How to Reduce Disorder in European Identity Research

RESEARCH

how to reduce disorder ineuropean identity researchviktoria kainaFriedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Department of Political Science Carl-Zei�-Str. 3,D-07743 Jena, Germany.

doi:10.1057/eps.2012.39; published online 16 November 2012

AbstractThe article aims at opening a debate by offering some ideas about how wecan avoid analytical confusion in future inquiry on European collectiveidentity. I discuss two important theoretical deficiencies that impedeadvancement in the research on this topic. These shortcomings are: (1)the two-level problem in analysing collective identities; and (2) the issue ofequating ‘belonging to’ with ‘belonging together’. In doing so, I will alsomake some proposals on how we can deal with these problems. Finally,I present a few considerations on further research questions and point toseveral empirical desiderata.

Keywords European identity; European Union; collective identity

How much pressure can the Eur-opean Union tolerate in order topersist and what holds the Eur-

opean ‘family’ together in times of scarcity,conflict, danger and threat? Looking foranswers to these questions, a multitude ofpublications stress the need for groupcohesion in the EU. The gradual emergenceof a European collective identity, en-trenched in the EU citizens’ consciousnessof sharing a common fate, is said to be ameans of overcoming centrifugal tenden-cies due to the increased heterogeneity oftoday’s European Union of 27 memberstates and nearly 500 million people. Agrowing number of scholars accordinglybelieve in the need for a ‘European identity’

to weather the challenges ahead andprevent the EU from breaking apart, espe-cially in difficult times.

Although publications are not lacking,previous research on ‘European identity’provides inconsistent evidence, contra-dictory conclusions and controversialdiagnoses (Kaina and Karolewski, 2009).I believe this unsatisfying state of affairsis mainly caused by lasting theoreticaldeficits. In particular, we still have troublespecifying the main concept of ‘collectiveidentity’. Naturally, in the social sciencesany term is more or less contentious andsome concepts are more open to disputethan others. Disagreement, however, isnot tantamount to a lack of clarity.

european political science: 12 2013

(184 – 196) & 2013 European Consortium for Political Research. 1680-4333/13 www.palgrave-journals.com/eps/

184

Since ‘research that employs unclear con-cepts (y) usually leads to poor analyses’(Nørgaard, 2008: 4f), we need to eluci-date the analytical categories we use.This is all the more important as our

inability to specify unambiguously the keyconcept for research on European identitycan create a grave epistemological pro-blem for at least three reasons. First,without unambiguous concepts we can-not grasp reality in an appropriate way.Second, in lacking a clear concept speci-fication we run the risk of developingunsuitable operationalizations and inap-propriate measuring instruments, whichis why we cannot trust the validity andreliability of our empirical findings. Final-ly, the more the definitions of the keyconcepts vary, the greater the challengeof generalizing and communicating newinsights. Since researchers are unable tocommunicate with each other, they tendto disregard the work of their colleagues.In fact, there is some evidence in theresearch literature on European collectiveidentity that scholars from different per-spectives – for instance, from a normativeand an empirical point of view – are proneto systematically ignoring each other. Theemergence and consolidation of com-municative islands, however, underminesthe cumulative character of scientificresearch and hampers the progress ofknowledge. Accordingly, advancement inresearch on ‘European identity’ dependson our ability to consolidate empiricalknowledge. This, in turn, is contingenton our capacity to clarify what we aretalking about whenever we refer to ‘col-lective identity’ in general and ‘Europeanidentity’ in particular.Previous research on ‘European iden-

tity’ suffers from conceptual fuzzinessthat entails unreliable results and incon-sistent conclusions. Consequently, weneed to reconsider the theoretical pre-mises of European identity research. Thisarticle aims to open a debate by offeringsome ideas about how we can avoid

analytical disorder in future inquiry on‘European identity’. In section two, Idiscuss two theoretical issues that con-tribute to confusion in European identityresearch. In doing so, I also present aproposal for conceptualizing Europeanidentity research in order to ease obser-vable scholarly schisms. In the concludingsection, I briefly summarize the mainarguments and sketch further researchquestions.

CAUSES OF CONFUSION INEUROPEAN IDENTITYRESEARCH – AND HOW WECOULD GET A GRIP ON THEM

‘Identity’, as a term, is not only ambig-uous, but this ambiguity is identity’sgreatest impairment when it comes toits usefulness as an analytical category.Ten years ago, Rogers Brubaker andFrederick Cooper (2000) even recom-mended jettisoning the identity concept,since it is far too extensile for systematicinquiry. Other scholars agree that both‘identity’ and ‘collective identity’ are the-oretically insubstantial, but also diffi-cult to measure (Abdelal et al, 2009b;Herrmann and Brewer, 2004: 4; Huntington,2004: 41; Mayer and Palmowski, 2004:578). Along with others, I think theconcept of identity is too important insocial life for it to be banished from thesocial sciences. In the long run, neitherindividuals nor human groups can livewithout identity. Having an identity isboth a ‘psychological imperative’ as wellas a ‘sociological constant’ (Greenfeld,1999: 38). Doing identity research with-out reference to the concept of ‘identity’

‘y we still have troublespecifying the main

concept of ‘collectiveidentity’.

viktoria kaina european political science: 12 2013 185

would be like conducting research ondemocracy without the notion of ‘democ-racy’. Instead of surrendering, I suggestthat we intensify our efforts to make senseof ‘identity’ as an analytical category.In the following, I propose we conce-

tualize European identity research byfocusing on two theoretical issues: (1)the two-level problem in analysing collec-tive identities; and (2) the issue of equating‘belonging to’ with ‘belonging together’.Both theoretical deficiencies contributeto scholarly disarray and make it increas-ingly difficult to navigate through thestate of the art on ‘European identity’.

