欧洲合法性的极限:民粹主义与技术官僚论。特刊简介

IF 1.1 Q2 AREA STUDIES Journal of Contemporary European Research Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.30950/jcer.v17i2.1237
Russell Foster, Jan Grzymski, Monika Brusenbauch Meislová
{"title":"欧洲合法性的极限:民粹主义与技术官僚论。特刊简介","authors":"Russell Foster, Jan Grzymski, Monika Brusenbauch Meislová","doi":"10.30950/jcer.v17i2.1237","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article introduces the special issue on populism and technocracy in the integration and governance of the European Union (EU), framing these opposing approaches in the context of polarised debate on the (il)legitimacy of the EU. The special issue was conceived as an interdisciplinary approach to questions of the EU’s legitimacy in the aftermath of structural crises (the eurozone, sovereign debt and the election and appointment of governing agents) and spontaneous crises (migration, external state and non-state security challenges, Brexit and Euroscepticism). Since the special issue’s conception the unanticipated Covid-19 pandemic, and responses from the EU and its member states (current and former) starkly illuminated debates on how the EU should operate, the limits of its power and the limits of its popular legitimacy. The era of passive consensus has been replaced by claims of legitimacy based on active expert-informed intervention, alongside populist claims of the EU’s inherent illegitimacy as an undemocratic technocracy. As such the special issue’s objective is to critically analyse manifold ways in which the populisttechnocratic divide is narrated and performed in different regions, disciplines, and social and political systems in an era of growing internal and external challenges to the Union. We observe that the EU’s institutions remain highly adaptable in responding to challenges, but that member-states have continued and accelerated a tendency to nationalise success and Europeanise failure, with the EU acting as a perennial scapegoat largely due to the ease with which it can be narrated as a site of projection for mistrust, resentment, and social grievances. We argue that the relationship between populism and technocracy is rapidly evolving from an imagined binary into a much more fluid, overlapping, and reversible set of political narratives. We conclude that despite the changing nature of populist-technocratic debates and the resilience and adaptability of the EU, it faces accelerating challenges to its legitimacy in the new era of ‘politics of necessity’. © 2021, Journal of Contemporary European Research. All Rights Reserved.","PeriodicalId":44985,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary European Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Limits of EUropean Legitimacy: On Populism and Technocracy. Introduction to the Special Issue\",\"authors\":\"Russell Foster, Jan Grzymski, Monika Brusenbauch Meislová\",\"doi\":\"10.30950/jcer.v17i2.1237\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article introduces the special issue on populism and technocracy in the integration and governance of the European Union (EU), framing these opposing approaches in the context of polarised debate on the (il)legitimacy of the EU. The special issue was conceived as an interdisciplinary approach to questions of the EU’s legitimacy in the aftermath of structural crises (the eurozone, sovereign debt and the election and appointment of governing agents) and spontaneous crises (migration, external state and non-state security challenges, Brexit and Euroscepticism). Since the special issue’s conception the unanticipated Covid-19 pandemic, and responses from the EU and its member states (current and former) starkly illuminated debates on how the EU should operate, the limits of its power and the limits of its popular legitimacy. The era of passive consensus has been replaced by claims of legitimacy based on active expert-informed intervention, alongside populist claims of the EU’s inherent illegitimacy as an undemocratic technocracy. As such the special issue’s objective is to critically analyse manifold ways in which the populisttechnocratic divide is narrated and performed in different regions, disciplines, and social and political systems in an era of growing internal and external challenges to the Union. We observe that the EU’s institutions remain highly adaptable in responding to challenges, but that member-states have continued and accelerated a tendency to nationalise success and Europeanise failure, with the EU acting as a perennial scapegoat largely due to the ease with which it can be narrated as a site of projection for mistrust, resentment, and social grievances. We argue that the relationship between populism and technocracy is rapidly evolving from an imagined binary into a much more fluid, overlapping, and reversible set of political narratives. We conclude that despite the changing nature of populist-technocratic debates and the resilience and adaptability of the EU, it faces accelerating challenges to its legitimacy in the new era of ‘politics of necessity’. © 2021, Journal of Contemporary European Research. All Rights Reserved.