Imaginations of Europe
European identity and perceptions of ‘EU’rope – the case of Ukraine and the United Kingdom
Master’s thesis
University of Amsterdam - Graduate School of Communication
Master’s program Communication Science - Erasmus Mundus Journalism, Media and Globalisation
Thesis supervisor: Anouk van Drunen
Noort Lotte Leonoor Bakx - 5738792 noortbakx@gmail.com
Abstract
What is Europe, how do people perceive it, and what does it mean to be or feel European? A growing volume of research has been looking into questions relating to European identity and support for the European Union (EU). However, little consensus has been reached on
determining what European identity entails. More so, research has been limited to look at the European Union, not taking into consideration that Europe can encompass a wider spectrum. This study looks into the perspectives and feelings about Europe and European identity, from the point of view of British and Ukrainian journalists. Drawing on data from semi-structured interviews, we found that to a large extent, journalists in these countries do not identify with the political system that is Europe, but identify with Europe on a cultural level. European identity relates to values, cultural similarities and historical links that bring about a sense of solidarity and similarity. Additionally, it is the young, educated and well-traveled, who due to interaction and experience, are marked as Europeans. The findings emphasize that the idea of European identity must be looked at in a broader perspective, beyond the political structure of the European Union. With that in mind, there lies potential for scholars and politicians to work towards the construction of a European community.
Imaginations of Europe
Is there such a thing as a European community? Can we talk of European identity? It is questions like these that have hold the grip of scholars for years, and with little consensus on the answers (Risse, 2010; Udrea, 2011). Throughout years of European political and economic integration, questions of the existence of public support, European cultural
integration and European identity have been raised (Fligstein, 2009; Hooghe & Marks, 2005; Risse, 2010). With ongoing political integration, the need for a European community and sense of shared identity is growing. The EU is criticized for not being transparent, democratic and is said to lack accountability and legitimacy (Fligstein, 2009). Public support for the EU is thought to be a necessity to change the problems Europe is facing and continue integration and possible enlargement (Boomgaarden et al., 2011). Given the ongoing legitimacy problems and the decrease of public support (Boomgaarden et al., 2011) the relevance of research into Europe and European identity is still high. According to Hopper (2004) questions of European community and identity fall in line with questions over what Europe is. Geography, history, culture and political structure, these factors all contribute to create a spectrum of options over what can be determined as Europe. This research aims at looking into the different
perceptions of Europe and find out what it is that Europe means, as well as what encompasses as European identity.
Previous studies have, quite naturally, merely looked into European identity within member state countries of the European Union. However, with the notion that there is a ‘’lack of consensus over what ‘Europe’ is’’ (Hopper, 2004, p. 1) there is room to expand the
research field. European identity is largely connected to the concept of borders. Concepts of identity as well as borders, struggle with a question of who ‘we’ are, versus who ‘they’ are (Eder, 2006). European identity links to borders of the EU and their change and (real or perceived) disappearance (Bruter, 2004). It is this flexibility of borders, appearing and
disappearing, that makes an interesting case. Hard institutional land borders define in a way who is not part of ‘Europe’. However, according to Eder (2006) there are those borders that are soft, social facts, and are made up not from legal structures, but from social realities and ‘’ images of what Europe is and who are Europeans and who are not’’ (Eder, 2006, p. 256). Meaning who is part of Europe can be defined by more than simply the European Union. With ever expanding borders in Europe and the notion that social realities and images can determine European identity, this research will look at two different cases on the outer borders of Europe. Chosen is to research the United Kingdom, a country on the outer border inside the European Union, and Ukraine, a country on the outer border outside the European Union.
Ukraine and the UK. The relationship between Ukraine and Europe has many
historical roots. Being in the geographical location that it is, Ukraine has always been a part of the continent of Europe. In political sense, despite historical ties to Russia, the country has worked towards cooperation with the EU for years, and express membership aspiration as early as the 90s (Wolczuk, 2009). For Molchanov, line of reasoning goes that Ukraine should be a part of the European Union. Next to geography, it is an important political partner, shares Western religion and values, and economically, it cannot be looked at different than Eastern European countries like Romania or Bulgaria (Molchanov, 2004). Last year, a revolution began due to former President Yanukovych rejecting to sign a deal that would lead towards closer integration in the European Union. This act stirred up a large part of the Ukrainian citizens that no longer want close ties with Russia, but want to move towards further
cooperation with the European Union. The Washington Post reported on the issue saying that the protesters saw the rejection of the deal ‘’symbolically, as a turn away from Europe and toward Moscow’’ (Fisher, 2014). Additionally, the article claims about half of ‘’Ukrainians want their country to be "European" rather than linked with Russia’’ (Fisher, 2014).
On the other side of the European continent we find the United Kingdom (UK).
Compared to other countries in the Union, the United Kingdom scores high on skepticism and low on support for EU membership and further integration. Membership is seen as positive (a good thing) by merely 28%, compared to 32% considering membership as a bad thing and 37% who see membership as neither good nor bad (European Commission, 2011). Next to low support numbers, talk of leaving the EU all together has been more and more prominent. Cameron declared last year that if he gets re-elected in 2015, a referendum among the British citizens will be held to decide whether to maintain EU membership or whether to leave the Union (Watt, 2013). Numbers from recent polls show that under current terms of
membership, nearly half of Brits would vote to leave, while only 37 percent say they would vote to stay in the EU (Helm, 2014). The numbers show public support is not widely present in the UK, and once again raises the question why people in the UK have a negative
conception of Europe. Based on these phenomena and recent events, the cases of Ukraine and the UK deem highly significant to conduct to research.
Journalists; the agenda-setters. Within communication studies, the impact of the mass media has been a recurring topic of research. Established theories on the subject matter have looked at how media and journalist shape people’s perception and influence public opinion (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007). Although this study does not want to look into these theories in itself, we identify the significance journalists can have in the process of building perceptions and feelings of Europe and European identity. Acting as a channel in providing citizens with information about Europe, journalists are well informed in European issues, as well as have a role in people’s perceptions and images. Journalists activities can influence media agenda’s and news frames (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007). It is therefore that we want to get insight into their feelings and perceptions of Europe.
How do journalists in Ukraine and the UK perceive European identity and what are their feelings and attitudes towards the concept of Europe?
A number of sub questions have been established to undertake this inquiring, and are as following:
- What is Europe? What does Europe mean? - Who are Europeans?
- Is there a European identity? What does this identity entail?
- How do journalists see the role of the media in creating perceptions of Europe? These problems were explored through semi-structured interviews with both Ukrainian and British journalists. Ultimately, the goal of this study is to examine their outlook on Europe and European identity, and give implications on how Europe can move towards a better understanding of its imaging, thereby possibly give implications and recommendations for community building and integration.
