A union in distress: Contested spatial imaginations,narratives and practices of European (dis)integration

Abstract

Europe as a spatial concept and space in practice has witnessed a variety of integrative as well as disintegrative tendencies over the past decades. While a binary concept of the terms integration and disintegration has dominated a vast proportion of public discussion as well as academic literature, some authors advance a more differentiated view. The introduction of this special issue will pick up the threads of these debates and connect them to considerations of the spatialities of such processes. While theoretically dissecting the roles and meanings of spatial imaginations, narratives and everyday practices and conceptualizing their entanglements within Europe’s growing together and apart, the introduction will provide a basis for the detailed and empirical accounts of this issue. By paying particular attention to the meaningful and symbolic power of imaginations and narratives used within the struggles around European (dis)integration, the main aim is to engage closer with the central mechanisms facilitating and underlying the current struggles around European (dis)integrations. Consequently, the introduction opens the view for a multitude of spatially enhanced processes ranging between encounters and borderings.

Keywords

Europe European (dis)integration European Union everyday practices imaginations narratives space

Introduction

European integration is an extensive process of societal transformation which has experienced countless developments and setbacks in the realms of institutional politics and everyday life and between regulation and ordinary practices. Over recent decades, this has been reflected in research across Europe, including in this journal (see issue 28/1, 2021). This special issue aims to extend this research by shedding light on the complex spatial dynamics resulting from different imaginations of the European Union (EU) that are articulated in a variety of narratives and practices, oscillating between polarized pro- and eurosceptical stances.

Criticisms of European integration have existed from the origins of the process, ranging from a variety of positions questioning its efficacy to direct opposition. Meanwhile, recent Political Science studies discuss the interaction between integrative and disintegrative stances as an inherent feature of integration processes (Scheller and Eppler, 2014; Schünemann and Barbehön, 2019). We take these approaches as starting points for considering the processes of disintegration and integration within the EU, which we understand heuristically as a symbolic and spatial construction shaped by multiple spatial imaginations, economic, political, cultural and ethical narratives and practices, that among others manifest in respective policies. As a result, the EU is imbued by differentiation and hierarchy within European territory, in order to select and channel flows and resources, which ultimately is producing the uneven geographies of the post-Cold-War European order.

This is where this special issue sets its focus; on spatial imaginations, everyday practices and narratives of European dis/integration. The collection of papers variously discusses how spatial perceptions and imaginations of the EU and of political and everyday practices and narratives are evolving in different empirical contexts shaped by (and in turn re-shaping) European (dis)integration processes. How are notions of belonging and difference negotiated in these imaginations, practices and narratives of European (dis)integration? How are citizenship, statehood and identity debated/reconsidered in European (dis)integration processes? The contributions to this issue provide insights from different geographical contexts, disciplines (Geography, Social Anthropology and Political Science) and research fields (e.g. migration studies and borders studies). The authors focus on different scales, subject groups and perspectives regarding European (dis)integration, in order to foster an interdisciplinary approach to considering the questions at the heart of this issue. The overall aim is to examine particular spatial complexities of European integration and disintegration, drawing critically on different conceptual approaches to the dynamics of the EU’s (dis)integration.

Approaching European integration, disintegration and their spatialities

Several conceptual approaches can be identified which are differentiated regarding the dynamics shaping the EU, for example ‘linear’ integration theories, narrative of crisis – or a Eurosceptical approach, as well as a perspective focusing on the mutual interaction and the relational dynamics between the two. More recently, additional approaches elaborated in the fields of postcolonial and critical migration studies have developed around the demand to decentre Europe.

Integration approaches

Conventional integration theories and aspirations underline the idea of a progressive linear development. This is also what the EU’s policies of integration suggest and reflect how they are debated in public. Imaginations of a growing EU as a common framework of action, a common market and currency dominate, and which nations unanimously adhere to. Shifting political grounds and local bottom-up factors are rather neglected in this perspective (Scheller and Eppler, 2014: 6), and critical voices, in this narrative, are interpreted as Eurosceptic voices questioning the integration project. Disintegration as a social dynamic does not become addressable within this body of research (see also Bach, 2008; Münch, 2006; Scheller and Eppler, 2014: 6; Schünemann and Barbehön, 2019: 3; Vobruba, 2012).

