CHANGE OF DISCOURSES ON EUROPEAN

CHANGE OF DISCOURSES ON EUROPEAN IDENTITY & ITS RELATION TO “OTHER” WITHIN ENLARGEMENT CONTEXT: Ultimate Case of Central & Eastern European Countries Enlargement & Turkey’s Candidacy

Master Thesis Submitted to Faculty of Management & Governance Of Universiteit Twente By Hülya Tek MSc of Public Administration Policy & Governance August 2009

I

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. II LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS:..................................................................................................................... IV PRESCRIPT .................................................................................................................................................. V CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... - 1 1.1 1.2 1.3

PROBLEM BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................- 1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................................................- 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................- 4 -

CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................... - 6 2.1 SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF IDENTITY & IDENTIFICATION ...........................................- 6 2.2 EUROPEAN IDENTITY FORMATION THROUGH NARRATIVES ........................................- 7 2.2.1. “IDEA OF EUROPE” .....................................................................................................................- 7 2.2.2. EUROPEANNESS OR EUROPEAN IDENTITY .....................................................................................- 8 2.2.3. EUROPEAN COLLECTIVE IDENTITY NOTIONS AS OBJECTIVE & SUBJECTIVE ELEMENTS ...................- 9 2.3 OTHER / SELF RELATIONSHIP .............................................................................................. - 10 2.3.1. CONSTITUTIVE OTHER AS SYMBOLIC CONTRAST TO SELF ........................................................... - 10 2.3.2. BOUNDARY ISSUE (HARD / SOFT BOUNDARIES) ........................................................................... - 11 2.4 CENTRAL & EASTERN EUROPEAN ENLARGEMENT ........................................................ - 12 2.4.1. ROLE OF GEO-POLITICS & “IDEA OF CENTRAL EUROPE” ............................................................ - 14 2.4.2. RE-NARRATION PROCESS & “RETURN TO EUROPE” IDEOLOGICAL CONSTRUCTION ...................... - 16 2.5 TURKEY’S CANDIDACY .......................................................................................................... - 17 2.5.1. TURKEY AS OUTSIDER ................................................................................................................ - 18 2.6 CONCLUSION OF THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .............................................................. - 20 CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... - 22 3.1 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ - 22 3.1.1. INVESTIGATED DISCOURSE ANALYTICAL DIMENSIONS................................................................ - 23 3.2 DISCOURSE ANALYTICAL METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION........................................ - 26 3.3 DISCOURSE ANALYTICAL METHOD OF DATA ANALYSIS .............................................. - 27 3.4 CONCLUSION OF METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................... - 29 CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS...................................................................................................................... - 30 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF CEEC INTELLECTUALS’ ESSAYS .................................................. - 30 4.1 MCA OF CEEC DISCOURSES ........................................................................................................ - 30 4.1.1. POSITIVE SELF PRESENTATION: EUROPEANNESS OF CENTRAL EUROPEAN IDENTITY: ................. - 31 4.1.2. NEGATIVE-OTHER PRESENTATION “OTHERNESS OF RUSSIA”: .................................................... - 34 4.2 ARGUMENTATION OF CEEC DISCOURSES..................................................................................... - 37 4.2.1. THE USE OF TOPOI IN CEEC IDENTITY ARGUMENTATION:......................................................... - 37 4.2.2. FALLACIES OF CEEC DISCOURSES: ........................................................................................... - 40 4.3 METAPHORS OF CEEC DISCOURSES ............................................................................................. - 41 4.4 CONCLUSION OF CEEC ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ - 43 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF TURKEY’S OTHERNESS IN FRENCH AND GERMAN ELITES DISCOURSES ....................................................................................................................................... - 44 4.5 MCA OF TURKEY’S CANDIDACY IN EUROPEAN ELITES’ DISCOURSES .......................................... - 44 4.5.1. POSITIVE SELF PRESENTATION, EUROPEANNESS / EUROPEAN IDENTITY: .................................... - 44 4.5.2. NEGATIVE OTHER PRESENTATION; TURKEY AS OUTSIDER: ......................................................... - 49 4.6 ARGUMENTATION OF EU ELITES ON TURKEY AND IDENTITY DEBATES ........................................ - 51 4.6.1. THE USE OF TOPOI FOR TURKEY’S OTHERNESS: ........................................................................ - 52 4.6.2. FALLACIES ON DEBATES OF TURKEY:......................................................................................... - 53 4.7 RHETORICAL USE OF METAPHORS IN TURKEY’S DISCOURSES...................................................... - 54 -

II

4.8 4.9

EB SURVEY RESULTS ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... - 56 CONCLUSION OF TURKEY’S ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... - 57 -

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ - 59 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... - 62 INVESTIGATED AREAS........................................................................................................................ - 64 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................... - 66 -

III

List of Abbreviations: EB- Eurobarometer EEC- European Economic Community EP- European Parliament EPP-European People’s Party EU-European Union CDU- Christian Democrat Union (Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands) CEEC- Central & Eastern European Countries CFSP- Common Foreign & Security Policy CSU- Christian Social Union (Christlich-Soziale Union) MCA-Membership Categorization Analysis UMP- Union for a Popular Movement (Union pour un Mouvement Populaire) UDF- Union for French Democracy (Union pour la Démocratie Française)

IV

Prescript This study started in 2008 and ended in August, 2009. Time period and the current environment on European identity have importance to touch upon the reasons of conducting this study particularly. EU has almost doubled its member countries by fourth wave enlargement in 2004. In the meantime, the forging of European collective identity via constitutionalisation inside EU was interrupted by the rejection of the ‘Constitutional Treaty’ by the Dutch and French ratification referendums in 2005. Among the various reasons a fundamental reason for the rejection stated as the unfavorable approach to the further enlargement and future policy designs on citizenship. Despite the skeptical views revealed in public by the rejection of referendums the fifth wave enlargement welcomed two more countries in 2007. In the case of Turkey the candidate status is given in 1999 and the negotiations still continue. In this program a particular project initiated for Turkey to enhance the social and cultural dialogue to bridge the differences between two cultures. In 2007 year EU celebrated the 50th anniversary of Rome Treaties by declaration which puts forward the collective identity notions and sees necessity to construct. Given the recent even less than a decade rapid developments and juncture of the identity and enlargement policy designs and future decisions, study aimed to combine two broad topics under investigation. Due to limited scope and broad topics, I wish to point out what are (not) the study aims beforehand. Study aims to explore the change of hegemonic discourses that influence current shape of identity within the enlargement context and self/other relationship. Due to first European identity debates started with CEEC enlargement and nowadays it is the most pronounced with Turkey’s accession, study considers these two milestones enlargement policy and impact to identity construction. That is the fifth enlargement is not taken as an ultimate case since above importance is not observed. However, since the study goal is to explore the shaping of European identity as central concern, it deliberately avoids making comparison analysis of two cases which gives priority to the cases. It is not the study aim to be judgmental on European identity but rather to investigate on hegemonic discourse changes with discourse analytical approach. Neither does the study aim to look for the various reasons of being candidate status of Turkey but only identity debates. It is not the aim to demonstrate that European identity is a European cultural project with negative implications. It is not wished to state the exclusive identity discourses should be rejected. However, main thrust of the study is the fact that social construction of European identity that is predominant today more exclusion than inclusion, which has an impact on the enlargement decisions and European self vs. non-European other relations.

V

Chapter I: Introduction The aim of the study is to present change of hegemonic discourses on European identity by special emphasis to CEEC and Turkey’s potential enlargement case. The focus is historical discursive evolution of European identity and related concepts within the context of enlargement. The reason of choosing this specific enlargement is that CEEC is the first enlargement afterwards EU transfers from the economic entity to social and political entity and the beginning of the identity politics. Turkey’s candidacy is particularly chosen since currently it is the last and the most pronounced case with identity differences in the identity and enlargement discourses. Rather than normative grounds, the objective of the study is the examination of CEEC intellectual’s discourses and European elite’s discourses on European identity and Turkey. Put differently, study investigates the social reality of European identity created through hegemonic discourses in line with research methodology. However, the study seeks to explore how the dominant stories are narrated on European identity in inclusion/exclusion nexus rather than how different discourses clash. In this sense, study investigates the discourse analytical tools in and through the texts and speeches. CEEC intellectuals’ and European elite’s discourses for Turkey are deliberately chosen, since they are the hegemonic discourses and have stronger impact on identity and enlargement debate. 1.1 PROBLEM BACKGROUND Identity politics in EU agenda increasingly affect relations among EU and candidate countries. In the last decade of EU history, public visibility of the identity issue accelerated particularly on the enlargement debates of CEEC, Balkans and specifically Turkey. Although impacts of enlargement, ‘unity in diversity’ gained importance, the existence of collective European identity is still a controversial debate. Especially, deepening and widening process of EU raised questions that made possible to evaluate normatively also identity issue. Besides, ambivalence of European collective identity contributed to the debates. First, the geographical ambiguity of Europe as continent makes it difficult to identify Europe as separate continental identity, since it is attached to Asia continent. Besides, candidate Turkey also has this ambiguity since it is located in two continents. Second, European history did not witness integration due to wars and divides among peoples of Europe. Last is the cultural difficulty like the differences of Mediterranean vs. Scandinavian countries to define whole continent under the same umbrella. In identity formation, the active role of EU is observed. This top-down approach only provides concrete elements which are cultural practices and symbolic powers of the collectivity like anthem, flag, and common currency and so on. However, sense of belonging and togetherness aspects which are more abstract and based on subjective elements created through discourses have considerable problems which will be the focus of this study. In order to get a better understanding of European identity for public, we can have a look at Eurobarometer (EB) which is an important way to gauge public opinion over time on similar questions. In fact, general findings of EB verify that EU identity is a multi-layered, multi-

-1-

faceted issue that means different things to different segments of European citizens. The hybrid nature of identity then creates the discursive ground to be analyzed. This lets us to see that European identity is particularly dynamic, fluid, unstable and constantly changing process. Although until the end of Cold War, for instance, Europe’s people were categorized by citizens of Western Europe, Post-Cold War era made it possible to think about Europe’s people together with CEEC citizens with enlargement. Additionally, these outcomes were deliberate policy processes monitored by EU and candidate countries. In my analysis, hence European identity is presupposed as construction rather than a natural process by major role of EU. It is also regarded as the complex, normative issue prone to narratives. Indeed narrative claims stem from how countries and citizens do feel about the functioning of the EU whether it is intergovernmental or supranational governance. While for supranationalists, EU is seen as the global player with general umbrella of European citizenship with its legal rights and protections, for intergovernmentalists see EU to strengthen their countries which give people with their stronger sense of belonging to their nationalities. Driving from these approaches, European identity is also a hybrid entity gathering all outcomes of EU identity projects and strategies. Inevitably, subjectivity and diversification of views creates a normative ground which is crucial in the shaping of the identity which have impact on the current policies. Besides the diversification of ideas, collectivity and togetherness on European level are not observed but rather European identity as an extension of national identities. In this sense, Europe lacks collective identity notions and demos which creates considerable problem on the legitimacy and democracy in the functioning of the EU institutions. Although legitimacy and democratic deficit problems are not the focus of this study, it is important to mention about to uncover the necessity of the European identity formation for EU. After explaining identity problems and its importance, it is better to analyze the historical evolution of the European identity notion with its mile stones. Although Europe notion traces back to the medieval ages, as contemporary European identity, it is EU that aims to foster and develop common European consciousness and European identity. For over three decades proponents of European integration see these aims as a crucial policy. In early 1970s, European elites placed development of an identity issues on top of the EC agenda during the debates about the future European integration. Hence, creation of European identity and common consciousness were seen as an inevitable driving mechanism for the successful transformations of the EC from only economic community to a genuine supra-national political union with changing missions of EU1. In the early 1990s by the introduction of Single Market, the call for political integration and the promotion of European identity regained velocity. This was actualized in signing of Treaty of Maastricht and introduction of so-called European citizenship. Additionally, it was an important turning point in the global arena that, Maastricht Treaty of 1992, also changed the name of the European Community to European Union, giving impressions to citizens and observers across the world that the European experiment was post1992, to be something deeper and more cohesive than an economic common market. Yet still, 1

Strath, B. (2002). "A European Identity: To the Historical Limits of a Concept." European Journal of Social Theory 5(4): 387-401.

-2-

before the CEEC pre-accession, there was not much critical debate about the identity politics in the minds of Western European elites, neither was it the primary objective of the EU agenda. However, Eastern enlargement, end of Cold War and globalization brought the politics and identity issues in EU2. On the other hand, when we look at the pre-accession period of CEEC, it was CEEC primarily and strategically using common culture and history phenomena to access EU rather than Western European elites. Nowadays, as continuation, European identity discourses and Turkey’s accession, questions on Europeanness of Turkey determine the negotiation agenda and European mass media. On the other side of the coin, Turkey also questions their Europeanness and ongoing discourses being a member of EU are ‘for’ or ‘against’ Ataturk’s principles, modernization attempts and Europeanness. Maastricht Treaty on the other hand, was also first document creating problematic grounds on European identity notion, lacking of multiculturalism and assumed Europe as homogenous identity and EU citizenship is thus characterized as rather narrow and exclusive. The introduction of new notion called as “EU citizenship” with Maastricht Treaty was one of the first official mile stone on creation of collective European identity with clear benefits to “all citizens residing within the borders of the member states”. The crucial point is, however, EU citizenship, as specified in Maastricht, was extended to nation-states’ citizens of EU countries, and therefore it tried to construct a collective identity which is exclusivist to nonnationals. In short, what we are facing now on enlargement discourses and integration of nonEU nationals under the umbrella of European identity traces its roots on the exclusivist approach and reductionist identity definition that is non-tolerant to ‘non-Europeans’ or ‘others’. Since integration issue is related with acceptance of previous non-Europeans as European nationals according to Maastricht Treaty, considerable impact of the ‘others’ can be observed on European identity discourses. In this sense, enlargement of CEEC and candidate Turkey creates debate on European identity as even more intractable problem elaborated in this study. 1.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS The study major research question is “how is the change of discourses of European/ non-European relationship on European identity debate?” Major question is formulated to investigate mainly the effect of outer forces in the formation of European identity. So, the focus of the study is the outsider and insider impact analysis rather than collective identity dynamics. Major research question aims to explore the master frame of particular dominant stories of a particular time, rather than uncovering how discourses clash. To better analyze major question, minor questions that assist the comprehensiveness of the study needed. Hence, minor questions aims to clarify and logically construct three main parts which are European identity problematic as Europeans, transformation of CEEC from outer to inner identity and current Turkey’s outer situation. In order to look at the outer forces on the European identity notion, the one minor question is allocated for the insider’s contributions to identity and enlargement interrelation debate. In the sense, the first minor is formulated as “what is the ongoing discourses on European identity and its relation to non-Europeans?” The question aims to investigate 2

Ibid.

