong focus on the third, most complex and diverse group. Most interviews were conducted face-to-face in connection to EESC events in Brussels, and some over phone or digitally. Interviews lasted between 30 and 90 minutes. Most interviews were recorded and transcribed.
Third, we also draw on observations at EESC meetings, including a plenary session, a public hearing, and an annual Civil Society Days conference. This has allowed us to observe who sits in panels, interactions between panel leaders and invited speakers, as well as the interaction between plenary speakers and audience. The small ‘coffee-talks’ at these meetings have been central to shed light on the internal game within the Committee, and what capital is at play.
We coded the material according to different types of capital and different aspects of the drama metaphor (roles, stages, scripts). Both authors individually coded the entire material. We then merged our codes and discussed differences in interpretation to arrive at a joint understanding of the data. Our unit of analysis is the actors and their positions or roles. Regarding roles, we focus on the nature and praxis of interaction, both as observed by the researchers and as perceived by the participating actors (captured through qualitative interviews). When analysing the stage, we are interested in the institutional context and how an event is structured in terms of location, physical placement of props and actors, etc. We consider the main stage as well as side stages and backstage spaces. The core analytical concern here is how different kinds of capital are valued, generated and used. Focusing on scripts, we try to uncover the main discourses and logics of the field.
The drama of civil society elite interaction at the EESC
The EESC is a consultative body providing opinions to the Council of Ministers, the European Commission and the European Parliament. It was established by the 1957 Rome Treaties to involve economic and social interest groups in the process of European integration. Even if the political influence of the EESC as an institutional body might be limited, the privileged access that its leading members have to the core EU institutions constitutes a form of capital at stake within the EESC. This access makes the EESC an attractive arena for leaders in civil society, including those representing employers’ associations and labour unions. Meanwhile, some lead actors on the EESC stage might have already performed at the larger EU stages and therefore have already acquired a form of EU-capital. This capital consists of contacts in powerful EU-institutions (social capital) and a thorough understanding of the EU-system (cultural capital). In what follows we analyse actors and roles, stages, and scripts in the everyday operation of the Committee. We do this in order to identify what kinds of capital are valued, gained and used in this often neglected part of the EU civil society field.
EESC actors and roles
The EESC has an ensemble of 329 actors, i.e. members (350 before Brexit). Members are nominated by national governments for a five-year renewable term. Appointment mechanisms vary across member states, but except for a few countries in which the selection is delegated to national economic and social committees, decisions are taken either by the government as a whole or (more commonly) specific ministries (Westlake 2016: 13–14).
Members of the EESC are predominantly white, male and relatively old. One member remarks that there is only one black person among the members (Interview, EESC Member 2). A report commissioned by the EESC showed that only 28% of the members were women (Irigoien Domínguez 2019: I). The gender imbalance was even more pronounced when looking at who got the key role of being ‘rapporteur’. In 2018 only 17% of rapporteurs were women. In 2019 there was no woman in the key leading positions as President of the Committee or the three Groups (Irigoien Domínguez 2019: III). When Christa Schweng representing the employers group became President of the EESC in 2020 she was the fifth woman in this position. The Committee has had 28 male Presidents (Irigoien Domínguez 2019: 18). The gender (and age) imbalance was discussed by several interviewees. One of the younger female members said that she had sometimes been mistaken for an intern (Interview, EESC Member 18).
Using Goffman's analogy, members can be considered the main actors at the EESC. In practice, however, the extent of engagement varies significantly. According to several interviewees, only about one third of the members are very active (Interview, EESC Members 5, 18; EESC Administrators 2, 3), indicating that we have a set of lead actors and a large group of supporting actors. Some members can ‘spend five years here without opening their mouth’ (Interview, EESC Member 10). Interviewees suggest that some members have been appointed as a retirement post. Lack of time might be another reason for limited work in the EESC, for members who have a time-consuming job back home (Interviews, EESC Administrators 3, 4).