(1) THE TWO-LEVEL PROBLEM INANALYSING COLLECTIVEIDENTITIES

In his recent book, Thomas Risse (2010:19) notes, in an almost casual fashion,that studying collective identity requires aclear distinction between the subjects andobjects of identification. Put differently,inquiry on collective identity has to makeclear who identifies with whom or what.I would like to add: why or for whichreason. Risse’s helpful proposal benefitsfrom being straightforward and simple (inthe good sense). Nevertheless, its capa-city to avoid confusion in research onEuropean collective identity is constricted.This limitation is mainly caused by thetwo-level nature of collective identities.Accordingly, collective identities relate totwo subjects at different analytical levels,namely individual(s) and/or a group ofpeople. Therefore, Risse’s analytical dis-tinction can easily lose its clarity since agroup of people can be both the subjectand the object of identification. If indivi-duals identify with a group of people, theformer is the subject and the latter theobject of identification. In contrast, agroup of people is simultaneously objectand subject of collective identity, if thegroup identifies with itself as a collectivity.In that case, the group is a collective

subject identifying with itself in terms ofits key attributes, which make it uniqueand different to other groups. Thus, in thecase of research on collective identities,the distinction between subjects andobjects of, and reasons for, identificationshould be supplemented by distinguishingbetween an individual level and a group orcollective level (see also Duchesne, 2008:402, 403; Duchesne and Frognier, 2008:144, 145; Kaina, 2009: 41).

This perspective offers two importantadvantages. First, a framework based onthe aforementioned analytical distinctions(and displayed in Table 1) might serve tostructure the research agenda as well asto systemize different perspectives andseveral approaches in previous researchon European collective identity. Further-more, and even more importantly, sucha framework might guide us to ‘goodresearch’ (Nørgaard, 2008) by urgingstudents of ‘European identity’ to disclosetheir notion of ‘collective identity’, justifytheir research focus and clarify theirresearch puzzles.

As for the second advantage, the fra-mework shown in Table 1 is compatiblewith different perspectives in previousresearch on ‘European identity’ by avoid-ing a scholarly schism between the col-lective and individual level of analysing(European) collective identity. I will ex-plain this argument in greater detail.

I agree with Fuchs (2011: 35) thatmuch confusion in the research on ‘Eur-opean identity’ can be traced back to atleast two misunderstandings. The firstdisaccord exists between researcherswith an empirical approach (on the onehand) and scholars with a normativeapproach (on the other). The secondmisunderstanding is caused by the afore-mentioned two-level problem in analysingcollective identities.

To begin with the first misunderstand-ing, empirical research on European col-lective identity mainly deals with thequestion of whether, to what extent and

european political science: 12 2013 how to reduce disorder in european identity research186

for what reasons, EU citizens identify withthe European Union as a group of peopleand their European fellow citizens. Incontrast, normative approaches essen-tially seek to find an answer to thequestion of what the content or substanceof a European collective identity could orshould be. In practice, most scholarsdealing with the substance of ‘Europeanidentity’ tend to offer mere normativearguments by deducing the content of aEuropean collective identity from philoso-phical ideas, normative principles or legaldocuments. However, there are also stu-dies that empirically explore the sub-stance of a ‘European identity’ using, forinstance, discourse analyses or surveysamong elites and non-elites. Accordingly,I feel that a momentous scholarly schismis less apparent between normative andempirical approaches and more obviousbetween the collective and individual levelsof analysing (European) collective identity.Researchers coming from a socio-psy-

chological or sociological tradition con-sider collective identity as equivalentto the ‘emotional sub-dimension’ ofsocial identity, which, in turn, is part ofthe individual’s self-conception (Esser,

2001: 342, 345). Those scholars consis-tently analyse collective identities at anindividual analytical level since the sub-ject of collective identity is a person whois related to a group of people in a certainway. The second misunderstanding inanalysing (European) collective identityis caused by a biased focus on individualswho are seen as the subjects of collectiveidentities. However, as I have arguedabove, not only individuals but alsogroups of people can be studied as thesubject of collective identities.

We can explore this thought by refer-ring to the two main ideas of identity thatare prominent in studies on collectiveidentities: (1) identity as something aperson or a group is; and (2) identityas something individuals or collectiveshave (Kaina and Karolewski, 2006: 12).1

‘y a momentousscholarly schism runs

between collective andindividual levels of

analysing (European)collective identity’.