-3-

ongoing dialect and hybrid meanings of European identity and its reflection on enlargement debate. Shortly, this part refers to major question’s evolution of Europeanness. Besides, it assists to uncover background underpinning of outer / enlargement impacts part. Second minor is allocated for clarifying CEEC enlargement. The minor is “how is the transformation from outsider to the insider of the European identity constructed through CEEC discourses?” It seeks to uncover changing definition and reframing of Europeanness of Central European identity. As the other component of analysis, last minor is designed to clarify Turkey topic. The minor is “how is the ongoing dialect on Turkey as outsider to European identity?” This aims to analyze the identity politics, the locus of Turkey and its development and impact on identity trajectory. 1.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The study uses discourse analytical approach as textual analysis. Threefold discursive approach is applied for unit of analysis respectively; membership categorization analysis, argumentation and rhetorical devices to analyze discursive texts. The study particularly necessitates discourse analysis method since research questions are designed for sociological explanation of European identity debate within the enlargement context. We can deduce from research questions structure emphasis on analysis of discourses as effective strategy in identity politics. Even for some scholars, policy analysis itself is a discursive narrative practice that uses the narratives to persuade the point of views3. Secondly, discourse analysis is also appropriate when we take into account contemporary paradigm like globalization and technological advancement, usage of mass media; since they influence of the public debate and powerholders’ attempt to ground their rhetoric in policy making by gaining supports of the majority. Thirdly, research design aims to investigate procedural assessment which requires analyzing change of discourses, domination and power imbalances through course of time and debates on integration of CEEC and Turkey. Fourthly, discourse analysis does not seek to find the ‘truth value’ or the objective scientific elements, but it rather deals with relative primacy of different discourses4. This trait suits the main characteristics of European identity debate which is subjective, changing constantly and hybrid gathering many viewpoints. In order to clearly present hybrid nature, study regards discourse analysis as useful methodology. Taking into consideration of all these strong points and my research questions design, discourse analysis is the most appropriate methodology for this study. In fact, design of the all major and minor questions uses the terms ‘debate’, ‘discourse’ and ‘dialect’ implies that method for the questions necessitates discourse analysis. Besides the above justifications, discourse analytical approach is used in three dimensions. These are; membership categorization analysis in order to identify the positive self presentation through semantic tools, words, pronouns, positive adjectives and negative other presentation through negation of words, sentences, phrases, negative adjectives. Second dimension is argumentation strategies by utilizing topoi, fallacy and counter-factual arguments. The last dimension to investigate is rhetorical devices in which metaphors is analyzed. CEEC case is analyzed through the discursive intellectuals’ essays of Milan 3

Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis.Sage University Papers Series on Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks ,CA, Sage. 4 Ibid.

-4-

Kundera, Vaclav Havel, Gyorgy Konrad, Jacques Rupnik. The analysis underpins the change of conceptions and discourses on Central Europe and Central European identity with its category bound relation to European identity. In addition special emphasis is placed on legitimation of Europeanness and de-legitimation and otherness of Russia in and through texts. Turkey’s case is divided in two parts. French and German politicians’ discursive speeches and interviews is the first unit of analysis to underpin exclusivist approach and their relative domination among other discourses. Second part consists of EB survey results to justify the relative strength of European identity construction by constitutive other notion rather than European collective identity and contradictory situation between the discourses and public survey results. Next chapter presents theoretical framework needed and constructed for the study. The concepts and ideas introduced in next chapter will be the theoretical frame that study will be looking for in the discursive texts to analyze. In this sense chapter introduces limitations and presuppositions needed for study to improve analysis. Although not all concepts and ideas are operationalized in the analysis, they are essential to grasp direction and aim of the study.

-5-

Chapter II: Theoretical Framework In this chapter, important concepts and ideas needed for study are elaborated. Explanation of the concepts used in European identity and enlargement jargon needed for research questions and uncovering interrelation of these concepts. The main goal of the chapter is to find framing and reframing of the ideas, concepts and their use in the discursive context that study will be investigating in the analysis part. In addition, interchangeable use of different naming that study aims to analyze are presented in this chapter. Chapter is constructed in response to the order of questions and topics to be studied. First section presents general concepts related to identity and European identity specifically, because defining identity, what it means for the study, is needed initial stage of identifying impact of ‘other’ discourse. Although identity issue might be evaluated from different angles, the remaining concepts assist to observe specific dimension of identity discourses which is the interaction of self/other. Second section, in line with self/other relation, ‘previous outsider but current self’ situation and ambivalence of CEEC discourses is presented. Ideological frame shifts emerged in CEEC and prominent concepts are presented. The reason of using these specific concepts is to show how the redefinition and ideological shifts realized in pre-accession period and new stories created to be associated with European identity. Third part is allocated for Turkey as candidate and ‘current other’ of Europe. It explains Turkey’s compatibility with European identity, and major differences between two identities stated in the discourses. I assume to find the reasons behind the other status of Turkey in identity politics which assist me to analyze dominant discourses in analysis. In conclusion part of chapter, what is delivered in this chapter in terms of conceptualization, the ways to use concepts and expectations for analysis stated. 2.1 SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF IDENTITY & IDENTIFICATION This section is designed as an introductory part to European identity. Before inquiring European identity perceptions, I prefer to present what is meant by identity and the perspectives that I need for the analysis. In this manner, I adopt the social constructivist perspective for defining the identity and also the importance of the identification concept since I assume it is the origin of the identity issue which describes ‘self’ by differences to ‘others’. Social constructionist perspective evaluates social phenomena in terms of searching for inter-subjective definitions created by society rather than objective facts. Social phenomena occurs when people are not comfortable with the very existence of ideas specific to case, in which in my study it is European identity and have normative judgments on issue. It is an interactive social process and builds upon combination of different ideas on the issue creates constant change and re-definition process of the ideas5 which is related with the enlargement process of the study since enlargement means redefinitions and change of conceptions. Hence, socially constructed ideas are seen as ongoing and dynamic process reproduced by people acting on their interpretations and knowledge of the issue. Hence, study evaluates identity as a social reality fed by the public reasoning on normative sense. 5

Rubington, E. and M. S. Weinberg, Eds. (2003). The Study of Social Problems:Seven Perspectives. Social Constructionism. Newyork, Oxford University Press.

-6-

In order to understand discussions on European identity, it is important to have an idea on identification concept and identity as well. The reason of placing this concept first is that it will facilitate to understand influence of ongoing debates and dynamic nature of European identity. For Foote, identification is the appropriation of and commitment to a particular identity which proceeds by naming; its products are ever-evolving self-conceptions with the emphasis upon the ratification by ‘significant others’6. Moreover, it is only through identification as the sharing of identity that individual motives become social values and social values, individual motives7. It can be claimed from these definitions that identification in sociology is the qualification of the very existence of the people, which is evolutionary, requires society and interaction for its existence. This gives two meanings for the study. First, identity has different connotations throughout the history which differ in different periods of the time; different characteristics may be dominant in the same identity. Secondly, people might add new identifications for themselves when circumstances change. To illustrate, while it might not be possible for Europeans to identify themselves as belonging to European identity before the WWII, it is possible in contemporary era, a person identify himself/ herself as ‘European’ due to attempts to create European identity by different channels like, mass media, policy papers, conventions, cultural and social activities 8. This section introduced identification, identity and their characteristics. I presume that above characteristics of dynamic nature, society and interaction are needed for identification and social constructivist approach of identity issue facilitate to explain what I mean by European identity specifically which is the next subsection. 2.2 EUROPEAN IDENTITY FORMATION THROUGH NARRATIVES This section presents European identity as ideological construction. First, I prefer to explain ‘idea of Europe’ that leads to evaluate construction of historical framework associated with European idea and identity. Then, Europeanness and objective/subjective elements of collective European identity is presented. The section serves to the study to clarify contemporary construction of European identity which is seen as European project and the problematic of it. 2.2.1. “Idea of Europe” The section aims to elaborate roots of commonalities in European identity. In order to analyze discourses on European identity, we need to search for the origins of idea of Europe. It is possible to give different definitions for idea of Europe, depending on the time and space. Throughout the history, Europe is neither a concrete geographical location, nor the fixed common culture and polity9. Europe is constructed in a social process, a historically fabricated reality of ever-changing forms and dynamics that are the traits of identification process. ‘Idea of Europe’ actually existed long before the people identify themselves as Europeans10. The 6

Nelson, N. F. (1951). "Identification as the Basis for a Theory of Motivation." American Sociological Review 16(1): 14-21. 7 Ibid. 8 Delanty, G. (2002). Inventing Europe: Idea,Idenitity, Reality. London, Palgrave Macmillan. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid.

-7-

multiple meanings of Europe idea also create the ambivalence on European identity construction. However, it is observed that certain contemporary discourses on European identity are constructed on European heritage notion that searches for the historical roots of idea of Europe and seek to form origins of the collectivity. Rather than origins investigated by the scholars (Delanty, 1995; Strath, 2002; Leontidou, 2004; Geremek, 1996; Davies, 1996; Ferguson, 1958; Hay, 1957; Den Boer, 1995) study leaves this part for discourses to be analyzed. However, in here it might be noted that European heritage concept is directly related with ‘idea of Europe’, and mostly it refers to developments that Europe experienced in history. Literature review and analysis of discourses uncovers that these pivotal points are ranging on normative ground. Most frequently used historical experiences are Antiquity, Ancient Greek, Roman law, Middle Ages, French revolution, Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, modernization and historical JudeoChristian values and so on. Although the list can be extended, the only commonality in European heritage is that they are all positive aspects referred in the history. Until now, the section delivered common historical grounds of idea of Europe and European identity. Since the scope of the study is contemporary European identity shaped by EU, I prefer to elaborate more on 20th century Europe. According to the Delanty, despite the collective identity discourses efforts, European idea is more products of the conflicts than the consensus11. Especially, we can observe conflicts when we have a closer look at the 20th century European continent which witnessed 2 world wars and a Cold War. This idea is also supported by Strath that meanings of Europe are a discourse of power on how to define and classify Europe, on the frontiers of Europe, and on similarities and differences. The idea of Europe became, historically and sociologically, a political idea and mobilizing metaphor at the end of twentieth century, particularly in the wake of ‘1989’12. Intensity of these conflicts and at the same time ultimate seek of the EU institutions’ identity formation attempts makes this period a unique case to study. For above reasons, the study assesses on the 20th century idea of Europe and Europeanness construction in discourses. The European heritage deriving from finding the referential roots of idea of Europe concept and its relevance to Europeanness referring to people having these historical roots will be investigated in analysis among the discourses. 2.2.2. Europeanness or European Identity So far I explained the idea of Europe and historical connotations of it. Although identity discourses emerged later than the ‘idea of Europe’ notion, contemporary European elites and intellectuals concern more about European identity. This section in relevance serves to identify Europeanness and European identity in contemporary discourses. Since European identity is a social construction and normative, it creates the debates about European identity’s content and meaning. To illustrate, Delanty claims European identity is an idea with notions of unity rather than identity, that even can be regarded proportionally ideology13.Yet, there are other scholars taking existence and clarify the 11

Ibid. Strath, B. (2002). "A European Identity: To the Historical Limits of a Concept." European Journal of Social Theory 5(4): 387-401. 13 Delanty, G. (2002). Inventing Europe: Idea,Idenitity, Reality. London, Palgrave Macmillan. 12

-8-

concept. For example, Kohli makes a concrete classification of European identity with four dimensional analyses. Since, it is a holistic approach, it deserves to be mentioned. First is the self-understanding of European identity or constitutional meaning based on the documentation in Treaty of Maastricht. Second is the ‘idea of Europe’ in discursive level constructing ideas, ideals of ‘Europe’ as concept and its identity by politicians, intellectuals and social scientists. Third is the attempt to create collective identity with cultural practices and symbolic powers such as a common anthem, flag, currency. Last classification is individual sense of belonging to Europe as a social and political entity by its citizens14.These dimensions are formulated by different names by Paasi differently. In her article, she prefers to include first and third dimensions as European identity construction as an ‘institutional level’ project15. Scholars’ different interpretations and classifications about Europeanness are various. However, since study focuses on construction of European identity through discourses of elites and intellectuals, in this part instead of giving a general frame Europeanness, I deliberately leave this concept construction to elites and intellectuals’ identity discourses. Note that, analysis and literature shown European identity and Europeanness is equated with being a member of EU in the discourses constructed by European elites and Central European intellectuals. In addition being a member of EU is also used interchangeably being continentally European and sharing roots of the ‘idea of Europe’. Although these specific concepts have separate meanings among the scholars and literature, they are used interchangeably in the discourses that study analyzes. In this sense, study analyzes European identity constructed by elites which has referential pivotal points called as European heritage that claimed to be origin of ‘idea of Europe’. 2.2.3. European collective identity notions as objective & subjective elements European identity with its roots and idea of Europe is essentially represents collectivity with various elements. So, the section presents objective and subjective elements of collective identity. I aim to introduce these concepts and differentiate what is seen as problematic in the study. Collective identity has not unique definition, though it has some attribution that we can claim necessity for its existence. It is based on shared sense of ‘we-ness’ in interaction with one or several ‘others’. In addition, it definitely exists in its close relation to individual identity and a kind of social identity which based on large and potentially important group differences16. One of the important components collective identities is objective elements which refer to elements shared by all members of collectivity such as symbols, territory, language, myths, religion or common history. However, objective elements only are not sufficient for collective identity. Meaning, members of collectivity should internalize these objective elements and should share a sense of togetherness. Subjective elements on the other hand 14

Kohli, M. (2000). "THE BATTLEGROUNDS OF EUROPEAN IDENTITY." European Societies 2(2): 113137. 15 Paasi, A. (2001). "Europe as a Social Process and Discourse: Considerations of Place, Boundaries and Identity." European Urban and Regional Studies 8(1): 7-28. 16 Snow, D. (2001). Collective Identity and Expressive Forms. Center for the Study of Democracy, Irvine. 01: 4.