Disintegration debates/EU-sceptical approaches

Just as European integration has never been a one-sided process, approaches towards a better understanding of the different dimensions of growing together – or apart – in Europe have diversified, varying between rather soft, critical approaches and hard, exit-related theories. Throughout its existence, the EU has undergone many moments of doubt. In order to offer conceptual frames for such worries, research approaches have, for instance, been concerned with specific internal regulations and outward politics of the EU or the role and position of national versus supranational interests within its frameworks.

Quite a few scholars try to disentangle the patchwork of critiques and strategic appropriations regarding the union’s fragile normative assumptions (see, for example, Scheller and Eppler, 2014; Schünemann and Barbehön, 2019; Vollaard, 2014). Recent years have witnessed an increased scholarly fixation on the powerful and seemingly omnipresent discourse of so-called ‘hard’ Euroscepticism (Szczerbiak and Taggart, 2000: 6), addressed not only as an expression and result of the difficulties faced by the EU (e.g. Dobrescu and Durach, 2016) but also as a much deeper crisis of trust and identity, sometimes even labelled as a ‘profound legitimacy crisis’ (Hall, 2014: 1238). Disruptive moments including withdrawal of membership of the EU (Brexit, for example, Schimmelfennig, 2018) have led politicians as well as scientists to speak of European disintegration (e.g. Becker, 2017; Patomäki, 2016; Vollaard, 2014).

Interactive approach

The interactive approach is rooted in theories of societal (dis)integration due to growing social disparities grounded in the process of globalization (Heitmeyer and Imbusch, 2012: 9). According to this perspective, integration and disintegration are considered emergent concepts that never become fully realized. Instead, Heitmeyer and Imbusch observe a sequence of phases of stability (integration) and crises (disintegration). Disintegration, here, is explicitly not understood as the opposite of integration, but as a contesting and dynamic process opening up space for innovations, debates and searches for solutions (Scheller and Eppler, 2014; Vollaard, 2014).

In a number of studies on EU-related developments, such conceptualizations were taken up, offering a new path in the debate on the future of the EU. This research highlights the limited possibility of determining exactly the integrative or disintegrative impacts of societal developments. Therefore, they differentiate between four dimensions of integration versus disintegration (territorial, institutional, economic and social-cultural (Scheller and Eppler, 2014: 296)) and discuss disintegration strategies as functional mechanisms to support integration, for example regarding the cases in which certain competencies are re-directed to the national level (Scheller and Eppler, 2014: 317). EU critique, in this approach, is understood as a form of appropriation, seeing critique generally as a constitutive part of the democratic project (Schünemann and Barbehön, 2019). In sum, European integration and disintegration are seen as taking place simultaneously and as processes which reciprocally influence each other (Scheller and Eppler, 2014: 10).

Decentring Europe

Postcolonial and feminist approaches to European processes (e.g. Boatcă, 2015) have emphasized the urgency of re-thinking Europe – as yet another province of the world – and re-positioning the West not only in relation to the global South and East but also to its violent (neo-)colonial histories. This strand of debate highlights the ambiguities that develop with an ‘integrated’ Europe that – based on its linear narrative of modernity (implying a logic of ‘catching-up’ and one-way development for regions defined as the external and internal other (Chakrabarty, 2008; Mitchell, 2009)) – co-produces internal and external outsiders. Put in dialogue with (dis)integration debates, this paradigm of ‘decentering Europe’ demands an unpacking and historicization of the coloniality of Western knowledge that underlies conceptions of Europe, European thought and theory-building (Chakrabarty, 2008). Against this background, critical Europeanization literature emphasizes non-Western knowledge and narratives and re-visits (dis)integration debates from Europe’s margins (Göle, 2012; Keinz and Lewicki, 2019; Römhild, 2010). Therefore, by focusing on the violent exclusions unfolding in epistemic, embodied and affective practices, and on necropolitics (Gressgård, 2022; Mbembe, 2019) and racialized violence reproduced within migration and asylum regimes (Davies and Isakjee, 2019; Gutiérrez Rodríguez, 2018), this strand of the debate promotes newly emerging imaginaries/imaginations of Europe as a space of continuing struggle around spaces of citizenship and belonging (e.g. Römhild, 2010).