Theoretical framework
Due to the importance of identity in the process of growing integration and legitimacy of the European Union, academic research and public debate have excessively discussed the notions of identity, both individual, national and transnational (Udrea, 2011). Discussions about a transnational European identity, what this entails, whether it exists or not, and if so in what form, have been discussed in different academic fields, without clear and decisive answers (Udrea, 2011). Based on research from existing literature, this review will analyze some of the present knowledge on identity theory, relating to both individual identity and social identities, after which we will focus on European identity in particular.
Identity; theoretical perspectives
Studies on identity occur in many different disciplines (Herrmann & Brewer, 2004). Fields like psychology, political science, sociology, history, geography and anthropology have studied the concept. Due to this multidisciplinary approach, ‘’there is no unified vision on what identity means, how it is formed or which are the factors that determine the
development and the evolution of individual and collective identities.’’ (Undrea, 2011, p. 118). More so, identity differs per individual, is defined only by what a single person means by his or her identity (Herrmann & Brewer, 2004; Bruter, 2003). Here fore, measurement and conceptualization of identity is a difficult practice (Herrmann & Brewer, 2004). Nevertheless, from the extensive research on the subject, we can shed light on some main theoretical
perspectives that have come to exist in different disciplines.
A common approach in the social sciences is to look at identity from a perspective of social constructivism, in which the assumption is made that identity is not a natural, given product. Identity is a process taking place in interaction, shaped, defined and redefined through social interactions and social relations (Udrea, 2011). Self-perception is constructed through socialization processes, in relation to elements of the outside world (Risse, 2010; Mummendey, 2007; in Bruter, 2003). Identities emerge through the process of who you are and what you want, they are not pre-existing, objective realities (Risse, 2010). This notion that identity is not a given is important. Identity is not fixed, or prearranged, but is constructed by one’s social environment. It is this view that is also emphasized by Habermas (2001), who sees identity building within national contexts as an artificial creation. Identity is not a static, set concept, on the contrary, it is created in an artificial manner by the influence of
surrounding environments and social practices. Therefore, identity is subject to change and evolve over time.
Udrea (2011) recognizes another approach, that views identity as rooted in social, discursive practices. Discursive practices organize and define appearance, negotiating roles and self-conception for individuals and groups. Identity is used in order to make cultural sense (Udrea, 2011). Signs, symbols, language, the discourse, these are central in processes of identity formation. Bruter emphasizes the importance of discourse as well. ‘’Identity remains the prisoner of language’’ (Bruter, 2003). Asking someone who they are or what it means to feel European will differ from person to person and what image they attach to this.
Social identities
The above discussed theories on identity mainly focusses on individual identities, but these perspectives can be broadened and applied to social identities. Social identities, also referred to as group identities or collective identities, are psychological links between individuals and social groups or communities (Herrmann & Brewer, 2004; Risse, 2010). As conceptualized by Tajfel, social identity ‘’is that part of the individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership’’ (Tajfel, 1981). As with individual identity, collective identities are socially constructed, and emerge out of social interactions (Fligstein, 2009). Identification of one’s self derives from the group one identifies with (Hooghe & Marks, 2005; Risse, 2010). More so, the characteristics of the group will transfer to someone’s personal identity (Herrmann & Brewer, 2004), possibly to such an extent that the group is seen as an extension of the self (Wendt, 1994). The sharing of
membership to a group, along with the values, characteristics and interests of that group, leads to feelings of solidarity, community and loyalty (Fligstein, 2009; Wendt, 1994).
The notion of the other. Concepts of social identity and group identification show that identity is strongly derived from group membership and groups members are likely to
favor their group over other groups (Brown, 2000). Social identity theory thereby not only defines who ‘’we’’ are, but also who ‘’they’’ are. It defines the boundaries of one group, who belongs, and consequently, who does not belong. The distinction between groups is
conceptualized in theory of ‘’otherness’’. As Udrea states it, ‘’identity has been discussed and conceptualized as a perception of the self in relation to the other’’ (Udrea, 2011). Identity and perceptions of people are shaped and defined not necessarily by internal factors, but relate to the external environment and more specifically, to ‘others’. The notion of who we are is a response to the ‘other’ (Fligstein, 2009). Individuals feel either included or excluded of a certain group, and classify themselves by the belonging to these groups. Other groups are then classified as belonging in another category, the ‘out-group’, and are often seen inferior. (Brown, 2000). Distinction between ‘’who is in and who is out’’ is clearly outlined by the content of identity, and therefore the distinction between the self and the other is very much part of all social identities (Risse, 2010).
Multiple identities. Social identity theory encompasses the notion of belonging to a particular group, however, this does not mean that individuals are solely bound to a single group. Many scholars have acknowledged the possibility for individuals to hold multiple identities (Herrmann & Brewer, 2004; Hopper, 2004; Risse, 2010). According to Risse (2010), these multiple identities arise depending on the context of the situation people are in, and not all identities are always salient. Within the discussion of European identity, the notion of multiple identities is significant. In line with Risse’s argument, we will maintain the idea that several social identities can coexist without being in conflict, and that there is no need to exclusively hold either a national or a European identity. There is extensive research proving the influence of multiple identities. The next section will look into studies on European identities as well as European identity in relations with other identities.
European identity
Questions of the emergence and existence of European identity have been a part of the process of the European project. Identity is seen as an essential part of European integration, because ‘’without identity, there can be no true, durable, legitimacy attached to a political entity’’ (Rousseau, 1762; in Bruter, 2003). A new political system requires creation of a political identity. In Europe, with legitimacy and the democratic deficit as possible dangers to the political unity, the need for a political identity is ever more so present (Bruter, 2003).
Possibility of a European identity. Many work has been produced on questions surrounding European identity. An important question to start with is that of the mere
possibility of a European identity, which is rejected by some scholars (Risse, 2010). Looking at identity building within nation states, national identities are often based on common territory, language, a degree of cultural homogeneity, and shared myths of origin and historical memories (Hopper, 2004). One could argue that these requirements are not met in Europe (Hopper, 2004; Risse, 2010). Yet, we can look at several counter arguments that show possibilities for identity building along these lines. First of all, according to Risse, the lack of a common language is not a considerable problem. Next to the fact that English is taking a position as common language in Europe, many existing communities in the world are multilingual, while still holding a collective identity (Risse, 2010).
More so, looking at the theoretical perspectives of identity, we have seen that identity is not a given product. It is a social construction, build through interaction and social
processes. National identities are artificially created, build through imagined communities. Therefore, one can argue an artificial imagined community can also be created outside of the borders of a nation-state (Habermas, 2001). Just as with national identities, for a European identity to emerge, there needs to be a sense of solidarity, a feeling that people are all
each other, in the European case, this association need to reach over national boundaries (Fligstein, 2009).