-9-

refer to a consciousness of the collectivity in the form of sentiments, attitudes and sense of belonging to collectivity. As it is stated before it is the internalization of objective elements by member of the collectivity17. For Europe, we can claim the existence of objective elements which also recognized by its treaties symbols such as the EU flag, EU day, Euro as common currency, roots of the Europe name and so on. However, subjective elements of European citizens with EU identity still lacks and common sense of belonging is not completely accomplished yet. Perception and internalization of the collectivity by individual is crucial for bonds of collective identity. The study focuses on above mentioned problematic area of subjective elements of collective identity and explains the discursive identification and location with “other” concept which is the next concept to be studied. 2.3 OTHER / SELF RELATIONSHIP The section serves the master frame that study examines European identity dynamic. Since enlargement is chosen as a process to study, it is the focus of the study to assess European identity construction with non-Europeans and impacts of transformation. Enlargement in the discourses emerges as a social process that include ‘outsiders’ interactively to European collective identity categorization. For these reasons, other as symbolic contrast to collectivity and exclusionary boundaries of European identity are presented in this section. 2.3.1. Constitutive Other as Symbolic Contrast to Self Constitutive other is one of the main dynamic trajectories and has a relative dominance in discursive debates in identity framing. Other/ self relationship is explained in this part is especially important for study, since European identity is evaluated in this master frame. ‘Other’ concept is the indispensable part of identity constructions. The notion of collective identity defines itself with its location to constitutive other. As Hall states, it is not only constructed by the internal processes, but it is meaningful and more powerful with the definition of ‘others18’. The relationship of Self/Other can be better explained by mirror metaphor. While ‘Self’ constitutes the original object, ‘Other’ occurs as a mirror reflection. As a result, what characteristics or criteria make ‘Self’ as original are reflected by mirror as opposite characteristics of ‘Other’. European identity can only be realized in mirror of ‘others’ and contains demarcation from non-Europeans19. So, it can be said that exclusion of ‘others’ is a powerful driving mechanism and desirable party of the game of identity politics to describe collective identity. According to Robertson, we can see clear example of it in written documents and news contexts that “Europe” as a concept makes sense when it is juxtaposed with “the East” or “Third World Countries”20. So, using this concept in locus to others 17

Smith, A. (2001). Nationalism. Cambridge, Polity Press. Hall, S. (1992). The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power. Formations of Modernity. S. H. a. B. and Gieben. Oxford. 19 Strath, B. (2002). "A European Identity: To the Historical Limits of a Concept." European Journal of Social Theory 5(4): 387-401. 20 Robertson, A. "Narrative Analysis and Identity Research." 18

- 10 -

produces a certain kind of knowledge and values of collective identity. As Rumelili states identities are always constituted in relation to difference or others, because a thing can only be known by what it is not21. Another scholar, Delanty though identifies such kind of relation as a pathological form of identity that is constituted division than diversity and also exclusion than solidarity notions. However, it is not ascribed as ‘bad’ but the outcome of relational or interactive process22. So far, we know that existence of other or difference is needed for identification process. But, the degree and magnitude of this othering is important for identification. Frankly, what is the value of others in defining European identity? If the perception of other is perceived as ‘unfamiliar’ to identity, it is seen only as difference or a stranger. However, if it is taken as a ‘threatening force’ to identity, then it is associated with negative connotations and lead to the exclusion of other23 and feeling of need for protection of self integrity. Hence, intensity of the difference results in mild differences which might be accepted or the antagonistic and violent differences. Apart from this lastly, I should mention that as identity I consider other/ self relationship as social construction and a dynamic social process. In social mobilization process, it is possible that collective identity can expand to include what was previously its constitutive other. When Cold War ended as a dividing line of East and West Europe, we observed variations in the meaning of European identity and changing boundaries of the Europe as well. So, what was other to Western Europe included CEEC after enlargement in their identifications. However, this reproduction and inclusion process results in to new broader interaction with a new constitutive other24. While CEEC enlargement welcomed post-communist countries as insiders, at the same time Central Europe produced Russia as new constitutive other which is mostly encountered in analysis and is analyzed in forth chapter. This part delivered impact and relative importance of constitutive other in European identity construction. The other/self construction of identities inevitably creates the inclusion and exclusion of particular groups, people. In other words, it needs certain division by both physical and mental boundaries. Now, I shall uncover another concept in explaining other/self relationship; boundary issue. 2.3.2. Boundary issue (Hard / soft boundaries) Having clarified self and other, another essential question comes to mind: how to distinguish self from other? It is ‘boundary’ concept that maintains inclusion of similarities and exclusion of differences. This concept is needed to analyze exclusionary and inclusionary tendencies, discourses in European identity formation. For the study, boundaries are social, cultural and political constructs of people rather than being a fact. So, they can change over time with frame shifts. Besides, they are 21

Rumelili, B. (2004). "Constructing identity and relating to difference: understanding the EU's mode of differentiation." Review of International Studies 30(01): 27-47. 22 Delanty, G. (2002). Inventing Europe: Idea,Idenitity, Reality. London, Palgrave Macmillan. 23 Rumelili, B. (2004). "Constructing identity and relating to difference: understanding the EU's mode of differentiation." Review of International Studies 30(01): 27-47. 24 Ibid.

- 11 -

ideological instruments of power where the exclusionary lines are drawn from ‘others’. According to Eder, construction of boundaries of Europe is soft facts that is volatile and outcome of collective reasoning. Indeed, even borders are soft facts created by narratives of people and naturalized over course of time in minds of people. Although they are called as ‘soft facts’, they have strong symbolic power providing a mechanism on the construction of hard borders. Because of European borders’ dynamic nature and reliance on soft facts that is subject to reproduction and reconstruction, borders are never finalized and open to political struggles, strategic games and normative conflicts25. Narrative plausibility of boundaries again creates a volatile attribution, ambiguity that consists of internal logic and temporal structure; expose to change in the course of the time. European identity in this sense is the mode of defining boundary between insiders and outsiders. It is not only defined by the physical borders but also difference of the culture and history. Drawing boundary is a series of communicative acts and politics of power which involve circulation of the stories26. The narrativity and power relation is beard by intellectuals as it is observed in the enlargement period of EU. Hence, context of European integration offers a mode of communication which leaded by the intellectual narratives and depends on how well these narratives are ‘constructed’. The ever-changing character of boundaries is obvious in European integration process since current borders of Europe are a lot different than the beginning. While Europeanness and idea of Europe was associated only with Western Europe particularly political and social identity 50 years ago, now it embraces Mediterranean, Baltic and Nordic Countries, Central and Eastern Europe and lastly Balkans. To illustrate, it is also examined in CEEC discourses that Konrad associates Europe only to West and Rupnik mentions Central Europe as “the other Europe” in brackets in his essay. The issues explained in this section, self/other relation and boundary concept are the other backbones of study since analysis assesses the evolutionary process of self/other relations on European identity rather than inner dynamics and institutional arrangements of it. In short history of EU, we are witnessing two striking examples of the enlargement debate which closely associated with the European identity concerns; CEEC enlargement and Turkey’s candidacy which are the upcoming topics. The next parts identify these two examples respectively, transformation of CEEC and other status of Turkey. 2.4 CENTRAL & EASTERN EUROPEAN ENLARGEMENT This section aims to explore social construction and mobilization of CEEC from outsider or less-European to insider full-European status of European identity. The concepts are important to analyze narratives on European identity construction realized in preaccession period of CEEC. First, section explains entry criteria for EU, emergence of the geopolitics and rewriting of Central European history. In addition, I believe explaining main reframing and phenomena of ‘idea of Central Europe’ and ‘return to Europe’ ground my discourse analysis.

25

Eder, K. (2006). "Europe's Borders: The Narrative Construction of the Boundaries of Europe." European Journal of Social Theory 9(2): 255-271. 26 Ibid.

- 12 -

Before explaining fourth wave of enlargement CEEC membership, it is better to analyze first conditions of candidacy. In other words, whether every country can apply for the membership is the first point to define. According to Treaty of Amsterdam for enlargement27, also known as Copenhagen criteria “any European country could in theory apply to join the EU”. However, “in order to receive a positive recommendation would need to meet the following criteria”: o “It must be a European State”. o “It must respect the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law.” In these criteria there are two crucial things to evaluate in terms of identity notions. The first criterion simply implies that geographical attachment of Europeanness which is exclusive and narrow, while the second criterion is inclusive in terms of values that can be found common in all EU states. Hence, according to Rumelili, enlargement conditions in terms of identity define both inherent difference which is fixed like geography and European culture and acquired difference based on desired values which can be attained by reforms28. The entry criteria stated include both the inclusive and exclusive nature in essence that is relevant to Europeanness notion. This hybrid nature of integration criteria triggers the ambivalence of European identity construction discourses. While some looks for only inherent characteristics and undeniably exclude others and assume Europeanness as homogenous identity, some others looking for the acquired traits as priority aims to see a Europe with multicultural diversity and inclusive. Intensity of being “other” to European identity can also be defined as non-European and less-European. While former can do nothing because of inherent differences but simply recognize it due to cartographic and historical reasons, the latter can improve its position since it is acquired difference in terms of Western values and accept the superior “self”29. In order to clarify this point let us have a look at examples. Moroccan application in 1987 is rejected by EC with absolute no without even forwarding to the European Commission for an opinion as a regular procedure. It is good to give this example, since it shows the EU’s clear exclusionary attitude to other stated based on inherent characteristics. So, Morocco as it is located in Africa but not in Europe it is simply non-European without leaving any room to possibility of future membership. On the other hand, EU approach to CEEC application was clearly promising, since they are inherently in continental Europe, however less-European in terms of Western values which might be reformed and sponsored30. Having clarified enlargement conditions let us have a look at historical evolution of fourth enlargement. Rediscovery of Europe after two world wars was based on rhetoric of a peaceful order in a small region as the West had a clear enemy from which it should distance itself namely Iron curtain which also meant a definite and hard geographical boundary to 27

(1997). Treaty Of Amsterdam Amending The Treaty On European Union. The Treaties Establishing The European Communities And Certain Related Acts, , . 28

Rumelili, B. (2004). "Constructing identity and relating to difference: understanding the EU's mode of differentiation." Review of International Studies 30(01): 27-47. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid.

- 13 -

East31. However, this ultra stable separation from the communist countries of the West survived until 1989. Copenhagen summit lead the way for post-communist countries possibility to apply for membership. There is an important point to notify here, for Western Europe, the enlargement of Eastern blocs, was also regarded as a moral duty, democratizing region and a must for security concerns. In this point, we can claim existence of mutual dependence as driving mechanism of enlargement. It was not only the CEEC aiming to Europeanize itself, but also Western Europe, especially Germany was feeling a moral obligation due to miseries of WWII that they cause to CEEC and also fear of gaining enemies instead of good neighbors. According to Onis, for example Poland accession is specifically supported by Germany due to these reasons32. To relate this with Turkish accession, it is doubtful to observe either mutual dependence or moral duty as an outcome of guilt. The analysis in this sense will be searching for the phrases, paragraphs that infer the inherent and acquired characteristics of CEEC, moral duty given to Western Europe by CEEC discourses. 2.4.1. Role of geo-politics & “idea of Central Europe” The section elaborates ‘idea of Central Europe’ as ideological construction which emerged during pre-accession period. The concept is needed to show how priority of Europeanness of Central European identity constructed with intellectual narratives. In general, it serves to analyze discourses of Central European identity and its commonalities with European identity. I shall prefer now how the ideology is created among scholars and shifting of margins from ‘Mitteleuropa’ notion to ‘idea of Central Europe’. Mitteleuropa notion first coined by Germany as a political program refer to political, cultural and geographical unity in the region. Although among current states it embraced 17 countries in the region varying from Baltic States to Balkan borders, it was a political idea plan to hegemony over the region by Germany. It aimed mainly the overcome the ethnic and national diversification and exploit the economical resources33.This narrative construction of region has become ideologically peripheral after WWII. After 1945 there were attempts to recover or rediscover Mitteleuropa notion by German intellectuals. However, Soviet era and role of CEEC intellectuals lead to the shifting of borders and changing of ideas, that Mitteleuropa notion revitalize again under the naming of Central Europe and it is owned by CEEC by excluding master project of Germany34. It was the role of the intellectuals that aimed to redefine Central European space through narratives and particularly Czech Hungarian and to a lesser extent Polish dissidents sought to define Central European identity and culture as a means to overcome this German political project. They not only promote the existence of a new Central European culture and 31

Eder, K. (2006). "Europe's Borders: The Narrative Construction of the Boundaries of Europe." European Journal of Social Theory 9(2): 255-271. 32 Onis, Z. (2004). "Diverse but Converging Paths to European Union Membership: Poland and Turkey in Comparative Perspective." East European Politics and Societies 18(3): 481-512. 33 Vidmar-Horvat, K. and G. Delanty (2008). "Mitteleuropa and the European Heritage." European Journal of Social Theory 11(2): 203-218. 34 Hagen, J. (2003). "Redrawing the imagined map of Europe: the rise and fall of the "center"." Political Geography 22(5): 489-517.

- 14 -

identity as distinct from the East, but also represent the conceptual shift of the borders of Mitteleuropa. However, there was a fact that due to normativity of the geopolitical space ambivalences did occurred in both Mitteleuropa and Central European concepts. Indeed, that is the reason that many scholars and dissidents come up with the different and even conflicting interpretations of this cultural, political space. Besides, as the redefinition of the region held by intellectuals led to negative connotations of Mitteleuropa imperial project stigmatized by Germany and Central Europe notion constructed as different project adhere to Western-style government and economics and membership in Western institutions, and also a perceived return to ‘European’ values, history, and culture35. Geopolitical rhetoric of reordering European regions especially the role of naming “Central Europe” is a powerful rhetorical device assisted first reacting countries as the leading candidates for membership namely these countries are Hungary and Czech Republic. It was reconstruction of Central Europe as not only geographical integrity, but also as a civilizational project, and a political, cultural and ideological mind-setting. The discourse of Central Europe idea reflected social and political relations of power, knowledge and also territorial control36. Several social scientists analyzed “idea of Central Europe” from different viewpoints which based on CEEC intellectuals narratives. Although this rhetoric is evaluated in analysis chapter in detail, here I mention classification of the notion. There are three different conceptual mapping of Central Europe in literature. According to Blokker, in post-Soviet era, liberalized countries went through the reconstruction of their location in Europe which emerged as ideological formation of ‘Central Europe’ that was always a part of Europe rather than being distinct from it or peripheral to37. On the other hand, Horvat and Delanty give references to the intellectuals’ categorization of Central Europe idea, like Kundera and Szucs. For Kundera, Europe consists of the West and “center” but not the East where Central Europe is located as “Eastern frontier of the West”. The last categorization made by Szucs locating and naming Central Europe as “in between” having hybrid character which is caught between the East and the West culturally Western but in terms of infant civil society it is Eastern38. It is not the aim of the study to analyze whether these redefinitions failed or not, but though it can be claimed that ‘idea of Central Europe’ intended to facilitate transformation from imagined geopolitical region (the East) to another one (the West). It is actually a deliberate project of dissidents transforming their identity from ‘others of Europe as lessEuropean characteristics to ‘European self’. In essence “idea of Central Europe” and rediscovery rhetoric essentially proved inherent characteristics of region in terms of cartography fulfilling the first criterion of entry condition. In addition, as an ideological project it also referred to acquired characteristics of these countries as their capability and willingness to change with assistance of superior Western values. In short “idea of Central Europe” combined with “Return to Europe” discourses facilitated CEEC to transform from “less-European other” to “European self”. “Return to Europe” phenomenon deliberately linked to Central European idea, because after 35

Ibid. Ibid. 37 Blokker, P. (2008). "Europe `United in Diversity': From a Central European Identity to Post-Nationality?" European Journal of Social Theory 11(2): 257-274. 38 Vidmar-Horvat, K. and G. Delanty Ibid."Mitteleuropa and the European Heritage." 203-218. 36

