An Overview of Research on the European Public Sphere

EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER SERIES

Online Working Paper No. 03, 2009

An Overview of Research on the European Public Sphere

(updated version)

Christoph Bärenreuter, Cornelia Brüll, Monika Mokre, Karin Wahl-Jorgensen

This paper can be downloaded without charge from: http://eurosphere.uib.no/knowledgebase/workingpapers.htm ISSN 1890-5986

EUROSPHERE ONLINE WORKING PAPER SERIES Title: Overview of Research on the European Public Sphere Author(s): Christoph Bärenreuter, Cornelia Brüll, Monika Mokre, Karin Wahl-Jorgensen Working Paper No.03 This version: March 2009 Webpage: http://www.eurosphere.uib.no/knowledgebase/workingpapers.htm © EUROSPHERE, 2009 http://www.eurosphere.uib.no © 2009 by Christoph Bärenreuter, Cornelia Brüll, Monika Mokre, Karin Wahl-Jorgensen All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including notice, is given to the source. The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of the EUROSPHERE Project. The statement of purpose for the EUROSPHERE Online Working Paper Series is available from the EUROSPHERE working papers website, http://www.eurosphere.uib.no/knowledgebase/workingpapers.htm Christoph Bärenreuter Austrian Academy of Sciences, EIF [email protected] Cornelia Brüll Austrian Academy of Sciences, EIF Cornelia.Brü[email protected] Monika Mokre Austrian Academy of Sciences, EIF [email protected] Karin Wahl-Jorgensen Cardiff University School of Journalism, Media&Cultural Studies [email protected] ISSN 1890-5986 (online)

Overview of Research on the European Public Sphere

Christoph Bärenreuter, Cornelia Brüll, Monika Mokre, Karin Wahl-Jorgensen* 1. Introduction Since the mid-1990s, there has been increasing research on the European Public Sphere (EPS). The interest in this question has to be understood within the context of discussions on the EUropean “democratic deficit”. It is broadly agreed that the problematic democratic quality of the EU has become an issue of concern in the aftermath of the Treaty of Maastricht. However, there are two differing explanations for this phenomenon, one focussing on the important institutional changes of the EUropean polity due to the Treaty of Maastricht, the other one on the growing scepticism of EUropean citizens.

According to the first understanding, the EU has gained crucial state-like features by the institutional innovations of Maastricht; thus, the democratic set-up of the Member States does not longer suffice to legitimize EUropean integration (Cf. e.g. Andersen/Burns 1996; Rommetsch/Wessels 1996; Van der Ejik/Franklin 1996; Wincott 1998; Brzinski/Lancaster/ Tuschhoff 1999; O´Neill 1999; Schmitt/Thomassen 1999). The second understanding rather emphasizes the viability of EUropean integration that has been endangered by the dissatisfaction of citizens and democratisation has been understood as a way to improve this situation (Cf. e.g. Beetham und Lord 1998; Scharpf 1999).

The two arguments are related to each other but, nevertheless, point towards different understandings of democratic legitimacy. Due to both conceptualizations, the question for a EUropean demos has come more to the fore, and it is with regard to the question of (existing or emerging) commonalities of EUropean citizens that debates on the EPS have started (cf. e.g. Kirchhof 1994, Weiler 1995, Habermas 1995 and 1996).

With this normative understanding of the EPS, as a means of increasing the legitimacy of EU-policymaking and democratizing the EU-polity, empirical research has revolved around the important questions of (1) whether, to which extent, and in what arenas/sectors a EPS exists, (2) whether, to which extent, and in what areas/sectors European and national policymaking reflects the public debates (the EPS’s democratizing/legitimizing function), and (3)

* The authors would like to thank Hakan G Sicakkan and Riza Acar Kutay for our intense discussions of this

paper and their valuable comments and recommendations.

EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER No.03 BÄRENREUTER ET AL.

ISSN 1890-5986 2

which social and political actors inhabit the EPS. In addition to technical questions and contributions about how to design empirical EPS research and how to operationalize concepts, important ingredients in these research efforts were European integration in different fields, existence/viability/compatibility of a European identity and a European public/demos (as participants and audience in the EPS), communication across national borders, emergence of pan-European communication structures, Europeanization of national public spheres, domestication of Europe, similarities and differences in national discourses/narratives/ framings of issues in public debates, etc.

The valuable contributions to the study of EPS, some of which will be mentioned in this report, have increased our understanding of the EU integration and democratization processes. However, within the body of existing empirical research on the EPS, there are still some important gaps to fill. Firstly, the assumption that a common European public sphere will increase the legitimacy of the EU polity and democratize the EU needs to be substantiated more, not only on the normative level but also empirically. Secondly, focusing primarily on certain arenas (like the mass media) and methods/contents/procedures of deliberation and communication in the public sphere, the present research has paid relatively less attention to the concerns about inclusion and exclusion of diversity groups in the EPS.

In this sense, the Eurosphere project takes a different but complementary normative starting point with a focus on inclusion/exclusion in the public sphere. Eurosphere emphasizes that the existing focus on democratic legitimacy in empirical EPS studies may inadvertently have led to emergence of criteria to define who the legitimate participants of the public sphere are or should be – first, by developing definitions of the demos, and, secondly, by presupposing certain procedural rules, based on a certain understanding of rationality on which rules of the game and the principles of public deliberation and communication are to be founded. However, it has been empirically shown in numerous sociological and social anthropological studies that, in contexts of diversity such standards of public deliberation and discourse can be discriminatory and excluding.1 As a supplement to the premises laid down by the democratic legitimacy debate in empirical EPS studies, Eurosphere conceptualizes the European Public Sphere as a means of inclusion, which bridges the two approaches to the EPS. Thereby, the project both contests and complements hitherto academic work on the EPS.

This paper delivers a short discussion of different normative understandings of public spheres. It then describes (1) definitions of a EUropean public sphere in different academic disciplines as well as (2) different ways of empirically grasping the EPS (3). Underway, it also points out the (expected) contributions that Eurosphere aims to make to the presently accumulated knowledge on the EPS.

1 In general, a huge body of contemporary minority and migrant integration research, gender and gay

studies, research on the disabled, and on other marginalized groups strengthen the view that universalistic discourses and rules of participation/communication in public debates result in exclusion of some groups. For examples of theoretical discussions about these, see, among many others: Bader (1995), Fraser (1992, 2007), Sandel (1998), Sicakkan (2004, 2005, 2008), Taylor (2001, et al 1994), Walzer (1983), Young (1990, 1995, 1998).


ISSN 1890-5986 3

2. General Concepts of the Public Sphere 2.1 Definitions of the Public Sphere As the concept of the public sphere has developed over long periods of time and in quite different contexts, it has been defined in various different ways. However, there are a few common denominators for the different strands of thought on the public sphere. On the most general level, everything is public that is part of the “common” (as opposed to the private) life of people in a community: the public space in its literal sense, i.e. streets, squares, parks etc., public events that are open to everyone, public matters that are of everybody’s concern. In the pragmatic understanding, the public “consists of all those who are affected by the indirect consequences of transactions to such an extent that it is deemed necessary to have those consequences systematically cared for (Dewey 1954, 15).”

One mainstream trend in political theory defines the concept of politics in terms of the public and private division; the public is related to the political, and the private to the “non-political”. Hence, the private realm is defined as the domain where the political power does not penetrate, and is not preferred to intervene with. As Arendt puts it, public is always related to the political. According to Arendt, the private, the household, was the realm of necessity, however the public was the realm of freedom where the self could escape from the boundaries of the necessities. Nevertheless, further, Arendt claims that due to modernization all public became a household, hence the Public sphere has lost its feature of being a realm of freedom but became a realm of necessity. The differentiation between the public and the private is thus not a precondition of politics but contingent on historical change. It can be changed, transformed and politically contested (Mouffe 1995, 324-328). Further, the strict public and private division is criticized by feminists; since the public power can penetrate into the private, they claim, the private is political.

On a very general level, one can state that public sphere is a categorical realm that is related to the exertion of power or, more precisely, to the exertion of legitimate power. This holds true for all kinds of political regimes, including the absolutist monarchs: Power holders have to prove to their subjects that they are entitled and able to exert power and they do so - among other ways - by publicly displaying their power and its assumed legitimacy - e.g. their god-like qualities, respectively the will of God that gives them power. The feudal model corresponds to a representative definition of the public sphere, however, the democratic model rests on the modern definitions of nation state, citizenship and popular sovereignty.

2.2 The Democratic Public Sphere As, in democracy, the demos is the sovereign, the democratic public sphere has to have specific characteristics: It does not suffice to show people the power of the power holder but this power has to be derived from the will of the people and - depending on the respective theoretical understanding - the public sphere is either understood as the place where this will shows itself or where it is developed. This concept is a very fuzzy one due to the impossibility of defining several key-terms, above all “the people”. Early concepts of


ISSN 1890-5986 4

national public spheres disregard this problem as they equate the people with national citizens. While such an understanding has been problematic for a long time even within nation states, it becomes unfeasible with regard to the European public sphere. The inclusiveness of democratic politics and of democratic public spheres and the accommodation of diversity stand, thus, at the normative core of Eurosphere.

The ideal of the liberal-democratic public sphere was developed as civic critique of absolutist traditions. It was part of the claim for political change, for new power holders and new forms of exerting and legitimizing power. This claim was understood as a universal one, based on the modern understanding of man as a rational, self-transparent subject and bearer of political rights that can be summarized as the right to self-government (Cf. Hohendahl et. al. 2000, 39).

As long as the normative assumptions of the early civic public sphere are taken on face-value the ideal concept remains largely incompatible with empirical evidence on public spheres. This discrepancy becomes obvious in Habermas’ understanding of the early civic public sphere as a never fully realized ideal and has been frequently criticized. When Habermas (1961/1989) told his tale of the emergence of the public sphere in seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in England, Germany and France, he was simultaneously providing empirical evidence of an actual historical formation, and sketching out a counter-factual normative ideal of public deliberation. Habermas’ original work on the concept of the public sphere, then, was at least in part an empirical investigation based on a selective reading of history. From early on, other scholars have picked up on Habermas’ empirical work, and questioned the details of its historical account (e.g. Baker 1992, Schudson 1992). Critique on the exclusionary character of the public sphere (e.g. Negt/Kluge 1972 with regard to the proletariat, or feminist authors on the exclusion of women, see e.g. Fraser 1992) as well as descriptions of the manipulative character of mass publics (e.g. Lippman 1922, Adorno/Horkheimer 1947) make a complete realization of the early civic ideal of the public sphere difficult to envisage.

