This is a contribution from Journal of Language and Politics 14:1© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing Company

This electronic file may not be altered in any way.The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only.Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible only to members (students and faculty) of the author’s/s’ institute. It is not permitted to post this PDF on the internet, or to share it on sites such as Mendeley, ResearchGate, Academia.edu. Please see our rights policy on https://benjamins.com/#authors/rightspolicyFor any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com). Please contact rights@benjamins.nl or consult our website: www.benjamins.com

John Benjamins Publishing Company

Journal of Language and Politics 14:1 (2015), 1–17. DOI 10.1075/jlp.14.1.01carISSN 1569–2159 / E-ISSN 1569–9862 © John Benjamins Publishing Company

Discourse analysis, policy analysis, and the borders of EU identity

Caterina Carta & Ruth WodakVesalius College, Brussels / Lancaster University

This introductory contribution frames the theoretical and methodological endeavour of the special issue. The underlying goal of the special issue is two-fold: On the one hand, it aims to shed light on the diversity of discourse theories and related toolkits for analysis. On the other hand, it aims at applying these approaches to the European Union’s (EU) discursive practices, with special attention to foreign policy discourses. All contributions revolve around a central focus: the manifold ways in which various EU institutional, national or societal actors employ different discursive strategies (such as justification, legitimation, and argumentation) related to foreign policy with bilateral partners; within multi-lateral milieus or vis-á-vis domestic audiences. In the last section, the contributions to this special issue are briefly summarised.

Keywords: European Union; European Identity; policy; discourse

This special issue explores the construction and construal of the European Union’s (EU) discourses about international relations (IR) through the lenses of differ-ent interdisciplinary, theoretical and methodological approaches to (critical) discourse studies (CDS) and policy analysis. All contributions revolve around a central focus: the manifold ways in which various EU institutional, national or societal actors employ different discursive strategies (such as justification, legiti-mation, and argumentation) related to foreign policy with bilateral partners; within multi-lateral milieus or vis-á-vis domestic audiences. To this purpose, we bring in to dialogue Critical Discourse Studies (CDS) oriented towards policy and politics’ analysis and International Relations (IR) scholars. The underlying goal of the special issue is two-fold: On the one hand, it aims to shed light on the diversity of discourse theories and related toolkits for analysis. On the other hand, it aims at applying these approaches to the EU’s discursive practices, with special attention to foreign policy debates.

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

2 Caterina Carta & Ruth Wodak

Both the EU and the process of European integration in foreign policy matters are contested socio-political and discursive fields (Hay & Rosamond 2002, 151; Krzyżanowski & Oberhuber 2007; Muntigl et al. 2000; Wodak 2004, 2007; 2011; 2015; Wodak & Richardson 2013; Wodak et al. 2013). The EU has often been por-trayed as an n = 1 international actor, one that challenges the conventional vocab-ulary that researchers adopt to make sense of political organizations. It has been described as a ‘difference engine’ in which internal processes of construction and representation converge in its international identity (Manners & Whitman 2003, 380–381). Both the terms ‘EU’ and ‘Europe’, therefore, can be regarded as “poorly defined as super-ordinate categories” having “various and rarely unchallenged meanings” (Risse 2003, 7–8). In the same fashion, EU foreign policy poses similar challenges. It has been defined as the “sum of official external relations conducted by [an] independent actor[s]” (Hill 2003, 3), where different national and institu-tional actors converge in the making of international discourses. In the making of EU’s foreign policy, the number of independent national and institutional actors that converge into the EU’s many and frequently contradictory voices accounts for an inherently pluralistic choir.

Both framing foreign policies and representing the EU through diplomatic practices are indeed very complex exercises. The most visible reason for complex-ity is based on the heterogeneous plethora of fully-fledged recognised diplomatic actors entitled to speak on behalf of the EU. Within the EU, all institutions repre-sent relevant EU public actors, whether on the grounds of territorial (e.g. national) or functional (e.g. the European Commission or the European External Action Service) representativeness. In order to ‘speak with one voice’, across all policy-fields, a complex network of cooperation is established (Carta 2013a). This implies that an intense flow of communication between EU institutions and state gov-ernments (Bicchi & Carta 2010) supersedes the adoption of common measures across the policy spectrum. At the executive level, within the EU, the manage-ment of foreign policy issues is entrusted to three sets of institutional actors who intervene to the building of foreign policy measures on the ground of attributed competencies. These sets of actors are the (1) European Council and the Council of the EU, which negotiate common positions in Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and ultimately decide on all common decisions; (2) the Commis-sion, which has the right of initiative in so-called low foreign policy competences such as trade and development; (3) the High Representative-Vice President of the Commission (HR/VP) in charge of traditional foreign policy dossiers; assisted by the European External Action Service (EEAS). In addition to these, the rotating presidency – which, with the exception of the European Council and the For-eign Affairs Council (FAC) still applies to all Council configurations which refers to the General Affairs Council (GAC) – maintains a margin of policy initiative,

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

Discourse analysis, policy analysis, and the borders of EU identity 3

and is illustrative of the central role that the member states play in the making of all common policies (Carta 2013a). The role of all actors in the process is ulti-mately decided by the attribution of competencies, even if, contamination and a dynamic flow of information permeate all policy fields. In addition to executive actors, the European and national Parliaments, the Court of Justice, and vast range of national and transnational stakeholders contribute at moulding the discursive field that frame the EU’s international discourses.