- 15 -

creating region through geo-politics, it was revitalization of self-identification process which claims commonalities with European identity. 2.4.2. Re-narration process & “Return to Europe” ideological construction This section observes self-identification process not only finding commonalities with Western Europe but disassociating them from Russian otherness. “Return to Europe” is the prominent slogan of period symbolizing social mobilization and identity reconstruction. It was especially effective among Czech and Hungarian intellectuals to re-narrate their national past and attach themselves to Europe through narratives. Particularly in CEEC, the role of the intellectuals in renarration of history and geo-politics had a legitimizing factor stemming from being ‘cultural politicians’. They possess so-called cultural capital of humanist credentials and artistic aura of functions to authenticate and legitimize the renarration of history and geopolitical discourses. They were central to the construction of cultural concept of geo-politics and had a special legitimacy to speak about identity, culture, tradition and heritage39. In addition, CEEC intellectuals had ability to narrate a compelling story of deep-rooted identity which was substantial in the context of rapid societal change. According to Kuus, they had a public role as ‘the masters of shamans and storytellers of geopolitics and identity’ who has literary abilities, imaginative use of language, and profound knowledge of ‘high’ culture40. The process held by intellectuals, apparently used distinction between the ‘others’ and ‘us’ dimension in reconstruction of European characteristics which Russia a played a crucial role as ‘other’ in identity debate. Hence, shifting map of Europe emerged as recreation of a new geographical location as well as cultural and symbolic mode of interpretation. This conceptual shift to the West emerged as rewriting of history which is a project of rooting linkages with Western Europe as far back as possible41. Central European identity as local identification process attached to European identity categorization, when a number of intellectuals raised question of ‘forgotten other half of Europe’. It was a process of idealizing West as ‘self’ and stigmatizing Russia as ‘other’ as stranger to their identity. For some intellectuals even the Balkans was different from their identity as a fear object and ‘other’42. Among the CEEC, leading countries Czech, Hungarian intellectuals’ de-legitimized Soviet system and depicted a powerful alternative conception of European order against domination of communist period43. So far, CEEC enlargement part identified entry criteria, geo-political shifting of Central Europe and also demarcation from Russia by “return to Europe” phenomenon. These concepts serve the study to analyze Hungarian and Czech intellectuals’ discourses in analysis part. Although this re-narration process in analysis part in details, the concept is crucial for the study answering second minor question of the study. It clarifies the idealization of Europe and Europeanization of CEEC through discourses. 39

Kuus, M. (2007). "Intellectuals and geopolitics: The [`]cultural politicians' of Central Europe." Geoforum 38(2): 241-251. 40 Ibid. 41 Vidmar-Horvat, K. and G. Delanty (2008). "Mitteleuropa and the European Heritage." European Journal of Social Theory 11(2): 203-218. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid.

- 16 -

2.5 TURKEY’S CANDIDACY This section presents the concepts for Turkey’s candidacy issue. The aim of the chapter is to uncover the outsider status, the reasons behind it and the ambivalence of Turkey’s debates on identity politics. However, before assessing the outsider views of Turkey, the section first elaborates the historical evolution of EU/Turkey relations and alternative vision of inclusive discourses for Turkey’s membership. EEC/Turkey relations started with the 1963 Ankara Association Agreement. This road to membership is more than 50 years, due to reluctant partners and experiences of Turkey. Although Turkey was the second non-founder member of EEC asking to participate after a few weeks Greek application and willing to fulfill criteria, circumstances changed during Turkish history. In 1970s, it was Turkey hesitant participating further relations. In addition, Greek opposition and a series of Aegean Sea dispute lead Greece to be against its membership. Then after Cypriot invasion in 1978 Ecevit Government in Turkey unilaterally freeze the relations with EEC. Two years later, in 1980 Turkey experienced military takeover, revealing its military and statist understanding. These backdrops not only affected Turkey but also the attitude of the EEC towards Turkey44. Besides the experiences of Turkey, also EEC went through some transformation in 1970s and started to search for the Europeanness on normative senses and emphasis to importance of European mass public. EEC in this period put more emphasis as primary characteristic being a democratic European state as a criterion for full membership, which resulted questioning of Turkey’s democratic characteristics and Europeanness. After exclusion of Turkey for future enlargement plans signed in 1997 Luxembourg Summit, EU leaders welcomed Turkey as a candidate to full membership at Helsinki Summit 1999. It was these historical developments and mile stones changed the pace of relations that turned to vicious cycle. It must be noted that opposition to Turkish entry stemmed from diverse reasons. However as a focus of the study, I touch upon ‘Europeanness claims’ related with Turkey’s opposition. Among many others one of the fundamental claims was ‘civilizational compatibility’ between Turkey and EU45. Although this thesis studies the exclusivist approach to Turkey in discourses, I see the necessity of touching upon inclusivist approaches to Turkey and also to European identity. Inclusivist approach is an alternative to the hegemonic exclusivist understanding that focuses on a greater extent to the cosmopolitan and postnational Europe idea. It is objective is the creation of a culturally diverse that does not confine to Western Judeo-Christian values and culture. It claims the essential identity construction is the inclusion of different beliefs and persuasions in a broad and loose thick identity in contrast to the thin and exclusive understanding. Being proponents of Turkey for integration in discourses become vital indeed that shows the existential questions of what kind of future EU and identity that European elites want to envision46. European identity for them symbolizes the post-national citizenship understanding that stress upon the multiculturalism. In addition, while the opponents look for 44

Verney, S. and K. Ifantis, Eds. (2009). Turkey's Road to European Union Membership: National Identity and Political Change. London Routledge. 45 Ibid. 46 Tekin, A. (2005). "Future of Turkey-EU relations: a civilisational discourse." Futures 37(4): 287-302.

- 17 -

the acquired characteristics like rule of law, democracy and the constitutionalism, they avoid owning these values as Western only in a hierarchical superiority but rather acknowledge them independent of any history47. In this social construction of European identity, Turkey’s membership constitutes a special case which proves change from exclusive narrow to the broad inclusive self European identification. In this sense, Turkey for the inclusivist approach emerges as an opportunity to abridge Europe and Islamic world and they highlight the civilizational harmony between two different civilizations. They believe that inclusion will help EU to the creation of European demos that goes beyond the narrow self-definition and present a rupture with the divisive identity politics of the past. While acknowledging the historical contributions of Turks in the construction of Europe, they claim membership would increase the inclusiveness, tolerance, understanding and diversity in harmony48. Another concern of this approach is that membership is valuable for the future EU security concerns that geostrategic features of Turkey might contribute to the world-peace and increases legitimacy of EU as a global actor in case it is included. After a brief historical background explanation of EU-Turkey relations and alternative inclusive views on Turkey’s integration, I prefer to elaborate on the central study issue of hegemonic ‘other’ Turkey and differences with European identity. 2.5.1. Turkey as outsider This section explores relative degree of Europeanness and otherness of Turkey that is observed frequently in the discourses. First, I outline reasons of otherness of Turkey by referring to above sections as historical European heritage concept, then departures from Europeanness as symbolic contrast. Most of the discourses on Turkish civilizational compatibility and the EU accepting this different country in terms of identity base arguments on the differences of historical evolutions. Indeed essence of discourses can be observed in the preamble of the EU constitutional treaty, stating the collective identity by referring the Western values as “cultural, religious and humanist ‘inheritance of Europe’”49. In this sense historical European heritage cannot be attributed Turkish identity. As in the case of European heritage in ‘idea of Europe’, historical referential points differentiate among scholars who studied Turkey’s history. In this sense, since the study regards discourse analysis of elites and politicians as unit of analysis, it is avoided to give an exhaustive literature in here. However, there are some common historical referential points of Turkey and Turks that mostly mentioned by scholars. The Central Asian tribal characteristic of Turks outside European continent that is deprived of city-state, politics, polity understanding and constitutional tradition is one of the points. Another is the era of Ottoman Empire and being bearers of Islamic jihad understanding for a long time which is seen as the main frontier enemy of Christian European collectivity. Another point is whereas Europe was living its booming era of Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, French Revolution and 47

Ossewaarde, M. (2007). "The Dialectic between Romanticism and Classicism in Europe." European Journal of Social Theory 10(4): 523-542. 48 Tekin, A. (2005). "Future of Turkey-EU relations: a civilisational discourse." Futures 37(4): 287-302. 49 Rumelili, B. (2004). "Constructing identity and relating to difference: understanding the EU's mode of differentiation." Review of International Studies 30(01): 27-47.

- 18 -

modernization, Ottoman Empire and Turks as inheritors were struggling with downgrading of the power and loses of lands. So, Europe and Turks experienced different events in the same period. The contemporary discourses, then strategically use these inherent historical differences. In the study, whereas exclusive EU elites construct European identity with common characteristics of geography, history and cultural religion as original object of mirror metaphor, Turkey is located as mirror reflection ‘other’ based on these characteristics. EU countries are geographically continental Europe, demographically in medium and small sizes, Christian, developed, civilized and constitutional according to European heritage. On the other hand, Turkey is constructed as mirror reflection or ‘other’ with dissociating characteristics like, large, Asian or at least periphery to continental Europe, Muslim, tribal but developing and modernizing. All these contrasts constitute background of ‘civilizational incompatibility’ of Turkey’s discourses. In order to better locate contemporary situation of Turkey in identity discourses, I shall benefit from Rumelili’s concept on the nature and magnitude of otherness. Otherness of Turkey stems from ambivalent condition of Turkey. Turkey is neither clear, exact outsider like Morocco nor willing and accepting like CEEC50. In this sense, discourses contribute to ambivalent location and questioning of Europeanness of Turkish identity whether the otherness is less-European or non-European. But, why it is ambivalent situation? For Rumelili there are three dimensions to explain self/other interaction of EU-Turkey relations. These dimension summarized because of their relevance to focus of study. First response of other, she claims that in collective identity how other responds to the construction of identity is important. It can be in two different modes. The first mode is recognition of self as an identity with accepted superiority of its values and culture and securing self’s identity which is observed in the CEEC enlargement and identity discourses. On the other hand, second mode is resistance which makes self’s identity more insecure and leads to greater necessity of reinscribe self’s identity. The second mode is seen in the interaction of the European and Turkish identity dialogues which sometimes marked as threat to collectivity. Second dimension as social distance whether other/self interaction is constituted association or dissociation relations. For example, CEEC associated themselves with EU and construct discourses as co-partners and willing to become like self. On the contrary, dissociation of other happens when self feel more insecure with the existence of other and draws clear boundaries and also other is reluctant to adopt itself to definition of identity. Turkey states itself in dissociation part taking into consideration of fluctuating social distance and vicious cycle of relations. Onis claims social distance occurred, since Turkish authorities interpreted weak EU anchor as evidence of weak commitment on part of EU. Similarly, EU interpreted failure to undertake reforms in sufficient depth as a sign of weak commitment which can distort collectivity. Hence, a fluctuating form of social distance is created between EU and Turkey51. Lastly, Rumelili mentions nature of the self/other relation. Collective identity might be formed as inclusivist or exclusivist. In here, we need to look at definition of European identity. According to Copenhagen criteria, we observe two compulsory conditions. Applying 50

Ibid. Onis, Z. (2004). "Diverse but Converging Paths to European Union Membership: Poland and Turkey in Comparative Perspective." East European Politics and Societies 18(3): 481-512. 51

- 19 -

country should be a “European” country in terms of geography and culture which is exclusivist and narrow and also country should respect and apply certain principles and values which are inclusivist and broad only if candidate country can reform itself52. In this sense, first criterion refers to identification of other based on inherent differences, while latter refers to acquired differences. The hybrid nature of entry criteria contributes also to ambivalence of Turkey as candidate and encourages diverge discourses among EU elites, who associate Turkey question to European-self debate. As it is stated above, CEEC and Turkish enlargement cases exhibit different characteristics. Firstly, Turkish case is not seen as an elite project to mobilize masses by renarrating history. In addition, unlike CEEC, due to series of ups and downs in EU-Turkey relations rather than linear progress, we can observe opposition of certain Turkish politicians as party strategy claiming that EU membership would harm the Turkish integrity, sovereignty and national identity. Apart from this, there are also diverse opinions in Turkish society that some are in favor and substantial numbers of others are against Europeanness. Secondly, while CEEC liberalization and democratization is seen as moral obligation, Turkish modernization is not seen as a moral duty by EU members. Due to stated reasons, Turkey lacked a fundamental powerful-insider country supporter in enlargement process. Lastly, mass European public opinion substantial for EU after 1970s, is doubtful on European traits of Turkish identity. The section elaborated on historical background of EU/Turkey relations beginning from 1960s, nature of self/other relations and constructed inherent differences between two parties. To conclude, in contemporary agenda and discourses Turkey is not eligible to be European as an extension of EU membership even among the supporters of Turkey due to lack of acquired differences. And also Turkey’s membership is seen as far from favorable among the exclusive hegemonic discourses. In short, different viewpoints locate contemporary Turkey as less-European and also non-European that creates differentiation and ambivalence in discourses. Hence, despite the varying degrees of Europeanness of Turkey, it is a social reality that contemporary Turkey constitutes the other of European identity. 2.6 CONCLUSION OF THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK This chapter is constructed as theoretical underpinning of the study. The concepts and ideas studied can be presented as my theory construction needed for the study. My basic assumptions constructed in this chapter are: • European identity which traces back to commonalities of the collectivity as European heritage is a social construction and ever-evolving process. European identity like other identity politics has narrative plausibility and normative stance which especially expose to frame shifts, reframing in context of enlargement issue. • Constitutive other as symbolic contrast has dominance in social construction of European identity discourses.

52

Rumelili, B. (2004). "Constructing identity and relating to difference: understanding the EU's mode of differentiation." Review of International Studies 30(01): 27-47.

- 20 -

• CEEC enlargement is an ultimate case to show nature of self/other relations, role of geopolitics and also dynamic character of European identity which is reconstructed by elite discourses. • Turkish candidacy also is a special case to analyze influence of constitutive other on European identity construction. The concepts and ideas presented in the chapter constitute the framework that I analyze in discursive texts. In other words, the practical value of theoretical framework will be investigation or detection of words, phrases and paragraphs linked to the idea of Europe, European heritage, idea of Central Europe in construction of European identity. In addition, analysis will use this framework for CEEC intellectuals’ narrative construction of identity, Central Europe construction geopolitics with special emphasis to common grounds of Europeanness and also demarcation from Russia as other to their identity with boundary formation. In second part of analysis, I assume to observe significant phrases, words, semantic tools of other identification, soft/hard boundary creation, nature of otherness of Turkey in European elites discourses. In short, analysis part will refer to concepts and ideas presented in this section. It might be considered as the paradox of the study that due to Turkey’s candidacy concepts and ideas particularly defined for Turkey might lose its validity since it is still an ongoing process between EU and Turkey. However, it should be notified that study acknowledges the dynamic nature of identity and enlargement. Another point to notify is that some concepts like idea of Europe, Europeanness, Turkey’s outsider status, Central European idea introduced here are ambivalent concepts, i.e. they have normative ground that prone to different interpretations and understanding. Although study cannot change this ambivalence factor, it will seek to signify ambivalences in the discursive texts in analysis part. Before the analysis part, next chapter introduces methodology that justifies the reasons of choice of discourse analysis, process of data collection, selection and operationalization of analysis.