The ideal of the civic public sphere is based on commonality, on a universal form of rationality which makes it possible to decide unequivocally which issues have to be dealt with in the public sphere and which processes can lead to rational decisions. Universal concepts have been deconstructed by many influential contemporary political theories , e.g. Chantal Mouffe has pointed out that democratic societies cannot be conceived of without a common ethical understanding that she sees - in accordance with Wittgenstein - as derived out of a common way of life.

Procedures always imply substantial ethical requirements. Thus, they cannot work adequately if they are not based on a specific ethos. (Mouffe 2000, 69)

However, the Habermasian ideal of a potential rational consensus in the public sphere plays an important role for studies on the EPS. As Fraser (2007) has pointed out, thereby, the parity between participants in the public sphere (the “how” of legitimacy) figures much more prominently than the inclusiveness of the public sphere (the “who” of legitimacy). Rather counter-intuitively, thus, research on a transnational public sphere bases its reasoning on a Westphalian nation-state-model with clearly delimited territories and citizenships. Not


ISSN 1890-5986 5

least, this understanding of public spheres was supported by Habermas’ later work. Fraser (2007) makes plausible that even Habermas’ post-national concept of “constitutional patriotism” is, in fact, based on a Westphalian understanding, i.e., a concept of clear territorial boundaries.

But, on the other hand, it is commonly agreed that no EUropean demos similar to national demoi can be discerned (while, at the same time, the existence of unified national demoi is also doubtable). This empirical situation forms the starting point for the politico-theoretical questions of Eurosphere: The EPS is criss-crossed by various forms of diversity – among others of cultural backgrounds, political understandings, and institutional set-ups. It seems, thus, of utmost importance to re-think the potentials of the EPS against the background of diversity: How much diversity and how much fragmentation can be allowed for a social/political space to be called a public sphere? What is the form and structure of a EPS that is capable of accommodating the diversity in Europe? Or, else, is it more appropriate – in a normative and/ or empirical sense – to speak of multiple European public spheres?

Both the choice of question and the answers depend on the understanding of democracy on which normative concepts of a public sphere are based. In the following, different models of democratic society are summarized with regard to their perspective on the public sphere. Two forms of differentiation have to be taken into account (1) the aims and ambitions of a public sphere (is it a mirror of public opinion or is public opinion constructed within the public sphere), and (2) the structure of the public sphere (single public sphere versus different conceptualizations of multiple public spheres.)

2.2.1 Different Ambitions of Public Spheres 2.2.1.1 The Public Sphere as a Mirror

In this approach, based on liberal thought, democracy mainly consists of aggregation of citizens’ interests by political representation. The function of the public sphere is to be a mirror of public opinion that is produced outside of the political sphere (and whose conditions of production are of no interest for this model) and these opinions do not have to be synergized in the public sphere as its aggregation within the political system suffices (cf. Gerhards 1997).

In the liberal democratic understanding, the main aim of the political system is to safeguard the equal freedom of all citizens. Freedom and equality are, within this concept, not to be produced by politics, they are essential qualities of human beings and it is the task of the political system to respect these essential qualities. This means, above all, that the political system has to interfere as little as possible with the private lives of the citizens including their economic freedom.

Out of such an understanding of the political, concepts of the public sphere tend to be limited in their ambition. The public sphere is rather seen as the possibility for citizens to control the government than as a realm of developing and debating conflicting political projects. The public sphere is, thus, translated as transparency of and information about politics, and not as the space where political agency takes place. One of the earliest contributions to this understanding of the public sphere was develop by Jeremy Bentham who


ISSN 1890-5986 6

conceived of publicity as a form of democratic curtailment of improper behaviour of individuals and groups in power, and of public opinion as a ‘system of distrust’, making political actions visible to the public. His ideas of publicity also substantiated the ‘theory’ of the press as ‘the fourth estate’ (or ‘fourth power’) focusing on control over the traditional (legislative, executive, judiciary) powers by the press. (Splichal 2006, 698)

As Simon Hix (2003) has shown, even this very limited understanding of citizens’ participation claims for a certain amount of competence and interest and, thus, for a public sphere:

Democracy is also about the ability of voters to choose between rival groups of elites, with rival candidates for political leadership and rival programmes for public policy. This competition not only allows voters to reward or punish leaders for their action, but also promotes policy debate, deliberation, innovation and change. (Hix 2003, 2)

Arguably, thus, the democratic deficit of the EU is a hindrance for the development of such a liberal EPS. Remedies for this problem are mainly to be found on the institutional level, e.g. by enhancing transparency and strengthening EU political parties. The question of diversity versus unity does not play a prominent role within this strand of thought as reasons for and origins of political opinions are not dealt with.

However, some authors tackle the problem that there is no congruency between citizens, political decision makers, and the public sphere. For the nation state, this congruency is assumed - the citizens elect their representatives, media report on government and opposition, and citizens can make their own judgments on the basis of this information (Gerhards 2000). Gerhards understands these relationships as first and second order responsiveness. On the EUropean level a democratic deficit exists as the addressee of political decisions is not identical with the sovereign demos, and a public deficit exists as the public sphere is nationally structured (Gerhards 2000).

Eurosphere also tackles the problem of nationally structured public spheres, but from another normative point of view: Not a unified EUropean public sphere is necessarily to be strived for, but diversity has to be acknowledged by enabling broad participation of different groups within the EPS. In other words, the question is not exclusively one of “public deficit”, but also a deficit of horizontal and vertical trans-European structures, channels and networks that legitimize the diverse modes of belonging to, being in, and participating in public spaces.

2.2.1.2 The Public Sphere as the Realm of Rational Debates

Academic work on the institutional set-up of the EUropean Union is mostly based on a liberal understanding of democracy and, frequently, focuses on the representative quality of EUropean institutions. Studies of the EPS, on the other hand, mainly take their starting point from various forms of discourse theory and analysis. Thereby, the deliberative approach based on the thought of Jürgen Habermas is clearly the most prominent one. One could understand


ISSN 1890-5986 7

Habermas’ project as an attempt to safeguard the normative origins of the early civic public sphere. His early work compared the (then) contemporary public sphere with an ideal political public sphere situated according to his understanding in the beginnings of the bourgeois public in the 18th century. During the long and intensive debates of this approach, Habermas himself conceded that his description of the early bourgeois public sphere presented “a stylized picture of the liberal elements of the bourgeois public sphere” (Habermas 1989, xix) rather than an exact historical description. His linguistic turn made Habermas leave his ideal of a former, better public sphere in favour of a philosophical understanding of the intrinsic qualities of language as opposed to its domination by political and economic interests. Out of this understanding, the political claim for unrestricted public spheres is derived:

Only the principles of the guaranteed autonomy of public spheres and competition between different political parties, together with the parliamentary principle, exhaust the content of popular sovereignty. (Habermas 1996, 171)

In this way, Habermas reconciles principles of liberal representative democracy with principles of deliberative democracy. According to his understanding

the internal institutional designs of the legislative, executive, and judicative power ensure that their decisions can at least be understood as being based on good reasons. Each of the powers concentrates on one set of reasons: the legislative on the ethical question of collective self-realization, the executive on the pragmatic question of effective application and implementation of law, and the judicative (…) on the moral question whether a specific law equally considers the liberty and benefit of all. (…) for their effectiveness and legitimacy, institutionalized democratic decision-making procedures depend on a functioning public sphere. (Kohler-Koch/Humrich/Finke 2006, 6-7)

The ontological understanding of language as resisting domination has been contested by the argument that language supports hegemony instead of destabilizing it. (Kellner 2000, 11) Another critique of Habermas is based on his assumption that the eventually progressive function of language is located in the ‘lifeworld’ (understood as civil society), while the feudalization and domination of public spheres is (an inevitable) part of the political and the economic system (Kellner 2000, 13). This argument leads consequently to a depolitization of all conceptions of the public sphere (if political influence on the public sphere is necessarily of evil, no political change of this situation can be conceived of) and again – as in the case of the golden age of the bourgeois public sphere – to romanticizing a concept that can fundamentally not be saved (or, at least, not be influenced, but only be defended), namely the lifeworld opposing by its communicative links political and economic domination.

2.2.2 Diversity and the Public Sphere

The two approaches summarized above are the base of a broad range of studies on the EPS. Interestingly, they do not spend much thought on the question of diversity in the public sphere although it is widely acknowledged


ISSN 1890-5986 8

that diversity – especially with regard to national cultures and political systems as well as languages – is an impediment of a EPS and vice versa. Still, the overall solution for this problem is seen in overcoming diversity, i.e. in creating (to a certain extent) a common public sphere enabling either aggregation or exchange of opinions.