According to the EESC (2018: 3), members come from ‘the most representative organisations in all Member States’. Whereas EESC members are appointed on an individual mandate they tend to be selected because of their national organisational capital derived from leading positions in major organisations of relevance to the EESC. This capital, however, is not easily converted into forms of capital that are most highly valued in the EESC. An EESC member in a leading position representing Group 2 argues, ‘I am not worried about how strong is the organisation of my counterpart, but how strong is his position on the basis of knowledge and professionality’ (Interview, EESC Member 7). As noted by Bourdieu (2021: 157), ‘you cannot succeed in a field if you import a kind of capital that is not a recognized currency, even if it is current in other fields’. Hence, to succeed in the EESC field, national organisational capital is not enough. Members have to bring and acquire other types of capital too.
When asked about what skills and resources are most important for a member of the EESC, most interviewees stress knowledge, such as language skills but most importantly expertise in a relevant field. Skills such as the ability to argue and deliberate – ‘that you can convince someone with what you say’ – are also important (Interview, EESC Member 5). This must be combined with an ability to listen to others and to compromise. Social capital, in the form of contacts through your previous networks, may also be of some importance, according to interviewees. Several EESC members have a background in EU-level civil society organisations or other EU-institutions and, thus, have some EU-capital in the form of networks and an understanding of the Brussels-scene.
Members are not salaried from the EESC and most of them are not based in Brussels. They receive travel and subsistence allowances for participating in meetings. This suggests that economic capital is not a main stake at the EESC, though members from resource rich organisations are backed up by substantial amounts of economic capital.
EESC members do not only bring capital to the EESC. They also acquire capital through interaction in the Committee. In order to manage well in the EESC, ‘you need to know how the committee works, you need to know the members. You also need time to prove your competence and become someone in the Committee’ (Interview, EESC administrator 4). This suggests that this EESC-specific capital is symbolic as it becomes meaningful when it is perceived, recognised and acknowledged. Acquiring this kind of symbolic capital typically requires personal investment of time (Bourdieu 2021: 158).
EESC membership also offers status, i.e. symbolic capital useful for promoting once interests and for gaining influence on the wider EU-scene. One EESC member from Group 3 explains:
When I am in Brussels, I often carry my EESC-card. […] It is easier to pass through security checks. […] But it is also some status to be a member of the EESC, so I take pride in wearing my badge and showing that [my organisation] is a member of the EESC. (Interview, EESC Member 3)
Being a member of the EESC offers important access to the European Parliament and Commission, according to several informants. Contacts established here are both formal and informal and on different levels in the other EU-institutions.
In sum, the main structuring forms of capital in the EESC field include cultural capital, such as issue-specific expertise and the ability to listen to opposing views, to negotiate and compromise, and social capital derived from actors’ previous careers and networks, but more importantly, networks developed over time within the EESC and in other EU institutions.
The distribution of capital determines what roles actors can play on the EESC stage(s). The most influential roles are held by the EESC President and two Vice-Presidents, all elected for two and a half years. Furthermore, there are roles as Presidents of one of the three EESC Groups: Employers (Group 1), Workers (Group 2) or Diversity Europe (Group 3) and seven permanent Sections focusing on different issue areas. For the ordinary member, who belongs to any of the three Groups, the role is largely characterised by the group's particular interests but also by an internal culture that directs how members are expected to behave. Groups 1 and 2 have clear profiles based on the interests they represent. The conflict between capital and labour is indeed the main structuring conflict dimension in this field. Group 2, in particular, takes pride in having a united position within the EESC. Group 3 is considered more fragmented (Interviews, EESC Member 10, EESC Administrator 5), and described as a ‘very unsteady coalition of views’ (Interview, EESC Member 16). Central to the role as Group representative, however, is to find alliances across the Group divides (Interview, EESC Member 13). Nevertheless, some members play their member roles according to their own interests and ‘are not so interested in compromises’ (Interview, EESC Member 11).
