Discursively (de-)constructing European foreign policy: Theoretical and methodological challenges
| Date | 01 December 2015 |
| Published date | 01 December 2015 |
| Author | Knud Erik Jørgensen |
| DOI | 10.1177/0010836713494996 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Cooperation and Conflict
2015, Vol. 50(4) 492 –509
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0010836713494996
cac.sagepub.com
Discursively (de-)
constructing European foreign
policy: Theoretical and
methodological challenges
Knud Erik Jørgensen
Abstract
This article is about European foreign policy, specifically an examination of ways in which
discourse analysis and foreign policy analysis can be brought together. The first aim of this article
is to explicate the explanandum in some detail. Before we know what we are looking for, it gives
limited meaning to consider procedures for methodological procedures. Once the explanandum
has been identified, the article examines theoretical approaches and critically discusses their
promises and limitations. Priority is given to the option of applying constructivist discursive
theories that might (or might not) have been developed with a view to analysing foreign policy,
including European foreign policy. In doing so, the article aims at bridging several sometimes very
different fields of study: discourse theory, which is sometimes utterly unaware of or uninterested
in foreign affairs; and foreign policy analysis, which is frequently descriptive in orientation and at
times characterized by less-than-benign neglect of discourse theory.
Keywords
Attentive public, discourse analysis, elite attitudes, foreign policy, mythology, public philosophy,
transnational foreign policy traditions
At the gate
When standing on Place Schumann in Brussels looking east, the eyes meet a fairly large
triangular building, which houses the European External Action Service (EEAS).1 The
tall, heavy gate indicates – perhaps symbolizes – an institution of considerable aspiration
or significance. This institution has a considerable staff (expected to reach 5000+ eventu-
ally), a sizeable budget, an organizational chart which some find impressive and, being
tasked to represent the European Union internationally, also an important mandate and
mission.2 It is one of the institutional interfaces between Europe and the world, and
Corresponding author:
Knud Erik Jørgensen, Aarhus University, Bartholins Alle 7, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Email: KEJ@ps.au.dk
494996CAC0010.1177/0010836713494996Cooperation and ConflictJørgensen
research-article2013
Article
Jørgensen 493
between European and world politics. Those visiting the EEAS website will know that it
communicates with its environment, issuing news and statements and providing meeting
schedules, photos and videos of top officials. Those who wish to can become a friend of
the EEAS on Facebook.3
If the EEAS is the physical, formal institution, there are other, informal, institutions
of some relevance for the present article. Thus, the EEAS frequently organizes press
conferences, explaining what it does and why. Moreover, the EEAS briefs other European
institutions in a standard-operating-procedures fashion, including the Council of
Ministers, the European Parliament and the European Council. Notably, despite func-
tional similarities, the EEAS is not a European Ministry of Foreign Affairs but a European
External Action Service, so it must regularly brief those in whose service it works.4
Moreover, the world of diplomacy is a world of institutions, whether formal, informal,
symbolic or ceremonial. Other informal institutions include meetings with diplomatic
peers in foreign offices, state departments or international organizations, and thus the
High Representative, Catherine Ashton, meets John Kerry, Yang Jiechi, Ban Ki-moon
and many others. Finally, the EEAS can make use of and contribute to specific European
institutions such as the Eurobarometer and Eurostat. The former informs EEAS officials
that what they do may perhaps have a surprisingly high degree of approval from European
citizens, including in countries not known for being particularly friendly to Brussels.5
Eurostat contributes some of the (aggregate) European data that national statistical ser-
vices systematically neglect, for which reason Europe is somewhat unknown to Europeans,
including European scholars cherishing methodological nationalism.
The EEAS employs different means of communication, reflecting the variation of the
audiences it aims to reach. The EEAS website is one such tool – both a means in its own
right and a gateway to a rich variety of communication channels and forms. Ashton and
top EEAS officials give speeches, and Ashton’s staff issue statements and provide news.6
Presumably they are involved in drafting both Council of Ministers and European
Council conclusions. Ashton might also, as Vice-President of the European Commission,
be involved in authorizing mandates for white papers, green papers, communications and
other kinds of policy documents.7
This article aims at understanding the significance of this kind of institutional
communication and how it resonates with existing discourses on foreign affairs. It
does so by bridging two avenues of research: one focusing on relations between elite
and public, and a second focusing on foreign policy traditions – thus illustrating some
of the arguments that Caterina Carta and Jean-Frederic Morin have emphasized (IN
PRESS).8
In research on the relationship between foreign policy and public opinion, Gabriel
Almond’s (1960) distinction between a ‘general public’, an ‘attentive public’ and a
‘policy and opinion elite’ has proved to be of lasting value.9 According to Almond’s
slightly provocative claim, the general public does not understand and, in any case,
does not care about foreign policy, except perhaps during crises. The attentive public
is a fairly exclusive and educated segment of the general public, and the elite can inter-
act with the attentive public, at least in terms of more general or abstract reasoning.
The policy and opinion elite comprises several groupings – diplomats, journalists,
politicians, academics – who understand, to various degrees, the insights and
To continue reading
Request your trial