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44985,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Contemporary European Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Contemporary European Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30950/jcer.v17i2.1237\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AREA STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Contemporary European Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30950/jcer.v17i2.1237","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

本文介绍了欧盟(EU)一体化和治理中的民粹主义和技术官僚的特别问题,在关于欧盟(il)合法性的两极分化辩论的背景下构建了这些对立的方法。这期特刊被设想为一种跨学科的方法,探讨欧盟在结构性危机(欧元区、主权债务和治理机构的选举和任命)和自发性危机(移民、外部国家和非国家安全挑战、英国退欧和欧洲怀疑主义)之后的合法性问题。由于特刊的概念,意外的Covid-19大流行,以及欧盟及其成员国(现任和前任)的反应,鲜明地照亮了关于欧盟应如何运作、其权力的局限性及其受欢迎合法性的局限性的辩论。被动共识的时代已经被基于积极的专家知情干预的合法性主张所取代,与此同时,民粹主义者也声称,欧盟作为一个不民主的技术官僚,在本质上是不合法的。因此,特刊的目标是批判性地分析在欧盟面临日益增长的内部和外部挑战的时代,民粹主义技术官僚分歧在不同地区、学科和社会政治制度中被叙述和表现的多种方式。我们观察到,欧盟的机构在应对挑战方面仍然具有很强的适应性,但成员国继续并加速了成功国有化和失败欧洲化的趋势,欧盟长期充当替罪羊,主要是因为它很容易被描述为不信任、怨恨和社会不满的投射场所。我们认为,民粹主义和技术官僚之间的关系正在迅速从一种想象中的二元关系演变为一种更加流畅、重叠和可逆的政治叙事。我们得出的结论是,尽管民粹主义-技术官僚辩论的性质在不断变化,欧盟的韧性和适应性也在不断增强,但在“必要政治”的新时代,欧盟的合法性面临着日益严峻的挑战。©2021,当代欧洲研究杂志。版权所有。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Limits of EUropean Legitimacy: On Populism and Technocracy. Introduction to the Special Issue
This article introduces the special issue on populism and technocracy in the integration and governance of the European Union (EU), framing these opposing approaches in the context of polarised debate on the (il)legitimacy of the EU. The special issue was conceived as an interdisciplinary approach to questions of the EU’s legitimacy in the aftermath of structural crises (the eurozone, sovereign debt and the election and appointment of governing agents) and spontaneous crises (migration, external state and non-state security challenges, Brexit and Euroscepticism). Since the special issue’s conception the unanticipated Covid-19 pandemic, and responses from the EU and its member states (current and former) starkly illuminated debates on how the EU should operate, the limits of its power and the limits of its popular legitimacy. The era of passive consensus has been replaced by claims of legitimacy based on active expert-informed intervention, alongside populist claims of the EU’s inherent illegitimacy as an undemocratic technocracy. As such the special issue’s objective is to critically analyse manifold ways in which the populisttechnocratic divide is narrated and performed in different regions, disciplines, and social and political systems in an era of growing internal and external challenges to the Union. We observe that the EU’s institutions remain highly adaptable in responding to challenges, but that member-states have continued and accelerated a tendency to nationalise success and Europeanise failure, with the EU acting as a perennial scapegoat largely due to the ease with which it can be narrated as a site of projection for mistrust, resentment, and social grievances. We argue that the relationship between populism and technocracy is rapidly evolving from an imagined binary into a much more fluid, overlapping, and reversible set of political narratives. We conclude that despite the changing nature of populist-technocratic debates and the resilience and adaptability of the EU, it faces accelerating challenges to its legitimacy in the new era of ‘politics of necessity’. © 2021, Journal of Contemporary European Research. All Rights Reserved.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊最新文献
Decolonising EU Trade Relations with the Global Souths? Disrupting and Re-imagining European Studies: towards a More Diverse and Inclusive Discipline Moving from EU-centrisms: Lessons from the Polycrisis for EU studies and Global South Regionalism Rethinking African-European Scientific Cooperation: The Case of the Platform for African-European Studies Unlearning and Relearning Europe: Theoretical and Practical Approaches to Decolonising European Studies Curricula
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1