- 21 -

Chapter III: Methodology This chapter presents the methodology used for the analysis. In order to analyze the concepts and ideas of theoretical framework in elites’ discourses, a certain methodology is needed for the study. The main objective of the chapter is then to justify the reasons of applying discourse analysis, to uncover the data collection for study and uncover the discourse analytical way of data analysis needed for the study. Discourse analysis is selected deliberately for the study, since it does not only aim to analyze language but also to uncover interrelation among language, power, and political domination of discourses in the realm. Besides, discourse analytical strategies utilized in threefold dimension in study which is explained further in next section; membership categorization analysis, argumentation strategies and rhetorical devices. In this sense, structure of methodology and later also analysis section is divided in accordance with case studies; CEEC and Turkish case. Each case studies are analyzed by three-fold approach discourse analytical way. In addition, although main empirical analysis is qualitative data, it is supported by quantitative data specifically for Turkey’s candidacy. The outline of this chapter consists of three parts. First, I introduce discourse analysis, its assumptions and justification. Then, the structure of chapter continues with discourse analytical method of data collection where I mention process and selected texts for the analysis. The last section is allocated for operationalization of methodology for analysis of the discourses. 3.1 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS The section explains approach the way in which I plan to investigate study research question. I first present definition and assumptions of discourse analysis approach and then go step-by step three dimensions that I have categorized for data analysis. The justifications are needed for uncovering the appropriateness of discourse analysis. It is also relevant to identify first what is the approach before explaining the discourse analytical way of data collection and data analysis. The section outlines the appropriateness of the analysis, study motivation, why and how I regard the hegemonic discourse and three devices to be utilized. The basic definition of discourse is the interrelation of texts and construction of social practices. It is also institutionalized way of thinking channeled through language that has certain structure, logic that appeal to certain proponents of a specific topic. Discourse theory constructs itself by assumption that all actions and practices are socially meaningful and the meanings are shaped by social and political struggles in specific historical periods. In this sense, discourse analysis aims to show how the actions and practices are realized and what they mean for specific social entity53. European identity is discursive that has varying meanings and aim to be powerful enough to impact on policy decisions like enlargement. Politicians and elites European identity discourses in that sense are channeling their positions and mental constructions through languages and texts.

53

Wetherell, M., S. Taylor, et al. (2001). Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis. Bath, Sage Publications, Bath Press.

- 22 -

Its starting point is social problems and processes of social change which concerns exploring of language as constitutive part of social reality and seeks to find out language’s relation with power and domination. Hence, language and power to influence social reality are two important components of discourse analysis54. In this sense, it suits to identity politics of two case studies in study to explore how the evolution realized through influential rhetoric. While discourses contribute to the common-sense making, it succeeds by their audiences, proponents of the discourse. Rather than being a bare language and combination of words, it is an influential tool and powerful strategy depending on its persuasiveness and logical construction to mobilize people. Another dimension to mention about is the interrelation of discourse and hegemony or political power. It is an activity in a power struggle that is rooted to the basic social structures and ideological practices. Hence, discursive political activity contributes to construction of power relations and political domination. However, in order to avoid misunderstanding, I should signify that it is not only analysis of the simple texts, on the contrary it ensemble ideas, concepts and actions that creates a body of context55. Besides, study motivation is to investigate interesting CEEC case in terms of how intellectuals as ‘cultural politicians’ contribute to Europeanization process without political power but power of language and context creation. Furthermore, for Turkey case I am motivated to observe how transformation of discourses performed through course of time and relatively exclusive discourses gain hegemony. Exclusive discourses by European politicians are hegemonic particularly current sensitivity with enlargement case, election campaigns, populist strategies of politician’s to gain support of masses. Apart from this, there are obviously historical conceptualizations of Turkey’s otherness mentioned in theoretical framework, since European public study Turkey as enemy for centuries in their history classes and vice versa. Turkish educational system also systematically legitimizes Europe as danger of Turkey in the Ottoman history56. In this sense, there is structural bias and prejudice in both sides that increase hegemony of exclusive discourses. Besides, hegemonic discourse also needs to compete with a wide range of relevant but the different discourses in the realm. As a result, it is not coincidence to observe power imbalances among discourses as in the case of Turkey’s candidacy. While exclusive EU rhetoric gains the hegemony, inclusive EU and Turkey’s elite discourses emerge as a periphery. In this sense, inclusivist approach for CEEC and exclusivist approach for Turkey dominate identity politics which block flow differences in meaning and setting itself up to the center of interpretative social processes. Taking into consideration importance of hegemony for discourse analysis, it encourages the study to focus on analysis of hegemonic discourses. 3.1.1. Investigated Discourse Analytical Dimensions Membership Categorization Analysis (MCA): Self/other relationship for both enlargements is analyzed by membership categorization analysis, since delineation of 54

Ibid. Phillips, N. and C. Hardy (2002). Discourse Analysis: Investigating Social Processes of Social Construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 56 Keyder, C. (2006). "Moving in from the Margins? Turkey in Europe." Diogenes 53(2): 72-81, Madeker, E. (2006). Turkey - a part of Europe? The construction of European Identity in the German Enlargement Debate. Third Pan-European Conference on EU Politics. Bilgi University Istanbul. 55

- 23 -

self and other or in and out-groups is the first step for discursive identity constructions. In the study, while European identity is constructed as the ingroup, less-European (CEEC) and non-European (Turkey) identities are formed as outgroups. In this sense, core semantic strategies namely positive self presentation of ingroup and negative other presentation of outgroups are analyzed. In discourses these presentations occur as the situation of pronouns, negative and positive adjectives and certain value opinions and locations. To better analyze these locations and social constructions, I assist from four basic principles of Van Dijk as complementary semantic strategy for MCA: • Emphasize positive things about us • Emphasize negative things about them • De-emphasize negative things about us • De-emphasize positive things about them57 In this regard, each analysis is divided in subgroups of positive-self presentation and negative-other presentation to better explore above principles. For CEEC the discursive attempts to become from less-European outgroup to European ingroup and for Turkey non-European outgroup categorizations are evaluated. Argumentation Strategies: Since identity discourse is political and has the persuasive function, its formal structure is frequently argumentative. An argumentation is an ‘art of reasoning’ and rhetorical creativity for the purpose to convert the audience to the preferred line of action. It certainly has a conscious goal and plan in its structure58. The European identity arguments by elites also have a purpose to influence people and policies. This argumentation structure has specific dimensions as well which I apply for my analysis. I observe various tools to upgrade persuasiveness of discursive texts and speeches. In this regard, I analyze argumentation in twofold under argumentation heading. These dimensions are: • Topoi: “Topos” is a concept in discourse analysis that originates in classical argumentation theory of Aristotle; which means literally “place” of “seat of arguments” in the words of Erasmus59. A topos is a system of public knowledge and consensus in which one may find arguments for sustaining a conclusion. It is an effective tool of persuasion actively used by politicians and provides standard arguments for specific issues. They might also be linked to traditions, customs, history and religious texts60. Topoi related to identity construction are usually supportive tools for the argumentation. They have a general implicit or explicit outcome that contribute to logical construction of argumentation and discursive position. To illustrate, in European identity constructions in arguments any link to history, geography, traditions 57

Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology. London, Sage. Plantin, C. (2002). "Argumentation studies and discourse analysis: the French situation and global perspectives." Discourse Studies 4(3): 343-368. 59 Van Der Valk, I. (2003). "Right-Wing Parliamentary Discourse on Immigration in France." Discourse Society 14(3): 309-348. 60 Ibid. 58

- 24 -

to define identity constitutes the ‘seat of arguments’ or ‘topoi’. Topoi that support the positions for CEEC and Turkish case are explained in data analysis section. • Fallacy: Jeremy Bentham defines political fallacies as any argument employed or topic suggested for the purpose of producing the effect of deception or for the purpose of causing some erroneous opinion61. They are particular strategies to convince public by exaggerating the terms and situations. In addition, they are the violations of the process-argumentation rules used for the delegitimation of opponents’ standpoints62. Since the purpose of the argumentation is to capture attention and convince people to a certain line of policy action, these strategies are frequently used in discourses. The most used fallacy encountered for both cases are “the fallacy of extreme case formulation” and “fallacy of danger”. This fallacy is expressed in exaggerated terms to create a groundless alarm. They are also supported with the counterfactual arguments which are the use of imaginary situations. The imaginary situation is constructed by the speaker in order to better predict the negative consequences used to persuade the people for the necessity of taking policy actions or measures63. European identity argumentations by elites construct these exaggerated and imaginary situations for future consequences of enlargement policies that signify harm or danger or the past experiences of not taking action. Specific fallacy of extreme case formulations and counter factual arguments are found in data which will be mentioned in analysis part. Rhetorical Devices: Although many different kind of rhetorical devices exist, the study focuses on metaphors as rhetorical strategy which has persuasiveness in discourses. Metaphor is a semantic tool that frequently used by elites and politicians that steer attention, conceptualize issues and create a common-sense meaning64. Since they are concrete and visual, they have a strong impact on people. Metaphors used by CEEC intellectuals are for the otherization of Russia to provoke negation and also positive connotations made through metaphors for European identity. Turkey’s negation and otherization to European identity are also utilized through various forms of metaphors. Besides, metaphors are the indispensable part of storytelling and narratives, since they associate an abstract concept like European identity or enlargement with a concrete and more familiar object to create commonsense. To illustrate, ‘European house’, ‘European family’ or ‘heart of Europe’ metaphors concretize the abstract notions link to identity like sense of belonging, solidarity, homogeneity, exclusive nature of identity and so on. Analysis aims to investigate the encountered metaphors to better grasp how discourses picture European identity and enlargement issue and their functional meaning in the corpus.

61

Bentham, J. (1962). Handbook of Political Fallacies. New York, Harper Torchbooks. Van Der Valk, I. (2003). "Right-Wing Parliamentary Discourse on Immigration in France." Discourse Society 14(3): 309-348. 63 Ibid. 64 van Teeffelen, T. (1994). "Racism and Metaphor: The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict in Popular Literature." Ibid. 5: 381-405.

62

- 25 -

Before ending the introduction of discourse analysis and devices used for analysis, note that in contemporary social world, there are limitless resources as data for this study. It is a fact that all aspects of European identity discourse can never be studied. In this sense, for the manageability concerns, I do need to select a subset of texts which I assume to be important among others and dominant in discourse which is presented in the next section that gives further information how the study collected the data for analysis. 3.2 DISCOURSE ANALYTICAL METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION Aim of the data collection is to present the criteria and limitation applied to select specific discursive texts that is appropriate for the study. So, this part points out the process of data gathering. The section is divided into two main sub-sections. The reason of division is that literature review for study is performed according to case studies separately. So, first part explains data collected for CEEC and justification of the selected intellectuals. Second part is the data collected for Turkey’s candidacy debates and justifications of it. First step is the data collection and selection procedure for CEEC. First data collection criterion for CEEC is the texts I plan to analyze. In this respect, the study restricted itself with the essays of intellectuals. I analyze texts as evidences of discourse change and pivotal in reconstruction of identity. It is the intellectuals’ essays particularly, since their rhetorical devices and argumentations emerged as the dominant frame in identity discourse. In this regard the texts to be analyzed are respectively; "A Kidnapped West, or Culture Bows Out" by Milan Kundera, “Antipolitics: An essay” by Gyorgy Konrad, “Central Europe or Mitteleuropa?” by Jacques Rupnik and lastly “A Call for Sacrifice” by Vaclav Havel. Note that although these units of analysis are written by Czech and Hungarian intellectuals as first reactive and leading countries for transformation, they all use the common expansive strategy of speaking on behalf of CEEC in general. Main choice of reason of these specific articles is due to their influence in re-narration of Central European past and impact of selfidentification. The essays provide subjective elements, rhetorical strategies and opinions, stands of arguments of intellectuals which distinguish them as discursive. In addition, discursive strategies like use of semantics, lexicalizations, delegitimation and legitimation tools make them appropriate for discourse analysis. The last point, the reason of investigating CEEC intellectuals’ discourses but not reactions of EU elites for CEEC case is because they were hegemonic discourses and able to actively revitalize Europeanness through powerful discourses. In other words, the hegemony of rhetorical tools and semantics in context of European integration in pre-accession period constructed through and in CEEC intellectuals’ discourses. So far, section explained the data collection for CEEC. Since literature review and analysis structured according to the cases, data collection for Turkey is presented here. Turkish case consists of two parts. While first section is reserved for qualitative discourse analysis, it is supported by evaluation of EB survey data on collective identity and enlargement. Rather than Turkish elite’s narratives, study is deliberately limited to analyze European elite’s discourses. The reason is EU’s relatively stronger determining power in relations with Turkey and EU elites are the political bearers of discourses. In other words, while Turkey constitutes demanding and passive side, EU is active and powerful whether to accept or not Turkey in frame of enlargement. In addition, Turkish case does not possess - 26 -

social mobilization of masses which is driven by Turkish elite project. Besides, there are considerable doubts and opposition from Turkish people that EU membership would distort sovereignty, integrity of the principles of Ataturk. Also another group of oppositional people drives its motivation to be against due to their religion and opposition to Europeanization. For the analysis, certain selection criteria applied for discourses. First, although there are some inclusivist discourses, the study focuses only on exclusivist approach to show hegemonic discourses due to above stated reasons. Second selection criterion is the focus of two particular countries’ politicians; France and Germany, since they are the founding members of EU. Besides, they have dominant influence on EU decisions and policies like enlargement due to their seats in EP as well. Lastly, in the exclusive discourses related with identity and enlargement, these countries are the most prominent ones. In this sense, data to be analyzed are French and German politicians’ exclusive speeches and interviews. It should be notified that due to language limitation and my limited knowledge of French and German language and since most of French and German elite discourses are held in their native language during the parliamentary debates, interviews and speeches, study make use of internet translation for citations. Discourse analysis of Turkey is supplemented by EB survey results analysis. It is deliberately selected to uncover what is perceived as dominant view in mental mapping of European citizens. It is also complementary in terms of revealing social construction identity. On the other hand, it assists to reveal dominance of exclusive context in social practices. Specifically, EB surveys on enlargement, identity and culture selected for study. They are investigated to uncover relative power of collective identity notions among Europeans and Turkey’s otherness to collectivity. It justifies the point that European identity is prominently shaped by constitutive other notion. EB surveys to analyze are Standard EB 2005 63/4, Special EB 2006 255/65.2 called “Attitudes towards European Union Enlargement” for Turkey’s situation and otherness and lastly Standard EB 2008 69/1. After the process of data gathering and determining the specific texts, speeches, interviews and EB survey analysis, the process is concluded how to operationalize and perform the data analysis to the specified units of analysis which will be elaborated in the next section. 3.3 DISCOURSE ANALYTICAL METHOD OF DATA ANALYSIS The method of data analysis of specified units of texts is elaborated in this section which explains operationalization of MCA, argumentation and rhetorical devices used in texts, speeches and interviews. In other words, it presents the way in which I held my research in analyzing texts, the signifiers of discourses useful for study that I searched in genre of texts. For MCA, the analysis is pursued as detection of certain words phrases and paragraphs that refer to theoretical framework concepts and ideas. In this sense, for idea of Europe and European identity concepts in theoretical framework I search for the words and paragraphs that refer to European legacy or European heritage that is; ‘Roman Christianity’, ‘cultural variety’, ‘individualism’, ‘rationalism’, ‘critical thinking’ ‘Greek philosophy’ , ‘Roman law’, ’Judeo-Christian values’, ‘Middle Ages’, ‘Renaissance’, ‘Enlightenment’ and similar references. For self/other relationship and boundary construction concepts that demarcate self and other, study looks for the words; ‘we’, ‘us’, ‘our’, ‘ours’, ‘European people’, ‘West’, - 27 -