However, other strands of political theory deal precisely with the impact of diversity on society and develop different normatively desirable models for diverse societies. According to Sicakkan (2008) three principal perspectives on diversity and society can be discerned:

(…) individualism, communalism, and pluralism. Giving ethical priority to individual identities and persons' dignity, individualists founded their models of political rights on the atomist ontology of autonomous individuals. With groups' collective identities in their moral focus, communalists cemented their models of political rights on the holistic ontology of embedded persons. Whereas the former suggested models of political rights to accommodate individual differences, the latter delineated forms of political rights to accommodate group differences. Rejecting both for their singular recipes for the good life, pluralists advocated the midway perspective of accommodating both individual and group differences. The commonality of these three citizenship paradigms – individualism, communalism, and pluralism as well as their different unfoldings along the lines of liberalism, republicanism, communitarianism, multiculturalism and nationalism – is their embedded perspective of difference and their focus on accommodation of differences. Difference thinking conceives either individuals or groups, or both, as indivisible wholes and blinds us to what is common or shared between people and between communities. (Sicakkan 2008, 6)

These understandings of society also inform conceptualizations of the EPS:

To accommodate individual differences, individualists suggest a single, discursive public sphere (e.g., Jürgen Habermas). For the European case, this implies “the Europeanization of national public spheres” (e.g., Jürgen Gerhards, Erik O. Eriksen). Communalists and multiculturalists propose multiple, segmented public spheres at two levels to accommodate separate historical/cultural communities which meet at the top (e.g., Charles Taylor). In the case of Europe, this implies a segmented public sphere divided along the lines of national cultures (e.g., Peter G. Kielmannsegg). Criticizing both alternatives because of their singular recipes for the good life, pluralists advocate the midway perspective of accommodating both individual and group differences in multiple and multi-level public spheres (e.g., Nancy Fraser’s subaltern counter-publics). The implication of this for the European case is “a European sphere of publics” (e.g., Philip Schlesinger). (Eurosphere Application, 6)

Eurosphere aims at a normative as well as empirical assessment of these models of the EPS while, at the same time, introducing a fourth perspective on the EPS, namely the diversity perspective.

The diversity perspective is based on the notion of otherness rather than difference. Whereas “difference” signifies disparities between persons or between groups, or between both, “otherness” signifies both disparities and commonalities. “Otherness” here is not about being “the Other” (noun); but being “other” (adjective). (Sicakkan 2008, 6)


ISSN 1890-5986 9

Within Eurosphere, models derived from these differing normative perspectives are theoretically discussed as well as empirically tested with regard to their relevance for the EPS.

3. The EUropean Public Sphere (EPS) 3.1 Approaches to the EPS Definitions and ascribed aims of a European Public Sphere (EPS) vary through literature as well as the empirical indicators used to analyse this phenomenon. In general, communication is the common denominator of all these concepts of the EPS and, probably, the definition by Trenz (quoted after Latzer/Saurwein 2006, 11) is applicable to all studies of the EPS: According to this definition, a public sphere is an intersubjectively shared, communicatively constructed system of mutual observance without a concrete social order or membership and therefore applicable to contingent situations. A public sphere is, thus, at the same time, a communicative space and a collective constructed by this communicative space and developing it (Trenz 2002, 20).

Usually, the EPS in singular is used as a theoretical-normative ideal, however, empirically, it is, usually, differentiated in public arenas or particular public spheres (Tobler 2006 and Klaus 2006, quoted after Latzer/Saurwein 2006, 11). In this vein, above all, the differentiation between elite and mass publics is seen as relevant (Gerhards 2002, 148; Schlesinger 1999, 271 ff, quoted after Neidhardt 2006, 54)2. The existence of a public sphere and its functionality are usually judged by the relative density of communicative activity (Koopmans/Erbe 2003, quoted after Latzer/Saurwein 2006, 11).

According to Latzer/ Saurwein (2006, 16) requirements for an EPS can be differentiated in (1) cultural concepts of the EPS focussing on cultural factors such as historical experiences and traditions, historical images and national identities), (2) institutional/infrastructural concepts dealing with the organisational infrastructure of political and media organisations, (3) discursive/processual concepts interested in transnational communication processes. Within the Eurosphere approach, these three requirements are linked.

With regard to empirical analyses, the “inputs, throughputs and outputs of political communication on the EU” (Trenz 2007, 5) were measured:

a) The scope of political communication: the role of European actors and institutions as the initiators of debates on Europe and their agenda-setting strategies is taken into account. This includes the analysis of media and communication policies of the EU (Mak 2001; Brüggemann 2005), the role of public intellectuals and media entrepreneurs (Lacroix 2005), the impact ofprotest movements (Imig and Tarrow 2000) or the contestation within political parties (Eijk and Franklin 2004). b) The scope of mediation: This comprises the information management through journalists as the mediators of Europeanisation in the Member States. Research has so far focused mainly on the organisational capacities of journalism and the media.

2 Some recent studies indicate that an academic elite public sphere is developing due to the research

programmes of the European Commission (Schlesinger 2005, van der Meulen 2002, Wickham 2004, quoted after Fossum/Schlesinger 2007, 36).


ISSN 1890-5986 10

Field studies were carried out to analyse the performance of EUcorrespondents and the agenda-setting and control function of the Brussels corps de presse (Meyer 2002; Siapera 2004; AIM research consortium 2007). c) The scope of public reception and resonance. This includes research on the changing attitudes and preferences of the publics as the receivers of political communication on the EU (Bruter 2004; Hooghe 2003). Attentive structures and the knowledge of European citizens are regularly surveyed through the Eurobarometer, which becomes the common reference point for institutional actors as well as for the European research community to observe European publics.” (Trenz 2007, 5-6)

Most empirical work on the EPS has focused on mediated deliberation about European issues, whether in national or transnational media (e.g. Schlesinger, 1997; Schlesinger & Kevin, 2000, Kunelius & Sparks, 2001, Pfetsch, 2004, Krzyzanowski and Wodak, 2006; Wodak & Wright, 2006). This approach is based on the premise, evident in Habermas’ original work, that citizens in mass societies cannot rely solely on face-to-face interaction, but rather participate in political deliberation and gain the vast majority of their political information from the media (Kunelius and Sparks, 2001; Peter, 2003). Much of this empirical research on media and the European public sphere has used methods focusing on the analysis of media texts, including content analysis (e.g. Schlesinger & Kevin, 2000; Kevin, 2001; Kevin, 2003; Peter, 2003) and discourse analysis (e.g. Anderson and Weymouth, 1999; Krzyzanowski and Wodak, 2006). Few have looked at citizens or institutions – Peter’s (2003) research on the effects of European television news is an exception to this rule, alongside Slaatta’s work (2001) on Norwegian EU-correspondents in Brussels.

Eurosphere aims at including these possible empirical approaches by interviewing initiators and mediators of the EPS (politicians on national, sub-national, and European level, representatives of civil society, think tanks, and media), carrying out a media content analysis and making secondary use of data from Eurobarometer and the European Social Survey.

Research on the EPS has been carried out in different disciplines: Communication research asks for the formation of public opinion by media communication, political science is rather oriented on institutional and systemic questions as well as on a normative perspective while sociology focuses on the interdependence of different sub-systems, especially the media system and the political system, as well as on the historical development of social systems (Saxer 2006, 64) and, above all, of (national) societies (Trenz 2002, 20). The historical dimension of social systems as well as of myths, concepts, and ideas of Europe are also dealt with in historical analyses3.

3.2 Measurements of the EPS According to Neidhardt (1994) a public sphere consists of speakers, media, and an audience. With regard to speakers, a small range of studies deals with public statements and P.R. efforts of EUropean institutions and individual

3 There are authors coming from further disciplines dealing with the EPS (see e.g. Poeschke 2004 from the

perspective of legal studies and Suchanek 2004 using institutional economics); however, these contributions have remained singular and rarely influenced more general debates on the EPS.


ISSN 1890-5986 11

politicians (e.g. Bender 1997; Gramberger 1997; Gramberger/Lehmann 1995, Hoesch 2003). These studies usually come to the result that P.R. on the EUropean level is underdeveloped, underfinanced and unsystematic although growing efforts especially of the European Commission since the Treaty of Maastricht are acknowledged (Cf. Kantner 2004, 136). However, while information campaigns increase public attention for certain subject matters, they are not necessarily able to give public opinion the direction they aim for (Kantner 2004, 137). Equally pessimistic accounts are given with regard to the Council (Curtin 2006, quoted after Schlesinger/Fossum 2007, 30) while the European Parliament has been understood as becoming a strong public “that is in the process of building a wider general public (Liebert 2001, quoted after Schlesinger/Fossum 2007, 30).” Eurosphere will contribute to this strand of EPS-studies by studying attitudes of political elites (rather than their publicized opinions) towards the EPS.

Another strand of empirical studies has focused on journalists and also came to rather sceptical results with regard to the general EUropean competence of journalists and to the ability of EUropean correspondents to attract the interest of their respective media and their readers. But also the development of journalism is cautiously positively assessed. (Kantner 2004, 140). Within Eurosphere not only journalists specialized on EU questions are interviewed but also leading figures of the respective media. Thereby, possible differences between EU-specialists and their superiors can be traced which influence media coverage.

Finally, also a EUropeanisation of EUropean civil society is acknowledged (Kantner 2004, 144-145). Trenz (2001, quoted after Trenz 2002, 40) assessed that political opportunity structures have led to a specific development of civil society activities - from loud protest to quiet lobbyism, information policy and monitoring. We are, thus, observing, a restricted articulation of “voice”, not a mobilisation of support in a diffuse public. Haug (2008) makes the important point that transnational social movements are not only actors in the EPS but create arenas within the movements. Again, Eurosphere will contribute to this strand of research by assessing the interest of civil society agents in a EPS as well as their concrete networking activities.

3.2.1 Media Studies on the EPS Most studies of the EPS deal with media, thereby, above all print media, and within this group, mostly quality papers are analysed while TV studies are rare Eurosphere includes a content analysis of print as well as electronic media.

Internet communication has, up to now, not found much academic attention. An important exception from this overall assessment is the analysis of internet sites by Erbe, Koopmans, Schlecht and Zimmermann, carried out within the “europub.com”-project. Furthermore, the study on the EU platform “Your Voice in Europe” by Winkler, Kozeluh, Brandstetter (2006) should be mentioned.

Media studies have described two possible ways towards a EPS, (1) a EPS realized in pan-european media and (2) a EPS via the Europeanisation of national public spheres (Gerhards 1992, 560ff, quoted after Neidhardt 2006, 54). It is commonly agreed that the first way is empirically much less probable than the second one and a majority of EPS-literature sees the possibility that a


ISSN 1890-5986 12

EPS can emerge due to the Europeanisation of national public spheres (Latzer/Saurwein 2006, 16). Usually, this latter perspective is derived from the deliberative paradigm of possible universal communication; more specifically, it is assumed that the translation between specialized public spheres and the broad audience does not need EUropean media but can be achieved by national media as well (Trenz 2000).