Reaching leading positions in Groups, Sections and the Committee as a whole requires social capital, as you need a strong support network within the Committee to be elected. It also requires strong leadership skills that build on EESC-specific capital: the ability to reach compromises. Interviewees refer to ‘sensitivity’ (Interviews, EESC Members 11, 18) to describe the most essential skill in order to identify and manoeuvre conflicts. A presidential role is to ‘keep people together’ and this requires an ability to ‘identify joint points’ as well as to foresee conflicts (Interview, EESC Member 11). Referring specifically to the role as President of Group 3, one interviewee argued that ‘the role of the President is very much a diplomat because you have competing interests’ (Interview, EESC Member 16). Getting a leading position also comes with EESC-specific capital in the form of capacity to control issues and other members, and not least access to EU decision-makers. The formal status of these leading positions is arguably the main type of capital generated within the EESC and may be useful when seeking influence in the broader EU context. This is the capital that is at stake in the EESC field and for which members compete.
The main task of the EESC is to produce opinions to be submitted to EU decision-making bodies. On average, the EESC delivers 170 advisory documents and opinions per year. The leading role in writing an opinion is called rapporteur and is appointed by the Bureau (consisting of the leaders of the three Groups). Considering who will come into question for the role of rapporteur, several interviewees testify that expert knowledge in certain issue areas is most important. Informants agree that the rapporteur plays an important role in influencing the content of opinions. Being a rapporteur is also important for making a career within the EESC. You need to act as rapporteur ‘if you want to leave a legacy at the EESC’ and if you ‘want to build your reputation’ (Interview, EESC Member 16). The power of the rapporteur lies in initiating and leading issues that the role holder sees as important. However, the role of rapporteur is also strongly controlled by the principles of compromise and consensus. The role requires seeking out and managing opposing interests, in order to ascertain strong support for the opinion.
EESC stages
The EESC can be viewed as a stage in itself, with a unique position as a treaty-based EU-institution. It provides access to EU networks, information and knowledge. These resources constitute EESC-specific capital that is highly valued and explains why members find it worth investing time and energy into a career within the Committee. This is recognised by EESC members.
When I held other positions [in Brussels] outside [the EESC], then you are a step away … But we are actually part of the law-making program. So this is a completely unique arena. (Interview, EESC Member 3)
The EESC has a number of different stages illustrated by the number of meetings that a typical working month involves: Study Group meetings, Section meetings, Group meetings, Bureau meetings, and finally a plenary session (Westlake 2016: 35). If the plenary session, which is open to the public, can be considered the main frontstage, much of the negotiations take place backstage in Study Groups and at Section meetings. Study Groups typically consist of 12 EESC members, with equal representation from the three Groups, with the rapporteur and possibly a co-rapporteur in leading roles. The draft opinion is discussed in detail. Members describe discussions as open, but sometimes very technical when going through paragraph after paragraph (Interview, EESC Member 5). There are often conflicting positions. Sometimes a compromise is reached already at this stage (Interview, EESC Member 4). Discussions in Study Groups are followed by discussions in Sections. These are described as more formal as suggestions for revisions are required to be in written form (Interview, EESC Member 5). As within Study Groups, discussions are aimed at reaching compromises, with a majority supporting the opinion. We consider the Study Group and the Section as backstage where the main play is set up as actors prepare for a performance – the presentation of an opinion – at the frontstage. The backstage is permissive in that it allows for differences in opinion. It is also controlling, as conflicts are identified in order to curb them. It is here that the rapporteur's listening and diplomatic skills are put to the test. This backstage drama can be seen as a process that ‘necessarily ends with a compromise’ (Interview, EESC Member 11).