The diplomatic representation of the EU – the last chain of this complex oper-ation of setting the tone for the EU’s voice – also relies on complex mechanisms of institutional and organizational engineering in order to aptly represent all actors involved in the European project. Current arrangements contained in the Treaty on EU (TEU) create a quadruply-edged form of external representation, respec-tively imputed to the president of the European Council (Article 9B) and the High Representative/Vice President of the Commission, HR/VP ( Article 13.2(a)), the president of the Commission ‘with the exception of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), and other cases provided for in the Treaties, shall ensure the Union’s external representation’ (Art. 17(1)). In addition to European actors, the rotating Presidency – which still chairs the bulk of first pillar configurations of the Council – speaks for the EU if this is necessary. This means that confusion about ‘who is in charge of what’ still continues to remain for external partners. The concept of diplomatic governance highlights the way in which different actors – on the grounds of different sources of legitimacy (territorial or functional) and foreign policy leverage – share formally and informally competencies in foreign policies and diplomatic representation (Carta 2013b). As Kutter’s contribution to this spe-cial issue highlights, the final word uttered by the EU is always re-contextualised and adapted to the needs, perceptions or storyline of different national constitu-encies; the nation state seems – again – to prevail (see also Wodak & Boukala’s contribution).

All these institutional factors contribute to an extremely fluid articulation of the EU’s political space, which in turn reflects the EU’s inherent institutional and internal fluidity. The pluralistic nature of the EU as an international actor together with its complex institutional machinery pose a formidable challenge to the understanding of how the EU frames its global policies and related discourses and actions in order to exert influence over its external environment.

Discourse analysis can be of great use in illuminating the way in which social discursive practices convey meaning to foreign policy discourses, through both contestation and communicative action. However, many scholars from neighbor-ing fields (such as Sociology, Political Science, or qualitative organizational stud-ies) frequently misunderstood and continue to misunderstand Discourse Studies and Critical Discourse Studies as – more or less – simple methodologies or even

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

4 Caterina Carta & Ruth Wodak

methods (i.e. toolkits). Quite in the contrary, however, we argue that all approaches in CDS draw on specific epistemologies and theories and are oriented towards investigating both theoretically and methodologically complex social phenomena. Teun van Dijk (2013, 1) recently summarized this position succinctly:

“Contrary to popular belief and unfortunate claims of many papers submitted to discourse journals, CDA is not a method of critical discourse analysis. …. Indeed, what would be the systematic, explicit, detailed, replicable procedure for doing “critical” analysis? There is no such method. Being critical, first of all, is a state of mind, an attitude, a way of dissenting, and many more things, but not an explicit method for the description of the structures or strategies of text and talk. …. So, there is not “a” or “one” method of CDA, but many. Hence, I recommend to use the term Critical Discourse Studies for the theories, methods, analyses, applications and other practices of critical discourse analysts, and to forget about the confusing term “CDA.” So, please, no more “I am going to apply CDA” because it does not make sense. Do critical discourse analysis by formulating critical goals, and then explain by what specific explicit methods you want to realize it.”

All the papers in this special issue are oriented towards describing, understanding, explaining and ultimately engaging in a critical examination of specific complex social phenomena related to IR and the EU’s inherently many-voiced policies; and they all offer particular theoretical frameworks in approaching such phenomena. As suggested by Van Dijk (ibid.) and Wodak (2013, 6), there are many methodolo-gies and methods which could serve as resources to analyse various discursive and social practices related to such important and indeed complex issues.

In the field of IR, (critical) discourse studies are widely associated with the constructivist/constructionist turn (Searle 1997; Hajer 1985; Larsen 2004; Guzzini 2005; Fisher & Forrester 1993; Milliken 1999; Yanow 1997) and – unfortunately – still frequently misunderstood as primarily one toolkit amongst many others.

In a similar way to Van Dijk (2013) Jørgensen & Phillips (2002, 4), rightly suggest to treat discourse-analytical approaches as theoretical and methodologi-cal complete packages, containing ontological and epistemological premises, theoretical models, methodological guidelines and associated techniques of analysis. The object of analysis varies widely, ranging from the realm of words to social practices, the latter being understood as “activities, social relations, objects and instruments; time and place, social subjects, with beliefs, knowledge, values; semiosis” (Fairclough 2001, 121). Wodak & Meyer (2009a) suggest that precisely the heterogeneity of CDS implies part of the success of this school beyond disci-plinary borders. Constructivists, post-structuralists, Discursive Institutionalists (Schmidt 2008), and CDS scholars share, in our view, three main concerns in the analysis of discourse in IR which could be synthesised into three broad categories: a critique of epistemological positivism; a focus on language and discourse; and

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

Discourse analysis, policy analysis, and the borders of EU identity 5

a concern for the role of non-material resources in patterns of meaning making. In the first place, different discourse-analytical traditions flourished and evolved in the wake of the so-called epistemological debate in International Relations. These approaches overtly criticise the positivist “separation of subject and object and the search for clear cause-effect relationship[s]” (Bieler & Morton 2008, 104). Accordingly, “the web of language, symbols, institutions that constitute signifi-cation” becomes the focus of investigation, one that cannot be easily disentan-gled by “the tools by which investigation is carried out” (Rabinow & Sullivan 1988, 5–6). Secondly and connected to this, drawing on the works of Foucault, Laclau and Mouffe, Habermas and Gramsci, IR-related (C)DS traditions focus, to varying extents, on language and discourse in order to analyse ways in which agents form their identities and interests in dynamic interaction with the social context. Finally, discourse analytical traditions, to varying degrees, recognise the inherently intermingled character of ideal and material components in the mak-ing of hegemonic discourses. This resonates with Searle’s distinction between brute and social facts to depict the wide array of real but not material factors that coincide to frame actors’ behaviours (Searle 1997). Hegemony, in this perspec-tive, is regarded as a multidimensional phenomenon, which benefits from several strategies aimed at the imposition of what has to be considered common sense (Gramsci 1931, 1953).

