Normative power as hegemony

Abstract

This article identifies four key problems in the debate about normative power Europe that may be fruitfully tackled when linking it to the concept of hegemony: the debate about whether EU foreign and external policy is driven by norms or interests; the problem of inconsistent behaviour as a result of competing and contested norms; the question of the role of state and non-state actors in EU foreign and external policy; and the problematic standing of normative power as an academic engagement, in particular in regard to whether the theory is of primarily explanatory, descriptive or normative value. The author suggests that the concept of hegemony may address these problems. First, it combines norms and interests, thus transcending the divide that has resulted in endless debates about the EU's standing as a normative power. Second, hegemony does not start from a pre-given set of norms with fixed meanings, but rather puts the struggles about these norms at centre stage, thus seeing inconsistencies not as undermining but as part and parcel of normative power. Third, hegemony expands our understanding of the actors involved in the construction and exercise of normative power, thus bringing not only Member States but also social forces in a much broader sense into the picture. Finally, hegemony reorientates the debate about normative power so as to reinstate the critical purpose that the concept was supposed to have from the start.

Taking Stock of Integration Theory

“…Whether this phase turns out as sustaining and furthering a more active role for the EU in international politics, remains to be seen. Certainly, during the first two decades of the 21st century, the EU has taken on a more substantial role as a civilian or, as some would argue, "normative" power on the world stage (Manners 2002(Manners , 2006Diez 2013;Nicolaïdis/Whitman 2013;Whitman 2013). This is quite a surprising turn taking into account the policy documents of the 1970s when the search for a "European Identity" and a role as an "actor in world politics" was actively on (for summaries, see Dinan 2006;Wiener 1998;Checkel/Katzenstein 2011;Risse et al 1999;Risse 2010).…”

Bati Balkan Romanlari: Normati̇f Güç Avrupa'nin Turnusol Testi̇?

“…Numerous analyses of the EU as a normative power, particularly with respect to policy areas with external impact and aims such as development aid and crisis management, were accompanied with a fine-tuning of the original assumptions by different scholars such as Diez (2013;2005), Laïdi (2011), Tocci (2008 and Whitman (2011) as well as Manners himself (see, for example 2013,2015). On the whole, these scholars aimed to clarify the concept and reveal the sources and reflections of the EU's normative power, building mainly on the various meanings of the term.…”

Assessing the decennial, reassessing the global: Understanding European Union normative power in global politics

“…For some the concept of normative power has 'significantly influenced debates' (Diez, 2013), while for others it contains a normative imperative which could 'reinvigorate European agency' (Fisher Onar and Nicolaïdis, 2013). Other contributors argue for a more global approach to include the tensions in the EU's 'plural ontological realities' (Parker and Rosamond, 2013), involved in a powerful struggle over the 'naming of powers' , with the 'rise of normative powers' in global life (Kavalski, 2013).…”

“…Fisher Onar and Nicolaïdis (2013) talk about the effects of 'today's post-Cold War, post-9/11, globalizing world' and the 'turbulent waters of our emergent multipolar order' where 'the EU's resources and experience, divested of imperialism, can contribute constructively to our emergent global order'. The contributions discuss in some way the reassessment of the global and what this means for international society, whether in relation to hegemony (Diez, 2013), the political struggle of the power of naming , 'the communicative process in the international society of states' (Kavalski, 2013) or pluralism and solidarism (Fisher Onar and Nicolaïdis, 2013). What this assessment suggests is that such widespread global transformations necessitate a rethinking of both power and actorness, in particular through reassessing global theory (see Manners, 2010b, in press-a).…”