From Metropolis to Microcosmos: The EU’s New Standards of Civilisation

Abstract

While some denounce the legacies of colonialism they discern in the EU’s practices and discourse, others believe these accusations to be unfounded, raising the question: how apt is the analogy between the 19th-century standard of civilisation and the EU’s narratives and modes of actions today? In this essay, we address the question by developing a ‘new standards typology’ articulated around two axes: agency denial and hierarchy. These refer respectively to the unilateral shaping of standards applicable to others, and to the salience of Eurocentricism in the way the standards are enforced and structure the international system. Ultimately, we argue that in transforming their ‘continent’ from a metropolis to a microcosmos – from a cluster of colonial capitals to an EU that contains many of the world’s tensions within itself – Europeans have only partially succeeded in transcending their colonial impulses. We conclude by suggesting that the EU’s relevance is grounded in its ability to become a post-colonial power, and that to achieve this, those acting in its name need to remember historical legacies and reflect upon the ‘standards’ that inspire their action.

Regional standards of membership and enlargement in the EU and ASEAN

“…Redefining the standard was a way of disciplining the accession candidates in line with the existing members' interests. In this sense, the European case echoes the normative mission of the original Bstandard of civilization^ (Behr 2007;Nicolaidis et al 2014), whereas ASEAN's cognitive priors were shaped by its members' desire to fend off interference and in fact reject any Bcivilizational^advances by outside actors-although, paradoxically, the resulting norm of domestic stability does have an intrusive element. Apart from projecting interests into the neighborhood, however, enlargement also hit home and transformed the constitutive foundations of the two ROs.…”

Captive minds: the function and agency of Eastern Europe in International Security Studies

“…The signature IR journal in Europe, European Journal of International Relations (SAGE), has showcased perhaps the richest and most systematic engagement with social theory in advancing international theory in post-1991 International Studies, not least by reflecting on the role of the Eastern 'other' in its various disguises for the European 'self' (Neumann 1996), along with the historical roots of the alleged Eastern backwardness, the consequent reduction of Eastern identity to a Western concept of civilisation and the ensuing conception of European imperialism as a civilising mission (Hobson and Sharman 2005;Schimmelfennig 2000). EE has received ample coverage in the journal as an object of EU accession politics (read as an instance of the neo-colonial underpinnings in the EU's eastern enlargement process) (Behr 2007; see also Klinke 2015;Nicolaidis et al 2014); a space of 'Eastern nationalisms', viewed through a demi-Orientalist prism in the West (Jutila 2009: 635); cultural intimacy (Subotić and Zarakol 2012), and a contestant of set-in patterns of a 'common European memory' (Mälksoo 2009). Russia and the European Neighbourhood Policy have further provided opportunities for the advancement of the concepts of soft power (Feklyunina 2016); epistemic (un)certainty in times of crisis (Natorski 2016), and national ideology in IR theory (Tsygankov and Tsygankov 2010).…”

Shape shifting: Civilizational discourse and the analysis of cross-cultural interaction in the constitution of international society

“…As with earlier ‘standards of civilization’, states that do not or cannot comply with these standards may formally remain sovereign, but may find access to important resources and institutions limited or conditional (Best, 2006; Bowden, 2014; Bowden and Seabrooke, 2006; Fidler, 2001; Mozaffari, 2002). Nicolaides et al (2014) similarly explore how the European Union and the concept of ‘normative power Europe’ establishes an ideal of ‘the good state’ premised on democracy, human rights and economic openness. This highlights the capacity of the EU to tacitly regulate the behaviour of other states and induce compliance to norms established by Europe through how it grants access to special partnerships or membership of the EU.…”