Table 1: An analytical framework for research on European collectiveidentity

Levels of collective identity

Collective orgroup level

Individual level

Componentsof collective identity

Subject a group of people individual(s)

Object a group of people a group of people

Reason e.g.:K a common storyK a set of values andprinciplesK similar collectiveexperiencesK a common historyand/or memory

individual’s perception ofsharing precious andexclusive commonalitieswith others


The first idea is tantamount to a statementof ‘who I am’ or ‘who we are’. Accordingly, itbasically relates to a definition in terms ofdescribing a self-image or self-conception,a meaning of ‘me’ and ‘us’. Thus, identityas ‘being’ helps to classify things, personsor groups of people (Triandafyllidou andWodak, 2003: 206). The second ideaintrinsically refers to a justification. Since‘having an identity’ relates to ‘associatingoneself with something or someone else’(Triandafyllidou and Wodak, 2003: 206),identity as ‘having’ always implies more orless unexpressed reasons for a subject’sidentification with something.The distinction of identity as ‘being’

and ‘having’ is strictly different fromKantner’s (2006: 507f) proposal to dis-tinguish between ‘numerical identifica-tion (or categorization)’ and ‘qualitativeidentity’. According to Kantner (2006:508), ‘numerical identification’ meansthat all objects of the material, socialand subjective world can be identified inspace and time by a neutral observer. Myproposition takes this for granted andrelates both ideas of identity as ‘being’and ‘having’ to self-reflections of people,or a group of people.Due to the two-level nature of collective

identities, it certainly makes sense tostudy both ideas of identity as ‘being’

and ‘having’ at an individual as well as acollective level (see cells A–D in Table 2).We just have to be precise about what wetalk about and what we are interested inwhenever we speak of the emergence of a‘European identity’.

On the one hand, we can study theindividuals’ self-conception related to agroup. For example, we can ask how farEuropeans consider themselves as Eur-opeans, which pertains to ‘who I am’ (seecell A). But we also deal with groupdefinition and the image of the Europeancollective self when we ask, for instance,which contents give a meaning to ‘who weEuropeans are’ (see cell B). In this context,we can study the degree of contestationof a ‘European identity’, since meaning ‘isthe product of social activity, establishedinter-subjectively and may always be amatter of agreement or disagreement’(Triandafyllidou and Wodak, 2003: 206;see also Abdelal et al, 2009a: 9).

On the other hand, we can scrutinizeempirically the reasons for which EUcitizens identify with the collectivity ofEU citizens (see cell C). Furthermore, wecan try to find out: (1) what the reasonsare for why ‘we as Europeans’ can beconsidered a collectivity or as a ‘we’; and(2) how this collective sense of ‘we-ness’is to be constructed (see cell D).

Table 2: Configuring research foci in studying European collectiveidentity

Levels of collective identity

Collective or grouplevel

Individual level

Ideas of identity Identityas ‘being’

(B) (A)Collective self-image;group definition (Whoare we?)

Individual’s self-concept;attribution to a group(Who am I?)

Identity as‘having’

(D) (C)Reasons for self-repre-sentation as a ‘we’

Reasons for individual’sidentification with a groupand its members


In other words, the individual level ofcollective identity describes a person’sattribution to a collectivity or a group(definition) that is regarded as significantand precious for the individual’s self(justification). In contrast, the group levelof collective identity refers to the self-image of a group (definition) and thereasons for seeing ‘us’ as a collectivityand a ‘we’ (justification). As to the grouplevel, justification is primarily necessaryto act inwardly and outwardly as acollectivity; group definition is mainlyused to present the group both intern-ally and externally as a community. Thisway, the group gives their memberscertain reasons to identify with it andenables others from outside the group torecognize it as a collectivity. That is,collective identities are both internally andexternally defined (Schlesinger, 2000:1875; Herrmann and Brewer, 2004: 6)and need the presence of a ‘significantother’ (for example, Tajfel, 1982: 104;Wendt, 1994: 389; Eisenstadt and Giesen,1995: 47; Delanty, 2000: 115; Schlesinger,2000: 1873; Rumelili, 2004: 32).I believe the structure of the cells

A–D in Table 2 is suitable for representingnot only different approaches of polit-ical scientists but also the various posi-tions of other disciplines in researchon European collective identity (e.g.,the diverse perspectives of sociologists,socio-psychologists, historians and phi-losophers). In the following sub-section,I will offer some arguments on thesecond issue of analysing European col-lective identity.

(2) WHY WE NEED TODISTINGUISH BETWEEN‘BELONGING TO’ AND ‘BELONGINGTOGETHER’

Aside from the two-level nature of collec-tive identities, Bettina Westle (2003b)argued some time ago that collectiveidentities are based on two distinct kinds

of individual–group relationships (see alsoMagnette, 2007: 668). First, a person’sself-attribution to a collective in terms ofsomeone’s sense of belonging to a groupdoes admittedly need the group’s acknowl-edgement (Meyer, 2004: 22). Therefore,collective identity is based on a verticalrelationship between individual and group(Westle, 2003b: 120) resulting from theindividual’s experience of belonging bycollective recognition. I relate this verticaltype of individual–group relationships tothe idea of identity as ‘being’ and theindividual analytical level of collectiveidentity (see cell A of Table 2).