These processes of identity construction and creation take time. Identities in nation states have come to exist over a long-term evolving process (Calhoun, 1997; Fligstein, 2009). As identity is subject to change, national identities have evolved from local to national ones, and they can continue to evolve to transnational identities. National identity has meaning because it is relevant and important in everyday life (Calhoun, 1997). Europe is gradually getting a similar relevance. Europe is getting more and more impact, and slowly, people’s day to day life get affected by European policies and issues (Calhoun, 1997). European identity needs to emerge over time (Fligstein, 2009).
And with time, demography is helping the EU. Fligstein (2009) conducted research on asking the question, who are the Europeans? His findings suggest that demographic factors are a big part of the presence of European identity. The biggest predictors of European identity are gender, age and education. His findings suggest that opportunities of positive interaction lead to solidarity. However, opportunities for interaction are reserved for a limited, more privileged part of the population, namely, the young, professional, well-educated
workers. More so, people who travel, and use a second language, have had positive interactions leading to more identification (Fligstein, 2009). It is this that makes young, educated, professional and well-travelled people tend to identify themselves more as
‘Europeans’ (Fligstein, 2009). In this sense, time and demography will favor the emergence of Europeans and European identity. With a growing group of young educated people getting opportunities to interact around the EU, travel and find common ground, the group of
Europeans is growing.
Hopper (2004) argues that the biggest obstacles in creating a pan-European identity are the nation-states. National interest and considerations continue to be a driving force for
citizens and elites, and are considered of greater importance than European considerations and solidarity. It is good to take in mind that Hopper talks about interests of nation-states. Looking at Fligstein’s profile of Europeans, for citizens, other interests and experiences might build solidarity. Furthermore, Hopper overlooks the possibility of multiple identities. European identity does not stand above and beyond national identity (Risse, 2010). The following section will look into a selection of studies on the relation between national and European identities.
Relation between national and European identity. Although studies differ in their conceptualization and measurement of European identity, there seems to be a general trend to acknowledge a growing presence of European identity (Bruter, 2005; Risse, 2010). Risse (2010) acknowledges that a majority of Europeans feel some identification with Europe. There is a predominant notion that national and European levels of identity enhance each other (Bruter, 2005). Bruter finds a positive relation between national and subnational identity. Individuals with high levels of national identity are more likely to identify with Europe (Bruter, 2005). National identifiers tend to be similar to European identifiers (Bruter, 2004). Several other studies support the notion of a positive correlation between national and European identity (Risse, 2010; Boomgaarden et al., 2011). Boomgaarden found that stronger attachment to the nation-state relates to stronger identification with EU (Boomgaarden et al., 2011).
These studies show positive relation between national and European identities, however, only when people do hold multiple identities. Hooghe and Marks find that national identity can both enhance and reduce support for European integration (Hooghe & Marks, 2005). This depends on whether individuals hold an inclusive or exclusive national identity. Holding an exclusive national identity, feeling solely connected to a national identity, and not any bit European, relates to more negative, skeptical views on Europe. This falls in line with
findings of De Vreese, showing that holding an exclusive national identity (in contrast to holding multiple identities) is negatively related to support for the European Union (De Vreese, Boomgaarden & Semetko, 2008). Overall, we ca state studies show some existence of European identity, and this identity is strongly related to a national identity. Nonetheless, the question remains what this European identity means and entails.
Civic or Cultural; the European Union or Europe? Bruter looks to define the idea of European identity. He established a theory that differentiates between two forms of political identities, a civic identity and a cultural one (Bruter, 2004; Bruter, 2005). The distinction comes down to whether someone identifies either with a political group or with a political structure. On the basis three components - citizenship, common culture, and common desire to live together – Bruter established to two different notions of identity, a civic and a cultural identity. (Bruter, 2005).
European civic identity relates to the identification with a political structure, the degree to which an individual feels that he or she is a citizen of the European political system. The component links to institutional frames and the idea of a State (Bruter, 2005). European cultural identity encompasses the sense of belonging to a political group, identifying the community as a human group regardless of the nature of any system. Belonging is based on certain culture, similarities, values or ethics, common features that create a bond between Europeans. It’s about the individual’s perception that fellow Europeans are closer to them than non-Europeans. Identification with the political community is based on identification with a human group, regardless of the nature of the political system (Bruter, 2004; Bruter, 2005). Cultural identity might be understood as a social identity, the civic identity remains independent of a social group. Within many states, it is hard to differentiates between the two, since people’s national identity probably contains aspects of both the civic and the cultural identifiers. In Europe however, this is different. The cultural identity can be implemented
broader, referring to Europe as a continent or civilization. The civic European identity is less stretched since it refers merely to the political system, thereby the European Union (Bruter, 2004). It is with this in mind that we have to consider the cases of Ukraine and the United Kingdom, and examine the meaning and identifiers of these groups.
Bruter’s theory is to some extent similar to that of Fligstein, Polyakova and Sandholtz. They too identify different forms of identity, titled the civic and ethnic character of European identity. European identity can be defines in ethnic or civic terms. From an ethnic form, one focuses on common language, common heritage and tradition. Civic terms are more related to citizenship, in favor of values as peace, tolerance and democracy (Fligstein, Polyakova & Sandholtz, 2011). Again, this shows that European identity can exist of more than EU citizenship.
Looking at Bruter’s findings, both cultural and civic form of identity are present (Bruter, 2004). Following focus groups with Dutch, French and British, he finds the majority emphasizes the civic identity, and see relevance in the political community and authority. A lesser degree sees Europe as a whole sharing culture and values (Bruter, 2004). Important to note is that this study only looks at countries part of the political European structure, not the broader continent. Another interesting finding concerns the British case, who, in contrast to Dutch and French participants, hold a stronger cultural identity. For most Dutch and French, foundation for European identity lies in what he calls border loss. The fact that borders are being ‘deleted’, leads to easier accessibility and ‘experiencing’ options of Europe. The
modification of physical borders made Europe more salient (Bruter, 2004). For citizens of the United Kingdom, who are out of the Schengen area and the Monetary Union, this clear symbol of renewed closeness is not present. Therefore, they identify more with Europe on cultural grounds than on civic aspects. These findings make us see the need to revisit the British case, as well as look at a country outside of the borders of the political structure that is
the EU. How do these countries that not have experienced border loss see Europe and European identity?
From this brief literature analysis, we can draw assumptions that are significant to keep in mind. European identity, as any collective identity, is socially constructed, through interaction and in response to ‘other’ groups. Just as done within nation-states, Europe can artificially build identity based on its shared territory, culture and history. The sharing of values, characteristics and interests within a group, can lead to feelings of solidarity and community (Fligstein, 2009; Wendt, 1994). And identifiers can relate either to political, civic aspects, or cultural, social aspects. With attentiveness of this theoretical background, we move towards a discussion of the methodology and findings.
