The concept of a European public sphere within European public discourse

The emergence of a European public sphere depends upon constructing a common identity and sense of belonging. It entails dialogue over issues that concern ‘Europeans’. On the other hand, ‘actively engaging in a discourse on issues of common concerns actually leads to a collective identification process and creates a community of communication rather than presupposing it’ (Risse & Grabowsky 2008: 7). In this way, concepts of a European public sphere and a common European identity are interconnected.

    
A European public sphere, European values and European identity are constructed through political discourse and social practices. Concepts of ‘European values’, ‘European identity’ and ‘European public sphere’ should not be treated as givens. They should also not be understood as homogeneous and static. They are dynamic and polymorphous, because they are constantly change and require reinterpreting.

 
For this reason, research on the European public sphere, EU citizenship, identity and values should avoid searching for simple policy solutions or focusing methodological approaches only on monolithic perspectives. It should go beyond the traditional understanding of citizenship, identity, law and borders as static, fixed and permanent. Therefore, research should include close textual interpretation and the hermeneutical analysis of legal sources.

Owing to our history, we in Europe often have a different sense of values and fundamental rights than in the USA, as evidenced above all by our reflection of the death penalty and the importance attached to data protection in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. We in Europe also have a different view of the relationship between the market and the state (Reding 2012).

    
The European identity⁶ was established by the Declaration on European Identity (1973).⁷ Defining European identity within the framework of this document involves taking into account the dynamic nature of European unification and reviewing the common heritage. A collective identity in the EU can subsequently stimulate the formation of a European public sphere. Eriksen emphasizes that the public sphere is not missing in the EU as there are new social movements, identity politics and European audio-visual spaces such as newspapers, television and so forth (Eriksen 1999).

     
However, the public sphere should not be considered a homogeneous category defined by borders. There are different public spheres in the EU: local, regional, national, European, general and so forth. They are not all monolithic and they all contain different groups. Eriksen emphasizes that pluralism of public spheres leads to fragmentation, but that, on the other hand, more public spheres lead to more debate, and consequently to more democracy (Eriksen 1999).

    
The European Commission proclaimed 2013 as the ‘European Year of Citizens’ aimed at encouraging public debate and informing citizens about their rights. It strove to close the gap between European citizens and European institutions and to strengthen the European public sphere and active EU citizenship (Van de Putte 2014). One of the objectives of the European Year of Citizens was to invite citizens to debate on various European issues: citizens’ EU rights, the economic crisis and the future of Europe. The European Year of Citizens sought to encourage ‘the participation of citizens in the construction of the European Union of tomorrow’ (European Commission 2014).

    
The European Year of Citizens was complemented by a number of Citizens’ Dialogues. EU citizens had opportunity to debate with relevant EU politicians on various European issues. These Citizens’ Dialogues did not lead to deliberation, but only to mere debate (Van de Putte 2014). The same can be argued regarding the European Year of Citizens, which involved citizens who debated about their expectations for the future of the EU and about EU rights. A tagline ‘It’s about Europe. It’s about you. Join the debate’ remained unclear as the nature of the debate was not precise (European Commission 2014). This tagline did not raise awareness of EU rights despite being one of the main focuses of the European Year of Citizens (European Commission 2014).

    
The speeches by the former President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso on the State of the Union (2012) and by Viviane Reding on the United States of Europe (2012) are significant for understanding the main ideas of the European Year of Citizens 2013.⁸ Both speeches focus on the ideas of European public space and European values (Van de Putte 2014). Viviane Reding advocates the idea of a ‘United States of Europe’, emphasizing ‘the specific context of European history, our values and the unique diversity’ (Reding 2012).  Reding often employs terms such as ‘our goal in Europe’, ‘we in Europe’, and ‘our values’. She uses these terms as constatives, although they are in fact performatives.

    
Representatives of postmodern theory perceive identity as performative, not constative. Judith Butler (1990), Jacques Derrida (1986) and a number of poststructuralist, postmodern and queer theorists argue that identity is performative. Consequently, identity does not pre-exist the discursive field. This means that ‘we come to understand who we are through the re-iteration or performance of identity. In this sense, identity is not about fixed attributes possessed by individuals, but is instead constructed in a variety of ways at a variety of levels’ (Morgan 2000: 217).

     
Postmodern hermeneutics of the subject rejects the idea of contemplative knower and objective knowing. Interpretative situations are oriented towards the text. The subject who interprets the text is perceived as decentred, polyphonic, and unstable. Postmodernism celebrates heterogeneity. Both subjects (social groups) and texts are perceived as heterogeneous. The heterogeneous character of social groups is explained by various narratives and experiences of the group’s representatives, which cannot be universalized and united into a single metanarrative. On the other hand, the heterogeneous character of the text is explained by intertextuality, whereby the meaning of the text is always shaped by another text.