Another stage is the ‘public hearing’ organised by the EESC. Our observations at a public hearing on ‘Civil Society Contribution to the Next European Semester Cycle’ give insights into the stage's choreography including actors, roles and scripts. The stage is a typical formal EU-meeting room, with a podium in front of a large number of seats. There is a microphone at each seat and full interpretation services are provided. Representatives from the EESC and national Economic and Social Committees have reserved seats at the front, other participants are at the back. Despite the title of the hearing, there are no CSO-representatives on the first panel. Moreover, when the chair opens up for questions from the audience, only representatives of the national Economic and Social Committees speak. All CSO-representatives are placed in session 2, when some of the audience and first panellists have left. Speakers come from large Brussels-based organisations, including the European Environmental Bureau, the European Anti-Poverty Network, and Oxfam, as well as BusinessEurope. Status-differences in the panel are manifested when the two men (the chair and the BusinessEurope-representative) speak with each other and laugh during the speech of the woman from the European Environmental Bureau. The capital that counts in this event is formal recognition either as a member of the EESC or national Committees or as invited guests. Other civil society actors in the audience obviously do not have the capital required to speak up at this event.
The main frontstage event for interaction is the monthly plenary sessions mostly held at the European Parliament. Plenary sessions typically last about one and a half day and include discussions of and voting on a number of opinions, but there are often other speeches by invited guests on the agenda too. Observations during a plenary session in October 2019 confirm the choreographed order of events and how this signals what capital counts. The session starts with brief discussions and voting on a few opinions without much drama. Opinions are typically adopted with only a handful of votes against. Rather than being a place for expressing opposing views or even for discussions the performances by EESC actors at the plenary session are focused on upholding consensus. The presentation of consensus-based opinions sends a signal inwards, to its members, that consensus is the basis for the EESC identity.
EESC scripts
A dominant script can be identified in official EESC communications. This script centres on key phrases like ‘being pro-European’, ‘representing organised civil society’, and ‘reaching consensus’. This dominant script can be understood as ‘doxa’, ‘unquestioned “shared beliefs” constitutive of a field’ (Deer 2012: 116; cf Bourdieu 2020: 133).
As a treaty-based EU-institution, the EESC is of course committed to European integration. A strong pro-European discourse is found in EESC-documents and in our interviews. A former EESC leader argues: ‘We are very pro-cooperation in Europe. We do not have the type of constellations that act like the EU-sceptics in the Parliament’ (Interview, EESC Member 4). In the words of a leading Group 1 representative, ‘EESC has always been clearly against Brexit, including a lot of British members. And Brussels made us even more pro-European […] I would say EESC is quite obsessively pro-European’ (Interview, EESC Member 9).
The EESC describes itself as ‘the voice of organised civil society in Europe’ (EESC 2022). In the words of former EESC Secretary General Martin Westlake (2016: 3), the EESC is ‘the only institutional representative of organised civil society and spokesperson for its concerns, expectations and aspirations’. Claims about the EESC as a representative of organised civil society are sometimes linked to what is seen as a problematic tendency by other EU institutions to rely on direct communication with citizens through social media. ‘We never know who is behind those responses’, argues a leading EESC representative from Group 1 (Interview, EESC Member 9). Similarly, another leading EESC member from Group 2 argues: ‘One tool of populism is direct contact with the population through social media. That could be very dangerous for this house’ (Interview, EESC Member 7). The claim to be the true representative of organised civil society in Europe can be understood as an EESC-specific form of cultural capital that shapes interaction in the Committee and in relation with other actors in the EU field.
Consensus is another prominent feature of the main EESC script. Reaching consensus agreements is the essence of EESC activities. This is reflected in all interviews conducted for this study as well as in written documents produced by the EESC. A member in leading position representing Group 3 stresses the importance of the ‘pragmatic problem-solving approach’ (Interview, EESC Member 5). Another leading representative of the EESC argues that it is precisely the negotiated consensus that gives the EESC some policy influence. ‘In the position of ETUC [European Trade Union Confederation] and BusinessEurope you have the positions of these institutions. Our opinions are the work of dynamic consensus’ (Interview, EESC Member 4). If there were no consensus and the three Groups would put forward their own opinions, ‘there would be no use for the Committee’ (Interview, EESC Member 14).
