IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsoctx/v12y2022i2p34-d758318.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Online EU Contestation in Times of Crisis: Towards a European Digital Demos?

Author

Listed:
  • Milica Pejovic

    (University of Rennes 1, 35000 Rennes, France)

Abstract

Crises, as critical moments in the process of European integration, are particularly conducive to the increased politicisation of the European Union (EU) and its contestation. The year 2015 saw the peaks of the Greek and the refugee crises, the two crises that put the two flagships of the European project—the Euro and the Schengen zone—into imminent peril, causing a prolonged EU legitimacy crisis. Building on the literature that considers Euroscepticism as a context-dependent and discursive phenomenon, this study analyses Facebook debates that emerged in response to the Greek and refugee crises, trying to identify how the EU was evaluated and how these evaluations were justified. To answer this question, this study involved the qualitative content analysis of over 7000 Facebook comments related to the Greek and migration crises published in 2015 on the pages of the European Parliament and the European Commission. Contrary to the literature that explains popular Euroscepticism by utilitarian or cultural factors, the findings of this study show that the most recurrent justification for negative EU polity evaluations is the lack of democratic credentials. Furthermore, the commentators mostly assessed the EU’s current set-up and, to a much lesser extent, the principle and the future of European integration. Moreover, the Facebook public extensively commented on the level of inclusiveness, particularly bemoaning the lack of inclusiveness of “ordinary” people in EU decision making. Nevertheless, the commentators frequently referred to themselves as “we Europeans” or “we people”, opposing themselves to EU, national, or financial “elites”. Despite its populist elements, this sense of “we-ness” incepted in social media suggests the capacity of transnational online discussion to foster European digital demos.

Suggested Citation

  • Milica Pejovic, 2022. "Online EU Contestation in Times of Crisis: Towards a European Digital Demos?," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-22, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:12:y:2022:i:2:p:34-:d:758318
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/12/2/34/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/12/2/34/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andreas Follesdal & Simon Hix, 2006. "Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44, pages 533-562, September.
    2. Hutter, Swen & Kriesi, Hanspeter, 2019. "Politicizing Europe in times of crisis," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 26(7), pages 996-1017.
    3. Sara B. Hobolt, 2012. "Citizen Satisfaction with Democracy in the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(S1), pages 88-105, March.
    4. Vincent Della Sala, 2010. "Political Myth, Mythology and the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48, pages 1-19, January.
    5. Anderson, Christopher J. & Reichert, M. Shawn, 1995. "Economic Benefits and Support for Membership in the E.U.: A Cross-National Analysis," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 231-249, September.
    6. Hudson, Laurel Anderson & Ozanne, Julie L, 1988. "Alternative Ways of Seeking Knowledge in Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 14(4), pages 508-521, March.
    7. Vincent Della Sala, 2010. "Political Myth, Mythology and the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1), pages 1-19, January.
    8. Philipp Genschel & Markus Jachtenfuchs, 2018. "From Market Integration to Core State Powers: The Eurozone Crisis, the Refugee Crisis and Integration Theory," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(1), pages 178-196, January.
    9. Caroline Mcevoy, 2016. "The Role of Political Efficacy on Public Opinion in the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(5), pages 1159-1174, September.
    10. Andreas Follesdal & Simon Hix, 2006. "Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(3), pages 533-562, September.
    11. Eichenberg, Richard C. & Dalton, Russell J., 1993. "Europeans and the European Community: the dynamics of public support for European integration," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 47(4), pages 507-534, October.
    12. Ayhan Kaya & Ayşe Tecmen, 2019. "Europe versus Islam?: Right-Wing Populist Discourse and the Construction of a Civilizational Identity," The Review of Faith & International Affairs, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 49-64, January.
    13. Francis Cheneval & Mónica Ferrín, 2018. "Referendums in the European Union: Defective by Birth?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(5), pages 1178-1194, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Caroline Mcevoy, 2016. "The Role of Political Efficacy on Public Opinion in the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(5), pages 1159-1174, September.
    2. Dimiter Toshkov, 2011. "Public opinion and policy output in the European Union: A lost relationship," European Union Politics, , vol. 12(2), pages 169-191, June.
    3. Christopher J Williams & Shaun Bevan, 2019. "The effect of public attitudes toward the European Union on European Commission policy activity," European Union Politics, , vol. 20(4), pages 608-628, December.
    4. Jørgen Bølstad, 2015. "Dynamics of European integration: Public opinion in the core and periphery," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(1), pages 23-44, March.
    5. Arnold, Christine, Eliyahu V. Sapir and Galina Zapryanova, 2012. "Trust in the institutions of the European Union: A cross-country examination," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 16, February.
    6. Mark Dawson & Adina Maricut‐Akbik, 2023. "Accountability in the EU's para‐regulatory state: The case of the Economic and Monetary Union," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 142-157, January.
    7. Sofia Vasilopoulou & Katjana Gattermann, 2021. "Does Politicization Matter for EU Representation? A Comparison of Four European Parliament Elections," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 661-678, May.
    8. Miriam Sorace, 2018. "The European Union democratic deficit: Substantive representation in the European Parliament at the input stage," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(1), pages 3-24, March.
    9. Felix Lehmann, 2023. "Talking about Europe? Explaining the salience of the European Union in the plenaries of 17 national parliaments during 2006–2019," European Union Politics, , vol. 24(2), pages 370-389, June.
    10. Márton Bene & Melanie Magin & Daniel Jackson & Darren Lilleker & Delia Balaban & Paweł Baranowski & Jörg Haßler & Simon Kruschinski & Uta Russmann, 2022. "The Polyphonic Sounds of Europe: Users’ Engagement With Parties’ European-Focused Facebook Posts," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(1), pages 108-120.
    11. Julian Aichholzer & Sylvia Kritzinger & Carolina Plescia, 2021. "National identity profiles and support for the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(2), pages 293-315, June.
    12. Richard Hyman & Rebecca Gumbrell-McCormick, 2020. "(How) can international trade union organisations be democratic?," Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, , vol. 26(3), pages 253-272, August.
    13. Scharpf, Fritz W., 2007. "Reflections on multilevel legitimacy," MPIfG Working Paper 07/3, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    14. Katjana Gattermann & Claes H De Vreese, 2017. "The role of candidate evaluations in the 2014 European Parliament elections: Towards the personalization of voting behaviour?," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(3), pages 447-468, September.
    15. Christoffer Kølvraa, 2016. "European Fantasies: On the EU's Political Myths and the Affective Potential of Utopian Imaginaries for European Identity," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 169-184, January.
    16. Christopher J Williams, 2016. "Issuing reasoned opinions: The effect of public attitudes towards the European Union on the usage of the 'Early Warning System'," European Union Politics, , vol. 17(3), pages 504-521, September.
    17. Kristel Jacquier, 2015. "Public support for the economic governance of the euro zone: empirical evidence from the debt crisis," Post-Print halshs-01222511, HAL.
    18. Petia Kostadinova, 2015. "Improving the Transparency and Accountability of EU Institutions: The Impact of the Office of the European Ombudsman," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(5), pages 1077-1093, September.
    19. Camille Kelbel & Virginie Van Ingelgom & Soetkin Verhaegen, 2016. "Looking for the European Voter: Split-Ticket Voting in the Belgian Regional and European Elections of 2009 and 2014," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(1), pages 116-129.
    20. Adam William Chalmers & Lisa Maria Dellmuth, 2015. "Fiscal redistribution and public support for European integration," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(3), pages 386-407, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:12:y:2022:i:2:p:34-:d:758318. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.