Interpretative constructivists (Kubálková 2001; Weldes 1996) tend to embrace ontological idealism and place “emphasis on the role of language in mediating and constructing social reality” (Checkel 2007, 58). In this fashion, the social struc-ture moulds actors’ conceptions of, and discourses about, norms while actors con-tribute dynamically at framing the discursive space by means of inter-subjective exchanges within a given structure (Schimmelfennig 2001, 58). Interpretative con-structivists largely draw on Habermas and his distinction between communicative and strategic action (Deitelhoff & Mueller 2005). In empirical accounts, interpre-tative constructivists tend to emphasise the process of intersubjective creation of meaning, led by interpretation (Kratochwil 1988) and reasoned consensus (Risse 2000), rather than instrumental reasoning.

Schmidt’s Discursive Institutionalism (Schmidt 2008) focuses on ideational factors which ultimately preside over the making of common policies and strate-gies through the lens of discourse. According to Schmidt, the emphasis on dis-course allows to grasp both ways in which actors represent and construct their ideas discursively. Through communication and exchange, patterns of interaction contribute to the collective articulation of these ideas (2008, 306). In so doing, Discursive Institutionalism establishes a dialectical relation between agents and structure, where institutions are perceived as both influencing agents and being influenced by them (Schmidt 2008, 314).

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

6 Caterina Carta & Ruth Wodak

Poststructuralist approaches emphasise the performative and enacting quality of discourses, while focussing on power relations inherent in discursive practices. Discourse is often regarded as the key entry point to access the social world ( Derrida 1976, 158–9). Post-structuralism establishes a relationship of co-constitution between the social world and the subject, the social structure and the agents. The discursive space provides for “criteria of intelligibility”, which set out the borders of what can be uttered, in such a way that “conditions of possibility […] cannot be considered as separate from, or secondary to the material realm” (de Goede 2001, 152, quoted in Bieler & Morton 2008, 110). By means of interactions among con-flicting discourses, the structures of meanings and the perceptions of social reality are seen as inherently fluid, volatile and contingent. Discursive articulation there-fore offers a way of making sense of social structures; a way of establishing relation-ship of domination and subordination; and a way of refining hegemonic strategies in dynamic inter-relation with other actors within the social context (Daryl Slack 1996, 113). The discursive field is therefore the battlefield where discursive actors struggle for hegemony over discursive structures (Diez 2001).

CDS scholars are inspired by different epistemological perspectives which are generally located in the ‘Western Marxist’ tradition (Fairclough, Mulderrig & Wodak 2011, 360), ranging from Foucauldian post-structuralism to Habermas, from Gramsci to the Frankfurt school (Forchtner 2011). CDS are explicitly committed “towards criticising and changing society, in contrast to traditional” (Wodak & Meyer 2009, 6) and problem-solving (Cox 1981) theories. Thus, CDS generally establish a dialectic relation between the role of discursive practices and the real world/material practices. CDS are characterized by a plurality of theo-retical and methodological approaches stemming from linguistics, pragmatics, rhetoric, sociolinguistics, and so forth (van Dijk 2001, 2008; Parker 2004; Epstein 2011; Wodak & Krzyżanowski 2008; Culpeper et al. 2009; Wodak & Meyer 2009; Chilton 2004; Fairclough 2010; Wodak 2013), marked by internal heterogeneity (Burr 2003; Weiss & Wodak 2003).

What is needed – Forchtner (2011, 2) argues – is an “extensive elaboration of why one’s critique is particularly reliable”. In this vein, Van Leeuwen (2006, 234) emphasizes that “critical discourse analysts engage not only with a range of dis-course analytical paradigms, but also with critical social theory. In more recent work social theory may even dominate over discourse analysis.” It might be the case, however, that more differentiated debates are needed and better justification of why a particular social theory might lend itself to discourse-analytical purposes without combining or integrating quite contradictory approaches (see Weiss  & Wodak 2003).

With regard to the salient concept of ‘ideology’, Van Dijk, for example, defines ‘ideologies’ as the ‘world views’ that constitute ‘social cognition’: schematically

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

Discourse analysis, policy analysis, and the borders of EU identity 7

organized complexes of representations and attitudes with regard to certain aspects of the social world, e.g. “the schema […] whites have about blacks, which may feature a category ‘appearance’’’ (1993, 258; 1998). Fairclough, on the other hand, endorses a more Marxist view of ‘ideology’ in which ideologies are “con-structions of practices from particular perspectives […] which ‘iron out’ the con-tradictions, dilemmas and antagonisms of practices in ways which accord with the interests and projects of domination” (Chouliaraki & Fairclough 1999, 26). Wodak (2013, 8) states that “it is important to distinguish between ideology (or other frequently used terms such as stance/ beliefs/ opinions/ Weltanschauung/ position) and discourse”. Quite rightly thus Purvis & Hunt (1993, 474ff) argue that these concepts “do not stand alone but are associated not only with other concepts but with different theoretical traditions”. Thus, ‘ideology’ is usually (more or less) closely associated with the Marxist tradition, whereas ‘discourse’ has gained much significance in the linguistic turn in modern social theory “by providing a term with which to grasp the way in which language and other forms of social semiot-ics not merely convey social experience but play some major part in constituting social objects (the subjectivities and their associated identities), their relations, and the field in which they exist” (ibid., 474). The conflation of ‘ideology’ and ‘discourse’ thus leads to an inflationary use of both concepts, of ideologies and dis-courses; both thus tend to become empty signifiers, simultaneously possibly and potentially indicating texts, positioning and subjectivities of actors as well as belief systems, structures of knowledge and social practices of individuals and collec-tives (see Wodak 2013). Obviously, we cannot offer a solution here to this dilemma which is apparent in many approaches to CDS as well as in many data analyses; however, we believe that it is important to engage in serious reflection of these salient terms and concepts and to define how one uses them in debates and/or in specific theoretical and empirical studies.