‘Central Europeans’ and positive adjectives of ‘better’, ‘good’, ‘great’, ‘greatest’, ‘diverse’, ‘rich’ and similar words that symbolize superiority and membership categorization and additionally for self identification. In addition for other identities’ identification the study will analyze the words and context that is mentioned; ‘they’, ‘their’, ‘them’, ‘other’, ‘different’, ‘border’, ‘frontier’, ‘Orient’ and negative adjectives of ‘fear’, ‘danger’, ‘inauthentic’ and similar words that symbolize disaster and danger of other. Apart from this, for the role of geopolitics in identity formation, I search for the contextual meanings of words; ‘West’, ‘East’, ‘Eastern Europe’ ‘Central Europe’ ‘Asia’ ‘Russia’ and interpret the possible inferences. For argumentation strategies study cannot develop detection of certain words since they are implied conclusions connected to identity and enlargement debate. However, note that topoi will be the detection of paragraphs as place of arguments of culture, history, geography, politics, geopolitics, religion, Western values, compatibility, civilization arguments that are connected to identity debate. For fallacies texts will be analyzed in terms of exaggerated and imaginary situations. For rhetorical devices analysis of metaphors will include: container metaphors that is house, home, door; personification metaphors that is family, marriage, heart, naked; and disaster aggression metaphors like drama, tragedy, trauma, massacre and analysis of similar visualizations. Below scheme, explains devices and application of data analysis in accordance with threefold approach. Discourse Analytical Approach

Membership Categorization Analysis

Devices

Application of Data Analysis Positive adjectives, phrases, first pluralperson pronoun(we, us), positive historical lexicalizations, indicators of ingroup bias, superiority, use of relational pair

Positive Self Presentation

Negative Other Presentation

Argumentation

Topoi Fallacy

Rhetorical Devices

Metaphors

Negative adjectives, phrases, third pluralperson pronouns (they, them), negation of historical references, indicators of outgroup prejudices, inferiority, binary taxonomy Implied conclusions to justify inclusion and exclusions, categories related to identity debate, Exaggerated claims and events to increase persuasiveness, imaginary situations Disaster / aggression, personification and container metaphors

Table 1: Structural Presentation of Discourses Analytical Data Analysis

It should be notified that rather than counting the occurrences of the above words and phrases, study as discursive approach will analyze the context they are used in, implicit - 28 -

meanings, inferences and what they symbolize. Apart from this, note that purpose of the analysis is not being judgmental and not asserting whether discourses are good/bad or right/wrong, but rather keeping the scientific distance and analyzing interpreting what is constructed and existed as social reality In the end articulation of CEEC analysis answers of second minor question: “how is the transformation from outsider to the insider of the European identity constructed through CEEC discourses?” Turkey’s analysis of texts provides answer to my first and third minor questions: “what are the ongoing discourses on European identity and its relation to nonEuropeans?” and “how is the ongoing dialect on Turkey as outsider to the European identity?” 3.4 CONCLUSION OF METHODOLOGY In conclusion, this chapter is allocated for discourse analytical methodology, justifications and assumptions of it. In addition, the process of data gathering chosen texts, countries and speeches are specified. Lastly, how to operationalize discourse analysis on the gathered data is codified in the last section and threefold approach is introduced; MCA, argumentation and rhetorical devices. The particular attention is paid for these specific dimensions and linguistic strategies. During the analysis the operationalization of the words, phrases and contexts that these words used will be detected and linked to the theoretical framework concepts and ideas. Special attention will be paid to the semantic strategies, inferences, implicit and explicit meanings and implied conclusions and the context that these discourses constructed. In addition the sequential logic of the discourses will be mentioned. Consequently, next chapter will be the analysis of texts, contextual meanings. Since I collected my unit of analysis and data according to cases, study will precede by analysis of two major categories namely CEEC and Turkey’s sections.

- 29 -

Chapter IV: Analysis This part as core of study analyzes less-European nature of CEEC through texts and constitutive other position of Turkey as a hegemonic discourse in EU agenda. The main aim of the chapter is to uncover the findings in discourse analytical way and analyze the specific words, phrases and paragraphs as mentioned in the methodology part. By applying the methodological approach introduced in previous chapter, analysis will pinpoint the place and use of concepts and ideas in discourses which are mentioned in theoretical framework. Generally, chapter is divided into two sub-sections in accordance with two cases. The reason of structuring is first the data collection is realized separately for each case, second answering of minor questions. Hence, first part is allocated for CEEC to answer second minor-question and second part allocated for Turkey to answer first and third minor questions. The first sub-section is allocated for discourse analysis of CEEC intellectuals’ essays. Discourse analytical approach is divided into threefold approach for discourse strategies. They are MCA, argumentation and rhetorical devices which each text is evaluated under these headlines. In addition, special attention is paid to semantic strategies. In order, the specific texts are investigated chronologically, since they also reveal change of context through time. In this sense ordering of texts is respectively; “Kidnapped West or Culture Bows Out” (1984) by Kundera, “Antipolitics: An Essay” (1984) by Konrad, “Central Europe or Mitteleuropa?” (1990) by Rupnik and “A Call for Sacrifice” (1994) by Havel. The second sub-section uncovers the findings of research of exclusive European elites’ speeches and interviews in discourse analytical way. Turkey’s case is also divided into three dimensional discourse analytical way. In this sense, the mental categorization of identity groups is shown and supported how they plan and present the argumentation points of positions and lastly how they visualize the self/other situation by metaphors are presented. Discourse analysis also supplemented with EB survey results analysis to uncover some similar and contradictory major points.

4.1

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF CEEC INTELLECTUALS’ ESSAYS MCA of CEEC Discourses

The aim of the MCA section is to uncover the findings of in and out group categorization presented in discourses to confirm group dominance by using certain semantic tools65. Departing from this concern the texts are assessed according to the words and phrases mentioned in methodology to find out interlink of the concepts and ideas introduced in theoretical framework. In this sense, the words and paragraphs and contextual use of framework of idea of Europe, European identity, idea of Central Europe, European heritage, self/other relationship, boundary construction and the role of geopolitics in identity formation are detected, analyzed and possible inferences presented in further in this section. In the discourses, while us generally holding better values that are particularly relevant to Central European identity and European identity in relation, they are viewed as bad in social comparison. In this sense, binary taxonomy constructed which also lead to superiority

65

Oktar, L. (2001). "The Ideological Organization of Representational Processes in the Presentation of us and them." Ibid. 12: 313-346.

- 30 -

of ingroup and inferiority of outgroup66. The intellectuals’ discourses are formed in terms of social presentation of us versus them; that is what we are and what they are, what they typically do, what their aims and values are in relation to us.67 In this way, they justify, rationalize their positions in discourses. CEEC elites’ categorization is formed by maximizing within-category similarities with Europe and between-category differences with especially Russia in enlargement context68. The discourses of intellectuals accentuated similarities of relevant prototype; “being European” and aimed to find commonalities with European identity. In a way, they reconstructed a distinct self-Central European identity which has relations with European identity, underlying this group behavior by its difference to ‘other’ Russia. In this sense, European identity as a relational pair is perceived to be positive and Russianness as ‘constitutive other’ is reflected negative in discourses. In order to better analyze ingroup similarities with European identity and outgroup differences with Russia, next parts presents Europeanness of Central European identity as relational pair, positive self presentation in discourses and negative other presentation of Russia in construction of identity discourses. 4.1.1. Positive Self Presentation: Europeanness of Central European Identity: The main concern of the section is to uncover findings of the membership ingroup categorization in the discourses. Texts are assessed according to references to the idea of Europe, idea of Central Europe, European heritage concepts passed in the paragraphs and possible interpretations are made in this section. In addition, semantic strategy of emphasis the positive things and de-emphasis to negative thing about ‘us’ is paid specific attention in analysis. Particularly this section detects and analyzes the selective use and contextual meanings of words, ‘Roman Christianity’, ‘cultural variety’, ‘individualism’, ‘rationalism’, ‘critical thinking’; ingroup naming of ‘we’, ‘us’, ‘our’, ‘ours’, ‘European people’, ‘West’, ‘Central Europeans’ and positive adjectives of ‘better’, ‘good’, ‘great’, ‘greatest’, ‘diverse’, ‘rich’ as mentioned in methodology part. As Sacks noted certain membership categories seemed to ‘go together’ in ‘standardized relational pairs’, for example ‘father–son’, ‘husband–wife’ and that actions associated with such category pairing involve a level of routine ‘relationship predicates’ that serve to render interaction between category pair, forms of category pairs and associated predicates (i.e. moral relational devices) as relational. Relational pairings, in this sense, has certain situated properties and moral logic that form a normative resource69. Analysis of discourses has shown that construction of Europeanness of Central European identity is also based on membership categorization strategy of relational pairing. In this sense, relational pairing associations are investigated. In Kundera’s essay “Kidnapped West or Culture Bows Out”, he systematically captures attention of reader by rhetorical questions. Moreover, expansionist strategy of the 66

Housley, W. and R. Fitzgerald (2009). "Membership categorization, culture and norms in action." Ibid. 20: 345-362. 67 Oktar, L. (2001). "The Ideological Organization of Representational Processes in the Presentation of us and them." Ibid. 12: 313-346. 68 Housley, W. and R. Fitzgerald (2009). "Membership categorization, culture and norms in action." Ibid. 20: 345-362. 69 Ibid.

- 31 -

discourse is explicit, since it is not asserting only Czech or Hungarian identity, but rather referring to Central Europe in general. Kundera enlarges scope of the statement by attributing first to Hungary then to Europe in terms of civilization and identity is placed as primary statement. In first paragraph he mentions an anecdote of Hungarian News Agency on attack of Russia: “We are going to die for Hungary and for Europe”70. Then he present his sequential categorization of relational pair as “Europe as a fundamental value worth dying for”71. In this sense, sequence implicitly means that both Europe and Hungary is in the same ingroup; Europeanness. Apart from this, in his mental boundary construction: “Central Europe is not a state; it is a culture or a fate. Its borders are imaginary and must be drawn and redrawn with each new historical situation”72.

The discursive sentence confirms the soft boundary theory of Eder which mentioned in second chapter and refers to the narrativity of boundary construction between self and other identities. It also confirms the theoretical frame of soft boundary concepts dynamic nature and evolving traits. The sentence contributes to the basic idea of soft boundary that there is a need of time and narrative to naturalize and internalize the new boundary construction. Besides, particular emphasis to culture strengthens his legitimation of commonness with European identity. Although, he admits for a long time West is equal to Europe term, he constructs his discourse mainly on the cultural notions, since it is category bound predicate that can link Central Europe to European identity or at least relational pair of categories. As another positive self presentation indicator, Kundera presents Central Europe with superior values in comparison to Eastern Europe and it belongs to Western Europe with shared set of European values like ‘Roman Christianity’, ‘cultural variety’, ‘individualism’, ‘rationalism’ and ‘critical thinking’. All the historical references tie Central European culture and identity to the idea of Europe and Europeanness concept. In this sense, he not only shows willingness to accept the pre-determined characteristics of the membership categorization but also seeks to justify these features in idea of Central Europe. In this sense, he includes Central European civilization and values in same group of European identity and systematically legitimizes category bounded predicates. It is main discourse for Kundera that any attack on Central European identity is mainly attesting their European character and leads to ‘kidnapping’ of the West. In other words, he implicitly states European-self categorization which Central Europe is included. Analysis has shown also that use of examples of important intellectuals that creates “great cultural centre, perhaps the greatest” of Central Europe is a common ingroup favoritism. He discursively claims that Central Europe gave birth to a ‘unique civilization’, with ‘great’ figures such as Freud, Einstein, Mahler, Janáček, Broch, Kafka and Musil. This great cultural centre can only be associated by Europe and European identity. The use of important historical figures is also a common semantic tool to justify the discourse position and refer to historical experiences to prepare the ground for the future policies, decisions like 70

Kundera, M. (1984). ""A Kidnapped West or Culture Bows Out" " Granta: Greetings from Prague 11: 95-118. Ibid. 72 Ibid. 71

- 32 -

enlargement. Recalling these people in the discourse also touches upon European heritage notions mentioned in second chapter. Besides, the use of the positive adjectives and superlatives for culture and people tries to accentuate better positive traits attributed to self. It leads to the assertion of hierarchy of cultures and civilizations by in-group favoritism which is a discursive strategy by prototyping that what we are doing and what our values are good73. This selective use of words evokes the social construction of self-identification and shows the positioning of the intellectual. Positive adjectives in Kundera’s work are the most frequently encountered as ‘great cultural centre’, ‘our modern world’, ‘great Central European works of art’, ‘intellectual cement and condensed version of its spirit’, ‘rich creativity’, ‘strong set of ideas’, ‘supreme values’, ‘in the eyes of beloved Europe’, ‘creative achievement and the people of Central Europe’. These all traits and the principles of semantic strategy is observed in text uncovering in-group bias that he mentions only what he sees as positive aspects, while denying or simply ignoring negative aspects of self categorization. Analysis has shown similar semantic strategies in Konrad discursive essay; “Antipolitics: An Essay”. He uses expansionist strategy in a way that rather than discoursing single nationality, he embraces whole Central Europe. Konrad delineates regions symbolically with the value he attributes. He also constructs binary taxonomy by using the specific terms. While ‘Central European’ and ‘East Central European’ terms accentuate the positive presentation, its negation or mirror other is symbolically framed by ‘Eastern European’ term: “I am a Central European; here my attitudes are Western European, there (Western Europe) they are Eastern European.”74

Above sentence indicates the ambivalence of the very notion of identity and certain characteristics of identification like normativity, social construction in the social processes and subjectivity of identity. He diverges from Kundera’s discourse by the sentence stating the ambivalence of the identity. While the definite European character of Central European identity is asserted in Kundera’s discourse, Konrad takes more skeptical stance and points out the ambivalence of Central European identity and its repercussions in two ‘different world of mental mapping’. In a way it proves the social constructionist characteristic and subjectivity of the identity notion that is mentioned in the second chapter. He make use of the geographical naming in defining the perceived differences of identity and it implicitly uncovers what is attributed to Eastern Europeanness is negative in the eyes of Western Europe and justifies the superior versus inferior identity constructions stemming from the geopolitics by implicit binary taxonomy. Put differently, the West emerges as the antonym of the Eastern Europe in self-identification of Central European identity. Rupnik’s essay “Central Europe or Mitteleuropa?” legitimizes power of Germany in region, it presents Germany better than Russia due to modernization and Europeanization attempts. It implicitly concludes the legitimation of Germany due to relational pair identity 73

Oktar, L. (2001). "The Ideological Organization of Representational Processes in the Presentation of us and them." Discourse Society 12(3): 313-346. 74 Konrád, G. (1991). Antipolitics: An Essay (1984). From Stalinism to Pluralism: A Documentary History of Eastern Europe since 1945. G. Stokes. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 267.