If doxa is ‘whatever there is no need to discuss, because it goes without saying’ (Bourdieu 2020: 133), the core of the EESC script, as identified above, might not fully qualify as doxa. To ‘be pro-European’, ‘represent organised civil society’, and ‘reach consensus’ are clearly part of the script that all members of the EESC are supposed to follow. Nevertheless, the status of these ideas as doxa in the EESC field is challenged. While the ideal of consensus comes through very clearly in our interviews, practices at the EESC demonstrate that consensus is not always reached. Not all opinions are unanimously approved. One interviewee suggested that some rapporteurs preferred to have a few members voting against the opinion as this meant that there would be a debate that would give the opinion more attention (Interview, EESC Member 13). The Pro-European script is also challenged by some members. Several members from the UK were Brexiteers, but they tended to have a rather low profile in the EESC (Interview, EESC Member 8).
The script of the EESC as representing civil society is followed mainly by those in leading positions within the Committee. Many ordinary members of Groups 1 and 2 tend not to identify themselves as part of civil society. A member of Group 1 explicitly referred to Group 3 as ‘the civil society people’ (Interview, EESC Member 8). Similarly, many members of Group 3 view themselves as representing the ‘real’ civil society, whereas Group 1 and 2 are something else (Interview, EESC Members 1, 6). However, some also question to what extent several of the Group 3 members are real civil society representatives. Representatives of professional organisations, for instance, are not viewed as real civil society representatives (Interview, EESC Member 6) and some members of Group 3 are viewed as politicians (Interview, EESC Member 2). The questioning of the script of representation is clearly formulated by one critical Group 3 member:
It is extremely strange that the EU institution that pretends to represent EU civil society, in these times, talks a lot about the situation for small and medium-sized enterprises, tourism as a source of income, craft sales, people who make a living as small-scale farmers … These are of course also important issues, but they do not reflect the conflict dimensions that exist in Europe. (Interview, EESC Member 2)
Conclusion
This article set out to analyse the EESC as an arena for elite interaction. We explored who the main actors are, what roles they play, and what capital is at stake. In order to arrive at a dynamic understanding of interactions, we moved beyond conventional field analysis to explore elite interaction as drama with actors playing different roles and following certain scripts at specific stages. We found that only a minority of members get significant roles to play, such as rapporteur, tasked with writing opinions and acting as Presidents of Sections, Groups, and of the Committee as a whole. Besides the main players, we find a large group of administrative staff working behind the scene, yet in many cases controlling substantial capital due to having been in Brussels for a long time. Behind the main frontstage of the plenary session, the play is set up backstage at Group, Section, and Study Group meetings. Preparations behind the scene include negotiations and compromises that shape action on the main stage. Interaction with external actors occurs at the stages of public hearings and other meetings, as well as at many plenary sessions. Interaction at EESC stages follows a dominant script of being pro-European, representing organised civil society, and reaching consensus. Scripts are used to control the acts of players. Actors who control sufficient capital to reach leading positions within the EESC can contribute to shaping the script. Although the script of consensus concerns all actors within the EESC, not everyone are willing or able to work accordingly. However, for those in leading positions this script is vital.
When analysing interaction as drama it becomes clear how different types of capital operate in different roles, at different stages and in struggles over the dominant script. Whereas the capital that comes with leading positions in influential national organisations is important for getting into the EESC, this organisational capital is not easily converted into capital that is useful in the EESC field. Instead, expertise within a specific issue area is most important for work in Study Groups, and this kind of knowledge capital influences who is nominated for the key role of rapporteur for an opinion. Acting as a rapporteur is in itself key to proving yourself and acquiring the symbolic capital required for advancing to leading positions in the Committee. Whereas expert knowledge is important, the most highly valued cultural capital is diplomatic skills, the ability to listen to others and accommodate conflicts to reach compromises and consensus. Social capital, both in the forms of networks actors develop within the EESC and the networks they might have on the wider EU scene, is also important for determining who will control key positions or roles in this field. Being active at the EESC stage, at least in leading roles, also gives actors a kind of EESC-specific capital in the form of access to influential EU decision-makers. This is the capital in which much competition in the EESC centres.