These four fields of conceptualization on European (dis)integration are based on different understandings and spatial imaginations of Europe and the EU. Linear integration theories provide a vision of the European territory, which through increasingly common political and economic regulation creates a homogeneous field of action. Eurosceptical stances focus on the effects of this linear vision by uncovering the fragmentations within the territory articulated in numerous conflicts over national autonomies versus homogenizing regulations. The interaction approach focuses on the processes of establishing a common Europe unfolding between the (incongruent) aims of preserving integration, increasing its effectiveness and recognizing national autonomy (Höreth and Mann, 2013). And finally, the postcolonial approaches emphasize imaginaries of Europe as a space of ongoing struggles and micro-acts of re-creating Europe from below.

These conceptualizations of the European (dis)integration processes provide different ways to imagine, narrate and practice Europe and various forms of individual, collective and national European belonging. In this special issue, we therefore put the focus on the specific entanglements between imaginations, narratives and practices that shape everyday lives in different geographical contexts at different scales.

Spatial imaginations, narratives and practices in the context of EU-(dis)integration processes

As they involve thinking and feeling (Orgad, 2014), imaginations serve as navigation tools through the everyday and sort out interactions and relations with others: ‘. . . how one comes to think of oneself in relation to others and to negotiate the space between them is . . . something which we are confronted every day of our lives’ (Andrews, 2014: 8). Imaginations enable us to create visions of possible alternative, future realities (Appadurai, 1996). This way, they can count as a precondition for change emanating from a particular location (Stoetzler and Yuval-Davis, 2002: 324). Therefore, questions of space, place and territory are tightly interconnected with imaginations.

We regard narratives as an instrument bringing imaginations into reality and, thus, into practices. We do so following Andrews who argues that ‘one must first create some sort of narrative emplotment, which includes characters, plot (or action) and a desired endpoint’ (Andrews, 2014: 5) in order to get from one’s knowledge of the real to the building of a world ‘which is not yet real but which one day might be’ (Andrews, 2014: 5). A characteristic of narratives, thus, is their strategic goal orientation, namely to reach the implementation of certain desired practices. Practices form the material outcome of imaginations and narratives. It is through embodied experiences that the EU exists in practice (see Adler-Nissen, 2015: 87). It is the link between materiality and discursivity, between performativity and representation inherent in the triplet of imaginations, narratives and practices that shapes everyday encounters of producing and reproducing Europe.

Spatial imaginations of European (dis)integration

(Intersecting) processes of European integration and disintegration are tightly interwoven with the process of (spatial) imagination. What, and who, is thought of as ‘European’ and ‘Not-European’? And how, for instance is the construction of territories linked with the attribution of (cultural) identities?

Since Bourdieu’s influential writings on the correspondence of the physical and social construction of spaces (e.g. Bourdieu, 1996), this idea was taken up and developed in many different considerations of the ways space is produced and constructed, controlled and reshaped. One strand of ideas deals with the transformation of space through the process of territorialization and through the constitution of nations, alongside the invention of borders by combining administrative, juridical, fiscal, military and linguistic functions (see, for example, Balibar, 2009; Mezzadra and Neilson, 2013). Another strand of literature elaborates on the production and construction of space by social, economic, ideological and technological factors, stressing people’s daily uses through different forms of exchange such as negotiations, protests, forms of memorizing and re-imagining (Low, 2000: 127f.; Massey, 2005). Departing from this, spatial imagination is understood as ‘a form of negotiation between sites of agency (individuals) and globally defined fields of possibility’, thus forming socially and locally situated practices intending to re-create and re-shape society’s space (Appadurai, 1996).

How we think about space and place informs our actions and materializes within the social world. According to Jen Jack Gieseking (2017), ‘geographical imagination affords ways of thinking about space and place, whether conscious or unconscious, that evoke power as it shapes practices, behaviors, and social structures’ (p. 1). Imaginations therefore influence and shape processes of boundary-making, distinguishing ‘us’ from ‘them’ (Gregory, 2009). Analysing spatial imaginations, hence, targets the interrelations embedded in organizing heterogeneity and difference (Massey, 2005), the interplay of ‘power-knowledge-space’ (Gieseking, 2017: 3; see also Gregory, 2009) and, setting out from a critical engagement with ‘assumptions, stereotypes, and expectations associated with space and place’ (Gieseking, 2017: 2) ‘plays a central role in envisioning and enacting just possible futures’ (Gieseking, 2017: 7; Massey, 2005).

