The transnational social field of EU affairs

Büttner, Sebastian M.; Mau, Steffen

doi:10.1007/s11609-014-0246-7

Cited by 18 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The work of Bourdieu has provided a source of inspiration for numerous English-and French-language studies on transnationalization processes (see for instance Beauvallet and Michon 2010, Bigo 2013, Büttner and Mau 2014, Cohen 2013, Dezalay and Garth 2013, Favell and Guiraudon 2010, Georgakakis 2012, Häkli and Kallio 2014, Kauppi 2005, Kauppi and Madsen 2013, Kull 2014, Kunz 2013, Landorff 2016, Madsen 2011a, Mudge and Vauchez 2012, Sallaz 2006, Sending 2009. The approach developed here is not a theory in the strict sense of the term but rather an instrument in a process of scientific rationalization that attempts to make sense out of reality.…”

Section: Producing Transnational Social Fieldsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Transnational history has already developed both in Europe and North America (an overview is provided in Iriye and Saunier 2009). Scholars working in the area of migration studies have adopted this perspective (Wimmer and Glick Schiller 2002), as have some sociologists of law (for recent work see Dezalay andGarth 2013, Madsen 2011b) and scholars of European integration (Mau 2010, Büttner andMau 2014). At the moment there is exciting work on the transnational formation of IR theory (Guilhot 2011), on transnational professionals (Bigo 2013, Sending 2009, and in sociology some French language work on the international circulation of ideas (see Bourdieu's ground-breaking study 1990, also Sapiro 2008and Heilbron et al 2008.…”

Section: Transnationalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Transnational Social Fields

Kauppi

2018

Oxford Handbooks Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter excavates Bourdieu’s theoretical insights concerning political sociology to develop a theory of transnational structuration processes. The early Bourdieu implicitly imagined the state as a nationally bounded actor. Only later in his career did he begin to grapple with issues such as globalization, transnationalism, and neoliberalism; and it is this later germ of ideas that this chapter develops. Transnational social fields, this chapter argues, are not reducible to institutional or organizational structures. They require a more holistic analysis of institutions and their underpinnings. To provide an example of how Bourdieu’s political sociology can be extended to transnational spaces, this chapter considers the case of the European Parliament.

show abstract

Section: Producing Transnational Social Fieldsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Transnationalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transnational Social Fields

Kauppi

2018

Oxford Handbooks Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…'Knowing about the EASO' as a specialised form of knowledge and field of activity was something they shared with their colleagues from partner authorities. EASO networks thus have the potential to integrate and stabilise a transnational field of 'Euro-professionals', even if these professionals are still deeply anchored in national contexts of action (Büttner and Mau 2014). Across cases, the EASO was perceived as an actor whose influence was gradually spreading across the different departments and hierarchical levels within the respective asylum authorities in indirect ways because of its focus on "practical issues" (Senior Official G_I,(380)(381)(382)(383)(384)(385)(386)(387)(388)(389)(390)(391).…”

Section: Shared Beliefs In Bureaucratic Expertise and Discursive Pracmentioning

confidence: 99%

EASO—Support Office or Asylum Authority? Boundary Disputes in the European Field of Asylum Administration

Schneider

Nieswandt

2018

Österreich Z Soziol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the establishment of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) in 2010, a new collective actor entered the European asylum policy arena. Although the agency commands limited financial and personnel resources, and has no formal powers to directly interfere in the decision-making practices of asylum authorities across Europe, its mandate and reach of influence are a subject of recurrent dispute. We consider the struggles surrounding the EASO's role and position as manifestations of enduring conflicts of recognition, valuation and distribution in a Europeanised asylum administrative field. By analysing civil servants' position-takings vis-à-vis the EASO, we demonstrate that officials from a variety of member states are united by a shared belief in disinterested, apolitical bureaucratic rules of procedure, based on a notion of 'expertise' that transcends national boundaries and supersedes national concerns. At the same time, the discursive boundary work invested by the interviewees draws on spatial, temporal and procedural categories of differentiation, highlighting complex processes of ongoing relational positionings and practices of distinction. The corresponding hierarchies and inequalities are further indications of a transnational administrative field with its own principles of valuation.The interviews on which this article is based were conducted in the context of the research project 'The European Field of Asylum Administrations: transnational practices between cooperation and conflict' (University of Siegen) and funded by the German Research Foundation in the framework of the research unit 'Horizontal Europeanization' (FOR1539). The authors would like to thank Marius Wacker for his contribution to the collection of data and analysis, without which this article would not have come into being. We also thank Christian Lahusen and Karin Schittenhelm and the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this article.S. Schneider ( ) · C. Nieswandt ( ) Philosophische Fakultät,

show abstract

“…They include the wider field of European public policy shaped by interest groups, think tanks, professional associations and civil society organisations in Brussels and the various capitals of Europe (Greenwood 1997;Lahusen 2004;Kohler-Koch and Quittkat 2013). These fields also include the European Member States where, for instance, EU-related professionals (Büttner and Mau 2014) have new forms of occupation with distinct tasks and responsibilities, forms of knowledge and resources. These fields have evolved against the background of the expanding involvement of private and non-state actors in political governance and the increasingly important professions such as knowledge producers and knowledgeable practitioners.…”

Section: Power and Authority New Forms Of Statehoodmentioning

confidence: 99%