Second, the process of collective iden-tity formation also depends on two crucialpreconditions. It presupposes not onlythe common will of belonging together(Kocka, 1995: 29) but also the groupmembers’ mutual acceptance as associ-ates of one and the same collective(Gellner, 1983: 7) and, in this specialsense, the mutual acknowledgement asequals (Eisenstadt and Giesen, 1995: 74).Consequently, collective identity is alsobased on horizontal relationships betweenthe group members (Westle, 2003b: 129)in terms of a sense of belonging together.In contrast to the vertical kind of indivi-dual–group relationships, horizontal rela-tions between group members can applyboth at the collective and the individuallevel of collective identity, as well as to theidea of identity as ‘having’ (see cells C andD of Table 2). The first choice is againjustified by the two-level nature of collec-tive identity since a sense of belongingtogether cannot be seen only as a featureof a collectivity, but it is also one part of anindividual’s psychology. The second deci-sion is based on the above argument:Since ‘having an identity’ relates to ‘asso-ciating oneself with something or some-one else’ (Triandafyllidou and Wodak,2003: 206 – emphasis added), identityas ‘having’ always implies more or lessunexpressed reasons for a subject’s iden-tification with something.


These two different modes of indivi-dual–group relationships not only servean analytical purpose but they also pose amethodological challenge. In Europeanidentity research, the materialization ofa European collective identity is said to beequivalent to a gradual emergence of asense of community among EU citizens.The methodological challenge at handrefers to the following question: is thepeople’s sense of belonging to a group –in terms of a vertical relationship betweenan individual and a group – really a fairindicator for measuring their sense ofcommunity and sense of belonging to-gether in terms of horizontal relationsbetween group members?In fact, most empirical studies on mass

European identity start from the theore-tical premise that an individual’s collectiveidentity can be considered as a feeling ofbelonging to a group. This theoreticalcommitment is derived from the fact thatpolitical science literature at the individuallevel of European collective identity isstrongly influenced by socio-psychologicalor sociological concepts, which are inter-ested in the individuals’ relationship withtheir social environment. In this tradition,collective identity describes one’s identifi-cation with a group (to which one feelsattached). Consequently, students of thisbranch of research on collective identity ingeneral (and European collective identityin particular) mainly consider any kind ofcollective identity as feelings of belongingto social groups (e.g., Dıez Medrano andGutierrez, 2001: 754; Westle, 2003a:455; Croucher, 2004: 40; Bruter, 2005:(1). A lot of research on European collec-tive identity therefore provides empiricalanalyses on how Europeans’ feelings ofattachment to the European Union havebeen developed over time.The conceptualization of collective

identity in terms of an emotional compo-nent to an individual’s self-conception hasboth advantages and disadvantages. Themost important benefit is the possibility of

studying collective identities at the microlevel of societies – that is the level ofindividuals (Westle, 2003a: 455; Bruter,2005: 8). This advantage, however, isweakened by three conceptual shortcom-ings: (1) putting the focus on individuals;(2) an overemphasis on feelings; and (3)equating a sense of ‘belonging to’ and asense of ‘belonging together’.

I discussed the first conceptual issue inthe previous sub-section. As for thesecond problem: an overemphasis onthe affective component of attitudesentails a conceptual truncation. Alongwith other scholars, I assume that feel-ings of belonging to a group cannotemerge before the individual is aware ofhis/her group membership and – moreimportantly – before the group hasbecome relevant for the person’s self-conception. Social psychologists thereforeargue that collective identity is built uponthe (prior) psychological existence of thecommunity (Castano, 2004). More than30 years ago, Henri Tajfel (1974, 1982)already defined a person’s knowledge ofbelonging to a group as one component ofgroup identification (Tajfel, 1982: 70,102). In his work, collective identities ofindividuals contain at least three attitudi-nal elements: cognitive, affective andevaluative orientations. With regard tocognitive orientations, social categoriza-tion and attribution serve as benchmarksthat display commonalities between ‘me’and ‘others’ and designate dissimilaritiesbetween ‘me’ and ‘other others’.

Sociologists who support a social con-structionist view on collective identitysometimes challenge this outlook. Thisleads us to the issue of equating ‘belong-ing to’ with ‘belonging together’. Thesescholars highlight the distinctionbetween processes of categorizing selfand others versus processes of comingto feel a sense of common identityor belonging together with others(Fuss and Grosser, 2006: 213). ‘Beingcategorized’, so their argument goes,


‘does not automatically mean to take onthis label as an aspect of self-identity orto see oneself as sharing something withothers so categorized. If and only if thecategory has profound consequencesin terms of changed patterns of socialinteractions (does) the assignment to acertain category become (y) relevantfor self-identity’ (Fuss and Grosser,2006: 213f – emphasis added; likewise:Kantner, 2006: 507).This argument allows for two important

insights. First, cognitive perceptions interms of categorization and attributionare obviously insufficient for conceptua-lizing collective identity. This generaldetection, however, does not precludethat cognitive orientations are a necessaryelement of the collective identity conceptat the individual level. The observationthat collective identities are widely artifi-cial rather than naturally evolved (Ceder-man, 2001: 141–143) may underpin thisargument. In fact, many scholars regardcollective identities, and political identitiesin particular, as social constructions ofdifference (Giesen, 1993), which also restupon processes of categorization andattribution (Eisenstadt, 1999: 373). Theso-called ‘constructivists’ accordinglystress the active role of intellectuals aswell as political entrepreneurs, for in-stance by manipulating cultural symbolsand mobilizing ethnic or cultural cleavages(Cederman, 2001: 142). Second, thesocial constructionist argument nonethe-less highlights that we should make ananalytical distinction between individuals’sense of ‘belonging to’ and their sense of‘belonging together’ since individuals’ at-tribution to a group is different from theirbelief in sharing something with othergroup members (see also Table 2).There is also empirical evidence corro-

borating this line of thought since peopleobviously may have a sense of belongingto a group without having a sense ofbelonging together with other groupmembers. In their study on European

collective identity among young adults,Daniel Fuss and Marita Grosser (2006:228) found that some young peopleconsidered their sense of belonging toEurope as a consequence of their nationalcitizenship status and origin: being aGerman is accordingly tantamount tobelonging to the EU and, consequently,being a European, since Germany is amember state of the European Union.Hence, Fuss and Grosser (2006: 229,236) call this kind of European collectiveidentity ‘status identity’ since it is only atechnical and unemotional statement of‘belonging to’ without having any idea of‘belonging together’.