3.2.1.1 A Common European Public Sphere

Taken as a whole, the emerging empirical research tradition of seeking the European public sphere by tracing mediated deliberation agrees that there is one major stumbling block to the notion of a transnational, pan-European public sphere: The mass media, as the locus for analysis, tend to be either national or sub-national, rather than supranational. As Michael Billig (1995) pointed out, the formation of supranational identities, such as that of the “European” are limited by the national or sub-national character of the most influential mass media; national-level television and newspapers: That is to say, they take the national context for granted. The national context is what underlies the language of media texts. Any story is told within the conceptual framework of the nation, and any claims about “us” and “them” assume that the nation is the central imagined community (Anderson, 1983). Interestingly, even within the Internet that is per se a transnational medium, political communications have, up to now, remained to a high degree nationalised (cf. Zimmermann/ Koopmans 2003; Zimmermann/Koopmans/Schlecht 2004).

The few supranational media that do exist are primarily oriented towards political and business elites, or specialised interests such as sports and music, and therefore do not appeal to a more general public (Kevin, 2004). As Schlesinger (e.g. 1997; 1999; see also Schlesinger and Kevin, 2003) has argued on the basis of both empirical and theoretical considerations, there will probably never be just one European public sphere, but rather a multiplicity of public spheres. One of the earliest articles on the EPS (Gerhards 1993) made the claim for an “integrated media system distributing its contents to the citizens of several European countries” (Gerhards 1993, 100). While Gerhards understands a pan-European media system as indispensable for an EPS he formulates, at the same time, serious doubts on its practicability due to language differences, differing habits of media reception and the costs for translations and distribution.

The claim for a pan-European media system as well as the pessimistic evaluation of its possibility was taken up by Dieter Grimm in his article “Does Europe need a Constitution?” (Grimm 1995). Grimm argues that a Constitution would enhance the democratic deficit of the EU that is, among other things, brought about by the lack of intermediary institutions and a EUropean media system. The reason for this lack is seen by Grimm in the fact that there is no EUropean people. In a similar vein Sue Wright (2000) argues her pessimistic outlook on the possibility of a EUropean democracy on the linguistic plurality of EUrope. Due to the different languages of the Europeans, pan-EUropean media cannot develop that would be needed to inform EUropean citizens in a not nationally framed way. Similarly, Koopmans/Erbe see the emergence of a supranational public sphere as improbable in which “European-level institutions and collective actors” debate


ISSN 1890-5986 13

EUropean themes and which is “ideally accompanied by (and creating the basis for) the development of European-wide mass media. (Koopmans/Erbe 2003, 6).

The chances for and even the existence of pan-EUropean media is evaluated more optimistically by Schlesinger and Kevin (2000) due to the existence of pan-EUropean elite media like the Financial Times, The Economist, and Euronews. While Schlesinger and Kevin make this claim without supporting it by empirical evidence, a study of Euronews by Meinhof (2001) comes to a pessimistic evaluation of the effects of this TV channel on the creation of an EPS. She sees Euronews as hardly more than a “collage of bits and pieces from national TV-stations with an added ‘Euro-text’, edited for a pan-European audience and accordingly sallow”.

Moreover, Schlesinger (1999: 269, 276) asserts a Europeanized political communication in political consulting, lobbyism, public relations and representation of interests. These domains reflect the multilevel governance of the EUropean polity and do not produce a single EUropean public sphere, but “an often contradictory field of political forces” (Schlesinger/Kevin 2000: 228).

Eder (2003) also maintains that, at the EU-level, a certain kind of public sphere already exists, namely in the academic, artistic and economic field. Moreover the public sphere spreads by integration through law, i.e. by the appeal at the development, implementation and practice of European Community Law (Eder 2003; Abels 2006: 368). However, for the development of a general public sphere transnational communication upon similar issues would be necessary (Eder 2000).

3.2.1.2 The EUropeanisation of National Public Spheres

As a result of the mostly pessimistic accounts of a transnational EPS, most media researchers have now moved on to a belief that the roots of a European public sphere must be sought within national media, by looking at their treatment of European issues and particularly any trends towards Europeanization (Kevin, 2004). While some of this research has focused on particular national contexts (e.g. Anderson/ Weymouth 1999; Slaatta 1999; Ørsten 2003), other studies have been cross-culturally comparative (Kevin 2004; Peter 2003). As Slaatta (2006) has summarized these projects, they are “often concerned with what scope and kind of diversity that exists in the coverage, for instance in terms of themes, genres styles and narratives, and whether there are structured uses of sources, news priorities and frames” (p. 10).

Empirical studies of the EUropeanization of national public spheres use as indicators for the emergence of a EPS (1) the attention of national media for EU politics, (2) similarities between media coverage of EUropean issues in different Member States, (3) communicative exchange between national public spheres, and (4) EUropean identity constructions. Interestingly,

most research on political communication at the EU level, and how this articulates with national public spheres, tends to be overwhelmingly concerned with what is eventually represented, with the content that appears and then circulates. Whether the national media are themselves functioning effectively, or


ISSN 1890-5986 14

the kinds of structural change to which they are subject and which might affect media performance, tend to be issues that are bracketed for the purposes of assessing whether or not they are acting as conduits of ‘Europeanization’.”(Schlesinger/Fossum 2007, 10)

Also, the question if mass media communication delivers, in fact, input into the political system, is usually not empirically dealt with (although it is mentioned as an important part of the public sphere, e.g. by Kantner (2004) and Tobler (2006).

The attention of National Media for EU Politics This issue is mainly dealt with by quantitative approaches. Purely quantitative studies are, however, rare, and criticized as insufficient for the question at hand:

A Europeanised communication system is not to be confounded with increased coverage of European subjects in national media. This coverage is aimed towards a national public and, thus, linked to national perspectives. (Grimm, quoted after Kantner 2004, 85)

Quantitative studies were carried out by Gerhards (2000, 2002) comparing the percentage of reports on EUropean issues with the overall share of political reports in German newspapers, by Kevin, counting articles on EUropean issues in eight Member States (Kevin 2003, quoted after Wimmel 2006, 41) and by Peter/Lauf/Semetko (2003, 2004, quoted after Wimmel 2006, 44) with regard to TV coverage of EP elections. Peters et al. (2006) use quantitative indicators based on a more differentiated scheme of dimensions. They are interested in (1) the monitoring of EUropean politics and (2) the discursive integration of EUrope. Within the first dimension, attention towards institutions and policies is measured by counting the mentioning of EU institutions in the media as well as articles where EU policy making is the main subject. The second dimension is operationalized by counting quotations by foreign actors and we-references.

Most studies use quantitative criteria besides qualitative ones, e.g. Trenz (2004) measures the “visibility of communication”, respectively the “absolute degree of resonance”, a “purely quantitative indicator which measures the percentage of European political communication in relation to other forms of political communication in the newspaper.” (Trenz 2004, 294-295). Also Eilders/Voltmer (2003) use quantitative as well as qualitative dimensions. In general, most studies come to the result that coverage of EUropean affairs is rather limited but continuously increasing and that, in fact, national media in most countries are quite open to discussion of European issues and also positive towards the idea of Europe, the European Union and European integration (Pfetzsch, 2004). For instance, the Europub integrated project report on a frame analysis of a large sample of newspaper editorials reflected the positions of national elites, displaying an openness to European scopes and ideas of European integration (Pfetzsch, 2004, p. 60). Peter et al., however, maintain, that it is rather a general increased interest in geopolitical affairs than a genuine EUropean interest that has enlarged the percentage of articles dealing with EUrope.


ISSN 1890-5986 15

Similarities between Media Coverage in Different Member States Similar forms of covering EUropean issues play a prominent role within a broad strand of studies on the EPS. In their minimal form these studies ask for the coverage of the same EUropean topics at the same time (e.g. Trenz 2004). Out of more ambitious definitions, the national framing of certain issues has been analysed. E.g. Trenz and Eder/Kantner’ complement the criteria of the same topics at the same time by the dimension of the same criteria of relevance (Trenz 2002, Eder/Kantner 2000). When the same criteria of relevance apply, the public sphere can create either consensus or conflict; in any case, a “room of in-between” emerges which surmounts distance as “all are dealing with the same question (Arendt, quoted after Trenz 2002, 27). According to Risse (who has taken up this dimension),

(…)’(s)imilar criteria of relevance’ do not mean that we agree on an issue. But we have to agree on what the problem actually is: we need to ‘know’ what we are talking about. We can disagree on whether the attack on Iraq is consistent with international law or not. But ‘same criteria of relevance’ requires that we do agree that compliance with international law is significant in debating questions of war and peace. If we do not agree about international law as a frame of reference to discuss the war against Iraq, we cannot meaningfully communicate the issue. (Risse 2003, 6-7)

Renfordt (2007) has empirically tested this dimension with regard to the Iraq war and found, indeed, “a European community of communication that relates to the legal dimension of the Iraq-debate.”

Various authors see similarities between national framings of EUropean questions as a precondition of a EPS. Out of this perspective, e.g. Trenz (2000, quoted after Kantner 2004, 156) found nationally different frames when analysing coverage of corruption in the EU. Similar findings are reported by Grundmann/Smith/Wright in a case study on the Kosovo crisis (Kantner 2004, 157). Van de Steeg (2002, quoted after Wimmel 2006, 62) sees broad similarities and concrete differences in her analysis of the coverage of Eastern enlargement4. Eder/ Kantner’s studies on BSE, the Schengen process and corruption in the EU come, in general, to rather optimistic results5: According to them EUropean communication already takes place in the EU6 in the sense that a listening audience has developed. Similarly, Deirdre Kevin (e.g. 2004), who conducted cross-national comparative content analysis of European media coverage, found that even if the British press remains stringently Eurosceptic, French and German media generally provided a fairly wide range of information and some positive coverage. However, the emerging EUropean audience is not a democratic political agent but only a potential part of collective opinion formation. Conditions for collective opinion and will

4 Similarly Diez Medrano (2003) in a longitudinal study from 1946 to 1997. 5 Similarly Tobler (2002) with regard to taxation policies. 6 And Kantner’s interpretation of other case studies with differing results shows that results do not only

depend on the respective definition of the EPS and the selection of case studies, but that these results can also be interpreted in different ways according to the respective understanding of the EPS. In this vein, Kantner makes the claim with regard to studies denying the existence of a EPS that “these studies should not be understand as proofs for lack of communication but for existing communication. (Kantner 159)


ISSN 1890-5986 16

formation are currently developing in EUrope but, up to now, these conditions do not suffice to create a public sphere in a normatively ambitious sense that would require affirmative or critical positions aiming at influencing political decision making in a legally regulated form. The emerging EUropean public lacks possibilities of feeding its opinions into the political system; public political communication is not sufficiently linked to political decision making (Eder/Kantner 2000).