The systematic ethnographic and discourse analytical study of political institutions, of everyday life and decision-making in organisations has recently become a major focus of CDS. Krzyżanowski & Oberhuber (2007) have analysed the European Convention in much detail. The focus on discursive dimensions of transnational political organisations also led to the elaboration of discursively constructed visions/conceptions of the social and political order in Europe/EU. Wodak (2011) focuses on the everyday lives of Members of the European Parlia-ment (MEPs) and other politicians, because – she argues – the frequently to be observed depoliticisation of voters seems linked to the so-called “democracy deficit in the EU” and the huge dissatisfaction over the strong ritualization of politics and the tiny snapshots provided by media, which condense complex political pro-cesses into iconic images. Such studies allow insights into “politics as a profession” and into the complexity of political decision-making on the backstage of politics.

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

8 Caterina Carta & Ruth Wodak

Moreover, much CDS research in this domain centres on right-wing populist rhetoric and its historical legacy (Wodak & Richardson 2013; Wodak 2015), as this rhetoric is becoming more influential in many European countries (Reisigl 2007; Krzyżanowski & Wodak 2009; Wodak & Pelinka 2002; Wodak, KhosraviNik  & Mral 2013). This research is triggered by the rising dominance and struggle for hegemony by right-wing populist parties and their apt use of indirect persuasive strategies to address multiple audiences. Research on this kind of rhetoric also integrates new data and related methodologies into the research agenda of CDS: the use of ethnography, focus groups, Internet home pages, postings and posters, blogs, and narrative interviews, combined with more traditional datasets such as newspapers and political speeches.

There is a fair amount of quality monographs (Larsen 1997; Hansen 2006; Hansen & Wæver 2002; Muntigl et al. 2000; Krzyżanowski 2010; Krzyżanowski & Oberhuber 2007; Wodak 2011) and a significant amount of articles in peer-reviewed journals, which look at the EU and its various policies from a discourse-analytical angle. Fewer contributions, however, have to date collected different theoretical and methodological perspectives on discourse-analytical research strategies into a single volume. A marked exception is, however, the special issue of West European Politics (Vol. 27, No 2, March 2004) edited by Vivien Schmidt and Claudio Radaelli. In this pioneering IR volume, the two scholars embrace methodological and theoretical pluralism in discourse analyses of the EU (but see also Mole 2007; Triandafyllidou et  al. 2009; Galasińska & Galasiński 2010; Galasińska  & Krzyżanowski 2009 from a more CDS perspective). In a similar fashion, Carta and Morin recently gathered contributions from different discourse analytical traditions in the analysis of EU foreign policy (Carta & Morin 2014a; 2014b) and the financial crisis in Europe (Morin & Carta 2014).1

This special issue is situated amongst these diverse strands of theory, meth-odology and analysis. Critical Discourse Studies, Constructivist, and Post- Structuralist scholars discuss selected topics related to the EU and its international relations, by highlighting strengths and weaknesses of the respective approaches. It promotes a dialogue between different approaches and disciplines, by encourag-ing all contributors to pay due attention to alternative way of analysing discourses.

1. These special issues were part of the ULB/IEE research agenda in GR:EEN, a European Commission FP7 project (for more information, see: www.greenfp7.eu). All contributions to this and the other special issues were discussed during the Workshop: “Speaking Europe Abroad: Institutional Cooperation and the Making of EU’s Discourse”, held in Brussels on 14–15 February 2012. The authors wish to thank all participants to the Workshop which made these collective endeavours possible.

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

Discourse analysis, policy analysis, and the borders of EU identity 9

The special issue thus appeals to readers interested in CDS as well as those working on EU foreign policy and IR.

All contributions in this Special Issue focus on ways in which a specific ‘idea or vision’ of European identity is framed and interspersed into European debates. Overall, the selected articles highlight not only the fragmented character of the EU and its institutions, but also the changing boundaries of the foreign policy field in the EU’s remit and beyond, which have now stretched to include a wide-range of so called ‘low-policy issues’. These papers thus contribute in an important way to shedding light on the EU’s voices in global affairs, while ascertaining the, at times, cacophonic outcome of the attempt of speaking with one voice. Some contribu-tions investigate discursive patterns in debates within the European Parliament, such as about enlargement (Aydın-Düzgit in this issue), effective multilateralism (Barbé, Anna Herranz-Surrallés & Michal Natorski in this issue); climate change (Krzyżanowski in this issue), Common Defence and Security Policy (CSDP) (Popuu in this issue). Other contributions look at ways in which EU’s institutional actors interact in more inward-looking debates, such as those on institutional reform, cultural identity, nationalism in Europe, and their recontextualisation at the national level (papers by Carta, Kutter, and Wodak & Boukala in this issue).

In her contribution, Amelie Kutter reveals that discursive practices associ-ated with the edification of a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) are inherently related to polity-building projects. The focus here is, therefore, to depict different ways in which national and EU’s official discourses on the EU’s iden-tity dialogue with each other. Accordingly, she explores the many ways in which multilateral negotiations on the EU constitution were recontextualised by national media debates in Poland and France (2002–2004). Once recontextualised at the national level, the construction of the EU as a civilising power undergoes several changes, reflecting intellectual-political camps in the domestic arena. She notes that, in the context of post-Cold War Europe, the rhetoric of an assertive, global multilateral actor – somehow endowed with a civilising mission – has often been associated with a legitimising discourse vis-à-vis the EU polity and with a project of polity-construction. Contrary to the view that EU foreign policy ambiguity has to be related merely to the lack of strategic and geopolitical vision, Kutter contends that the construction of the EU as a civilising power was primarily an inward-looking persuasive strategy related to the experience of the EU’s eastern enlarge-ment 2004.