- 33 -

categorization. In-group favoritism (favoring Germany) is constructed in general in discourse with binary taxonomy of Russian otherness. “Germany’s rediscovery of Central Europe, of cultural and economic affinities with its eastern neighbors, became compensation for its eroding Western self-definition.(emphasis added)” 75

In the texts selective use of positive adjectives are also found. The adjectives frequently occurred in the texts are; ‘Prague as cultural frontier’, ‘ethnic diversity’, ‘artistic and intellectual creativity, universalistic, cosmopolitan Central European culture’ The speech of Havel “A Call for Sacrifice” after collapse of Soviet Union is particularly important, since it uncovers change of discourses of Central Europe idea and European identity. The text in general has similar semantic strategy with Kundera’s discourse. Rhetorical questions to steer the attention, enlarging scope of ingroup favoritism, blaming strategies of West stemming from relational moral pair, geo-political demarcation of Central Europe are the points associated with self-identification. In general all texts construct relational pair in a way that Central European identity doesn’t possess exactly same characteristics of Western Europe, however categorization asserts existence of moral bounds and cultural similarities with European identity. In this sense the categorizations seems to ‘go together’ in standardized relational pairs by utilizing certain devices76. Analysis of texts also shown that, expansionist semantic strategies, selective use of positive adjectives justifying ingroup favoritism, use of naming geographical regions that possess superiority and inferiority notions are the common discursive strategies that delineates positively Europeanness of Central European identity. 4.1.2. Negative-Other Presentation “otherness of Russia”: The aim of the section is to uncover findings of the membership outgroup categorization in the discourses. Texts are assessed according to references to boundary construction for self/other groups, narrative strategies for negative other passed in the paragraphs and possible interpretations are made in this section. In addition, semantic strategy of emphasis the negative things and de-emphasis to positive things about ‘them’ is paid specific attention in analysis. Particularly this section detects and analyzes the selective use and contextual meanings of outgroup words ‘they’, ‘their’, ‘them’, ‘other’, ‘different’, ‘border’, ‘frontier’, and negative adjectives of ‘fear’, ‘danger’ etc and geopolitical names of ‘East’, ‘Eastern Europe’, ‘Asia’ ‘Russia’ as mentioned in methodology part. Each text is also evaluated by their negative predication of out-group namely, Russia. Role of other is an important part of European identity construction; as ‘the purity and stability of ‘we’ is guaranteed first in the naming, then in the demonization of otherness77. It is the common strategy not only defining but also systematically negating the other and 75

Rupnik, J. (1991). "Central Europe or Mitteleuropa?" Eastern Europe...Central Europe...Europe. S. R. Graubard. Boulder, Westview. 76 Housley, W. and R. Fitzgerald (2009). "Membership categorization, culture and norms in action." Discourse Society 20(3): 345-362. 77 Delanty, G. (2002). Inventing Europe: Idea,Idenitity, Reality. London, Palgrave Macmillan.

- 34 -

constructing the stereotyping. In general, in discourses systematic legitimation of negative predications for Russia and selective use of negative attributions is frequently encountered. The contrasting devices for demarcation of self/other, Russia’s exclusion from European ingroup categorization, use of specific connectives as semantic strategy and negative adjectives are discursive strategies of negative other presentation on otherness of Russia. Analysis has shown use of comparing in versus out-group with hierarchy of values and superiority vs. inferiority of civilizations that contributed to discourse: “to die for one’s country and for Europe- that is a phrase that could not be thought in Moscow or Leningrad; it is precisely the phrase that could be thought in Budapest or Warsaw” “the Czechs and the Russians have never shared a common world: neither a common history nor a common culture (italics added)”78

Above sentence label and stigmatize Russian civilization and draws clear-cut exclusive boundary between European self and Russian other identity group. The first sentence explicitly uses geopolitics to draw attention different membership categorization predicates. It implies that the action of ‘die’ as a symbol of solidarity and ingroup loyalty can be observed only in Central Europe, since it is European ingroup. Apart from this, the use of cognitive verb ‘think (thought)’ contributes the discourse as a reliable judgment and legitimizes Kundera’s position of Europeanness. In other words, although the sentence could be constructed with affective verbs like ‘feel’ or any verb appealing to senses, he deliberately uses cognitive verb ‘think’ to prove the logic of action of ‘death’ which is emotional rhetoric in essence. So, he legitimizes his paradoxical rhetoric that the action can be an outcome of ‘thinking being’ or ‘rational choice’ rather than emotions. In addition, systematic de-legitimation of positive attributes for Russia is negated three times throughout the text with negative grammatical connective “but” as semantic strategy. The aim of using connective is accentuating some positive traits of Russian literature and civilization before making a negative statement. This is a common semantic strategy to delegitimize positive traits of out-group. “Rilke claimed that Russia was his spiritual homeland, and no one has escaped the impact of the great Russian novels, which remain integral part of the common European cultural legacy … But it is no less true that Russian communism vigorously reawakened Russia’s old antiWestern obsessions and turned it brutally against Europe.(emphasis added)”79

Besides, the metaphorical use of negation encountered in the texts for the Russian civilization, impact on Central European identity and Europe are; ‘fear’, ‘immense and indescribable disaster’, ‘danger’, ‘threat’, ‘trauma’, ‘drama’, ‘tragedy’, ‘kidnapped, brainwashed’, ‘threatening for cultural traditions of Central Europe’, ‘silly and ignorant enthusiasm for Russia’, ‘massacre of culture’. 78 79

Kundera, M. (1984). ""A Kidnapped West or Culture Bows Out" " Granta: Greetings from Prague 11: 95-118. Ibid.

- 35 -

Konrad, on the other hand, constructed difference of Russia contrasting to European identity throughout the discourse. Demarcation from other ascribed by stating; “the reality of Central Europe demands a form of conduct different from that of communist tradition. In Central Europe modernity means recognizing the abiding tendencies of our history (emphasis added)”80

Its implied conclusion is existence of differences between two traditions that is excluded in self-identification social process. While ‘communist tradition’ term is used to express the non-self characteristic, it is an ambivalent and also very broad term that identifies non-self or other group. The use of a broader term rather than certain referential social actor or country, he overgeneralizes generic term of ‘other’. In addition, it broadens the ‘other’ membership categorization instead of only calling Russia as other. The term also facilitates the discourse since it collects several other or different identities which might be used under this membership categorization device. Under this broad title ‘other’ might be any person, country and other who propose the ideology. In addition, the same semantic strategy observed in Kundera that is negative grammatical connective to de-legitimize positive traits of other is used by Konrad: “I have the Russians to thank for my life; of all the literature of the world that of Russia affected me the most. Yet I see the role of Russians in Europe as the biggest question mark for the cause of world peace. (Emphasis added)”81

While legitimating Russian literature, he connects the sentence with negative connective ‘yet’ so that positive side is de-legitimated by negative following sentence. There is explicit outcome of judgmental sentence that Russians are not acceptable in European categorization. In addition, it asserts expansionist strategy by stating world peace can be sustained only by Europe. So, this implicitly concludes that world peace or what is good can only be sponsored by Europe and Russia is threatening other that endangers European-self ingroup categorization and world peace. Rupnik constructs its discursive process of social comparison that they are perceived as ‘bad’ while self-evaluated in-group holds better values. Besides, the East term used also in a negation to bipartite region based on history, culture and traditions differences. “today the validity of Halecki’s insight seems easier to confirm. The differences between what he called East Central Europe and Soviet Russia are as great as ever. In terms of history, cultural and political traditions, the real Iron Curtain runs further East than commonly assumed …”82 80

Konrád, G. (1991). Antipolitics: An Essay (1984). From Stalinism to Pluralism: A Documentary History of Eastern Europe since 1945. G. Stokes. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 267. 81 Ibid. 82 Rupnik, J. (1991). "Central Europe or Mitteleuropa?" Eastern Europe...Central Europe...Europe. S. R. Graubard. Boulder, Westview.

- 36 -

In addition the phrase used ‘lesser evil Germany’ implies Russia is the worst for their culture and tradition. Moral duty for relational pair of Central European identity and European-self categorization Germany leads discourse and his position to place the West on a higher value than Russia. In Havel’s speech due to context, negative other presentation of Russia is not encountered in the text, since collapse of Soviet Union changed the contextual level discourse analysis of self / other distinction of identity. However still as continuation of Soviet Bloc, he delineates post-communist countries as “post-communist West” which belong to Western civilization and other post-communist countries as “others who belong to the ‘Central Asian’ sphere of civilization”83. To sum up, systematic de-legitimation of positive traits of other and legitimation of negation is observed in all texts. In addition, selective use of negative adjectives, use of particular pronouns, use of specific connectives to de-legitimize positive traits of Russia are commonalities found in all discursive texts. Consequently, construction of Russia as ‘dangerous or enemy other’ contributes to discourses to be associated with European identity. 4.2 Argumentation of CEEC Discourses The analysis of the texts according to argumentation strategies targets at the detection and analysis of place of arguments and fallacies that support the identity discourses. Although the methodology part cannot state specific words for the argumentations, the paragraphs referring to culture, history, geo-politics, moral responsibility of the West, politics and other civilizations are detected and possible implied conclusions to the identity discourse are investigated. In addition, fallacies and imaginary situations employed in the texts to enhance persuasiveness of discourse are detected. In this sense, first topoi and then fallacies will be placed in this section. 4.2.1. The Use of Topoi in CEEC Identity Argumentation: The ‘topoi’ can be described as the parts of the argumentation which belong to either explicit or inferable premises. In the study, while main argumentation emerges as identity, the parts of argumentation or ‘topoi’ occurs as a system of common sense making and discursive resource in which topoi are constructed to support a conclusion. They are also general principles that support an argument without themselves constituting the argument itself84. The discursive texts are also supported to enhance persuasiveness by frequent use of topoi. A non-exhaustive list of topoi supporting CEEC identity discourses that observed frequently in the texts is: • Topos of culture; • Topos of history; • Topos of geography and geo-politics; • Topos of ignorance of West; 83

Havel, V. (1994). "“A Call for Sacrifice: The Co-responsibility of the West" " Foreign Affairs 73(2). Van Der Valk, I. (2003). "Right-Wing Parliamentary Discourse on Immigration in France." Discourse Society 14(3): 309-348.

84

- 37 -

• Topos of moral responsibility; • Topos of dangerous other civilizations; • Topos of politics; While the first three topoi are constructed through discourses in advantage of Central European identity to be renounced as European, fourth and fifth topoi occurs as the duty attached to Western Europe for transformation of countries. Another interpretation, while the first three signifies inherent characteristics attached to Central Europe and the fourth and fifth topoi are acquired characteristics that they need to reform in order to be full-European. On the other hand, the last two topoi are the disadvantage of Central Europe and they accentuate difference of Central Europe from other civilizations to increase the persuasiveness of discourses. • Topos of culture, history, geography and geo-politics in identity discourse: In general, culture is constructed by signifying the pluralist nature in Central Europe which deserves to be categorized in European culture. It is defined as ‘pluralist’, ‘diverse’, ‘cosmopolite’. Besides, Kundera’s discourse constructs Central European culture as the “greatest” variety. In this sense, he attaches better values of superior culture belongs to Central Europe. “Central Europe longed to be a condensed version of Europe itself in all its cultural variety, a small-arch European Europe, a reduced model of Europe made up of nations…. greatest variety within the smallest space.”85

The topoi of history selectively constructed as an advantage of identity discourse to associate themselves Europeanness. Belonging to Europe in terms of historical roots is signified that implied conclusion; they belong to contemporary Europe as well. In addition, whereas they present Germany as a ‘modernizing factor’, ‘fruitful’ and ‘civilizing’ despite WWII and Nazi invasion in history and systematically de-legitimize Russian history existed in the region. The implied conclusion is the Western favoritism for their identity:

“… what does Europe mean to a Hungarian, a Czech, a Pole? Their nations have always belonged to the part of Europe rooted in Roman Christianity.”86 “For more than forty five years, the main problem was less a German than a Russian one”87

The topoi of geography and geo-politics used as semantic tool in the discourses. This is an implicit semantic strategy of naming and labeling regions according to categorization 85

Kundera, M. (1984). ""A Kidnapped West or Culture Bows Out" " Granta: Greetings from Prague 11: 95-118. Ibid. 87 Rupnik, J. (1991). "Central Europe or Mitteleuropa?" Eastern Europe...Central Europe...Europe. S. R. Graubard. Boulder, Westview. 86

- 38 -

traits and selective labeling of geo-politics to assign better qualifications to ingroup. Kundera implicitly constructs a scaling of the regions and while Eastern Europe is equated with what is bad or inferior, Central Europe is good and superior. In general, the frequent creation, construction and maintenance of Central Europe term are observed in all texts. There is a cognitive purpose of using ‘centre’ as geo-politics topoi by all intellectuals. ‘Centre’ term has a powerful symbolic meaning that signifies being in core of Europe and being central material of culture. Intellectuals deliberately use the term to stress upon the cultural notions rather than economical notions of Mitteleuropa of Germany. They refute Eastern Europe and ideology associated i.e. communist tradition and stress on Western artistic and cultural traditions. Because ‘being in center’ is used as symbolically to separate from the periphery and margin or the frontier, symbolically create feeling of superiority. Topoi of geo-politics and “centre” term in Central European intellectuals’ discourses emerges as positively charged geographical notion, while East is acquired as the periphery and relatively low in comparison to ‘centre’. In this sense, active use of geo-politics to support their identity discourses shows the importance and place of the role of geo-politics to revitalize “Return to Europe” phenomena as mentioned in the theoretical framework • Topos of ignorance of West and moral responsibility in identity discourses: Both of the topoi of ignorance of West and moral responsibility are used as common blaming strategy. The arguments based on the factor of moral duty attached to Western Europe. The ignorance of West mainly stems from the Russian influence on the region and their impact on identity and blaming the West not taking action for this period. In this sense, implied conclusion; the West has moral duty since both identities are relational pairs. Also intellectuals legitimize their moral expectancies due to same identity categorization. Rhetoric question “why has West lost its ability to sacrifice?”88 is the similar logical sequence of Kundera’s discourse as a blaming strategy of relational category. Kundera also asks affirmatively “The disappearance of the cultural home of Central Europe … how could it possibly have gone unnoticed and unnamed?”89 Western Europe which for a certain period of time ‘forget’ about Central Europe and cause the region vulnerable to other identities and civilizations. It is the same Western Europe which has relational pair with Central Europe to fulfill its duty and take the moral responsibility for its non-action in the past. In addition, both intellectuals feel their role of discourses and importance of their role as it is specified in theoretical framework. • Topos of dangerous other civilizations and politics: In the arguments danger of Russia and the role of political identity are frequently recurred as a disadvantage of Central European identity. However, as a semantic tool the political side of Central Europe systematically refuted. For example, Kundera places Central Europe “politically in the East” where the naming of the East implies negative attributions and systematic de-legitimation of political identity. Following of discourse signifies culture as idea of Central Europe which he can use as a unifying factor to Europeanness: 88 89

Havel, V. (1994). "“A Call for Sacrifice: The Co-responsibility of the West" " Foreign Affairs 73(2). Kundera, M. (1984). ""A Kidnapped West or Culture Bows Out" " Granta: Greetings from Prague 11: 95-118.