In line with one of the central aims of this Special Issue, we aim to explore how imaginations reproduce (post)colonial orderings of the world and related bordering practices (El-Tayeb, 2011; Göle, 2012; Gutiérrez Rodríguez, 2018). What Stuart Hall (1992) figured in his seminal text ‘the West and the Rest’ reverberates until today. ‘Europe’ is thought of as a relational entity constructed, imagined and enacted along non-Europeanness and what is deemed ‘not Europe’. This powerful relational imaginary constructs, for instance ‘non-whiteness as non-Europeanness’ (El-Tayeb, 2011: xiii) and imagines ‘European space and citizenship as a right for the “native” European’ (Davies and Isakjee, 2019).

Europe ‘integrates’, one could argue, from these perspectives on the grounds of disintegrative/dissociating and of differentiating inclusive processes (Mezzadra and Neilson, 2013), that become tangible in phrases such as ‘Does Islam belong to Europe?’ or in the policies and infrastructures of immigration and asylum within and to Europe that strategically work at ‘keeping’ certain subjects (e.g. non-white/non-Christian subjects) out or rather benched to certain social spaces and positions in society. These spaces of ‘Disintegration’ within Europe, however, also form the space from which bounded and bordered imaginations of Europe are ruptured/irritated and how ‘Europe’ becomes re-imagined, as, for instance a translocal space that evolved out of (violent) global relations and connections (Adam et al., 2019; Conrad et al., 2013), as a creolizing world region (Boatcă, 2021; El-Tayeb, 2011), and as a space of citizenship in which ‘Europeanness’ is reconstructed by various marginalized citizen subjects from below (Römhild, 2010).

Narratives of European (dis)integration

The notion of the narrative has been used to describe a sense-making discourse that influences the way the environment is perceived. It conveys values and emotions, is usually related to a nation-state or a specific cultural area and is subject to change over time. In this sense, narratives are not arbitrary stories but invested with legitimacy (Seidel, 2009).

As a basic definition, a narrative is ‘understood as a spoken or written text giving an account of an event/action or series of accounts/actions, chronologically connected’ (Czarniawska, 2004: 17). Narratives offer an ordering structuring possibility of the complex everyday reality (Erlemann, 2012: 149). They reduce complexity by leaving out some aspects while highlighting others and creating causal chains for action (Groth, 2019: 8).

People use reassuring narratives to give meaning to their actions and create a commitment to act (Tuckett, 2011 in Bronk and Jakoby, 2020: 11). Narratives can thus be seen as tools in unfamiliar, ambiguous and new situations, triggering emotion and empathy and having the capability to influence, mobilize or exert power. This is valid also in a spatial dimension when people produce spatial narratives by ascribing meaning and value to certain places. For the purposes of this special issue, we propose a widening of the term ‘spatial narrative’ in the sense of defining with it the spatialities and meanings of stories providing orientation and legitimacy.

The European context is marked by a variety of competing narratives contradicting each other regarding the state of Europe. They provoke polarized debates oscillating between pro-European and contra-European positions, either focusing on the advantages of European integration or the local disadvantages. Remarkably, these debates take place at all levels in nearly every European country whether in eastern or western Europe.

One dominant and rather stable narrative on a common Europe comprises its imagined superiority, positioning civilian Europe as a ‘better geopolitical actor’ against various ‘Others’ (Bachmann, 2021: 3, 4). Another narrative of an integrated Europe underlines the position of the continent as a guarantor of a permanent post-war peace order (European Community (EC), 1951: 11) When this narrative lost power in the decades around the turn of the century, the economic narrative was strengthened with the argument, that economic integration was essential in order to remain competitive in the light of other upcoming world regions (Steinmeier, 2015). While Steinmeier reasoned rationally from an economic point of view, others have highlighted the missing of an emotional underpinning of the EU, which draws on the senses of its citizens in order to feel a united Europe (for example Bachmann, 2021). This absence offers a gap particularly for reactionary, Eurosceptical forces that try to convince European citizens of their aims by offering them a counter-narrative in which ‘the idea of a return to the national is opened up and glorified as the only way out ’ (Butz, 2016).