By employing a Discourse-Historical Approach, Senem Aydın-Düzgit analy-ses the contributions of the members of the main centre-right political group to the plenary debates European Parliament (EP) on the turbulent issue of Turkey’s accession to the EU. The focus is, therefore, one of highlighting strategies of ‘other-ing’ and exclusion vis-à-vis a long-lasting candidate for EU’s accession. She retraces

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

10 Caterina Carta & Ruth Wodak

the framing of Turkish accession in the positioning of the European Democrats and Christian Democrats (EPP-ED), renamed as the Group of the European People’s Party (EPP) following the 2009 EP elections. She focuses on the discursive construction of identities through difference, by highlighting various representa-tions of Selves and Others in discourse with a focus on the ‘cultural’ representa-tion of identity in texts. The focus on ‘culture’ as an interpretative prism, allows her to emphasise the salience of the cultural and religious ‘borders of Europe’ and ‘ Europeaness’ in framing discourses about Turkey’s accession. While focussing on the mainstream right-wing definition of Turkey a ‘cultural and religious Other’, her analysis sheds light on the framing of European cultural identity on essentialist grounds, with the central elements of territory, culture and history.

By intersecting the analysis of the institutional structure with the analysis of in-depth interviews, Caterina Carta shows the effects of the institutional reorgan-isation on a ‘swinging’ definition of EU officials’ group identity. The focus here is, one of tracing how inter-institutional dynamics and institutional reform have con-tributed to raising new ‘boundaries’ between the members of the EU’s institutional family. The article provides a linguistic analysis aimed at identifying patterns of pronominal selection, as useful elements to depict both the ways different EU actors in Brussels elaborate their sense of belonging and, on the other hand, pat-terns of horizontal and vertical inter-institutional cooperation and conflict. Carta maintains that EU institutional actors develop their sense of belonging alterna-tively in connection with their institutional unit; the nature of their institutional role/diplomatic mandates and the entity they primarily believe to represent. The dispersion of authority caused by the reform makes for an account of ‘groupness’, which swings/oscillates due to different affiliations. At times, the definition of “we” includes all actors involved in the process of European integration – from the member states to EU’s bureaucratic and institutional actors –, at times it serves as a dividing line which clearly establishes a different sense of belonging.

Michał Krzyżanowski’s contribution focuses on EU’s discourses about Climate Change (ECC) from the point of view of identity-construction. Krzyżanowski analyses the inherent discursive ambivalence of the EU as a global leader in cli-mate change dossiers. On the one hand, the EU constructs itself as an unrivalled long-term and emergent global leader in climate change dossiers and praises its own policy recipes. On the other hand, it implicitly blames other partners for their poor performance. Accordingly, Krzyżanowski analyses how the EU asserts its identity in direct detriment to other actors’ identity. Krzyżanowski contextu-alises the EUCC policy discourses in the wider framework of discourses about European integration, alternatively driven by inward-outward looking rationales and by mostly economic or political goals. He maintains that the ECC represents an example of a departure from the strictly internally-driven concerns of the EU policy and an attempt to implement, in a local context, global climate change

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

Discourse analysis, policy analysis, and the borders of EU identity 11

policy regimes. Krzyżanowski argues that despite the increased presence of politi-cal/democratic discourses in the 1990s/2000s, the EU policy was mainly framed by economic considerations which have acquired a new impetus as of the early 2000s.

Esther Barbé, Anna Herranz-Surrallés and Michał Natorski focus on a crucial rhetorical element in the framing of the EU’s international identity: effective mul-tilateralism, one of the putatively constitutive elements of the EU’s international identity. They analyse political speeches on multilateralism during the period 2004–2011. Drawing on a consistent body of IR literature, they map the elusive and frequently changing meanings associated to the label ‘multilateralism’, a term that conveys several images of world order and the EU’s role in it. Reflecting the EU’s multilateral genesis, the EU’s rhetoric taps onto conceptually and normatively conflicting standpoints and related debates. This plurality of meanings associated with multilateralism also explains difficulties in translating policies into actual practices. Conflicting discourses range from descriptions of the EU as a model, as a player or as an instrument of global governance, inflected on binary oppositions, such as those of Europeanism vs. Atlanticism or Community Method vs. Intergov-ernmentalism. Barbé, Herranz-Surrallés and Natorski conclude that the EU hege-monic discourse revolves around the dominant conceptions of a model or player.

Ruth Wodak and Salomi Boukala discuss the recent revival of nationalism, a complex and context-dependent phenomenon which meshes economic, socio-political and historical rationales. Therefore, they focus on ways in which – across national boundaries and levels of governance across the EU’s national polities – patterns of exclusion are forged in ever new ways vis-à-vis non-Europeans. They analyse EU-(sceptic) positions in Dutch and British debates by analysing speeches of prominent politicians and illustrate the huge tensions and contradictions that characterise current European policies. Wodak and Boukala trace different con-ceptions of a possible European identity, associated alternatively with exclusion-ary, inclusive and supra-nationalist tropes: on the one hand, the tensions between processes of economic globalisation – which change the patterns of meaning-making by shaping new space-time structures – prevail, on the other, processes of social fragmentation, which pave the ways for discourses based on the praise for localism, growing xenophobia, social exclusion and racism.

Finally, Birgit Popuu focuses on the EU’s discourse about its CSDP opera-tions. She explores how, through the twin-processes of telling and acting identity, it is possible to unravel the EU’s role identity in relation to its many others in conducting peace operations. Her analysis illustrates how discourses produced by relevant EU institutions inform the EU’s CSDP profile. By analyzing the opera-tion Artemis, Poopu contextualizes this operation in the CSDP wider discursive framework in 2003. The significance of the operation Artemis lies in the way it is discursively mobilised as a success story in articulating a particular, i.e. “credible”, CSDP identity.