Other scholars share this rather cautious and pessimistic judgment on the existence of a European public sphere. Peter’s (2003) large-scale, cross-national content analysis and effects study of television news around the 1999 European elections found a complex variety of orientations among media and audiences among countries including Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands and the United Kingdom. His most significant conclusion, however, was that news about the European elections was largely invisible in most of the countries he studied, and that the preponderance of coverage he did find was negative in tone. As a result, citizens of European countries who rely primarily on television news would be hard pressed to find adequate or useful information about the European Union. On this basis, he concluded that “...there is no European public sphere. Traces of a European public sphere may exist in some international elite media and in issue-specific circles of political, economic or cultural elites, but not in mainstream television news coverage.” (p. 173)

Domestication of EUropean issues Differently from those authors who focus on similarities in national framing others see the “domestication of EUrope” as a means to develop a EPS. Eilders/Voltmer (2003), e.g., measure the “domestication of Europe”, by “second-level agenda-setting”, i.e. the relation between EUropean topics and national themes. Their study shows that coverage of EURopean affairs is in general weak; however, EUropean matters are frequently linked to national affairs. Sifft et. al. come to similar results but interpret them in a rather sceptical way with regard to their function for EUropean democracy as the legitimacy of EUropean politics making still mainly depends on national actors.

Krzyzanowski and Wodak (2006) have suggested, within national public spheres, the media construct “national filter perception of Europe” which are specific to particular national contexts, providing diversified sets of interpretations of Europe and Europeanness. Similarly, Anderson and Weymouth’s (1999) study of how the British press covered the European Union in 1997 and 1998, used discourse analysis of selected articles to understand representations of Europe. As these authors argued, the British media are, for long-standing cultural reasons, overwhelmingly Eurosceptic, viewing the European Union and issues around European integration from a perspective that focuses narrowly on threats to British sovereignty.

Communicative Exchange between National Public Spheres Risse and his team understand the transnational character of communication as the extent to which “fellow European authors/speakers participate in the various national public debates as represented in the media” and the “degree


ISSN 1890-5986 17

to which ‘foreign’ European media are represented in the national public space and treated as legitimate voices in one’s home debate (Risse 2003, 7).” A similar criterion is defined by Trenz (2004, 294-295) as “connectivity of communication” or “degree of reciprocal resonance”, i.e. “the degree of convergence and synchronicity of communication between different media.” Communications between elite publics lead to a EPS if they find resonance in a transnational broad public (Trenz 2002, 43). For Tobler (2002), it is precisely this communicative exchange that stands at the core of an EPS which can only be perceived of

if, as a consequence of a communicative exchange between actors of different national spheres (“Geltungsräume”) as well as involved multinational organizations, a transnational arena of communication can be discerned. (Tobler 2002, 68)

Koopmans/Erbe (2003) use a “claim analysis” that allows for two possibilities for communicative exchange on EUropean matters, vertical Europeanisation consisting of “communicative exchanges between the national and the European level”, either in a “bottom-up” variant (national actors addressing actors at the European level) or in a “top-down” variant (European actors addressing actors at the national level. (Koopmans/Erbe 2003, 6; Koopmans 2004, 6). Horizontal Europeanisation, on the other hand, consists of “communicative linkages between different member states.” They define a weak and a strong variant of this second form - in the weak form, media cover debates in other Member States while, in the strong one, “actors from one country explicitly address, or refer to actors or policies in another member state (Koopmans/Erbe 2003, 7; Koopmans 2004, 6). In order to analyse vertical and horizontal Europeanisation, the authors investigate “patterns of communicative flow” and assess the “relative density of public communication within and between different political spaces.” (Koopmans/Erbe 2003, 7). These qualities of media communication are researched by reporting on different claims in national media whereby a claim is

a unit of strategic action in the public sphere. It consists of the expression of a political opinion or demand by way of physical or verbal action, regardless of the form this expression takes (statement, violence, repression, decision, demonstration, court ruling etc.) and regardless of the nature of the actor (governments, social movements, NGO’s, individuals, anonymous actors, etc.) (Koopmans 2004, 13)

For Wimmel (2004), only the strong variant of the Koopmans/Erbe definition, i.e. “direct references” to actors from other countries count for the EPS (Wimmel 2004, 11):

The existence of discursive references can only be stated if a speaker in his expression of opinion first refers to the position held by another discourse participant and directly afterwards or in the further course of the article refers to his position in an approving, rejecting or assessing way. (Wimmel 2004, 16)

These references have, furthermore, to lead to a collective discourse of self-understanding, i.e. a discourse of EUropeans on the future direction of the EUropean integration project (Wimmel 2004, 49). Thus, the existence of a


ISSN 1890-5986 18

EPS depends on the reciprocal opening of national public spheres (Wimmel 2004, 57). In his analysis of the debates on the accession of Turkey in Germany, France, and the UK, Wimmel does not see a sufficient amount of direct references to speak of an EPS (Wimmel 2004, 208).

Another form of operationalizing transnational exchange is by focusing on “referentiality between media (Tobler 2002, 68). Koopmans/Erbe (2003) name as examples for this form of communicative exchange press reviews, “partially overlapping media audiences”, “same news input into different media arenas by speakers”, “same news input into different media arenas via news agencies”, and “inter-media cooperation” (Koopmans/Erbe 2003, 5-8) For Scherer/Vesper (2004), on the other hand, the decisive criterion for media communications is

if they allow for the observation of other national public spheres, and by doing so communicate which questions are being discussed in other countries of the European Union. (Scherer/Vesper 2004, 199)

They operationalize this criterion by analyzing references to foreign media in the reporting of German media. In addition to similarities between EUropean public spheres, van de Steeg (2006) introduces the criterion that coverage within EUrope has to show strong differences to coverage outside of EUrope.

EUropean identity constructions Risse/van de Steeg (2003) see the emergence of a EUropean identity when EUrope is recognized as “an issue of common concern” (Risse/van de Steeg 2003, 2). This criterion is operationalized by (1) differentiating EU coverage by the title of the section in which EUropean issues are presented in the media (domestic pages, foreign pages, Europe pages) and (2) by analyzing the use of “we” (as a EUropean or a national “we”, respectively by reconstructing the relationship between these two “we”). A EUropean identity (or, at least, its emergence) can, thus, be spoken of if (1) a collective European ‘we’ is constructed in the media discourses, and (2) “national media not only use the same reference points, but European reference points”, and (3) issues are framed as common European ones, as “questions of common fate.” (Risse/ van de Steeg 2003, 21) Trenz (2004) further differentiates the framing of EUropean issues by analysing whether these issues are presented in terms of interests, terms of values or in terms of identity, if they are, thus, seen as relevant “because (…) (they) touch (…) our particular sphere of interests, (…) a universal sphere of values or (…) our collective identity (Trenz 2004, 309).” Trenz (2000) furthermore emphasizes the possible positive impact of shared protest against specific forms of EUropean politics (e.g. scandals) on the development of a EUropean identity.

A different perspective on the development of a EUropean identity is chosen by Berkel (2006). Berkel asks for the contribution of conflicts to the development of a EPS and distinguishes between destructive and constructive effects of conflicts. The destructive effects of conflicts are their potential to harden boundaries, thereby excluding the opinions, interests and goals of the excluded group. The positive effects of conflicts, on the other hand, lie in the integrative role they can play for group identities. Constructive effects of conflicts can only be achieved if public debates meet three criteria. Besides


ISSN 1890-5986 19

making the positions of the participating groups (1) transparent, public communication should also lead to what Berkel calls (2) “validation”, i.e. the validity of the positions brought forward by speakers in the public sphere is to be put to a test. This process of validation requires to adopt the perspective of the political adversary and to understand the respective other position. The process of validation should, ideally, lead to (3) the development of common patterns of orientation.

Discourses on EUropean Matters Out of a discourse theoretical perspective, it is necessary to identify discourses on EUropean matters in order to assess the existence or emergence of a EPS. The Europub Project came to the result that EU-discourses on concrete policies can be found whereas debates about the future of Europe and European institutions still lack a shared political language – even within political elites. A study on the ratification of the Constitution (cf. Bärenreuter et.al 2006) came to similar results. Discourses on this institutional question remained (1) limited primarily to national spheres and, more importantly, (2) they tended to focus on subject matters of a short temporary impact (like the quality of the debates on the Constitution) instead on more far reaching questions for EUropean integration. The only common issue which was identified in all newspapers was the elite-citizens gap. However, the feeling of being underrepresented is probably a general phenomenon of representative democracies than a genuine EUropean one. The lack of common discourses poses a serious problem for a EPS – while, out of the understanding of these projects, consensus on concrete political aims and measures is not necessary and, probably, not even desirable for public spheres, the creation of discourses based on a common understanding of the matters at stake is indispensable. This does not necessarily mean that one EPS based on such a common understanding has to exist but even if we speak of several European public spheres, each of them has to create common discourses. With regard to the research questions of Eurosphere diversity between as well as within public spheres in a polity is possible; and within a public sphere, diversity of goals, values, opinions, interests etc. do not have to be complemented by a shared understanding of the questions at stake. Rather, we know from the modern history of states and nations that a polity can be, and is, possible with the co-existence of diverse discourses and different understandings of which questions are of public relevance. The stipulation that prescribes a common frame of understanding and a common discourse as a condition for the existence of a public sphere is either in contradiction to the public sphere’s own democratic end by excluding diversity, or it will need to create or find itself a homogenous demos. The challenge for contemporary societies is to discuss whether the political structure and the public sphere should aim to accommodate the diversities with an ethos of seeking for a common rationality; or, if it should rather recognize and allow the diverse rationalities and modes of being in order to make the diverse society possible. Unlike the liberal republican understanding, Eurosphere does not categorically exclude the probability of the latter option.