Methodology
This study follows a qualitative research method and is based on qualitative semi-structured interviews. The choice of this method derives from a desire to gain a better understanding of people’s feelings and opinions towards Europe, and their feelings of European identity. A qualitative interview technique deems most of use in order to interpret and understand human opinion, emotions and feelings, and to understand how certain individuals ‘’interpret their social world’’ (Bryman, 2012). It tailors to investigate ‘why’. With the aim to look at identity, feelings and perceptions, the ‘why’ is of great relevance. These concepts and phenomena relate to human action, and are processes of feelings and behavior that are complex and need in-depth understanding in order to make sense of. The goal is more so not to generalize, but to gain in-depth and new insights in the meaning and perceptions towards Europe and Europeans. These new insight could possibly lead to generation of new theory.
Looking at the research question, this study looks at two specific and distinct cases; Ukraine and the United Kingdom. As so, the research design taken on is combining elements of the comparative design and a case-study, leading to what can be classified as a comparative multiple-case study (Bryman, 2012). Bryman (2012) argues a comparative design ‘’entails studying two contrasting cases using more or less identical methods’’. Important to be aware of is to keep the specific context of both countries in mind, more so than to look for contrasts. The primary goal of the research is to explore perceptions and feelings of Europe. Only secondary, comparing the two cases might lead to additional interesting data.
Sample of participants
For the aim of answering the research question, journalists and activists from Ukraine and the United Kingdom were recruited. Respondents were selected for interviews on the basis of purposive sampling. Purposive sampling entails a non-random, non-probability form of sampling. Instead, sampling is done with a strategic purpose in mind, based on purposeful, pre-deliberate selection of people, selecting only those respondents directly relevant to the research question at hand (Bryman, 2012). On basis of the research question, the units of analysis result in journalists/activists, either from Ukraine or from the United Kingdom. The aim was furthermore to sample in a way that there was enough variety in the set of
respondents. The goal was set on a number of 5 respondents in each category (Ukraine versus UK). Respondents were selected through use of the network of the interviewer. All Ukrainian respondents were recruited through one individual contact person, who provided a list with names and contact information, and in some cases linked initial contact between the
researcher and the interviewee. The British respondents were found through the personal network of the researcher, as well as referred to by three other contact persons within this network. This resulted in a sample of nine respondents, divided in Ukrainians (N=4) and Brits
(N=5). Respondents are age 22 to 42, and the sample consists of slightly more men than women (N=5 male, N=3 female).
Data collection
Data collection was conducted over a four week period, which took place in the period of May to June 2014. In total a number of nine in-depths interviews were carried out. The interviews were conducted through Skype, an internet telephone service, and therefore consisted of either a telephone or video-chat conversation. The interviews were held in English and recorded to be transcribed afterwards. All were conducted by the first author, and each interview lasted between 30 and 50 minutes.
The respondents were asked a series of questions based on an interview guidebook, which marked several key themes and initial questions. The themes and subjects in the guidebook were loosely set up on the basis of previous studies, of which Bruter (2003, 2005; see theoretical framework) formed the largest inspiration. The Eurobarometer was consulted as well, and questions relating to attachment and meaning of the EU were inspired by the Eurobarometer survey. Due to the flexible semi-structured nature of the interviews, all conversations varied to some extent. Based on the course of the interview, some questions were answered in different order or skipped altogether, as well as topics were addressed by the interviewees or interviewer in the course of the interview. This based on the conversation or answers given. All interviews started with a short welcome chat, including an introduction to the subject and aims of the research. Furthermore, respondents were explained the
procedure of academic research on the basis of a consent form made for the purpose of ethical considerations. Respondents were then asked to give consent for their participation.
Interviews ended with a short debrief, some friendly conversation and an option for both interviewer and interviewee to contact at a later point with any further questions. The full
interview guidebook can be found in appendix II. The main themes addressed in the interview were as follow:
- Perceptions and feelings towards Europe o What does Europe mean?
o Feelings of inclusion or exclusion from Europe - Identity
o Identity; first and secondary
o Idea and existence of European identity; what is it, what does it mean to be European , who are Europeans?
- Impact of media and journalism
Analysis
In line with an often used approach in qualitative method, this research has set out to work from the data to theoretical perspectives, instead of vice versa. Although a preliminary
literature review was conducted in order gain insight in the existing knowledge on the subject, and set the themes and questions for the interview, no hypotheses were set before the data collection was conducted. Following Glaser and Strauss’s grounded theory, coding was done as one of the most central processes (Bryman, 2012). First off, all audio and video of the interviews was transcribed and imported into the qualitative software program MAXQDA. All documents were coded initially using an open coding approach, thereby ‘’breaking down, examining, conceptualizing and categorizing’’ (Bryman, 2012). With open coding, concepts are extracted from the text. These concepts and codes helped identifying key themes and patterns in the interviews. Open coding led to 317 segments of text coded, with 40 codes and 23 sub-codes. This processes was followed by a second procedure of more selective coding, linking different codes in the texts, grouping certain codes together, deleting of codes and
creating broader categories. Out of these broader categories, several links and relationships came up, that lead to the results to be discussed in the next section.
Results Europe: perceptions, meaning and in- or exclusion
The first subject addressed in the interviews relates to the meaning of Europe and feelings of being part of Europe. To introduce the broad topic, respondents were asked to name some associations that came to mind when thinking of Europe. A variety of reactions came up. Some respondents immediately separate the ‘cultural’ Europe, from the political and economic Europe, the European Union. Some join Europe and the EU together under one denominator. For the British respondents, when asked about their relationship to Europe, thoughts like open borders, free work and travel opportunities are mentioned frequently. Thereby, a large part of their initial associations do link to the civic aspects of Europe (Bruter, 2004; Bruter, 2005). However, some of them also identify the importance of cultural and historical links. They recognize that due to shared history and culture, Europe is something ‘’varied and interesting, culturally diverse thing on our doorstep’’. For Bernard (UK) Britain is inherently a part of Europe due to history:
‘’The UK has always been part of Europe, there is a kind of strong cultural link between the UK and the rest of Europe historically’’ (Bernard, UK)
Ukrainians see Europe to some extent to the EU. But moreover, Europe is ‘’one big neighbour to Ukraine that we all feel and acknowledge and interact with’’ (Andriy, Ukraine). Europe is seen as something related to values and opportunities:
‘’Europe is international, multicultural, democratic. It means having opportunities, traveling, different cultures, different people. Europe is much more, much bigger concept than just the European Union, but European Union is a large part of it of course. As a general concept Europe is more of a historical geographical part of the world, with its own history and problems and relations.’’ (Andriy, Ukraine)
Being a part of Europe relates to these values and to what Anastasiya (Ukraine) calls ‘different thinking’. Different in the sense that, this way of thinking is closely related to values that are seen as European. Being part of Europe is being ‘’closer mentally to Europe’’. Ukrainian respondents emphasize that the life style and mindset of Europe is related to values and possibilities that they wish to strive for. They strive for a different political system, democracy, freedom, and the opportunities to work and travel throughout Europe. Due to them taking on this ‘European’ mindset, they feel included in Europe. Additionally, Ukraine is seen as a part of Europe due to historical links. Alex (Ukraine) mentions what he calls a theory that has been part of the ideas in the Ukrainian Revolution, stating that Ukraine is returning to be a part of Europe were it was in historical sense :
‘’We don’t have to consider the fact that Ukraine will be invited to be part of Europe, but Ukraine is returning to Europe. I think it is not a big mistake to say that, because, Ukraine was in Europe before. It was part of Poland, we actually were Europe’’.