The EU itself has recognized the absence of a strong unifying narrative and in 2013 and 2014 launched the initiative ‘New narratives for Europe’. It brought together artists, scientists, intellectuals and European politicians to debate what a new narrative could look like in order to find a new vision for the future of Europe. As an outcome, ‘renaissance’ and ‘cosmopolitanism’ as two cultural ideals were considered suitable narratives stimulating the debate on the future of Europe (New Narrative for Europe, 2014).

From the outside, a popular narrative has developed against the background of multiple refugees movements towards Europe during the last few decades. ‘Fortress Europe’ has been used to accentuate the EU’s restrictive asylum policies since the 1990s. In light of the selective permeability of the EU’s external borders, many scholars have preferred to substitute it with the concept of ‘gated community’ (Rijpers and Van Houtum, 2007; Rumford, 2008) focusing on the simultaneous inclusions and exclusions for different categories of people and goods the EU’s external border regime produces.

In sum, the selection of narratives illustrates that Europe is constructed by a multitude of competing narratives, and it shows concisely how the interactive process unfolding between these competing narratives constructs either an integrated common European space or fragmented national or regional differences.

Practices of European (dis)integration

If we consider Europe as a spatially related construction, then what role do practices play? How does Europe get (re)constructed in practices? As the former sections have shown, we consider Europe as an entity that exists through the actions that keep it alive. Deeply intertwined with imaginations and narratives of an entity such as Europe are the practices that (re)construct it.

Research has looked at the processes that give shape to Europe or the EU for some time. There have been well-known and intensive activities and measures to get the continent to grow together, analysed in detail, discussed and sometimes critiqued widely (e.g. Kramsch, 2011; Lissandrello, 2006). Such studies have focused on the aims, norms or modes of governance, which have supported our understanding of the steps taken and the frames established for European coherence. In addition to such rather explicit approaches, we believe that Europe is considerably shaped through practices of everyday life. A need for the appreciation of everyday practice is not entirely new in EU-related studies as Adler-Nissen (2015) has already argued for more attention to be paid to the ‘mundane’ or banal aspects.

A conceptual focus on practices emphasizes the close entanglement of thinking and acting, with knowledge activated both on explicit and implicit levels (Hörning, 2001: 161; Reckwitz, 2004). It offers the possibility of approaching practices in their relatedness to one another, to consider ranges of possible action, adaptations and disruptions. Following Schatzki (1996: 110f), the practice-theoretical approach particularly highlights the enormous role of the implicit knowledge that is part of a shared understanding of joint activity and speech (Schatzki 1996: 188f). Practice is conceptualized as embodied, knowledge-guided action, between the human and the material and, following some authors, needs to be regarded as the actual site of ordering the social (Reckwitz, 2004; Simmel, 1992 [1908]). So, when looking at Europe as a kind of spatial order, we can see how a changing and evolving array of practices has helped to constantly negotiate and establish this spatial entity. In general, territories or spaces can serve as very meaningful – albeit temporary – manifestations promoting the routine character of practices. While Europe as an entity can most certainly gain a lot of stability through its norms and rules and their institutionalizations, a much more powerful and binding form of manifestation is to bind European values, norms and rules to a range of everyday practices.

Some spatially effective everyday practices of European integration had for a long time become rather unquestioned, such as the crossing of borders on an everyday basis, commuting to work, studying across borders, travelling freely through member states without showing passports, in trains or buses that fluently zigzag between the territories of different nation states, using social or medical infrastructure or even roaming. Looking at such everyday practices and their entanglements with knowledge and imaginaries, senses and imaginatives, material aspects and territorial conditions will therefore be an important focus of analysis of European spatial integration within the contributions of this special issue.