Against this background, another cru-cial question arises: how do cognitiveperceptions of belonging mutate intoemotional bonds? In other words, whatturns people in a group, who are mem-bers of the same social category, into acommunity? This is a very importantquestion because community member-ship has a ‘higher’ quality than the merebelonging to a social category. The spe-cific value of communities results fromfeelings of mutual commitment betweenthe group members (Citrin and Sides,2004: 165; see also Eder, 2009: 430;Risse, 2010: 22). Due to these feelings ofcommitment, the awareness of ‘belong-ing to’ becomes tantamount to the aware-ness of ‘belonging together’, which, inturn, provides the background for one’swillingness to show solidarity as well as areadiness to make a personal sacrifice forthe well-being of the collective and fellowgroup members.

Taking the research literature intoaccount, there are several answers tothe aforementioned question. Some schol-ars stress that people’s awareness of‘belonging together’ is mainly constructedby elites and is, as such, an artificialartefact (e.g., Giesen, 1993; Cederman,2001). Others highlight that (horizontal)feelings of togetherness develop inas-much as people believe that the group


is a significant collective whose stateaffects the fate of its members and whichis valuable enough to give the group aspecific worth (Estel, 1997: 79). Thisargument is based on the plausible sup-position that individuals only aspire tosuch memberships that give some kind ofgratification in order to strengthen theindividuals’ self-esteem (see also Abdelalet al, 2009a: 4). Collectives or groupsbecome valuable, for instance, if theirinsiders share ‘precious’ commonalitiesthat make a difference to outsiders (Estel,1997: 79f). Large collectives, however,may become worthwhile for their mem-bers only if the people can assume thattheir fellow group members share thoseprecious commonalities. For this reason,large collectives with millions of membersare ‘imagined communities’ (Anderson,1991).Other researchers regard human inter-

relationships and social interactions asthe fundamental driving force for anemerging sense of belonging together inthat they convert cognitive perceptionsinto affective bonds (for example, Eisen-stadt and Giesen, 1995: 74; Delanty,1999: 269; Schlesinger, 2000: 1874;Mayer and Palmowski, 2004: 577; Fussand Grosser, 2006: 212, 215). The groupmembers’ relationships and social inter-actions transform assumed or real com-monalities into emotionally justifiedcommitments. Taking recourse to theseemotive certitudes, the collective self canexperience continuity and develop thecollective belief in a common fate (Smith,1992: 58). But this process depends ontwo essential conditions: people’s mutualacknowledgement as group members(Gellner, 1983: 7; Magnette, 2007) aswell as the modelling and stereotyping ofcommon characteristics that make a dif-ference to others (Hettlage, 1999: 246).On the basis of certain ‘codes of distinc-tion’ (Eisenstadt and Giesen, 1995: 74),strategies of delimitation are used inorder to define a border between inside

and outside, in-group and out-group, ‘us’and ‘them’. Thus, delimitation and thegroup’s recognition of individual member-ship are different sides of the same coin.Thus, it is likely that vertical relationshipsbetween individual and group generallyprecede the emergence of a horizontalsense of belonging together and are anecessary piece of a sense of community.Still, when one thing predates another,both things cannot be equal and theyshould be analytically distinguished fromone another.

The concept of ‘belonging to’ raisesanother theoretical problem in empirical,individual-centred research on Europeancollective identity. That issue is basicallycaused by scholars’ uncertainty over whatconstitutes the object of people’s sense of‘belonging to’: Europe, the EuropeanUnion or the collective of Europeans? Iagree with Sonia Lucarelli (2008: 23) thatthe very idea of collective identities refersto (a group of) people. Even when wespeak about the ‘identity’ of interestgroups, social movements, political par-ties, business companies or internationalorganizations, we actually mean a groupof people. Accordingly, my conceptualiza-tion of collective identity also differs fromthe proposition by Klaus Eder (2009: 427,443), who defines collective identities asnarrative constructions that are the ob-jects of identification. My argument is that

‘y people obviously mayhave a sense of

belonging to a groupwithout having a sense ofbelonging together withother group members’.

‘y what turns peoplein a groupyinto a

community?’


the object of collective identity is always agroup of people while there can be avariety of reasons for identification, suchas a common story (e.g., Tilly, 2003;Eder, 2009), a set of values and principles(e.g., Cerutti, 2008) or similar experi-ences (e.g., McMillan and Chavis, 1986;Kielmansegg, 1996).

