We, the European Union. Together but… far Apart

Keywords: EU politics, Covid-19, Political emergencies

Abstract

While the COVID-19 pandemic continues to be an issue, the retaliations on nation-states’ political, socio-cultural and, more than ever, economic structures are deemed to be- or are they yet- dire. The paper aims to broadly discuss the reaction of European leaders to the emergence of COVID-19 and the undercurrents in terms of power and discourse on the European Union -EU-. The first part introduces chronologically the diffusion of the virus from China to Europe and, specifically, Italy. Later, it focuses on the first reactions of EU politicians to the growing epidemic until the international recognition of the emergency as global pandemic. It, then, moves to the second most damaged country inside the EU sphere, Spain. It lastly compares the state’s reactions by methodologically employ comparison of units and discourse analysis as pillars for this research. The final aim is to explore patterns in the EU leaders' communication of emergency due to COVID-19 within the framework of the Union and bearing in mind the differences between the EU as a Union and the EU as a compound of sovereign nation-states.

References

Arribas-Ayllon, M. & Walkerdine, V. (2008). Foucauldian discourse analysis. The Sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 91-108). London: Sage.

Blommaert, J. & Bulcaen, C. (2000). Critical discourse analysis. Annual review of Anthropology, 29(1), pp. 447-466.

Bo, C. (2015). Social constructivism of language and meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 15(43), pp. 87-113.

Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in social science research. London: Sage.

Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of communication, 43(4), pp. 51-58.

Foucault, M. (1981). The order of discourse. In R. Young (Ed.), Untying the text: A post-structuralist reader (pp. 48–78). London and New York: Routlede and Kegan Paul.

Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault. In L. H. Martin, H. Gutman, and P. H. Hutton (eds.), Technologies of the Self (pp.16-59). London: Tavistock.

Foucault, M. (2000). Power: the essential works of Michel Foucault 1954–1984. Trans. Robert Hurley. James D. Faubion. London: Penguin Books.

Foucault, M. (2005). The discourse on language. In Medina, J. And Wood, eds. (2005). Truth: Engagements across philosophical traditions (pp. 315-335). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Fuchs, C. (2019). Nationalism on the Internet: Critical Theory and Ideology in the Age of Social Media and Fake News. London: Routledge.

Fuchs, C. (2020). Everyday Life and Everyday Communication in Coronavirus Capitalism. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 18(1), pp. 375-399.

Hall, S. (1997). The spectacle of ‘the other’. Representation: cultural representations and signifying practices. London: Sage.

Harari, Y. N. (2020). The world after coronaviru. Financial Times, 20 March (Retrivied from https://www.ft.com/content/19d90308-6858-11ea-a3c9-1fe6fedcca75).

Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (2010). News that matters: Television and American opinion: Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kaltwasser, C. R. (2014). The responses of populism to Dahl's democratic dilemmas. Political Studies, 62(3), pp. 470-487.

Kickbusch, I., Leung, G. M., Bhutta, Z. A., Matsoso, M. P., Ihekweazu, C. & Abbasi, K. (2020). Covid-19: how a virus is turning the world upside down. BMJ, 369: m1336. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1336.

Kupchan, C. A. (2012). How enemies become friends: The sources of stable peace (Vol. 121). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Laclau, E. (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices (Vol. 2). London: Sage.

Le Breton, D. (2000). Éloge de la marche. Paris: Editions Métailié.

Lovec, M. (2019). Populism and attitudes towards the EU in Central Europe. Ljubljana: Faculty of Social Sciences.

Mudde, C. (2004). The populist zeitgeist. Government and Opposition, 39(4), pp. 541-563.

Mudde, C. (2016). Europe's populist surge: A long time in the making. Foreign affairs, 95(6), pp. 25-30.

Patterson, M., & Monroe, K. R. (1998). Narrative in political science. Annual review of political science, 1(1), pp. 315-331.

Pillar, P.R. (2020). The war metaphor and the coronavirus. Responsible Statecraft, 21 April. (Retrivied from https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2020/04/02/the-war-metaphor-and-the-coronavirus/).

Polletta, F., Chen, P. C. B., Gardner, B. G., & Motes, A. (2011). The sociology of storytelling. Annual Review of Sociology, 37, pp. 109-130.

Polletta, F., & Lee, J. (2006). Is telling stories good for democracy? Rhetoric in public deliberation after 9/11. American sociological review, 71(5), pp. 699-721.

Romania, V., & Tozzo, S. (2017). Terrorism as Ritual Process and Cultural Trauma: a Performative Analysis of ISIS’s Attacks in Europe. Italian Sociological Review, 7(2), pp. 239-261.

Sarason, S. B. (1974). The psychological sense of community: Prospects for a community psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International social movement research, 1(1), pp. 197-217.

Tartaglia, S. (2006). A preliminary study for a new model of sense of community. Journal of community psychology, 34(1), pp. 25-36.

Teller, J. (2011). Krieg: stell dir vor, er wäre hier. München: Carl Hanser Verlag.

Turner, V. W. (1982). From ritual to theatre: The human seriousness of play. NewYork: Paj Publications.

Waitt, G. R. (2005). Doing Discourse Analysis. In I. Hay (eds.), Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography (pp. 163-191). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Published
2020-05-30