The contributions of this special issue

With the contributions of this special issue, we take the opportunity to shed a more nuanced light on examples of imaginations, narratives and practices of European (dis)integration, with a particular focus on the entanglements and different shades of Europe-related imaginations. We open the debate with an article by James W Scott (2023), in which the function of narratives for the powerful implementation of political orientation is illustrated throughout the text. Using the example of Hungary’s recent politics within the EU and beyond, Scott describes how narratives of redrawing from the EU and establishing one’s own identity have been entangled with dominant political discourses on East–West differences, the position of Eastern Europe in general and particularly with an imagination of Illiberal Eastness. The latter has largely been effective in creating atmospheres of fear and doubts towards processes of European integration.

Veit Bachmann (2023) similarly promotes awareness of the role of narratives when looking at geopolitical processes around the EU, shifting the focus to rather macro-level perceptions of European integration. Taking a look back to earlier decades, he analyses widespread imaginations of the EU through various phases of integration as well as crises. The article reveals how an apparently objective political process can be framed and perceived in such differentiated ways, therefore giving particular examples for the simultaneity of European integration and disintegration.

The focus of the article by Elisabeth Kirndörfer (2023) lies on the perspectives of young refugees in the EU, thus shifting the attention of readers to the very intimate urban everyday of European integration and disintegration. She interprets young refugees’ everyday struggles against practices of bordering and racist exclusion as struggles against postcolonial power. In a detailed way, she carves out how young people targeted by the racializing practices of asylum administrations challenge and re-formulate European spaces of belonging and citizenship.

In the last article of the issue, Mariusz Bogacki et al. (2023) incorporate the Brexit experience into the discussion of integration and disintegration tendencies. They develop their analysis along imaginations of Europe among EU migrants in Scotland. Following a number of personal paths of a mobile lifestyle across Europe, they show how subjective imaginations of Europe have been altered through the disintegration experience and how this in turn changed their mobility and lifestyle practices within the EU.

While working on this special issue, a new European crisis has been unfolding and strongly shifting and affecting spatial imaginations, narratives as well as practices of (dis)integration of the EU, the Russian war in Ukraine. Although it is difficult to draw solid conclusions at this moment, we do witness the re-negotiation and transformation of the central dimensions of European spatialities and formerly fixed constellations, the re-shaping of the formerly strategically blurred edges of the EU through promises of potential EU membership and the further implementation of European neighbourhood programmes. It is still unclear to what extent the war will change the symbolic and political design of Europe, power relations within the EU or the focal points of the EU’s politics. Nevertheless, this violent invasion has also opened new windows of solidarity and redefined the geographies of EU’s self-understanding while, at the same time, establishing a strong re-enforcement of bordering narratives and practices towards non-Europeanness.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Kristine Beurskens

Elisabeth Kirndörfer

References

Adam

Römhild

Bojadzijev

Knecht

Lewicki

Polat

, et al. (eds) (2019) Europa dezentrieren. Globale Verflechtungen neu denken. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

Adler-Nissen

(2015) Towards a practice turn in EU studies: the everyday of European integration. Journal of Common Market Studies 54(1): 87–103.

Andrews

(2014) Narrative, Imagination and Everyday Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Appadurai

(1996) Modernity at Large. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Bach

(2008) Europa ohne Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Bachmann

(2021) Visionary geographies and European studies. Progress in Human Geography 46(2): 416–440.

Bachmann

(2023) Contesting the integration narrative: shifting perceptions of Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies. Epub ahead of print 10 April. DOI: 10.1177/09697764231158307.

Balibar

(2009) Europe as borderland. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 27(2): 190–215.

Becker

(2017) In the Yugsolav mirror: the EU disintegration crisis. Globalizations 14(6): 840–850.

10.

Boatcă

(2015) Global Inequalities beyond Occidentalism. London; New York: Routledge.

11.

Boatcă

(2021) Thinking Europe otherwise: lessons from the Caribbean. Current Sociology 69(3): 389–414.

12.

Bogacki

Botterill

Burrell

Hörschelmann

(2023) What about Europe? European identity and spatial imaginaries of Europe among Polish migrants during post-Brexit negotiations in Scotland. European Urban and Regional Studies. Epub ahead of print 7 June. DOI: 10.1177/09697764231176546.

13.

Bourdieu

(1996) Physical space, social space and habitus. Rapport 10. Oslo: Universitetet I Oslo.

14.

Bronk

Jakoby

(2020) The epistemics of populism and the politics of uncertainty. LEQS paper 152. London: London School of Economics and Political Science.