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

12 Caterina Carta & Ruth Wodak

References

Bicchi, Federica, and Caterina Carta. 2010. The COREU/CORTESY network and the circulation of information within EU foreign policy, RECON Online Working Paper 2010/0, Arena, Oslo.

Bieler, Andreas, and Adam D. Morton. 2008. “The Deficits of Discourse in IPE: Turning Base Metal into Gold?” International Studies Quarterly 52 (1): 103–128.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1468–2478.2007.00493.xBurr, Vivien. 2003. Social Constructionism (2nd edn). London: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203299968Carta, Caterina, and Jean-Frederic Morin. 2014a. “Struggling Over Meanings: Discourses on

EU’s International Presence.” Cooperation and Conflict 49 (3): 295–314. DOI: 10.1177/0010836713494995Carta, Caterina, and Jean-Frederic Morin (eds). 2014b. Making Sense of Diversity: EU’s Foreign

Policy through the Lenses of Discourse Analysis. Farnham: Ashgate.Carta, Caterina. 2013a. “External and Foreign Policy Cycle and the EU’ Institutional Machinery:

A Glance into the Post-Lisbon arrangements.” In The EU’s Foreign Policy: What Kind of Power and Diplomatic Action? ed. by Mario Telo, and Frederik Ponjaert, 87–104. Farnham: Ashgate.

Carta, Caterina. 2013b. “The EU in Geneva: The Diplomatic Representation of a System of Governance.” European Journal of Contemporary Research 9 (3): 406–423.

Checkel, Jeffrey T. 2007. “Constructivism and EU Politics.” In Handbook of European Union Politics, ed. by Knud-Erik Jørgensen, Mark A. Pollack, and Ben Rosamond, 57–74. London: Sage. DOI: 10.4135/9781848607903.n1

Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. DOI: 10.1093/applin/ami016Chouliaraki, Lilie, and Norman Fairclough. 1999. Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Criti-

cal Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI: 10.1017/s004740450423305xCox, Robert W. 1981. “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations

Theory.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 10 (2): 126–155. DOI: 10.1177/03058298810100020501Culpeper, Jonathan, Francis Katamba, Ruth Wodak, Paul Kerswill, and Tony McEnery. 2009. The

English Language: Description, Variation and Context. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI: 10.1017/s0047404512000413Daryl Slack, Jennifer. 1996. “The Theory and Method of Articulation in Cultural Studies.” In

Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies, ed. by David Morley, and Kuan-Hsing Chen, 112–127. London and New York: Routledge.

de Goede, Marieke. 2001. “Discourses of Scientific Finance and the Failure of Long-Term Capital Management.” New Political Economy 6 (2): 149–170. DOI: 10.1080/13563460120060580

Deitelhoff, Nicole, and Harald Mueller. 2005. “Theoretical Paradise – Empirically Lost: Arguing with Habermas.” Review of International Studies 31 (1): 167–179.

DOI: 10.1017/s0260210505006364Delanty, Gerald, Ruth Wodak, and Paul Jones (eds). 2011. Migration, Identity and Belonging.

Liverpool: LUP. DOI: 10.5949/upo9781846314537.001Derrida, Jacques. 1976. Of Grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

Discourse analysis, policy analysis, and the borders of EU identity 13

Diez, Tomas. 2001. “Europe as a Discursive Battleground: Discourse Analysis and European Integration Studies.” Cooperation and Conflict 36 (1): 15–38.

DOI: 10.1177/00108360121962245Epstein, Charlotte. 2011. “Who Speaks? Discourse, the Subject and the Study of Identity in

International Politics.” European Journal of International Relations 17 (2): 327–350. DOI: 10.1177/1354066109350055Fairclough, Norman, Jane Mulderrig, and Ruth Wodak. 2011. “Discourse Studies. A Multidis-

ciplinary Introduction.” In Discourse Studies. A Multidisciplinary Introduction, ed. by Teun A. van Dijk, 357–378. London: Sage (second edition). DOI: 10.4135/9781446289068.n17

Fairclough, Norman. 2001. “Critical Discourse Analysis as a Method in Social Scientific Research.” In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. by Ruth Wodak, and Michael Meyer, 121–139. London: Sage. DOI: 10.4135/9780857028020.d8

Fairclough, Norman. 2010. Critical Discourse Analysis. The Critical Study of Language. Harlow: Longman. DOI: 10.1017/s0142716400010973

Fisher, Frank, and John Forrester. 1993. The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Durham: Duke University Press. DOI: 10.1177/0739456x9501400317

Forchtner, Bernhard. 2011. “Critique, the Discourse–Historical Approach, and the Frankfurt School.” Critical Discourse Studies 8 (1): 1–14. DOI: 10.1080/17405904.2011.533564

Galasińska, Aleksandra, and Dariusz Galasiński (eds). 2010. Dilemmas of the Post-communist Transition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, DAPSAC series.