These references to cultural similarities, historical links and a comparable mindset and set of values can be grouped under Bruter’s cultural identifiers (Bruter, 2005). The Ukrainians relate to Europe on the basis of these common features that link them to Europe and Europeans.
Despite the idea people are mentally close to Europe and European values, the fact that Ukraine is currently not in the EU is a reason to feel excluded to a certain extent. Ukrainians miss the opportunities members of the EU do get, like free travel and free movement of goods and people around the EU. Trading and traveling are seen as very important, and including Ukraine is the European system would give opportunities for people in the country. Visa’s and closed borders, aspects of the political system (and civic identifiers), are mentioned as barriers that exclude the Ukrainians from people from the European Union. Inga (Ukraine), sees these exclusions from the union and accompanying obstacles as ‘’something not normal’’. She feels Ukraine tries to be part of Europe in all aspects and sees Ukraine as an
important and large country on the map in Europe. However, in reality people do not have the same travel and work possibilities, thereby lacking behind.
It is these possibilities, characteristics like free travel and work opportunities that the British respondents see as a big part of the meaning of Europe. Europe means no restrictions to where you want to go. No visa, open borders, free trade, all benefits that leads to freedom and choice to travel or find a job elsewhere. Europe ‘’has always represented possibility’’. The reason to start European collaboration, peace, is still seen as a big part of what the European project stands for. Being part of a bigger collective gives Britain strength, power and a place to be of influence. The benefits are what makes people feel associated with Europe, and vice versa, one respondent adds that leaving the EU would extract these benefits for the UK, leaving them isolated. The United Kingdom is viewed as a big player in Europe, or the respondents consider it as a big part of Europe, however, one that does not always play it’s part. Bernard (UK) mentions:
‘’The UK is still very powerful, it’s still a big player in Europe. But within the European project it doesn’t actually try to play its part, it tries to opt out of everything. And I guess the other countries in Europe don’t like that.’’
Analyzing why the Brits feel excluded or exclude themselves, respondents tend to feel that Europe is something different, and the UK forms an exception to other countries. Reasons given for this are UK history and the governmental structure of the United Kingdom. Being a strong empire has led to thinking they can handle things on their own, a sense of superiority, Ellie mentions. There is a fear of losing control, an issue of loss of sovereignty that does not fall well with British citizens. Aside from these aspects, a very interesting finding is that all British respondents mention them being ‘an island’ as one of the main reasons for Britain’s exclusion. Because they are an Island, the UK feels somewhat of an outsider, off from the ‘rest’, not in the midst of things, not part of ‘mainland’ or ‘central’ Europe. The mention of
the Island can be seen both as a geographical location that literally places the UK ‘out’, as well as a metaphor of being outside and doing things their way, at their own speed.
‘’The UK is a tiny little island, just off of mainland Europe, it’s still in Europe, but its floating about in the ocean. So, I’d very much see even though we’re a part of Europe, and I fully acknowledge that, it doesn’t feel though as if we’re completely a part of the European mainland area if that makes sense’’ (Sabbir, UK)
‘’ It may only be 33 miles across, the channel, the narrowest point. But it might as well be 3000 a lot of the time’’ (Alexander, UK)
This idea of difference relates to a mindset, but also to the political structure of Europe. Two respondents mention the different levels of European cooperation the UK is a part of. By not being a member of the Euro countries, and not being part of the Schengen area, the United Kingdom in a way excluded itself from certain ‘parts of Europe’. Sabbir (UK) for example thinks that being part of the Schengen area would increase his feeling of being part of Europe. These findings show British respondents acknowledge civic aspects such as border deletion as an important part of Europe. At the same time, they mark themselves as being a bit ‘different’, partly due to being outside of parts of the political system, like the Schengen area.
Both groups identify with Europe on cultural identifiers, and see similarities on cultural grounds, however, civic aspects are mentioned too. In both cases, the countries however also acknowledge they are not fully a part of ‘civic Europe’. For Ukraine, that is in the sense of membership to the EU, for UK, it is both the mindset of being an outsider as well as the facts that they are not inside all of the European Union. Interesting is that, in line with discussed theory, feelings of solidarity and community come most from shared values and characteristics, and do not have to arise from membership to any political structure. (Bruter, 2005; Fligstein, 2009; Wendt, 1994)
Knowledge & Awareness. For both cases, knowledge and awareness are mentioned as factors that bring people closer or further away from associating or identifying with
aware off. Going on holiday or living somewhere else with ease is not linked to a realization of ‘’that is because of the EU, that you can just do that’’. People do not associate or consider the ease of daily life to be something to do with Europe. According to Bernard (UK), politics and people’s own lives are not linked up:
‘’There was an article recently about people in Spain, who were going to vote UKIP, they’re British expatriates who live in Spain, and they’re like ‘oh yeah all these immigrants coming over’, not really realizing that they’re immigrants themselves.’’ (Bernard, UK)
For Ukrainians, knowledge is a similar factor in causing feelings of being away from Europe. Respondents identify that some people just do not encounter Europe in their lives, and
therefore have a hard time having any perception or opinion about it. Education and experience seem to be factors that link people to an understanding and association with Europe. Respondents add that in areas in the East of Ukraine, a lot of people have never been to Europe, and only encountered information influenced by Russian propaganda.
Europeans & European identity
When talking about perceptions and meanings of Europe, discussions about who are and aren’t Europeans inevitably flowed into the conversation. The interviews focused on people’s individual feelings of identity, questions relating to who are considered Europeans, and the idea of the existence of a European identity. In mostly all cases, respondents identify first and foremost with their national identity. They consider themselves British (sometimes English) or Ukrainian. A large part of respondents recognizes being European as a second or third identity. Having multiple identities is something considered natural and uncomplicated. This falls in line with research findings of positive relations between national and European identities (Risse, 2010; Boomgaarden et al., 2011). Andriy (Ukraine) demonstrates this positive relation by saying: ‘’another identity doesn’t remove the national identity of people, it just adds to it’’.