    
Performative discourse dictates fixed standards and criteria and does not leave room for difference. Poststructuralist and postmodernist authors tend to stress various binary oppositions which represent metanarrative presuppositions, on which various power relations are created. Poststructuralist and postmodern authors argue about the performative character of identity, which is always constructed by discursive practices. Thus no ‘objective’ European values and European identity exist. Legal texts and political discourses are instruments of power relations and constructions of identities and values. ‘While recognising the performative and enacting quality of discourses, post-structuralist scholars place emphasis on the concept of power’ (Carta & Morin 2014: 8).

    
According to Derrida, the politics of (fixed) identity, which privileges unity, represents dangerous ethics and politics (Caputo 1997: 13). Derrida rejects as illusion the idea of identity based on totality and unity. He argues that linguistic, cultural and national identities are different from themselves. This means that identity should not be perceived as a homogeneous category. Derrida emphasizes: ‘Once you take into account this inner and other difference, then you pay attention to the other and you understand that fighting for your own identity is not exclusive of another identity, it is open to another identity’ (Caputo 1997: 13).

In his article ‘Declarations of Independence’, Derrida performs a textual analysis of the American Declaration of Independence (1776). Derrida asks, ‘Who signs… the declarative act which founds a certain institution’? (Derrida 1986: 8). The pronoun ‘we’ is often used in the Declaration to speak ‘in the name of people’.

But these people do not exist. They do not exist as an entity, it does not exist, before this declaration, not as such. If it gives birth to itself, as free and independent subject, as possible signer, this can hold only in the act of signature. The signature invents the signer (Derrida 1986: 10).  

    
Derrida argues that ‘to declare’ is a performative (not a constative), which means that the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America ‘genuinely constitutes the people of the United States as an independent people authorized to sign each document’ (Owensby 1994: 193).

    
Derrida argues that, on the other hand, the Declaration cannot be authorised without a previously existing independent people. He states that the main paradox is that ‘signatures create the people who authorize the signing of the document’ (Owensby 1994: 193). Derrida shows the performative nature of the Declaration. He argues that the Declaration creates the people, so it cannot be argued that the Declaration is created by the people (De Ville 2008: 88). Derrida argues that Jefferson can be considered a representative of the people in drafting the Declaration of Independence. However, these people did not exist at the time of drafting the Declaration. ‘It is only through the signing of the Declaration that the people come into effect and that the representatives obtain their legitimacy’ (De Ville 2008: 97). Derrida makes a distinction between constative and performative.⁹ He argues that ‘people’ as an entity cannot exist before the act of signature of the Declaration. Derrida argues that the Declaration is presented as a constative, while it can only be considered to be a performative. Subsequently, it does not have any fundamental origin.

     
Invention of the ‘people’ can be ascribed both to the American Declaration of Independence and to the European Commission’s efforts to develop the public sphere in Europe. Both Reding and Barroso construct the European ‘we’ from the discourse on ‘European values’. However, European values cannot exist without a previously existing European people. Thus one can argue about the performative nature of ‘Europeanness’ and ‘European people’ (Van de Putte 2014). ‘Europeanisation (...) is a performative intersubjective system by which Europeans define both the European order, and themselves, based on a shared conception of a European political community’ (Bélanger 2014: 30).

     
The performative nature of Europeanisation can be concluded from the European Commissions statement: ‘We must build up a European public space and public opinion, so that European citizenship can be fulfilled and completed’ (European Commission 2013: 3). Here the pronoun “we” is used in the name of “European people”. This is another example of how the ‘signature creates the signer’.

The performative construction of European subjects includes the binary opposition we/they. These performative references divide ‘European’ from ‘non-European’. According to Article 49 of the Treaty of the European Union, the EU is open to all European countries. However, the term “European” remains vague and leaves a lot of room for exclusion based on inside/outside dichotomy. The term ‘European country’ defined by the Treaty of the European Union is mostly understood as a political community, which shares ‘European values’. Thus, ‘European country’ is not defined predominantly geographically. Europe as a continent is divided into ‘Europe’ and ‘non-Europe’. Countries that geographically belong to Europe are not considered ‘European’ in an economic and political sense. Thus these countries have to be transformed into European ones, regardless of their geographical position and of belonging to Europe as a continent. They have to share ‘European values’. Nevertheless, the notion of ‘European’ remains vague, since there are different conceptions of ‘European values’. From this point of view, one can also argue about symbolic geography and European mental maps of keeping in and keeping out. This symbolic geography stems from the performative nature of European identity and values.