DOI: 10.1177/09579265110220050606Galasińska, Aleksandra, and Michał Krzyżanowski. 2009. Discourse and Transformation in Cen-

tral and Eastern Europe. Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: 10.1177/09579265110220040806Gramsci, Antonio. 1931, 1953. Letter 89. In Lettres de Prison. Translated by Jean Noaro. Paris:

Editions Sociales.Guzzini, Stefano. 2005. “The Concept of Power: A Constructivist Analysis.” Millennium – Journal

of International Studies 33 (3): 495–521. DOI: 10.1177/03058298050330031301Hajer, Maarten. A. 1985. The Politics of Environmental Discourse. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon. DOI: 10.1093/019829333x.001.0001Hansen, Lene, and Ole Waever (eds). 2002. European Integration and National Identity: The

Challenge of the Nordic States. London: Routledge. DOI: 10.1177/03058298030320020629Hansen, Lene. 2006. Security As Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. London:

Routledge. DOI: 10.1177/0957926507079638Hay, Colin, and Ben Rosamond. 2002. “Globalisation, European Integration and the Discursive

Construction of Economic Imperatives.” Journal of European Public Policy 9 (2): 147–167. DOI: 10.1080/13501760110120192Hill, Cristopher. 2003. The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Jørgensen, Marianne, and Louise J. Phillips. 2002. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method.

London: Sage.Kratochwil, Frederick. 1988. “Regimes, Interpretation and the ‘Science’ of Politics: A  Reap-

praisal.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 17 (2): 263–284. DOI: 10.1177/03058298880170021001Krzyżanowski, Michał, and Florian Oberhuber. 2007. (Un)Doing Europe: Discourses and Prac-

tices of Negotiating the EU Constitution. Brussels: P.I.E Peter Lang. DOI: 10.1007/s11615-008-0127-9

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

14 Caterina Carta & Ruth Wodak

Krzyżanowski, Michał, and Ruth Wodak. 2009. “The Politics of Exclusion. Debating Migration in Austria. New Brunswick: Transaction Press.

Krzyżanowski, Michał. 2010. The Discursive Construction of European Identities. A Multilevel Approach to Discourse and Identity in Transforming European Union. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Kubálková, Vendulka (ed). 2001. Foreign Policy in a Constructed World. New York: M.E. Sharpe Inc.

Larsen, Henrik. 1997. Foreign Policy and Discourse Analysis: France, Britain and Europe. London: Routledge. DOI: 10.1177/03058298970260030731

Larsen, Henrik. 2004. “Discourse Analysis in the Study of European Foreign Policy.” In Rethink-ing European Foreign Policy, ed. by B. Tonra, and T. Christiansen, 62–80. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Manners, Ian, and Richard G. Whitman. 2003. “The ‘Difference Engine’: Constructing and Rep-resenting the International Identity of the European Union.” Journal of European Public Policy 10 (3): 380–404. DOI: 10.1080/1350176032000085360

Milliken, Jennifer. 1999. “The Study of Discourse in International Relations: A Critique of Research and Methods.” European Journal of International Relations 5 (2): 225–254.

DOI: 10.1177/1354066199005002003Mole, Richard. C. M. (ed). 2007. Discursive Constructions of Identity in European Politics.

Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI: 10.1017/s0047404509990558Morin, Jean-Frederic, and Caterina Carta. 2014. “Overlapping and Evolving European

Discourses on Market Liberalization.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 16 (1): 117–132. DOI: 10.1111/1467-856x.12021

Muntigl, Peter, Gilbert Weiss, and Ruth Wodak. 2000. European Union Discourses on un/employ-ment: And Interdisciplinary Approach to Employment Policy Making and Organizational Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: 10.1075/dowi.12

Parker, Ian. 2004. “Criteria for Qualitative Research in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 1: 95–106. DOI: 10.1191/1478088704qp010oa

Purvis, Trevor, and Alan Hunt. 1993. “Discourse, Ideology, Discourse, Ideology, Discourse, Ideology.” The British Journal of Sociology 44 (3): 473–499. DOI: 10.2307/591813

Rabinow, Paul, and William. M. Sullivan (eds). 1988. Interpretive Social Science: A Second Look. Berkely, CA: University of California Press. DOI: 10.1177/002071529003100126

Reisigl, Martin. 2007. Nationale Rhetorik in Fest- und Gedenkreden. Eine diskursanalytische Studie zum “österreichischen Millennium” in den Jahren 1946 und 1996. Tübingen: Stauffen-burg. DOI: 10.1075/jlp.9.1.09kie

Risse, Thomas. 2000. “Let’s argue! Communicative Action in World Policy.” International Organization 54 (1): 1–39. DOI: 10.1162/002081800551109

Risse, Thomas. 2004. “European Institutions and Identity Change: What have We Learned?” In Transnational Identities in Europe: Becoming European in the EU, ed. by Richard Herrmann, Marilynn Brewer, and Thomas Risse, 215–247, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2001. “The Community Trap: Liberal Norms, Rhetorical Action, and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union.” International Organization 55 (1): 47–80.

DOI: 10.1162/002081801551414Schmidt, Vivien A., and Radaelli Claudio. 2004. “Special Issue: Policy Change and Discourse

in Europe.” West European Politics 27 (2): 183–379. DOI: 10.1080/0140238042000214874

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

Discourse analysis, policy analysis, and the borders of EU identity 15

Schmidt, Vivien. A. 2008. “Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse.” Annual Review of Political Science 11: 303–326.