Recognizing values and opportunities when thinking about Europe, also comes back in what respondents consider characteristics of ‘being a European’. A European citizen is
someone who takes on certain values, a certain mindset. That includes liberal ideas and democracy, respect for human rights, freedom and peace. But it also means sharing similarity in mentality, in your approach of doing things and ‘how people go about their everyday life’. Anastasiya (Ukraine) emphasizes this by saying:
‘’To be a European is to have some particular kind of thinking I would say. And yeah, there are different characteristics of different nations, but generally, it’s like one way of thinking, one way of developing some values and a way of life.’’
For the Ukrainian respondents, it is this that sets them as European citizens. Inga (Ukraine) stresses that even though there are many cultural and historical differences, ‘’there is no difference between Ukrainian people and European citizens’’. Differences between countries are present, but there is no difference between people, they think and live alike.
Age, Travel & Experience. Several demographic factors are recognized as important indicators of who are Europeans. The young, educated and traveled people have more positive associations with Europe. These people have had the opportunities to experience Europe, and thereby, create more positive feelings. Rural, poor communities are identified as the ones that tend to be more skeptical. Respondents from the UK said, London is different. In London, there is much diversity and a demography of richer, younger and educated people, meaning ‘’you’ll find a lot of tolerance for Europe’’. In contrast to that, ‘’deprived communities with a lot of poverty’’ are more inclined to follow Euro-skeptic opinions and parties. Respondents think that younger people feel more European, since they have grown up with the European Union as the norm, but also have had all the opportunities of travel and thereby easily connect to people and places. As Alexander (UK) puts it: ‘’Political realities have to stem from a kind of lived experience’’. Without this experience, Europe is too abstract, and it’s hard to connect and be interested in other members of Europe. This falls in line with the idea that people need
to associate and know about Europe. Politics do not relate to people’s everyday life, closeness derived from interaction and experience. Travel and experience, they build the European community:
‘’I’d say EasyJet has done more to create a European community than anything Brussels has done. Because English people have now visited places they never would have gone to. And they’ve gone there, enjoyed it, talked about it with their friends, and then more people have gone.’’ (Alexander, UK)
These findings fall in line with studies by e.g. Fligstein (2009), that identify factors like age, education and social background, as well as travel, experience and interaction as the greatest influence on European identity.
Noteworthy is that not many British respondents necessarily mention being a member of the European Union as the reason for being European. A few mention the Union, or the fact that being out of Schengen led to less of a feeling of being a European, but the majority sees having a sense of solidarity with other people around Europe, sharing culture and history are common stated factors of feeling European. The Ukrainian respondents are divided, some say they identify with Europe and Europeans, but they are not European. Some consider
themselves as European, but question whether other Europeans will, or whether other people in their country do. Time and changes in the country, in line with the ‘European way of life’ are mentioned as requirements to move towards greater self-identification with Europeans.
The other. Defining who are Europeans is also done to a large extent by defining who are not Europeans, in line with theories of ‘otherness’ and ‘out-groups’ (Brown, 2000; Udrea, 2011). Respondents defined Europeans by distinguishing this group from other groups:
‘’I think when you self-identify as a European, what you’re actual doing is saying you’re not an American, you’re not a North-African, you’re not a Russian and you’re not an Asian.’’ (Alexander, UK)
‘’I guess I’d define Europe as being different from the Middle East, being different from the US and being different from Russia.’’ (Ellie, UK)
Also the fact that others identify you as a European marks you. Bernard (UK) for example said that travelling in the Middle-East, he is perceived by people as European. Additionally, wanting to distinct yourself or your identity from a group, might bring you closer from that one group to another. Ukrainians Inga, Alex and Andriy all mentioned the fact that for Ukrainians, it might not be so much they are feeling European, but they do not want to associate with Russia, and see more in common with Europe than with Russia or America. For Alexander (UK) the current situation in Ukraine shows who is part of Europe and who is not:
‘’What Putin is doing in the East, is basically trying to draw a line, he’s trying to answer that question for you . And say no, here are some people who don’t believe in democracy in the full sense, they believe in strength. And that’s the line we’re going to draw.’’
European identity. Out of the discussion about identities comes forth that many of the respondents acknowledge the existence of European identity in some form. Most find it hard to pinpoint what this identity entails, what it means. Again, relation to a common mindset and similarities in life and cultures are specified reasons. European identity encompasses that countries are part of something bigger, a bigger continent or project that links countries in solidarity and history. For Bernard (UK), this means that European identity is about people, saying they have something in common, and not saying they signed up for a political vision. Ellie and Sam (both UK) think that a European identity means a collection of diverse, different national identities, that coexist. A European identity does not mean that Europe is one big country, however, it is seen as a community of countries, all sharing some similarities and differences that are blend together. That blend is what is seen as the European identity. Only one respondent clearly indicated he doesn’t believe in a European identity. He however did acknowledge that, being in the EU, makes people citizens of Europe.
A final observation can be made about language. Surprisingly, two British respondents mentioned the English language as an obstacle in inclusion in Europe and the European
community. Sabbir (UK) argued he feels more British than European due to language. What binds Europe into a specific concept and includes you in it, is having a unique culture and language, which he feels English does not have. The fact that English is spoken everywhere makes it ‘’as if we don’t have that unique language and therefore that cultural sort of unique thing about being a part of Europe’’. Sam (UK) on the other hand, felt excluded in
international setting due to the fact that other Europeans speak many more languages and the English do not, and thereby are not a part of the conversation. He added: ‘’ I think it’s a trust issue, I think you’ve got to show that you’re putting in the effort. If you’re going to cooperate on something as grand as the EU.’’
The role of the Media
Discussing the role of the media in people’s perception of Europe and the European Union, there are some recurring subjects to mention. According to several respondents, the media generally play into the role of the ignorance people have about Europe and the European Union. A lack of knowledge leads to misconceptions, but also mistrust and fear. And the media does not help to close this knowledge gap.. In the Ukrainian case, Russian propaganda is mentioned as having led to biased information that fed into certain perceptions of Europe and Europeans. For the British, it is said that ‘’the UK press will refer to Europe and the EU as a kind of foreign entity’’.
Sensationalist and negative news is preferred over positive reporting. According to Sam (UK) the media does not give the EU credit when credit is due. Sabbir (UK) says he doesn’t think any positive reporting on the EU gets a place, and also sees a lack of interest in the subject. People are not interested in things the EU does right, contrary to negative,
sensationalist news, that people can feel hate and anger towards. ‘’They’ll read that’’. Sabbir, as well as Bernard (both UK), mention the fact that Europe is used as a scapegoat. People and
politicians like to use Europe, or Eastern Europe in particular, to put the blame on, and ‘’Europe works very well’’.