PROSPECTS FOR FURTHERRESEARCH ON EUROPEANIDENTITY

Summing up my line of thought, I wouldlike to stress four arguments. First, Iapply the notion of ‘collective identity’ to(a group of) people. Second, collectiveidentity can be studied at two differentanalytical levels: by differentiatingbetween an individual level and a collectiveor group level. Third, it might be helpfulfor further research on ‘European identity’to change the definition at the individuallevel of analysis so that we speak of one’sidentification with a group and its mem-bers rather than of feelings of belonging.The identification term includes severalparts of an individual’s orientation towardsgroups and it emphasizes the fact thatidentities are process-like and context-dependent (for example, Wendt, 1994:386; Neumann, 2001: 144; Rumelili,2004: 32f; Duchesne and Frognier, 2008:163; Lucarelli, 2008: 26; Eder, 2009:442). Fourth, the identification termavoids the common (albeit misplaced)equation of ‘belonging to’ with ‘belongingtogether’. Since ‘belonging to’ and ‘belong-ing together’ convey different modes ofindividual–group relationships, we shouldno longer confuse them with one another.As a result, a sense of community amongEU citizens should be operationalized byEuropeans’ (horizontal) sense of ‘belong-ing together’ rather than their (vertical)sense of ‘belonging to’.On the basis of these arguments, I

would like to conclude by sketching some

further research questions and empiricaldesiderata. First, it is necessary to learnmore about how the individual and col-lective levels of ‘European identity’ arelinked to each other (see for example DıezMedrano, 2003). For instance, how doesthe European Union’s self-image andgroup definition affect people’s reasonsfor their identification with their fellow EUcitizens as well as the EU as a group ofEuropeans?

Second, it is also important to extendour empirical knowledge about what in-fluences the EU’s self-representation as agroup, as well as the reasons for citizens’identification with both the EU as acollective and their European fellow citi-zens. In doing this, it might be helpfulto distinguish between polity, politicsand policy. For example: does the EU’s‘democraticness’ (polity) affect people’swillingness to identify with the EuropeanUnion and its members? Is the increasingpoliticization of the European Union (pol-itics) detrimental to the emergence of ashared sense of community among EUcitizens? Do we find systematic evidencethat some EU policies have a beneficialbearing on developing a European collec-tive identity whereas other policies get inthe way of it (see for example Cerutti andLucarelli, 2008)?

Finally, when it comes to a Europeancollective identity, there is also a greatempirical void concerning ‘othering’ anddemarcation (see for example Lucarelli,2008; Kaina, 2010). In particular, we stillknow far too little about how EU citizensgo about the psychological process ofdelineating out-groups (see, however,Rippl et al, 2005; McLaren, 2006;Boehnke and Rippl, 2007; Kaina, 2010).It is urgent that we extend our knowledgein this regard since collective identity-building always rests on a process of socialcomparison. In order to be effective, atleast one contrast group and one relevantdimension of comparison is needed (Lei�e,2009: 127). However, recent empirical


evidence suggests that it is difficult for EUcitizens to reach agreement about whatthe comparison with ‘others’ should referto, and who precisely the relevant other, theout-group, is (Kaina, 2010). More to thepoint, we also need to find out whetherthe European Union is even capable ofdeveloping a European collective identity.

Acknowledgements

The article is based on studies I havedone as a visiting fellow at the MannheimCentre for European Social Research. Thisresearch was funded by a Heisenberg-scholarship of the German ResearchFoundation.

Note

1 In addition, some scholars consider identity as a resource that persons or a group of people use,as something individuals or a collective do (see for example Triandafyllidou and Wodak, 2003: 215).This idea of identity can be found in (socio)-linguistic approaches to identity research, which are linkedto an ethnomethodological/conversation-analytic perspective (Triandafyllidou and Wodak, 2003: 215).I believe this is an important and promising approach for studying given identities. As for Europeanidentity, however, the existence of a supranational collective identity is still a matter of dispute.

References

Abdelal, R., Herrera, Y.M., Johnston, A.I. and McDermott, R. (2009a) ‘Introduction’, in R. Abdelal,Y.M. Herrera, A.I. Johnston and R. McDermott (eds.) Measuring Identity. A Guide for Social Sciences,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–13.

Abdelal, R., Herrera, Y.M., Johnston, A.I. and McDermott, R. (2009b) ‘Identity as a Variable’, in R. Abdelal,Y.M. Herrera, A.I. Johnston and R. McDermott (eds.) Measuring Identity. A Guide for Social Sciences,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 17–32.

Anderson, B. (1991) Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism,London & New York: Verso.

Boehnke, K. and Rippl, S. (2007) ‘EU-enlargement-related Worries as a Mobilizing Agent for Nationalism?Results of Representative Survey Studies in Germany, the Czech Republic, and Poland’, inI.P. Karolewski and A.M. Suszycki (eds.) Nationalism and European Integration. The Need for NewTheoretical and Empirical Insights, New York & London: Continuum, pp. 35–51.

Brubaker, R. and Cooper, F. (2000) ‘Beyond “identity” ’, Theory and Society 29(1): 1–47.Bruter, M. (2005) Citizens of Europe? The Emergence of a Mass European Identity, Houndmills: Palgrave

Macmillan.Castano, E. (2004) ‘European Identity: A Social-psychological Perspective’, in R.K. Herrmann, T. Risse

and M.B. Brewer (eds.) Transnational Identities. Becoming European in the EU, Lanham: Rowman &Littlefield, pp. 40–58.