ISSN 1890-5986 20

Contrary to the universal definition of commonality, it asserts that the integrative principle of the society is contingent and reproduced again and again in and by multiple, overlapping public spheres inhabited by inter- and counter-acting structures, institutions, groups, and individuals, who may or may not agree on the rules of the game or what questions are at stake.

4. Summary Little surprisingly, the differing understandings of the EPS outlined in this chapter lead to equally differing empirical evaluations of the existence or emergence of an EPS. Early attempts at finding a European public sphere, conceptualized in terms of transnational forms of public deliberation, often came up empty-handed. However, more recent efforts at reconceptualizing the European public sphere towards a view of a pro-European orientation within national contexts have been somewhat more optimistic, however, their assessment is also in no way unequivocal. In general, one can state that studies dealing with specific public spheres see more transnational networks than those dealing with mass media in general and that specific subject matters find broader public attention than every day EUropean politics. Both results come hardly as a surprise and probably apply to national public spheres as well7. Furthermore, and equally expectably, media coverage of EUropean matters follows political power distribution, i.e. more influential Member States gain more attention than less important ones and policies within EU competence are rather dealt with in a EUropean dimension than those that are nationally decided on (Latzer/Saurwein 2006, 22). In general, national points of view dominate even in articles dealing with EUropean matters. However, if inner-EUropean exchange is compared to transnational exchange beyond EUropean borders, the public sphere seems mostly Europeanized as e.g. Erbe’s research on press reviews has shown (Erbe 2006, 172).

As a general result, it can be stated that the development of the EPS is seen as insufficient (Latzer/Saurwein 2006, 23). Reasons for this fact are seen in socio-cultural factors (languages, differing cultural identities), political-institutional factors (intransparency and low news worthiness of EUropean politics as well as lacking possibilities of participation for the citizens in EU politics), media specific factors (fragmentation of the media system, demand orientation, commercialisation, national fixation of journalism) (Latzer/Saurwein 2006, 23).

Mostly, literature on the EPS lacks a self-critical evaluation of its own theoretical presuppositions or, in an opposite move, tries to neglect all normative differences by calling e.g.

for the end of one-sided fixations and extreme requirements in favour of multi-dimensional profiles of requirements covering the continuum from minimal claims (transparency) to optimal conditions (transnational interdiscursivity) (Latzer/Saurwein 2006, 19)

7 While overview literature on the EPS usually deplores the lack of longitudinal studies as well as the

negligence of electronic media and, above all, the Internet (cf. Langenbucher/Latzer 20), interestingly, the lack of studies on national public spheres or, e.g., other very differentiated public spheres like the US public sphere is rarely mentioned.


ISSN 1890-5986 21

While negligence of one’s own normative presuppositions makes the comparison of different approaches to the EPS impossible, the second quasi-objective approach simulates the possibility to understand all theories of democracy as parts of one continuum and to ascribe to them, consequently, different requirements for a public sphere. This is, obviously, an especially generalizing attempt to create a hegemonic discourse excluding all considerations on democracy that cannot be included in such a continuum. It, furthermore, makes considerations on the EPS ultimately pointless as a public sphere can only be evaluated with regard to requirements of democracy and inclusiveness.

5. The EPS and the Diversity Perspective of Eurosphere Eurosphere will contribute to hitherto research on the EPS in various ways:

• The project is based on a usually neglected but highly relevant normative framework by focussing on the question if and up to what degree diversity can be accommodated in one or several European Public Sphere(s).

• It has been frequently claimed that a EPS should be conceptualized differently from national public spheres (see, e.g., Risse 2003). Eurosphere takes this claim seriously by searching with a bottom-up approach for types of public spheres developing in Europe. In this way, Eurosphere does not only contribute to new understandings of the EPS but also to different conceptualizations of national public spheres, rather based on empirical evidence than on the mere assumption of unification and coherence.

• As the European governance system is fragmented and multi-level, the questions arises if the public sphere follows the EU's existing governance system by also developing a multi-level-structure in which, at each level, citizens relate to different institutions of governance. This hypothesis has not been tested in previous literature. With a simultaneous focus on national, trans-European, and European level organizations, Eurosphere is systematically testing this hypothesis.

• Finally, the empirical research within Eurosphere includes different speakers/actors in the EPS (political parties, media, think tanks, NGOs), internal communicative arenas of these institutional actors (networks and communication structures), media communication, and the responses of the citizens. Thus, the empirical results of Eurosphere can be expected to deliver a more elaborated picture and analysis of the EPS.


ISSN 1890-5986 22

6. References

Abels, G. (2006): Feministische Perspektiven, in: Bieling, H. J./ Lerch, M. (Eds.), Theorien der europäischen Integration, Wiesbaden, 347-372.

Andersen S.S./Burns T.R. (1996), ‘The European Union and the Erosion of Democracy: A Study of Parliamentary Governance’, in: Contemporary Development Analysis, Vol.1 (2), 33-65.

Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities. London: Verso.

Anderson, P. J., and Weymouth, A. (1999). Insulting the public? The British Press and the European Union. London and New York: Longman.

Arendt, H. (1965), Über die Revolution. München.

Bader, V. (1995) "Citizenship and Exclusion: Radical Democracy, Community and Justice. Or, What Is Wrong with Communitarianism." Political Theory 23, no. 2: 211-46.

Baker, K. M. (1992). Defining the public sphere in eighteenth-century France: Variations on a theme by Habermas. In Calhoun, C., (Ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere (pp. 181-211). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bärenreuter, C./ Bruell, C./ Gaisbauer, H./ Gröner, U./ Kimmel, M./ Mokre, M./ Pausch, M. (2006), The Referenda on the European Constitution: A Crucial Moment for the Development of a European Public Sphere?. EIF Working Paper No. 24, http://www.eif.oeaw.ac.at/downloads/ workingpapers/wp24.pdf, 2007-07-13

Beetham, D/ Lord, C. (1998): Legitimacy and the EU, London.

Bender, P. (1997), Europa als Gegenstand politischer Kommunikation - eine vergleichende Untersuchung der Informations- und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit von Europäischer Kommission, Europäischem Parlament und Regierungen ausgewählter Mitgliedstaaten. Freiburg/Breisgau.

Berkel, B. (2006), Konflikt als Motor europäischer Öffentlichkeit. Eine Inhaltsanalyse von Tageszeitungen in Deutschland, Frankreich, Großbritannien und Österreich. Wiesbaden.

Billig, M. (1995). Banal nationalism. London: Sage.

Brague, R. (1993), Europa. Eine exzentrische Identität. Frankfurt/M.

Brzinski J., Lancaster T.D. and Tuschhoff C. (1999), Compounded Representation in Western constitutionalist thought on the future of Europe. London/Portland.

Dewey, J. (1954), The Public and its Problems. Athens, Ohio.

Díez Medrano, J. (2003), Qualitätspresse und europäische Integration, in: Klein, A./ Koopmans, R./ Trenz, H. J./ Lahusen, C./ Rucht, D. (Eds.), Bürgerschaft, Öffentlichkeit und Demokratie in Europa. Opladen, 193-214.

Eder, K. (2000), Zur Transformation nationalstaatlicher Öffentlichkeit in Europa. Von der Sprachgemeinschaft zur issuespezifischen Kommunikationsgemeinschaft, in: Berliner Journal für Soziologie 10 (2), 167-184.

Eder, K. (2003), Öffentlichkeit und Demokratie, in: Jachtenfuchs, M./ Kohler-Koch, B. (Eds..), Europäische Integration, Opladen, 85-120.


ISSN 1890-5986 23

Eder, K. (2004), Europäische Öffentlichkeit und multiple Identitäten - das Ende des Volksbegriffs?, in: Franzius, C./ Preuß, U. K. (Eds.), Europäische Öffentlichkeit. Baden-Baden, 61-80.

Eder, K./ Kantner, C. (2000) Transnationale Resonanzstrukturen in Europa. Eine Kritik der Rede vom Öffentlichkeitsdefizit, in: Bach, M. (Ed.) Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Sonderheft 40, Die Europäisierung nationaler Gesellschaften, 306 – 331.

Eilders, C./Voltmer, K. (2003), Zwischen Deutschland und Europa. Eine empirische Untersuchung zum Grad von Europäisierung und Europa-Unterstützung der meinungsführenden deutschen Tageszeitungen, in: Medien- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 51 (2), 250 – 270.

Eley, G. (1992), Nations, Publics, and Political Cultures: Placing Habermas in the Nineteenth Century, in: Calhoun, C. (Ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere, Cambridge, Mass./London, 289-339.

Erbe, J. (2006), Integration der politischen Öffentlicheit in Europa durch Vernetzung. Der Fall der grenzüberschreitenden Presseschauen in Deutschland, in: Langenbucher, W. R./ Latzer, M. (Eds.), Europäische Öffentlichkeit und medialer Wandel. Eine transdisziplinäre Perspektive. Wiesbaden, 156-178.

Eriksen, E.O./ Fossum J. E. (2001), Democracy through strong publics in the European Union? ARENA Working Paper Series 16/2001.

European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA) (2002), Governance by Committee, the Role of Committees in European Policy-Making and Policy Implementation, Final Report, Maastricht; http://improvingser. jrc. it/ default/ page.gx?app.page=entity.html&_app.action=entity&entity.object=TSER-000000 0000001291&_entity.name=Final%20Report1; 2007-07-12

Europub Final Report (2004), The European Public Space Observatory. Assembling Information that Allows the Monitoring of the European Public Space.

Eurosphere Proposal (2005), Diversity and The European Public Sphere: Towards a Citizens’ Europe. Bergen.

