Abstract:Andreouli, Eleni (2019). Constructions of Europe in the run-up to the EU referendum in the UK. Identities: global studies in culture and power, 26(2) pp. 241-259. For guidance on citations see FAQs.
“…In other work (Andreouli, ) we have shown that a narrative of ‘cosmopolitan Brexit’ also featured in the discourse of Leave supporters where Remain was positioned as elitist and Eurocentric and Brexit as open to the world beyond Europe. The latter is often presented as more authentically cosmopolitan and ethnically inclusive because it values migrants on the basis of their individual merits, rather than their status as Europeans.…”
Section: Three Axes For Exploring the Emergent Politics Of Brexitmentioning
confidence: 61%
“…In line with analyses of vote demographics (e.g., Goodwin & Heath, ), all were strong Remain supporters. This is clear from the beginning of the focus group, when the participants described continental Europe as more cosmopolitan and sophisticated than Britain (see also Andreouli, ). As put by one of the participants, Amanda, … to me there is an impression of cool Europe, cool continental Europe, and British to me can sometimes equate to like, I think, maybe back a generation or two, how we might have to sit at a table with proper crockery... and make sure we use our proper things.…”
Section: Three Axes For Exploring the Emergent Politics Of Brexitmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Given the entrenched dualism of the current political landscape (e.g., pro/anti EU; Remain/Leave), there is not much room left for developing alternative political voices that cut across these dualisms and that could challenge, for example, both the EU establishment and the narrow nationalism of Brexit. In this context where producing new progressive political visions appears difficult, existing progressive values lose their clout and can be appropriated for regressive purposes, such as calls against freedom of movement in Europe in the name of a “worldly” cosmopolitanism (see also Andreouli, ).…”
In this paper, we develop a conceptual and methodological approach that psychologists and other social scientists can employ to study emergence. We consider relevant social psychological approaches and conclude that, for the most part, social psychology has tended to focus on processes of normalisation following disruptions, rather than examining emergence in itself. An exception to this is G. H. Mead, whose work we draw on to theorise emergence with a focus on contemporary "affective politics." In the second part of the paper, we use focus group data on the European Union referendum in the UK to empirically illustrate our theoretical points. We discuss in particular three axes for exploring the emergent politics of Brexit: political values, political authority, and the authority of affect. We conclude our discussion by reflecting on some of the theoretical and political implications of our analysis.
“…In other work (Andreouli, ) we have shown that a narrative of ‘cosmopolitan Brexit’ also featured in the discourse of Leave supporters where Remain was positioned as elitist and Eurocentric and Brexit as open to the world beyond Europe. The latter is often presented as more authentically cosmopolitan and ethnically inclusive because it values migrants on the basis of their individual merits, rather than their status as Europeans.…”
Section: Three Axes For Exploring the Emergent Politics Of Brexitmentioning
confidence: 61%
“…In line with analyses of vote demographics (e.g., Goodwin & Heath, ), all were strong Remain supporters. This is clear from the beginning of the focus group, when the participants described continental Europe as more cosmopolitan and sophisticated than Britain (see also Andreouli, ). As put by one of the participants, Amanda, … to me there is an impression of cool Europe, cool continental Europe, and British to me can sometimes equate to like, I think, maybe back a generation or two, how we might have to sit at a table with proper crockery... and make sure we use our proper things.…”
Section: Three Axes For Exploring the Emergent Politics Of Brexitmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Given the entrenched dualism of the current political landscape (e.g., pro/anti EU; Remain/Leave), there is not much room left for developing alternative political voices that cut across these dualisms and that could challenge, for example, both the EU establishment and the narrow nationalism of Brexit. In this context where producing new progressive political visions appears difficult, existing progressive values lose their clout and can be appropriated for regressive purposes, such as calls against freedom of movement in Europe in the name of a “worldly” cosmopolitanism (see also Andreouli, ).…”
In this paper, we develop a conceptual and methodological approach that psychologists and other social scientists can employ to study emergence. We consider relevant social psychological approaches and conclude that, for the most part, social psychology has tended to focus on processes of normalisation following disruptions, rather than examining emergence in itself. An exception to this is G. H. Mead, whose work we draw on to theorise emergence with a focus on contemporary "affective politics." In the second part of the paper, we use focus group data on the European Union referendum in the UK to empirically illustrate our theoretical points. We discuss in particular three axes for exploring the emergent politics of Brexit: political values, political authority, and the authority of affect. We conclude our discussion by reflecting on some of the theoretical and political implications of our analysis.
“…Andreouli, Kaposi, & Stenner, ) in Extract 6 to mean the exact opposite of what it commonly refers to, particularly in Remain‐supporting accounts: from being associated with Eurosceptic and anti‐immigration attitudes, prejudice is here associated with Eurocentrism. This line of reasoning has been common among some Brexit supporters and can be seen in a broader narrative of “cosmopolitan Brexit” and “global Britain” (Andreouli, ) that gained prominence following the referendum. As has also been shown in analyses of skills‐based arguments on immigration (that migrants should be assessed on the basis of their skills, not their nationality), the notion of meritocracy works to discursively individualise migration and deracialise the exclusion of migrants (Gibson & Booth, ).…”
Much research on Brexit has studied whether the vote to leave the EU is a marker of growing prejudice. In this article, we study instead how the relationship between support for Brexit and prejudice is constructed, negotiated and contested in lay discourse. Our analysis of focus groups (N = 12) conducted prior to and following the EU referendum shows that support for Brexit was predominantly constructed as based on nationalism and anti‐immigration prejudice, especially in Remain‐supporting accounts. This prompted identity management strategies and counter‐arguments by Leave supporters, such as providing alternative constructions of prejudice and racism; relating Brexit with “progressive” values; and presenting it as rational and economically sound. In our discussion, we draw attention to the “ideological creativity” that underpins these accounts and also reflect on the possibilities and constraints of developing alternative political narratives under conditions of political polarisation.
“…For example, immigration could be discussed in terms of Britain being able to control its own borders as a sovereign nation (political aspect), in terms of its impact on the U.K. economy (economic aspect), and/or in terms of its impact on Britain’s culture. The theme of culture was less prominent in the data compared to politics and the economy, and it is not explored in this article (see Andreouli, in press, for a discussion of this theme).…”
The article presents an analysis of lay political reasoning on the U.K. EU referendum drawing on data from nine focus groups conducted in England in the few weeks preceding the vote. Participants were from across the political spectrum and with varied voting intentions in the upcoming referendum (Remain, Leave, and some undecided). A rhetorical analysis of the data showed that the ideological dilemma of nationalism (between safeguarding national distinctiveness and sovereignty, on the one hand, and valuing international collaboration and exchange, on the other hand) was a key organizing principle in participants' accounts, as was the distinction between reason and bias. Participants intending to vote Leave as well as Remain engaged with both sides of the nationalism dilemma, seeking to present themselves as both open to cosmopolitan values and as concerned about preserving national sovereignty. Further, the liberal distinction between reason and bias in the data often took the form of a distinction between politics (as biased and corrupt) and the economy (as rational), thus depoliticizing the economy as a neutral and postideological sphere. The implications of these findings for contemporary politics are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