Cederman, L.-E. (2001) ‘Nationalism and bounded integration: What it would take to construct aEuropean demos’, European Journal of International Relations 7(2): 139–174.

Cerutti, F. (2008) ‘Why Political Identity and Legitimacy Matter in the European Union’, in F. Cerutti andS. Lucarelli (eds.) The Search for a European Identity. Values, policies and legitimacy of the EuropeanUnion, London: Routledge, pp. 3–22.

Cerutti, F. and Lucarelli, S. (eds.) (2008) The Search for a European Identity. Values, Policies andLegitimacy of the European Union, London: Routledge.

Citrin, J. and Sides, J. (2004) ‘More than Nationals: How Identity Choice Matters in the New Europe’, inR.K. Herrmann, T. Risse and M.B. Brewer (eds.) Transnational Identities. Becoming European in theEU, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 161–185.

Croucher, S.L. (2004) Globalization and Belonging. The Politics of Identity in a Changing World, Lanham:Rowman & Littlefield.

Delanty, G. (1999) ‘Die Transformation nationaler Identitat und die kulturelle Ambivalenz europaischerIdentitat. Demokratische Identifikation in einem postnationalen Europa’, in R. Viehoff and R.T. Segers(eds.) Kultur. Identitat. Europa. Uber die Schwierigkeiten und Moglichkeiten einer Konstruktion,Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, pp. 267–288.


Delanty, G. (2000) Citizenship in a Global Age: Society, Culture, Politics, Buckingham: Open UniversityPress.

Dıez Medrano, J. (2003) Framing Europe. Attitudes to European Integration in Germany, Spain, and theUnited Kingdom, Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Dıez Medrano, J. and Gutierrez, P. (2001) ‘Nested identities: National and European identity in Spain’,Ethnic and Racial Studies 24(5): 753–778.

Duchesne, S. (2008) ‘Waiting for a European identityy reflections on the process of identification withEurope’, Perspectives on European Politics and Society 9(4): 397–410.

Duchesne, S. and Frognier, A.-P. (2008) ‘National and European identifications: A dual relationship’,Comparative European Politics 6(2): 143–168.

Eder, K. (2009) ‘A theory of collective identity. Making sense of the debate on a “European identity” ’,European Journal of Social Theory 12(4): 427–447.

Eisenstadt, S.N. (1999) ‘Kollektive Identitatskonstruktion in Europa’, den Vereinigten Staaten,Lateinamerika und Japan. Eine vergleichende Betrachtung’, in R. Viehoff and R.T. Segers (eds.)Kultur. Identitat. Europa. Uber die Schwierigkeiten und Moglichkeiten einer Konstruktion, Frankfurt:Suhrkamp, pp. 370–400.

Eisenstadt, S.N. and Giesen, B. (1995) ‘The construction of collective identity’, European Journal ofSociology 26(1): 72–102.

Esser, H. (2001) Soziologie. Spezielle Grundlagen. Band 6: Sinn und Kultur, Frankfurt & New York: Campus.Estel, B. (1997) ‘Moderne Nationsverstandnisse: Nation als Gemeinschaft’, in R. Hettlage, P. Deger and S.

Wagner (eds.) Kollektive Identitat in Krisen. Ethnizitat in Religion, Nation, Europa, Opladen:Westdeutscher Verlag, pp. 73–85.

Fuchs, D. (2011) ‘Cultural Diversity, European Identity and Legitimacy of the EU: A TheoreticalFramework’, in D. Fuchs and H.-D. Klingemann (eds.) Cultural Diversity, European Identity and theLegitimacy of the EU, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 27–57.

Fuss, D. and Grosser, M.A. (2006) ‘What Makes Young Europeans Feel European? Results from a Cross-cultural Research Project’, in I.P. Karolewski and V. Kaina (eds.) European Identity. TheoreticalPerspectives and Empirical Insights, Munster: LIT Verlag, pp. 209–241.

Gellner, E. (1983) Nations and Nationalism, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Giesen, B. (1993) Die Intellektuellen und die Nation, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Greenfeld, L. (1999) ‘Is Nation Unavoidable? Is Nation Unavoidable Today?’, in H. Kriesi, K. Armingeon,

H. Siegrist and A. Wimmer (eds.) Nation and National Identity. The European Experience in Perspec-tive, Zurich: Ruegger, pp. 37–54.

Herrmann, R. and Brewer, M.B. (2004) ‘Identities and Institutions: Becoming European in the EU’, inR.K. Herrmann, T. Risse and M.B. Brewer (eds.) Transnational Identities. Becoming European in theEU, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 1–22.

Hettlage, R. (1999) ‘European Identity – Between Inclusion and Exclusion’, in H. Kriesi, K. Armingeon,H. Siegrist and A. Wimmer (eds.) Nation and National Identity. The European Experience inPerspective, Zurich: Ruegger, pp. 243–262.

Huntington, S.P. (2004) Who are We? Die Krise der amerikanischen Identitat, Hamburg & Wien:Europaverlag.

Kaina, V. (2009) Wir in Europa. Kollektive Identitat und Demokratie in der Europaischen Union,Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften.

Kaina, V. (2010) ‘ “We” and “the others” – European identity building as a construction of commonalityand difference’, Zeitschrift fur Politik 57(4): 413–433.