Some respondents argue that journalists should or will take into consideration to write what the public wants them to write. This depending on the kind of journalism they’re doing. News reporting differs from writing opinion pieces. Overall, being critical and following the evidence are seen as standard values to work by. One way to get people more involved and aware of the EU might be to change the way we report on Europe. Framing the EU less as something ‘foreign’ and more as something domestic that affects us, might lead to a different outlook:
‘’I think maybe the main issue , is that the EU is reported as international news. Whereas in fact, considering the decision the EU makes effect all of us in like a quite direct way now, it should just be reported as government news, or something like that. I think that distinction, by putting it in the spectrum of international news, alongside, let’s be honest, much more
spectacular things happening, really diminishes it.’’ (Sam, UK)
All in all, Europe stands for a political entity, as well as a broader concept, build from cultural and historical links. Values and characteristics, as well as knowledge, experience and
interaction are the most important builders of European identity.
Discussion
This study aimed to explore perceptions, feelings and opinions of journalists towards the concept of Europe. The research looked into questions relating to the meaning of Europe, what Europe is, who Europeans are, what European identity entails and whether it exists. Interviews with British and Ukrainian respondents were conducted to shed light on the following research question: How do journalists in Ukraine and the UK perceive European identity and what are their feelings and attitudes towards the concept of Europe?
The findings of the interviews establish that Europe is perceived in different ways. Every so often, it is placed under the same denominator as the European Union. Opportunities and benefits the EU gives are part of the meaning of Europe. A second perspective on Europe is that of a broader concept, one that stands for certain values, opportunities, and shared history and culture. It is in this sense that people feel very much linked to Europe. Likewise, the perception of Europeans is linked to a set of values and a mindset that is part of Europe and what Europe and Europeans stand for.
European identity remains a complex subject, and therefore our question of identity has multiple answers. Along with the wide-ranging notion in existing research, we can state that generally, participants acknowledge the existence of European identity in some form. Identity is still very much linked to nationality, in the sense that respondents associate strongest to their national identity. Being a European citizen is something most respondents acknowledge as an additional identity, showing the existence of multiple identities. There is no clear solution on what European identity is exactly or what it entails. Some consider it a distinct separate identity, holding its own characteristics. Others see European identity as the collection of national identities that coexist. We can conclude that overall, European identity is not seen as political or linked to a political system. The meaning of Europe, what Europe is, as well as who Europeans are, derives from a sense of solidarity and similarity in culture, history, values and mindset across national boundaries.
This mean findings confirms Bruter’s theory relating to civic and cultural identifiers (Bruter, 2004; Bruter, 2005). Perceptions of Europe and European identity exist both of civic and cultural identifiers. Civic identifiers like open borders, free movement and opportunities and possibilities that come with that were mentioned by both Ukrainian and British
respondents. In this sense, respondents look at Europe in relation to the political system, the European Union, civic identity means identifying with Europe on the basis of that political
structure. For Brits, those identifiers mark them as a part of the EU, whereas for the
Ukrainians, this is what excludes them from Europe. Because Ukrainians are not part of the political structure, naturally, they identify less with Europe on civic basis versus the cultural. In line with Bruter’s findings, this study found the British also tend to identify more on a cultural level than a civic one. British feel ‘different’, a ‘island’ apart from the rest, and are not in all parts of the political structure (like the Euro and Schengen area), which makes the sense of their European identity relate less to the civic, political system. Both groups of respondents seem to have a more predominant level of cultural identifiers in relation to Europe. Values of solidarity, peace and democracy, as well as recognition of similar cultures and historical links are frequently mentioned, and appear to have more significance to
respondents than civic identifiers. We conclude that the predominant cultural identification of both Ukraine and the United Kingdom, is consequence of the countries position in the
political structure of Europe. Being fully or partly outside of that, does not mean countries do not identify with Europe. However, identification is bases on cultural aspects, and not on civic ones.
The findings moreover confirm existing theories of ‘otherness’ (e.g. Brown, 2000). Interviews showed that being a European or being part of Europe means not being part of the ‘other’ group. The boundaries of Europe and Europeans are drawn by who is not part of us, who are not Europeans. Others define who we are, and who they are. By not wanting to be part of ‘the other’ (for example Russia) group, you identify as being part of Europe or being closer to Europe. European identity is defined by using the ‘other’.
In line with existing research of i.e. Fligstein, we can conclude that Europeans are the ‘’privileged members of society’’ (Fligstein, 2009). All respondents think young people tend to be and feel more European. Education, travel, interaction and experience are likewise mentioned as important factors to identify more with Europe and Europeans. The fact that
travelling is much easier and cheaper, and more (young) people get a chance to go see and experience other countries and interaction with the people in it, is seen as one of the biggest indicators of a growing European community. Daily life is not linked to politics. Identification with the group has to do with interest in the group, rather than the political system they are (or are not) a part of. Experience, interaction, knowledge and association create the images and feelings of Europe, and interaction and experience tends to happen most for those young, educated and well-traveled citizens.
Lastly, we can state that the media are seen to be a factor in the ignorance and lack of knowledge citizens have about Europe. They fail to bridge this knowledge gap and to report about Europe, or report more positively and well balanced. Even though this is acknowledged, there is not a great sense of responsibility to change this incentive among the journalists interviewed. They do not feel a greater role for the media to put reporting of Europe in a more positive light. Journalists think there is simply no demand for this kind of news. Their role is to cater to the demand, while keeping into account to work by professional standards, follow the facts and be critical. Journalists perceptions seem to be similar to that of their counter citizens, and more influenced by demographic factors as age and education than by their professional career.
Limitations. There are some demographic realities that to some extent have influenced the results of this study. Even though the results of this study confirm existing theories about which parts of the population tend to feel more European (the young, educated and well-traveled people), the sample of this research ended up, unintentionally, to interview only people that already fit these demographic conditions. With the exception of one, all respondents fell in the age group of 20 to 30 year old. All respondents were educated. And a majority of the respondents identifies themselves as people who travel regularly. A large part of the participants have worked or studied in an international environment. All these factors
naturally contribute to their opinions and feelings towards Europe and Europeans. We can therefore say that the results of this research confirmed the existing knowledge on the subject matter. However, future research might benefit from looking at the perceptions and feelings of other demographic groups.
All interviews were conducted through Skype, and therefore either by telephone or by video chat. This means some interviews were accompanied by video, and the interviewee and respondent could see each other, whereas the phone interviews did not have any visual aspects of communication. In effect, interviews were subject to different conditions, with some
having options for face-to-face communication, and some no option to observe behavior, being limited to non-verbal communication. These conditions might have had influence on the interviews and the outcomes of the conversations. Due to restrictions on time and money, none of the interviews could be done in Ukraine or the United Kingdom, and Skype proved a good tool to reach people. However, ideally, interviews would all be done face-to-face and in a familiar and comfortable setting. It is highly doubtful that the results have been changed due to these circumstances, nevertheless a different situation might have led more in-depth
responses.