Fraser, N. (1992), Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy, in: Calhoun, C. (Ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere, Cambridge, Mass./London, 109-142.

Fraser, N. (2007), Transnationalizing the Public Sphere. On the Legitimacy and Efficacy of Public Opinion in a Post-Westphalian World. http://eipcp.net/ transversal/0605/fraser/en, 2009-03-12.

Gerhards, J. (1993), ‘Westeuropäische Integration und die Schwierigkeiten der Entstehung einer europäischen Öffentlichkeit’, in: Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 22 (2), 96-110.

Gerhards, J. (1997), Diskursive versus liberale Öffentlichkeit. Eine empirische Auseinandersetzung mit Jürgen Habermas, in: Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 49, 1-34.

Gerhards, J. (2002) Das Öffentlichkeitsdefizit der EU im Horizont normativer Öffentlichkeitstheorien, in: Kaelble, H./M. Kirsch, M./ A. Schmidt-Gernig, A. (eds.), Transnationale Öffentlichkeit und Identitäten im 20. Jahrhundert, Frankfurt.

Gerhards, Jürgen (2000), Europäisierung von Ökonomie und Politik und die Trägheit der Entstehung einer europäischen Öffentlichkeit. In: Bach, Maurizio (Hrsg.): Die Europäisierung nationaler Gesellschaften. Sonderheft 40 der Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. Opladen, 277-305.


ISSN 1890-5986 24

Gramberger, M. R. (1997), Die Öffentlichkeitsarbeit der Europäischen Kommission 1952-1996. PR zur Legitimation von Integration? Baden-Baden.

Gramberger, M. R./ Lehmann, I. (1995), UN und EU: Machtlos im Kreuzfeuer der Politik? Informationspolitik zweier internationaler Organisationen im Vergleich, in: Publizistik 40/2, 186-204.

Grimm, D. (1995), Braucht Europa eine Verfassung?, in: Juristenzeitung 50 (12), pp. 581 –591.

Habermas, J. (1961/1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere (Thomas Burger with the assistance of Frederick Lawrence, Trans.). Cambridge, MA

Habermas, J. (1992). Further reflections on the public sphere. In Calhoun, C., (Ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere (pp. 421-462). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Habermas, J. (1994). Citizenship and national identity. In B. van Steenbergen (Ed.), The condition of citizenship (pp. 20-35) Newbury Park: Sage.

Habermas, J. (1995), ‘Remarks on Dieter Grimm’s ‚Does Europe need a Constitution?’’, in: European Law Journal 3/1995, 303-307

Habermas, J. (1996), Between Facts and Norms. Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, Cambridge, Mass.

Haug, C. (2008), Public Spheres within Movements. Challenging the (Re)search for a European Public Sphere. RECON Online Working Paper 2008/02. http://www.reconproject.eu/projectweb/portalproject/RECONWorkingPapers2008.html, 2009-02-17.

Hix, S. (2003), The End of Democracy in Europe? How the European Union (As Currently Designed) Restricts Political Competition; http://personal.lse.ac.uk/ hix/Working_Papers/Hix-End_of_Democracy_in_Europe.pdf, 2007-07-12.

Hoesch, K. (2003), Kontinuität und Wandel in der Kommunikationsstrategie der EU-Kommission. Osnabrück.

Hohendahl, P. U./ Berman, R. A./ Kenkel, K./ Strum A. (2000), Öffentlichkeit. Geschichte eines kritischen Begriffs. Stuttgart.

Horkheimer, M./Adorno, T. (1947), Dialektik der Aufklärung : philosoph. Fragmente. Amsterdam

Joerges, C./ Neyer J.(2006), “Deliberative Supranationalism” Revisited. EUI Working Papers Law, 2006/20.

Kant, I. (1795/1983), Zum ewigen Frieden, Anhang II: Von der Einhelligkeit der Politik mit der Moral nach dem transzendentalen Begriffe des öffentlichen Rechts; in: Werke Bd. 9, Darmstadt, 244–251.

Kantner, Cathleen (2004) Kein modernes Babel. Kommunikative Voraussetzungen europäischer Öffentlichkeit. Wiesbaden.

Kellner, D.(2000), Habermas, the Public Sphere, and Democracy: A Critical Intervention, http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/; 2007-07-12

Kevin, D. (2001). Coverage of the European Parliament elections of 1999: national public spheres and European debates. Javnost/The Public 8(1), 21-38.

Kevin, D. (2004). Europe in the media: A comparison of reporting, representation and rhetoric in national media systems in Europe. Mahwah and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.


ISSN 1890-5986 25

Kirchhof, P. (1994), Kompetenzaufteilung zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten und der EU, in: Europäisches Forum: Die künftige Verfassungsordnung der Europäischen Union. (Europäische Gespräche 2/94), hrsg. von der Vertretung der Europäischen Kommission in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Bonn.

Kohler-Koch, B./Humrich,C./Finke, B.(2006), Enhancing Multi-level Democracy by Organizing Civil Society Input. Paper presented at the 20th IPSA World Congress, Fukuoka, July 9-13, 2006; http://www.sowi.unimannheim.de/ lehrstuehle/lspol2/service/dl/fukuoka2006paper_2300.pdf;2007-07-12

Koopmans, R. (2004), Integrated Report WP 2: Cross-National, Cross-Issue, Cross-Time, http://europub.wz-berlin.de, 2007-07-13

Koopmans, R./ Zimmermann, A. (2007), Visibility Biases in Political Communication on the Internet: Search Engine Results and Hyperlink Networks Compared to Print Media Content. Paper presented at the Recon Workshop, May, 18th-20th, Delmenhorst.

Koopmans, R./Erbe, J. (2003), Towards a European Public Sphere? Vertical and Horizontal Dimensions of Europeanised Political Communication. Discussion Paper SP IV 2003-4003,

Krzyzanowski, M., and Wodak, R. (2006). Comparative report on media research. EMEDIATE Project Report, WP2 – Media Research, Lancaster University.

Kunelius, R, and Sparks, C. (2001). Problems with a European public sphere: An introduction. Javnost/The Public 8(1), 5-20.

Laclau ,E./Mouffe, C. (2001/1985), Hegemonie und radikale Demokratie. Zur Dekonstruktion des Marxismus, Wien.

Landfried, C. (2004), Das Entstehen einer europäischen Öffentlichkeit, in: Franzius, C./ Preuß, U. K. (Eds.), Europäische Öffentlichkeit. Baden-Baden, 123-138.

Latzer, M./ Saurwein, F. (2006), Europäisierung durch Medien: Ansätze und Erkenntnisse der Medienforschung, in: Langenbucher, W. R./ Latzer, M. (Eds.), Europäische Öffentlichkeit und medialer Wandel. Eine transdisziplinäre Perspektive. Wiesbaden, 10-45.

Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York

Luetzeler, P. M. (1994), Writers on European Identity, in: Luetzeler, P. M. (Ed.),Europe after Maastricht. American and European Perspectives. Providence and Oxford.

Malmborg M./ Stråth, B. (2002), The Meaning of Europe. Variety and Contention with and among nations. Oxford.

Meinhof, U. H. (2001), Auf der Suche nach Euro-news-land –Satellitenfernsehen und die Konstruktion transnationaler Identitäten, in: Busch, B./Hipfl, B./ Robins, K. (Eds.) Bewegte Identiäten. Medien in transkulturellen Kontexten. Klagenfurt/Celovec.

Meyer, J.-H. (2004), Europäische Öffentlichkeit aus historischer Sicht, in: Franzius, C./ Preuß, U. K. (Eds.), Europäische Öffentlichkeit. Baden-Baden, 209-229.

Mouffe, C. (1995), Feminism, citizenship, and radical democratic politics, in: Nicholson, L./ Seidman, S. (Eds.), Social Postmodernism: Beyond Identity Politics. Cambridge, 315-331.

Mouffe, C. (2000), The Democratic Paradox. London/ New York.

Nanz, P./ Steffek, J. (2006), Transnationale Öffentlichkeit, Zivilgesellschaft und die Demokratisierung internationalen Regierens”, in: Niesen, P. (Ed.)


ISSN 1890-5986 26

Intersubjektivität und internationale Politik. Zur Theorie Jürgen Habermas', Frankfurt.

Negt, O./ Kluge, A. (1972), Öffentlichkeit und Erfahrung. Zur Organisationsanalyse von bürgerlicher und proletarischer Öffentlichkeit. Frankfurt a. M.

Neidhardt, F. (1994), Die Rolle des Publikums. Anmerkungen zur Soziologie politischer Öffentlichkeit, in: Derlien, H.-U./ Gerhard, U./ Scharpf, F. W. (Eds.), Systemrationalität und Partialinteresse. Festschrift für Renate Mayntz. Baden-Baden, 315-328.

Neidhardt, F. (2006), Europäische Öffentlichkeit als Prozess. Anmerkungen zum Forschungsstand, in: Langenbucher, W. R./ Latzer, M. (Eds.), Europäische Öffentlichkeit und medialer Wandel. Eine transdisziplinäre Perspektive. Wiesbaden, 46-61.

Niederberger, A. (2004), Aufteilung(en) unter Gleichen. Zur Theorie der demokratischen Konstitution der Welt bei Jacques Rancière, in: Flügel, O./ Heil, R./ Hetzel A. (Eds.), Die Rückkehr des Politischen. Demokratietheorien heute. Darmstadt.

Nowotny,S. (2003), The Condition of Becoming Public. http://www.republicart.net/ disc/realpublicspaces/nowotny03_en.htm, 2009-03-12.

O´Neill M. (1999), ‘Between Regime and Republic: The Polity Problem in the European Union.’Paper presented to the UACES-CESPG-AMLRF workshop on The State of the Art: Theoretical Approaches to the European Union in the Post-Amsterdam Era, Aston University, Birmingham, 6-7 May 1999.

Ørsten, M. (2003). Transnational politisk journalistik. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Communication, Roskilde University Centre.

Persson, H.- Å./ Stråth (2007) (Eds.), Reflections on Europe. Defining a Political Order in Time and Space. Brussels.