15.

Butz

(2016) Das fehlende Narrativ der europäischen Union. Institut für angewandte Narrationsforschung (IANA). Available at: https://www.narrationsforschung.de/das-fehlende-narrativ-der-europaeischen-union/ (accessed 16 November 2016).

16.

Chakrabarty

(2008) Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

17.

Conrad

Randeria

Römhild

(2013) Jenseits des Eurozentrismus. Postkoloniale Perspektiven in den Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

18.

Czarniawska

(2004) Narratives in Social Science Research. London: Sage.

19.

Davies

Isakjee

(2019) Ruins of Empire: refugees, race and the postcolonial geographies of European migrant camps. Geoforum 102: 214–217.

20.

Dobrescu

Durach

(2016) Euroscepticism: a sign of a Europe in distress. Romanian Journal of Communication and Public Relations 16(1): 25–40.

21.

El-Tayeb

(2011) European Others: Queering Ethniticy in Postnational Europe. Minnesota, MN: Minnesota University Press.

22.

Erlemann

(2012) Heimat, Natur und die gute alte Zeit: Erzählungen über Nachhaltige Entwicklung im Spannungsfeld öffentlicher und wissenschaftlicher Diskurse. In: Arnold

Dressel

Viehöfer

(eds) Erzählungen im Öffentlichen: Über die Wirkung narrativer Diskurse. Wiesbaden: Springer, pp. 147–171.

23.

European Community (1951) Contract on the establishment of the European Community for coal and steel. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:11951K/TXT

24.

Gieseking

(2017) Geographical imagination. In: Richardson

Castree

Goodschild

Jaffrey

Liu

Kobayashi

, et al. (eds) International Encyclopedia of Geography. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118786352.wbieg1171

25.

Göle

(2012) Decentering Europe, recentering Islam. New Literary History 43(4): 665–685.

26.

Gregory

(2009) Geographical imagination. In: Gregory

Johnston

Pratt

Watts

Whatmore

(eds) The Dictionary of Human Geography. 5th ed. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 282–285.

27.

Gressgård

(2022) Multicultural Dialogue: Dilemmas, Paradoxes, Conflicts. Oxford: Berghahn Books.

28.

Groth

(2019) Political narratives/narrations of the political: an introduction. Narrative Culture 6(1): 1–18.

29.

Gutiérrez Rodríguez

(2018) The coloniality of migration and the ‘refugee crisis’: on the asylum-migration nexus, the transatlantic white European settler colonialism-migration and racial capitalism. Refuge 34(1): 16–28.

30.

Hall

(2014) Varieties of Capitalism and the Euro Crisis. West European Politics 37(6): 1223–1243.

31.

Hall

(1992) The West and the rest: discourse and power. In: Morley

(ed.) Essential Essays: Identity and Diaspora, vol.2. Durham, NC; London: Duke University Press, pp. 141–182.

32.

Heitmeyer

Imbusch

(2012) Dynamiken gesellschaftlicher Integration und Desintegration. In: Heitmeyer

Imbusch

(eds) Desintegrationsdynamiken: Integrationsmechanismen auf dem Prüfstand. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. 9–25.

33.

Höreth

Mann

(2013) Die Legitimitätsfrage als Zug- oder Gegenkraft im europäischen Integrationsprozess? In: Eppler

Scheller

(eds) Zur Konzeptionalisierung europäischer Desintegration: Zug- und Gegenkräfte im europäischen Integrationsprozess. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 45–70.

34.

Hörning

(2001) Experten des Alltags: Die Wiederentdeckung des praktischen Wissens. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft.

35.

Keinz

Lewicki

(2019) European bodies. Anthropological Journal of European Cultures 28(1): 1–18.

36.

Kirndörfer

(2023) Challenging the boundaries of exclusive Europeanisation: how young refugees unsettle normative spaces of urban citizenship. European Urban and Regional Studies. Epub ahead of print 31 October. DOI: 10.1177/09697764231205223

37.

Kramsch

(2011) Along the Borgesian Frontier: excavating the neighbourhood of ‘Wider Europe’. Geopolitics 16(1): 193–210.

38.

