30216

SoSe 21: Building civic identity in Europe

Bujar Aruqaj

Kommentar

In this course we will initially review the theoretical approaches to civic identification which stands in contrast to ethno-centric and nationalist identification. The debate on civic identification can be traced back in the disciplines of sociology, political science and political philosophy alike. Thus, according to Parsons (1971, 307) the more differentiated the system, the higher “the level of generality at which the value-pattern must be couched” if it is to legitimate the more specified values of all of the differentiated parts of the social system. Rawls (1971; 1985), developed the idea of a “well ordered society” as a normative proposition considering the possibility of whether a society could exist stably under conditions of religious and philosophical diversity, where there is no body of deep foundational ideas affirmed by all citizens. Similarly, Jürgen Habermas popularized the concept of “constitutional patriotism” in the 1980s (Habermas 1994, 6). The concept is often applied in connection to the member countries of the European Union which might find value in alternative forms of political belonging. The rise of support for right-wing political actors is often viewed as a threat and an indicator of a return to national identification. David Easton on the other hand defines “support for the political community” as the diffuse support for the political authorities or regime which typically express itself in the form of trust or confidence in them. However, for the political community the same kind of diffuse attitudes may appear as a sense of we-feeling, common consciousness or group identification (Easton 1953, 391; 1975). Thus, more practically civic identity is best understood as a set of beliefs and emotions about oneself as a participant in civic life (Knefelkamp 2008, 6). It refers to a broader sense of developing and situating oneself and one’s beliefs within a group of people, and how one engages with others in the social, political, and economic structures within their society. In the first part of this course we will assess the values, norms, and practices conducive to civic identity and engagement as a comparative aspect of European societies. We will further review the literature on competing explanations of identity formation such as primordialism, instrumentalism, constructivism, and the literature on symbolic boundaries (Lamont and Molnár 2002). In the second part we will inspect more recent “nation building” projects in the post-socialist societies of Eastern and Southeastern Europe specifically. We will assess to what extent these societies were able to reconstruct, structure or “reimagine” their national identity (Andersen 1991). Further, we will take a critical look at so-called “nation branding” campaigns where societies are often articulated as post-ethnic, cosmopolitan, entrepreneurial national subjects, while disregarding real social divisions on the ground (Kaneva 2017; 2018). We will explore the challenges of fostering common civic identification in “deeply divided” societies (Guelke 2012). In the final part of the course, we will address the potential and problematic of digital and social media which have arguably fundamentally altered the civic landscape, and creating opportunities for civic engagement as well as distinct challenges (James and Lee 2017; Viola 2020). Schließen

Literaturhinweise

Andersen, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Forum for Modern Language Studies. Revised an. New York London: Verso. https://doi.org/10.1093/fmls/cqp012.
Easton, David. 1953. The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Inc.
———. 1975. “A Re-Assessment of the Concept of Political Support.” British Journal of Political Science 5 (4): 435–57. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400008309.
Guelke, Adrian. 2012. Politics in Deeply Divided Societies. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1994. “Citizenship and National Identity.” In The Condition of Citizenship, edited by Bart van Steenbergen, 20–35. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446250600.n3.
James, Carrie, and Ashley Lee. 2017. “Speaking Up Online: Civic Identity and Expression in the Digital Age.” In Social Movements and Media, edited by Jennifer Earl and Deana A. Rohlinger. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1108/s2050-206020170000014003.
Kaneva, Nadia. 2017. “The Branded National Imagination and Its Limits: Insights from the PostSocialist Experience.” Strategic Review for Southern Africa 39 (1): 116.
———. 2018. “Nation Branding, Neoliberal Development, and the Remaking of the Nation-State: Lessons from Post-War Kosovo.” In Communicating National Image through Development and Diplomacy, edited by James Pamment and Karin Gwinn Wilkins, 73–97. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76759-8.
Knefelkamp, L. Lee. 2008. “Civic Identity: Locating Self in Community.” Diversity & Democracy 11 (2): 1–3. https://www.aacu.org/diversitydemocracy/2008/spring/knefelkamp.
Lamont, Michèle, and Virág Molnár. 2002. “The Study of Boundaries in the Social Sciences.” Annual Review of Sociology 28: 167–95.
Parsons, Talcott. 1971. “Comparative Studies and Evolutionary Change.” In Comparative Methods in Sociology, edited by Ivan Vallier, Second, 279–320. Berkeley: University of Chicago Press.
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harward University Press.
———. 1985. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Viola, Julianne K. 2020. Young People’s Civic Identity in the Digital Age. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Schließen

14 Termine

Regelmäßige Termine der Lehrveranstaltung

Mi, 12:00 - 14:00 14 Termine

Mi, 14.04.2021 12:00 - 14:00

Dozenten:
Bujar Aruqaj