Our field and dramaturgical sociology approach have contributed to research on civil society elites in the EU context by revealing power dynamics in the interactions at the EESC. It has highlighted that capital is not a static asset that automatically gives power, but the value of capital comes into fruition in interactions. In this respect, the dramaturgical sociology is a fruitful complement to field analysis. There are of course challenges in combining the theoretical perspectives of Goffman and Bourdieu. Criticism has been raised regarding the lack of ‘genuine understanding of power or social conflict’ in Goffman's writings (Smith and Jacobsen 2019: 1), and in view of such critique, with Bourdieu placing power struggles at the core, one may question whether the two perspectives are at all compatible. However, we argue that Goffman's writing implicitly outlines rooms for conflicts and struggles. Interactions taking place both backstage and frontstage reflect struggles related to institutional orders of social status (Smith and Jacobsen 2019: 8). In this way, the microperspective of social interactionism is enriching the macrosociological perspective of Bourdieu's field theory. Bourdieu himself acknowledged the usefulness of Goffman's ‘theatrical view of interactions’ when applied to the state, with its official ceremonies (Bourdieu 2014: 25). Public commissions are ‘operations that consist in staging a set of people who have to play out a kind of public drama’ (Bourdieu 2014: 25). Hence, we maintain that a combination of Goffman's drama metaphor and Bourdieu's field analysis is appropriate for the analysis of the EESC, which is very similar to a state commission.
Would we then, based on our empirical analysis, describe EESC actors as a civil society elite in the EU-context? The answer is yes and no. Far from all EESC members can be seen as belonging to a civil society elite. Most of them have a background as national elites, but this does not automatically make them elites at the EU-level as national capital is not automatically converted into capital valued in the EESC field. Only about one third of the members are active and even fewer make it into leading positions. Being a leading representative of the EESC entails significant formal status. The actual policy influence of the Committee as such is rather limited, but status comes from the access that leading members of the EESC have to more centrally placed decision-makers in the EU-system. It also comes from being able to command the script of consensus in a context filled with conflicts of various kinds. Access to power beyond the EESC and the command of organising consensus within the EESC constitute exclusive capital that makes the elite label relevant.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for very constructive input from Håkan Johansson and other participants in the research programme ‘Civil Society Elites? Comparing Elite Composition, Reproduction, Integration and Contestation in European Civil Societies’ as well as from two anonymous reviewers and the editor of European Societies.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
References
Malin Arvidson is Associate Professor at the School of Social Work, Lund University. She studies civil society and nonprofit organisations in different contexts. Her publications address relations between nonprofits and public institutions, evaluation and impact assessment of civil society achievement, and elites, status and power in civil society. Her most recent publication explores the effect of external contracts and funding in ‘Control and autonomy: resource dependence relations and non-profit organisations’ published in Journal of Organizational Ethnography. Currently she is engaged in research on power structures and elites in civil society in Sweden, Italy, the UK, Poland, and the EU.
Anders Uhlin is Professor of Political Science at Lund University. His main research interests are in the fields of civil society activism, problems of democratisation, and global and regional governance institutions. Recent publications include Legitimation and Delegitimation in Global Governance: Practices, Justifications, and Audiences (Oxford University Press 2022) (co-edited with Magdalena Bexell and Kristina Jönsson) and articles in journals such as Global Society, Journal of Civil Society, Journal of Common Market Studies, and Politics and Governance. He is currently conducting research on civil society elites both in European and Southeast Asian contexts.