Lissandrello

(2006) The Utopia of Cross-Border Regions: Territorial Transformation and Cross-border Governance on Espace Mont-blanc. Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen.

39.

Low

(2000) On the Plaza: The Politics of Public Space and Culture. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

40.

Massey

(2005) For Space. Los Angeles, CA; London; New Delhi: Sage.

41.

Mbembe

(2019) Necropolitics. Durham, NC; London: Duke University Press.

42.

Mezzadra

Neilson

(2013) Border as Method, or the Multiplication of Labor. Durham, NC; London: Duke University Press.

43.

Mitchell

(2009) The stage of modernity. In: Mitchell

(ed.) Questions of Modernity. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 1–34.

44.

Münch

(2006) Emanzipation der lokalen Ebene? Kommunen auf dem Weg nach Europa. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaft.

45.

New Narrative for Europe (2014) The mind and body of Europe. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/debate-future-europe/new-narrativ

46.

Orgad

(2014) Media Representation and the Global Imagination. London: John Wiley & Sons.

47.

Patomäki

(2016) Will the EU disintegrate? What does the likely possibility of disintegration tell about the future of the world? Globalization 14(1): 168–177.

48.

Reckwitz

(2004) Die Entwicklung des Vokabulars der Handlungstheorien: Von den zweck- und normorientierten Modellen zu den Kultur- und Praxistheorien. In: Gabriel

(ed.) Paradigmen der akteurszentrierten Soziologie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 303–328.

49.

Rijpers

Van Houtum

(2007) The European Union as a gated community: the two-faced border and immigration regime of the EU. Antipode 39(2): 291–309.

50.

Römhild

(2010) Aus der Perspektive der Migration: Die Kosmopolitisierung Europas. Das Argument 285(1): 50–59.

51.

Rumford

(2008) Citizens and borderwork in Europe. Space and Polity 12(1): 1–11.

52.

Schatzki

(1996) Social Practices: A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social. New York: Cambridge University Press.

53.

Scheller

Eppler

(2014) European disintegration: non-existing phenomenon or a blind spot of European integration research? Preliminary thoughts for a research agenda. Working paper no. 2. Wien: Institut für europäische Integrationsforschung.

54.

Schimmelfennig

(2018) Brexit: differentiated disintegration in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 25(8): 1154–1173.

55.

Schünemann

Barbehön

(2019) EU critique beyond Euroscepticism and progressive stories: Introduction to the special issue – In: Europeanization, Knowledge, discourses and practices of EU critique (Special issue). Culture, Practice & Europeanization 4(2): 1–12.

56.

Scott

(2023) Hungary’s illiberal border politics and the exploitation of social, spatial and temporal distinctions. European Urban and Regional Studies. Epub ahead of print 13 August. DOI: 10.1177/09697764231186741.

57.

Seidel

(2009) Hegemoniale Semantiken und radikale Gegennarrative: Beitrag zum Arbeitsgespräch des Kulturwissenschaftlichen Kollegs Konstanz. Available at: https://www.exc16.uni-konstanz.de/uploads/media/Seibel-Heg-Semantiken-090122.pdf

58.

Simmel

(1992 [1908]) Der Raum und die räumliche Ordnung der Gesellschaft. In: Simmel

(ed.) Soziologie: Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 687–790.

59.

Steinmeier

(2015) Rede Steinmeier bei den 60: Baden-Badener Unternehmergesprächen, 5 June. Available at: https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/de/newsroom/150605-bm-baden-badener-unternehmergespraeche/272450

60.

Stoetzler

Yuval-Davis

(2002) Standpoint theory, situated knowledge and the situated imagination. Feminist Theory 3(3): 315–333.

61.

Szczerbiak

Taggart

(2000) Opposing Europe: party systems and opposition to the Union, the Euro and Europeanisation. SEI working papers 2000/36. Available at: https://users.sussex.ac.uk/~ssfj3/oppeuro

62.

Tuckett

(2011) Minding the Markets: An Emotional Finance View of Financial Instability. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

63.

Vobruba

(2012) Der postnationale Raum: Transformation von Souveränität und Grenzen in Europa. Weinheiml; Basel: Beltz Juventa.

64.

Vollaard

(2014) Explaining European disintegration. Journal of Common Market Studies 52(5): 1142–1159.