Kaina, V. and Karolewski, I.P. (eds.) (2006) ‘European Identity – Why Another Book on this Topic?’,in European Identity. Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Insights, Munster: LIT Verlag,pp. 11–19.

Kaina, V. and Karolewski, I.P. (2009) ‘EU governance and European identity’, Living Reviews in EuropeanGovernance 4(2), [Online Article], http://europeangovernance.livingreviews.org/Articles/lreg-2009-2/.

Kantner, C. (2006) ‘Collective identity as shared ethical self-understanding. The case of the emergingEuropean identity’, European Journal of Social Theory 9(4): 501–523.

Kielmansegg, P.G. (1996) ‘Integration und Demokratie’, in M. Jachtenfuchs and B. Kohler-Koch (eds.)Europaische Integration, Opladen: Leske+Budrich, pp. 47–71.

Kocka, J. (1995) ‘Die Ambivalenz des Nationalstaats’, in M. Delgado and M. Lutz-Bachmann (eds.)Herausforderung Europa. Wege zu einer europaischen Identitat, Munchen: Beck, pp. 28–50.

Lei�e, O. (2009) Europa zwischen Nationalstaat und Integration, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag furSozialwissenschaften.


Lucarelli, S. (2008) ‘European Political Identity, Foreign Policy and the Others’ Image’, in F. Cerutti andS. Lucarelli (eds.) The Search for a European Identity. Values, Policies and Legitimacy of the EuropeanUnion, London: Routledge, pp. 23–42.

Magnette, P. (2007) ‘How can one be European? Reflections on the pillars of European civic identity’,European Law Journal 13(5): 664–679.

Mayer, F.C. and Palmowski, J. (2004) ‘European identities and the EU – The ties that bind the peoples ofEurope’, Journal of Common Market Studies 42(3): 573–598.

McLaren, L.M. (2006) Identity, Interests and Attitudes to European Integration, Houndmills: PalgraveMacmillan.

McMillan, D.W. and Chavis, D.M. (1986) ‘Sense of community: A definition and theory’, Journal ofCommunity Psychology 14(1): 6–23.

Meyer, T. (2004) Die Identitat Europas. Der EU eine Seele?, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

Neumann, I.B. (2001) ‘European Identity, EU Expansion, and the Integration/Exclusion Nexus’, inL.-E. Cederman (ed.) Constructing Europe’s Identity. The External Dimension, Boulder & London:Lynne Rienner, pp. 141–164.

Nørgaard, A.S. (2008) ‘Political science: Witchcraft or craftsmanship? Standards for good research’,World Political Science Review 4(1):1–28.

Rippl, S., Baier, D., Kindervater, A. and Boehnke, K. (2005) ‘Die EU-Osterweiterung alsMobilisierungsschub fur ethnozentrische Einstellungen? Die Rolle von Bedrohungsgefuhlen imKontext situativer und dispositioneller Faktoren’, Zeitschrift fur Soziologie 34(4): 288–310.

Risse, T. (2010) A Community of Europeans? Transnational Identities and Public Spheres, Ithaca &London: Cornell University Press.

Rumelili, B. (2004) ‘Constructing identity and relating to difference: Understanding the EU’s mode ofdifferentiation’, Review of International Studies 30(1): 27–47.

Schlesinger, P. (2000) ‘ “Europeanness” – “A New Cultural Battlefield?” ’, in J. Hutchinson and A.D. Smith(eds.) Nationalism. Critical Concepts in Political Science, London: Routledge, pp. 1866–1882.

Smith, A.D. (1992) ‘National identity and the idea of European unity’, International Affairs 68(1): 55–76.Tajfel, H. (1974) ‘Social identity and intergroup behavior’, Social Science Information 13(2): 65–93.Tajfel, H. (1982) Gruppenkonflikt und Vorurteil. Entstehung und Funktion sozialer Stereotypen, Bern:

Huber.Tilly, C. (2003) ‘Political identities in changing polities’, Social Research 70(2): 605–620.Triandafyllidou, A. and Wodak, R. (2003) ‘Conceptual and methodological questions in the study of

collective identities. An introduction’, Journal of Language & Politics 2(2): 205–223.Wendt, A. (1994) ‘Collective identity formation and the international state’, American Political Science

Review 88(2): 384–396.Westle, B. (2003a) ‘Europaische Identifikation im Spannungsfeld regionaler und nationaler Identitaten’,

Theoretische Uberlegungen und empirische Befunde. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 44(4): 453–482.Westle, B. (2003b) ‘Universalismus oder Abgrenzung als Komponente der Identifikation mit der

Europaischen Union?’, in F. Brettschneider, J. van Deth and E. Roller (eds.) Europaische Integrationin der offentlichen Meinung, Opladen: Leske & Budrich, pp. 115–152.

About the Author

Viktoria Kaina is Professor of Political Science and Chair of Government at the Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena. Her research interests include European identity and trust. Selectedpublications include: ‘Legitimacy, trust and procedural fairness: Remarks to Marcia Grimes’study’, European Journal of Political Research 47 (2008): 510–521, and ‘Why do We TrustStrangers? Revising the Institutional Approach to Generalized Trust Creation’, WestEuropean Politics 34 (2011): 282–295.


Documents

How to Reduce Disorder in European Identity Research