DOI: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135342Searle, John R. 1997. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. DOI: 10.1017/s0012217300029073Triandafyllidou, Anna, Ruth Wodak, and Michał Krzyżanowski (eds). 2009. The European

Public Sphere and the Media: Europe in Crisis. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI: 10.1177/02673231100250040707Van Dijk, Teun A. 1993. Elite discourse and racism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. DOI: 10.4135/9781483326184Van Dijk, Teun A. 1998. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage. DOI: 10.4135/9781446289068.n18Van Dijk, Teun A. 2001. “Critical Discourse Analysis.” In Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed.

by Deborah Tannen, Deborah Schiffrin, and Heidi Hamilton, 352–371. Oxford: Blackwell.Van Dijk, Teun A. 2013. News as Discourse. London: Routledge. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199585977.013.007Van Leeuwen, Theo. 2006. “Towards a semiotics of typography.” Information Design Journal

14 (2): 139–155. DOI: 10.1075/idj.14.2.06leeWeiss, Gilbert, and Ruth Wodak. 2003. “Introduction: Theory, Interdisciplinarity and Critical

Discourse Analysis.” In Critical Discourse Analysis. Theory and Interdisciplinarity, ed. by Gilbert Weiss, and Ruth Wodak, 1–34. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

DOI: 10.1057/9780230514560Weldes, Jutta. 1996. “Constructing National Interests.” European Journal of International Rela-

tions 2 (3): 275–318. DOI: 10.1177/1354066196002003001Wodak, Ruth. 2015. The Politics of Fear. What Right-wing Populist Discourses Mean. London:

Sage (in press).Wodak, Ruth. 2013. “Editor’s Introduction: Critical Discourse Analysis – Challenges and

Perspectives.” In Critical Discourse Analysis. SAGE Major Works, ed. by Ruth Wodak, xxi–xviii. Vol. 1, London: Sage. DOI: 10.1515/9783110214420.627

Wodak, Ruth. 2011. The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual (2nd revised edition). Basingstoke: Palgrave. DOI: 10.1007/s10993-009-9143-x

Wodak, Ruth. 2007. “Discourses in European Union Organizations: Aspects of Access, Partici-pation and Exclusion.” Text and Talk 27 (5): 639–664. DOI: 10.1515/text.2007.030

Wodak, Ruth. 2004. “National and Transnational Identities: European and Other Identities Oriented to in Interviews with EU Officials.” In Transnational Identities: Becoming European in the EU, ed. by Richard Hermann, Thomas Risse, and Marylinn Brewer, 97–128. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.

Wodak, Ruth. 2000. “Recontextualization and the Transformation of Meanings: A Critical Dis-course Analysis of Decision Making in EU Meetings about Employment Policies.” In Dis-course and Social Life, ed. by Srikant Sarangi, and Malcolm Coulthard, 185–206. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer (eds). 2009. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (2nd revised edition). London: Sage. DOI: 10.1177/1461445610393457

Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer. 2009a. “Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory, and Methodology.” In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, (2nd revised edition), ed. by Ruth Wodak, and Michael Meyer, 1–33. London: Sage. DOI: 10.1177/1461445610393457

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

16 Caterina Carta & Ruth Wodak

Wodak, Ruth, and Michał Krzyżanowski (eds). 2008. Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences Basingstoke: Palgrave. DOI: 10.1177/09579265090200060701

Wodak, Ruth, and Anton Pelinka (eds). 2002. The Haider Phenomenon. New Brunswick: Transaction Press. DOI: 10.2307/1432804

Wodak, Ruth, and John Richardson (eds). 2013. Analysing Fascist Discourse: European Fascism in Talk and Text. London: Routledge. DOI: 10.1075/jaic.2.3.06deg

Wodak, Ruth, Brigitte Mral, and Majid Khosravinik (eds). 2013. Right Wing Populism in Europe: Politics and Discourse. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Yanow, Dvora. 1997. “Passionate Humility in Interpretive Policy and Administrative Analysis.” Administrative Theory and Praxis 19: 171–177.

Authors’ addresses

Caterina Carta Ruth WodakVesalius College Lancaster UniversityPleinlaan 5, 1050 Brussels, Bailrigg LancasterBelgium United Kingdom LA1 4YL

Ccarta@vub.ac.be r.wodak@lancaster.ac.uk

About the authors

Caterina Carta, is assistant professor at Vesalius College (VUB). She holds a Ph.D. in Compara-tive and European Politics from the University of Siena. She is associated researcher at the Insti-tute d’Etudes Européennes at ULB, Brussels. In the framework of the FP GR:EEN, she worked on a research project on the EU as a discursive actor. She edited with Jean-Frederic Morin, Making Sense of Diversity: EU’s Foreign Policy through the Lenses of Discourse Analysis, Farn-ham: Ashgate. A different version of some contributions in this special issue were previously published in the volume. She also published The European Union’s diplomatic Service: Ideas, Preferences and Identities (Routledge, 2012). Her articles have been published in Cooperation and Conflict; The British Journal of Politics and International Relations; European Foreign Affairs Review; European Journal of Contemporary Research and the Journal of Contemporary European Research.

Ruth Wodak is Distinguished Professor of Discourse Studies at Lancaster University, UK, since 2004. Besides various other prizes, she was awarded the Wittgenstein Prize for Elite Research-ers in 1996 and an Honorary Doctorate from University of Örebro in Sweden in 2010. She is past-President of the Societas Linguistica Europaea. She is member of the British Academy of Social Sciences and member of the Academia Europaea. 2008, she was awarded the Kerstin Hesselgren Chair of the Swedish Parliament (at Örebro University); 2014, The Davis Chair for Interdisciplinary Studies (at Georgetown University, Washington DC). Her research interests focus on discourse studies; gender studies; language and/in politics; prejudice and discrimina-tion; and on ethnographic methods of field work. Recent book publications include The dis-course of politics in action: ‘Politics as Usual’ (Palgrave, 2011); Migration, Identity and Belonging

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

Discourse analysis, policy analysis, and the borders of EU identity 17

(with G. Delanty, P. Jones, 2011); The Discursive Construction of History. Remembering the Weh-rmacht’s War of Annihilation (with H. Heer, W. Manoschek, A. Pollak, 2008); Analyzing Fascist Discourse. European Fascism in Talk and Text (with John Richardson, 2013), and Rightwing Populism in Europe: Politics and Discourse (with Majid KhosraviNik, Brigitte Mral, 2013). For information on on-going research projects and recent publications see http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/profiles/Ruth-Wodak