Lastly a remark needs to be made considering the events in Ukraine. During the course of this research, the political situation in Ukraine kept changing. For the respondents, a lot of emotion and feelings came into talking about Ukraine and the country’s situation. One respondent quit her job at the TV Channel she was working, just because of the channel’s actions and standpoints in relation to the Ukrainian Revolution. All respondents had participated in protests to some extent and had clear feeling for the crisis their country was going through. In some cases, respondents would focus highly on these events in the
interview, and had to be steered into the direction of the topic Europe. It is with this in mind that it can be argued that their answers in the interviews might be colored by the events of the
time. A suggestion for future research would be to revisit interviews with Ukrainian citizens at a later time.
Imaginations of Europe. This study has examined two distinctly different cases, that are unlike those studied before, and thereby contributes to the academic debate in the field of European identity research. The situations in Ukraine and the United Kingdom are still evolving, and might change drastically over the next years. Having insight on their vision of Europe can have impact on the decisions for both these countries as well as Europe in the process of further cooperation and integration. Additionally, the European Union can benefit from knowledge on the different factors and identifiers that make European identity, and use this to build and stimulate European identity within the years to come. The notion that European identity relates highly to non-political, cultural identifiers, means there is need to look at Europe in a broader perspective. The emergence of a European community might be largely determined by imaginations of closeness, feelings of similarity and solidarity and shared values, rather than policies, economic agreements and political structures. The cases of Ukraine and the United Kingdom show the perspective of countries that are ‘somewhat different’, in some cases part of Europe, and in other outside of it. This marks the difference between hard institutional divisions, and the feelings people have about divisions in Europe. Europe does not end on the borders of the European Union. Symbols, feelings and images make that Ukrainians feel they are the same as any other European citizen, whereas the ‘island’ makes that Brits feel outsiders. The sense of identification with Europe and
Europeans is very much colored by images and feelings, not so much by actual membership or factual border lines. This falls in line with the notion that identities are flexible, not given, but subject to changes due to environment, interaction and social processes (Risse, 2010; Udrea, 2011). European identity, is just as so many other social identities, a flexible construct that evolves over time due to interaction, socialization, experience and imaginary concepts.
References
Boomgaarden, H. G., Schuck, A. R., Elenbaas, M., & de Vreese, C. H. (2011). Mapping EU attitudes: Conceptual and empirical dimensions of Euroscepticism and EU support. European Union Politics, 12(2), 241-266.
Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(6), 745-778.
Bruter, M. (2003). Winning Hearts and Minds for Europe. The Impact of News and Symbols on Civic and Cultural European Identity. Comparative political studies, 36(10), 1148-1179.
Bruter, M. (2004). On what citizens mean by feeling ‘European’: perceptions of news, symbols and borderless‐ness. Journal of ethnic and migration studies,30 (1), 21-39.
Bruter, M. (2005). Citizens of Europe? The emergence of a mass European identity. Palgrave Macmillan.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford university press.
Calhoun, C. (1997). Nationalism. Concepts in the Social Sciences. University of Minnesota Press.
De Vreese, C. H., Boomgaarden, H. G., & Semetko, H. A. (2008). Hard and Soft Public Support for Turkish Membership in the EU. European Union Politics, 9(4), 511-530.
Eder, K. (2006). Europe's Borders The Narrative Construction of the Boundaries of Europe. European Journal of Social Theory, 9(2), 255-271.
European Commission. (2011). Eurobarometer surveys. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/cf/showchart_column.cfm?keyID=5&nationID=15,&startd ate=2009.11&enddate=2011.05
Fisher, M. (2014, January 30). 9 questions about Ukraine you were too embarrassed to ask. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/01/30/9-questions-about-ukraine-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/
Fligstein, N. (2009). Who are the Europeans and how does this matter for politics? In in Checkel, J.T. & Katzenstein, P.J. (Eds.) European Identity (pp. 133-166). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fligstein, N., Polyakova, A., & Sandholtz, W. (2012). European integration, nationalism and European identity. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies,50(s1), 106-122.
Habermas, J. (2001) Why Does Europe Need a Constitution? New Left Review, 11.
Helm, T. (2014, June 21). British people favour leaving the European Union, according to poll. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/21/eu-referendum-majority-leave-opinium-observer-poll
Herrmann, R., & Brewer, M. B. (2004). Identities and institutions: Becoming European in the EU. Transnational identities: Becoming European in the EU. R.K. Herrmann, T. Risse, & M. B. Brewer (Eds.). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2005). Calculation, community and cues public opinion on European integration. European Union Politics, 6(4), 419-443.
Hopper, P. (2004). Who wants to be a European? Community and identity in the European Union. Human Affairs, 2, 141 – 151.
Molchanov, M. A. (2004). Ukraine and the European Union: a perennial neighbour? Journal of European Integration, 26(4), 451-473.
Risse, T. (2010). A Community of Europeans? Transnational Identities and Public Spheres. Cornell University Press.
Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of communication, 57(1), 9-20.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Udrea, G. (2011). European Identity and Otherness. Theoretical Perspectives. Eurolimes, (Supliment3), 117-129.
Watt, N. (2013, January 23). EU referendum: In-out choice by end of 2017, Cameron promises. The Guardian. Retrieved from
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jan/22/eu-referendum-2017-david-cameron
Wendt, A. (1994). Collective identity formation and the international state. American political science review, 384-396.
Wolczuk, K. (2009). Implementation without coordination: the impact of EU conditionality on Ukraine under the European Neighbourhood Policy. Europe-Asia Studies, 61(2), 187-211.
Appendices
Appendix I: Overview of respondents
Nationality Date Duration
of interview (minutes) Sex Age Respondent #1 Inga Vyshnevska Ukraine 10-5-2014 38.40 F 24 Respondent #2 Bernard Goyder UK 14-5-2014 42.29 M 26 Respondent #3 Andriy Dorofeev Ukraine 16-5-2014 42.47 M 24 Respondent #4 Anastasiya Borynets Ukraine 17-5-2014 50.56 F 23 Respondent #5 Alex Furman Ukraine 19-5-2014 46.30 M 24 Respondent #6 Sabbir Malik UK 20-5-2014 36.53 M 29 Respondent #7 Ellie Sellwood UK 4-6-2014 43.07 F 22 Respondent #8 Alexander Mayor UK 10-6-2014 43.04 M 42 Respondent #9 Sam Richardson UK 10-6-2014 37.59 M 23