Peter, J. (2003). Why European TV news matters: A cross-nationally comparative analysis of TV news about the European Union and its effects. Amsterdam: Ascor.

Peters, B./ Wessler, H./ Sifft, S./ Brüggemann, M./ Kleinen-von Königslöw, K./ Wimmel, A. (2006), The Transnationalization of Public Spheres. Basingstoke

Pfetsch, B. (2004). The voice of the media in European public sphere: Comparative analysis of newspaper editorials. Integrated report WP3, Europub.com Project.

Poeschke,O. (2004), Fraktale Öffentlichkeit: Zur Bemessung des Verflechtungsgrades von Recht und Politik in Europa, in: Franzius, C./ Preuß, U. K. (Eds.), Europäische Öffentlichkeit. Baden-Baden, 155-190.

Renfordt, S. (2007), Do Europeans speak with one another in time of war? Results of a media analysis on the 2003 Iraq war. RECON Online Working Paper 2007/17; http://www.reconproject.eu/projectweb/portalproject/RECONWorkingPapers.html, 2009-02-17

Risse, T. (2003), An Emerging European Public Sphere? Theoretical Clarifications and Empirical Indicators. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the European Union Studies Association (EUSA) Nashville TN, March 27 – 30, 2003.

Risse, T./ van de Steeg, M. (2003) An Emerging European Public Sphere? Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Clarifications, Paper presented to the conference on the “Europeanisation of Public Spheres, Political Mobilisation, Public Communication and the European Union, “Science Center Berlin, June 20 – 22, 2003.


ISSN 1890-5986 27

Rommetsch D./Wessels W. (eds.) (1996), The European Union and Member States. Towards institutional fusion? , Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Sandel M (1998). Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. 2 ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Saussure, Ferdinand de (2001), Grundfragen der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft, hrsg.

Saxer, U. (2006), Europäischer Gesellschafts-, Medien- und Öffentlichkeitswandel - eine kommunikationssoziologische Perspektive, in: Langenbucher, W. R./ Latzer, M. (Eds.), Europäische Öffentlichkeit und medialer Wandel. Eine transdisziplinäre Perspektive. Wiesbaden, 62-92.

Scharpf, F. W. (1999), Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? Oxford.

Scherer, H./ Vesper, S. (2004), Was schreiben die anderen? Ausländische Pressestimmen als Vorform paneuropäischer Öffentlichkeit - Eine Inhaltsanalyse deutscher Qualitätszeitungen, in: Hagen, L. (Ed.), Europäische Union und mediale Öffentlichkeit. Theoretische Perspektiven und empirische Befunde zur Rolle der Medien im europäischen Einigungsprozess. Köln, 195 – 211.

Schlesinger, P. (1997), From cultural deference to political culture: Media, politics and collective identity in the European Union. Media, Culture & Society, 19(3), 369-391.

Schlesinger, P./ Fossum, J. (2007), The European Union and the Public Sphere. A communicative space in the making?. Oxford.

Schlesinger, P./ Kevin, D. (2000), Can the European Union Become a Sphere of Publics?", in: Eriksen, E. O./ Fossum, J. E. (Eds.), Democracy in the European Union. Integration through Deliberation?, London/New York,206-229.

Schmitt H./Thomassen J. (eds.) (1999), Political Representation and Legitimacy in the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schudson, M. (1992). Was there ever a public sphere? If so, when? Reflections on the American case. In Calhoun, C., (Ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere (pp. 143-163). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Sicakkan, Hakan G. (2004) "The Modern State, the Citizen, and the Perilous Refugee." Journal of Human Rights, no. 4: 445-63.

Sicakkan, H. (2008), The Boundaries of Political Rights in Europe. How can the diversity perspective, as an alternative to difference-thinking, contribute to justifying inclusive practices? Eurosphere Working Paper 2008/04, http://www.eurosphere.uib.no/knowledgebase/wpsdocs/Eurosphere_Working_ Paper_4_Sicakkan.pdf, 2009-02-16.

Sicakkan, HG., YG Lithman (2005). "Theorizing Politics of Identity, Modes of Belonging and Citizenship." In Changing the Basis of Citizenship in the Modern State. Political Theory and the Politics of Diversity, edited by Hakan G. Sicakkan and Yngve Lithman. New York: The Edwin Mellen Press.

Slaatta, T. (1999). Europeanisation and the Norwegian news media: Political discourse and news production in the transnational field. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of Media and Communication, University of Oslo.

Slaatta, T. (2001). Transnational politics and news production: Norwegian correspondents on the Brussels Beat. In S. Hjarvard (Ed.), News in a globalised society. Gothenburg: Nordicom.


ISSN 1890-5986 28

Slaatta, T. (2006). Europeanisation and the news media: Issues and research imperatives. Javnost/The Public 13(1), 5-24.

Splichal, S. (2006), In search of a strong European public sphere: some critical observations on conceptualizations of publicness and the (European) public sphere, in: Media, Culture & Society, Vol. 28, No. 5, 695-714.

Stråth, B. (2000), Introduction: Myth, Memory and History in the Construction of Community, in: Stråth, B. (Ed.), Myth and Memory in the Construction of Community. Historical Patterns in Europe and beyond. Brussels.

Suchanek, A. (2004), Europäische Öffentlichkeit aus institutionenökonomischer Sicht, in: Franzius, C./ Preuß, U. K. (Eds.), Europäische Öffentlichkeit. Baden-Baden, 191-208.

Taylor, C (2001). ‘On Social Imaginary’, Contemporary Sociological Theory. http://www.nyu.edu/ classes/calhoun/Theory/Taylor-on-si.htm

Tobler, S. (2002) Transnationale Kommunikationsverdichtungen im Streit um die internationale Steuerpolitik, in: Berliner Debatte Initial,13 (5/6), 67 – 78.

Tobler, S. (2006), Konfliktinduzierte Transnationalisierung nationaler und supranationaler Öffentlichkeitsarenen. Indikatoren einer europäischen Öffentlichkeit, in: Langenbucher, W. R./ Latzer, M. (Eds.), Europäische Öffentlichkeit und medialer Wandel. Eine transdisziplinäre Perspektive. Wiesbaden, 107-131.

Trenz, H.-J. (2000), Korruption und politischer Skandal in der EU. Auf dem Weg zu einer europäischen politischen Öffentlichkeit? In: Bach, M. (Ed.), Die Europäisierung nationale Gesellschaften. Sonderheft 40 der Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. Opladen, 332-359.

Trenz, H.-J. (2002), Zur Konstitution politischer Öffentlichkeit in der Europäischen Union. Zivilgesellschaftliche Subpolitik oder schaupolitische Inszenierung. Baden-Baden.

Trenz, H.-J. (2004), Media Coverage on European Governance. Exploring the European Public Sphere in National Quality Newspapers, in: European Journal of Communication 19 (3), 291 –319.

Trenz, H.-J. (2007), Measuring Europeanisation of Public Communication. The Question of Standards. RECON Online Working Paper 2007/12, http://www. reconproject.eu/projectweb/ portalproject/RECONWorkingPapers.html, 2009-02-16.

Trenz, H.-J. (2008), In Search of the European Public Sphere. Between Normative Overstretch and Empirical Disenchantment. RECON Online Working Paper 2008/07,http://www.reconproject.eu/projectweb/portalproject/RECONWorkingP apers.html, 2009-02-16.

Triandafyllidou, A./ Stråth, B. (2003) (eds), Representations of Europe and the Nation in Current and Prospective Member States: Media, Elites and Civil Society. The Collective State of the Art and Historical Reports, Brussels

Van de Steeg (2006), Does a public sphere exist in the European Union? An analysis of the content of the debate on the Haider case, in: European Journal of Political Research, Vol.45/No.4, 609-634.

Van der Eijk C./Franklin M. (1996), Choosing Europe?: The European Electorate and National Politics in the Face of Union, Ann Arbor.

von Charles Bally. Berlin


ISSN 1890-5986 29

Walzer, Michael (1983). Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. New York: Basic Books.

Weiler, J. H. H. (1995), The state “über alles”, Demos, Telos and the German Maastricht Decision, Harvard Jean Monnet Working Papers 6/95, Cambridge.

Wimmel, Andreas (2004), Transnationale Diskurse. Zur Analyse politischer Kommunikation in der europäischen Medienöffentlichkeit, in: Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, 11 (1), pp. 7 – 25.

Wimmel,A. (2006), Transnationale Diskurse in Europa. Der Streit um den Türkei-Beitritt in Deutschland, Frankreich und Großbritannien. Frankfurt/M.

Wincott D. (1998), Does the EU pervert democracy? Questions of democracy in new constitutionalist thought on the future of Europe, in: European Law Journal 4 (4), 411-428.

Winkler, R./ Kozeluh, U./ Brandstetter, G. (2006), Deliberation im europäischen Kontext: Online Debatten und Online Konsultationen auf der EU Plattform Your Voice in Europe, in: Langenbucher, W. R./ Latzer, M. (Eds.), Europäische Öffentlichkeit und medialer Wandel. Eine transdisziplinäre Perspektive. Wiesbaden, 378-401.

Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).

Wodak, R. and Wright, S. (2006). The European Union in cyber-space: Multilingual democratic participation in a virtual public sphere? Journal of Language and Politics 5(2), 251-275.

Wright, S. (2000), Amnesia in the cause of national cohesion, in: B.Axford, B./ Berghahn D. (Eds.), Unity and Diversity in the New Europe. Frankfurt, 41-63

Young, IM (1990), Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton N.J.: Princeton UP.

Zimmermann, A./ Koopmans, R. (2003), Political communication on the Internet. Part 1: Representative sample of websites. http://europub.wzb. eu/ project%20 re ports.en.htm, 2009-02-17

Zimmermann, A./ Koopmans, R./ Schlecht, T. (2004), Report: Political communication on the Internet. Part 2: Link structure among political actors in Europe, http://europub.wzb.eu/ project%20reports.en.htm, 2009-02-17.

An Overview of Research on the European Public Sphere

Documents

Transcript of An Overview of Research on the European Public Sphere