- 39 -

“Central Europe cannot be defined and determined by political frontiers (which are inauthentic, always imposed by invasions, conquests, and occupations) … Central Europe is not a state; it is a culture or a fate”90

In general observed topoi in this section assisted the argumentation of Europeanness of Central Europeans, their differences from other and relational moral expectancies from the West European-self. “The people of Central Europe are not conquerors. They cannot be separated from European history; they cannot exist outside it; they represent the wrong side of this History: its victims and outsiders”91. (Emphasis added)

The paragraph is the remarkable presentation of the other identity that infers labeling of ‘other’ as conquerors. ‘We are not X’ where X is a place holder for a set of derogatory descriptions. Kundera regards ‘being conqueror’ outgroup identity activity. It also implies that ‘the conqueror outgroups’ are not only different but also present danger and being enemy to the ingroup. Central Europeans, on the other hand, are ‘the victims’ of the brutalization of dangerous other. In the ‘art of reasoning’ of Kundera Central Europeans created as the passive, vulnerable, in need of assistance from the West and victims in ‘the wrong side of history’. Although in the rhetoric, it is not definite to whom does he refer to as ‘conquerors’, it can be inferred that ‘Central Europeans cannot be separate from European history’ sentence proves the conquerors cannot be Europeans. This is deducted from the whole text that ‘the conquerors’ are either the East or Russia. In this way, he excludes and draws boundary between Russia or the East and Europe by pointing the danger of ‘other’ civilization. 4.2.2. Fallacies of CEEC Discourses: The section serves to present the argumentation strategy of fallacy in the texts. The methodology part has specified that exaggerated terms and imaginary situations that pass in the texts will be detected and analyzed. Although not many fallacies encountered in the discourses, the most apparent fallacies is mentioned in this section. The fallacy of extreme case formulation encountered in the texts aims to condemn an action or policy by means of starkly exaggerated terms92.The consequences of an action are highly exaggerated and proposals are distorted, making them easier to criticize93. In texts the most apparent fallacy of extreme case formulation examined in discursive construction of European self: “The disappearance of the cultural home of Central Europe was certainly one of the greatest events of the century for all of Western civilization.”94

90

Ibid. Ibid. 92 Van Dijk, T. A. (2000). The Reality of Racism. On Analyzing Parlimentary Debates on Immigration. Wiesbaden Germany, Westdeutcher Verlag. 93 Van Der Valk, I. (2003). "Right-Wing Parliamentary Discourse on Immigration in France." Discourse Society 14(3): 309-348. 94 Kundera, M. (1984). ""A Kidnapped West or Culture Bows Out" " Granta: Greetings from Prague 11: 95-118. 91

- 40 -

The argument of century’s greatest event exaggerates the metaphorical term of disappearance of cultural home of Central Europe which infers to moral need of action of West. It condemns a policy action that the cultural home of Central Europe needs to be sponsored by the European ingroup. Counter factual arguments are also argumentative move that based on imaginary or false situations. They are constructed to better predict expected negative consequences used to persuade people to the necessity of policy measure95. A particular counterfactual move is imaginary consequences of Europe’s not fulfilling moral duty on reconstruction of wider European identity and endangering so-called new organization: “the very unwillingness of the “non-postcommunist West”… its unwillingness to hear the warning voices coming from our part of the world. My concern is that the West come to understand that the great task of self-defense against the communist menace has been supplanted today by an even more difficult task: to assume courageously, in its own interests in its own interests, its share of the responsibility for the new organization (peace) of things in the entire northern hemisphere.(emphasis added)”96

The paragraph written by Havel in 1994 considers the warning voices in postcommunist West that are an extraordinary situation, despite the collapse of Soviet Union. It symbolically creates a danger situation to take action. Havel points that transformation leads wider obligations for Western Europe. In addition, he creates an implicit imaginary situation; if West does not fulfill the tasks, then entire northern hemisphere cannot sustain new organization or the peace. Both the warning voices and new organization or peace are selectively used in the same paragraph as binary taxonomy. The reason is the peace construction as an antonym of war situation can be sustained by European self ingroup which shows the ingroup favoritism. Consequently, he steers attention by an imaginary scenario and groundless alarm of war situation. 4.3 Metaphors of CEEC Discourses As the last dimension of the discourse analysis various uses of metaphors detected and analyzed in the texts. It is the common strategy of the texts to use the visualization of abstract terms. The analysis of the texts has shown that metaphors enhanced understanding of the texts. Identity demarcation from other Russia, geo-political and cultural characteristics signified through metaphors. Three metaphorical fields, disaster and aggression, personification and container metaphors are found in intellectuals’ texts when identity, culture and Europeanness mentioned. Metaphors used in the texts contribute to constructing, defining and understanding social reality97. The metaphors utilized in texts by comparing one domain of reality with 95

Van Der Valk, I. (2003). "Right-Wing Parliamentary Discourse on Immigration in France." Discourse Society 14(3): 309-348. 96 Havel, V. (1994). "“A Call for Sacrifice: The Co-responsibility of the West" " Foreign Affairs 73(2). 97 Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

- 41 -

another which is more familiar whereby understanding of less familiar domain is strengthened by means of common sense reasoning. One object or the concept is assigned to another object or concept by certain similarities98. In that sense, disaster and aggression metaphors visualize the enemy Russia and its actions, personification and container metaphors pictured the vitality of Central Europe. • Disaster and aggression metaphors Disaster metaphors most of the time employed to uncover Russian otherness in order to accentuate danger of Russia to European identity. Through metaphors, Russia is constructed as an alien and threatening entity to European identity. The following disaster metaphors were found in the texts: o Drama of Europe o Tragedy of Central Europe o Kidnapped, displaced and brainwashed West o Central European identity threatened with extinction o Devastating march of History (Russian impact on Central Europe) o Massacre of culture o Catastrophe, shock (the disappearance of Central European culture) All the metaphors mentioned above symbolizes harm that artificially created by dangerous other identity to culture and in the end to European identity. Disaster metaphors generally have a common point that they are all manmade or artificial metaphors rather than the natural disasters. In this sense, they symbolize the dangerous others attackers on purpose of creating the artificial situation or war situation. Besides, according to intellectual texts the war situation gives the legitimate act to defend Europeanness for both Western and Central Europeans. Also CEEC intellectuals’ expansive strategy of categorization emerges as an aim to find allies and retaliation against the attackers who caused the artificial disaster situation. • Personification metaphors The personification metaphors are particular type of the container metaphors and they are also known as the organic metaphors99. In the personification strategy, Central Europe is attributed human character and behavior. The following personification metaphors are found in identity discourse of intellectuals: o heart of Europe (Central Europe) o defenceless and naked Being ‘heart of Europe’ as an organic metaphor symbolizes the vitality and importance of Central Europe in terms of identity and culture. It infers that how a body cannot function and lead to ‘death’ situation without a ‘heart’, Europe without Central Europeans leads to the death of European culture and values. ‘Heart’ metaphor can also be seen as a derivation of the ‘centre’ term or Central Europe idea which presents the essentiality. •

Container metaphors

98

Renkema, J. (1993). Discourse Studies: An Introductory Textbook. Amsterdam, Benjamins. Tekin, B. C. (2008). "The construction of Turkey's possible EU membership in French political discourse." Discourse Society 19(6): 727-763. 99

- 42 -

Container metaphors are spatial metaphors as closed entity to which one belongs or not and this kind of metaphors used to demarcate the borders of ingroups and outgroups100. In identity discourse, container metaphors are employed to draw the mental borders of Europe and Europeanness of Central Europe. o Cultural home of Europe (Central Europe) o Central Europe family of equal nations The home and family metaphors are used to explicate sense of unity, emotion-loaded to European categorization. They are strong metaphors signifying belonging to Europe, solidarity, collectivity and integrity to ingroup. As a closed entity, it also symbolizes the impossibility of a stranger’s or other’s becoming a member of home or family. ‘Family’ and ‘home’ also symbolizes the secure and protected places from danger which stranger has no right to get in. In this sense, social construction of Europeanness as closed entity not only excludes the outsiders but also has a duty to protect integrity from danger of strangers. 4.4 Conclusion of CEEC Analysis The CEEC discourse analysis delivered construction of European identity through discursive texts and answered the minor question of how the transformation of CEEC from outsider to insider to European identity constructed in discourses. Throughout the analysis emphasis is placed upon discursive strategies that have been instrumental in construction of European identity in the region. In other words, CEEC analysis focused on the discourses that ease or enable transformation of the CEEC from less-European to European self. The discourses of CEEC intellectuals as the social bearers of the transformation are analyzed according to the three dimensions of the discourse analysis. MCA where the positive self presentation of Europeanness of Central European identity and the negative other presentation of Russia are analyzed in and through the texts. The analysis of self/other relation has shown in general that the discourses are constructed to signify the inherent European characteristics of the Central European identity that makes the relational pair to the European ingroup categorization. While the discourses acknowledge the hybrid nature of the region where cultural and civilizational sphere of identity belong to Western Europe and political nature belong to Eastern Europe or Russia particularly, they used certain semantic strategies to justify their cultural belonging and vitality of it and refute Russian ‘other’ civilization to their identity. However, analysis also found that Russia is not only created as the unfamiliar other to Europeanness but also as danger factor that does not have a room in European identity social construction. Second dimension analyzed the argumentation strategies where the topoi and fallacies are detected from the discursive texts. Topoi of discourses have shown that indirect or implied conclusions related to identity discourse are constructed. The most important of the argumentation strategy that supported discourse were topos of the moral responsibility given to the Western Europe for sponsoring the acquired characteristics and the effective use of topos of geo-politics where the naming of the geographical spaces signify the value attached to the these regions civilization. 100

Hulsse, R. (2000). Looking beneath the surface- invisible othering in the German discourse about Turkey's possible EU-accession. Ionian Conference. Corfu, Greece.

- 43 -

The last dimension analyzed the metaphors utilized in the discourses to facilitate the social construction of European identity. Analysis found out that the disaster metaphors are the most frequent ones to picture the artificial creation of danger and war situation by Russia. Apart from this metaphors mostly symbolized the vitality of Central European identity and culture to Europe idea and Europeanness.

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF TURKEY’S OTHERNESS IN FRENCH AND GERMAN ELITES DISCOURSES 4.5

MCA of Turkey’s Candidacy in European Elites’ Discourses

As it is specified in the methodology, the second part of the analysis is allocated for Turkey’s candidacy and its constitutive otherness in the discourses. In this sense, first discourse analytical dimension is MCA in which I will be detecting certain words, phrases and paragraphs that refer to study theoretical framework. The concepts and ideas, I will be analyzing in this section are European collective identity, other/self relation, boundary construction and Turkey’s outsider status in identity discourses. This section analyzes positive self presentation of European identity and its relation with negative other presentation of Turkey. Both French and German elites discourses are investigated in this framework, while negating outsider Turkey, they attributed positive traits to Europeanness notion. 4.5.1. Positive Self Presentation, Europeanness / European identity: The section presents ingroup Europeanness and positive traits attributed to European identity as membership categorization. As mentioned in third chapter, units of analysis consist of French and German political elites’ exclusive interviews, debates and speeches. The section will operationalize the methodology by detecting, analyzing and interpreting certain words, phrases and paragraphs that refer to European heritage; ‘Greek philosophy’ , ‘Roman law’, ’Judeo-Christian values’, ‘Middle Ages’, ‘Renaissance’, ‘Reformation’ ‘Enlightenment’ and similar references. For self/other relationship and boundary construction concepts that demarcate self and other, ‘we’, ‘us’, ‘our’, ‘ours’, ‘ourselves’ ‘European people’, and positive adjectives of ‘rich’, ‘tolerant’, ‘’rational’ and similar words that symbolize superiority and membership categorization. The outline of the part is formed respectively; the use of firstperson plural pronoun, inherent Europeanness distinct references as common and positive higher value in membership categorization and the role of Turkey in European identity discourses. Analysis has shown the frequent use of positive self presentation as a hegemonic discourse. In addition, it is important to note that, French and German identities are constructed in discourses as an extension of Europeanness categorization when they speak on the collective identity. However, when they speak on the Turkey’s outsider situation, the discourses construct Europeanness as a homogenous collectivity without diverse characteristics that has same common past, experiences and inherent characteristics. Put differently, the discursive construction of European identity disregards for example national differences and constitutes the master frame in context of enlargement and otherness. In this

- 44 -

sense, analysis observed that collectivity notions are more prominent and leads unification in the discourses of ‘other Turkey’ which justifies the constitutive other dimension and essential part of identification process as mentioned in the theoretical framework. In general, most of the discourses are characterized use of first-person plural pronoun as semantic strategy signifying ingroup European-self. In this sense, “We, the European people”, “us”, “our culture, identity, history, future, Europe” are the most encountered pronouns and indications of belonging to European-self group: “We, the citizens of the European Union, have united for the better. For we know, Europe is our common future. With European unification a dream of earlier generations has become a reality. Our history reminds us that we must protect this for the good of future generations. (Emphasis added)”101

Above declaration held by German Presidency in 2007 constructs Europeanness by a wide range use of first-person plural pronouns and expresses belonging to in-group. Another important point is that, the text refers the “citizens of the European Union”. Although the citizen term has legal and constitutional liability, it is used interchangeably in the meaning of ‘identity’. The reason of this assumption is due to use of words “we”, “our common future” and “our history” which signifies the solidarity and sense of belonging to collectivity. It is better to illustrate the difference between citizenship and identity. For example, although an African Muslim immigrant can have the citizenship and legal rights in France, it does not justify that her/his identity is French. French identity can be relevant to some degree, however feeling of belonging, solidarity, his/her history, values, culture and traditions that what makes his identity is different than legal citizenship status. In this sense she/he would not have togetherness feeling and neither a common “our history” mentioned in the paragraph. Hence, by denoting the emotional charge, solidarity notions, collective history and future, paragraph asserts the collective identity notions instead of citizenship. Along with selective use of pronouns, analysis has shown that substantial use and inferences made upon the similarities of ingroup. Those are respectively common cultural heritage, common history of Christian values. Although the referential historical experiences or the social actors vary in the discourses, they have in common that they are positively charged and contribute to the civilization of Europe. What constitutes European identity in discourses is that articulation of references under the title of European heritage which is mentioned in theoretical frame of the study. In addition, positive connotations and references are accentuated in the history to persuade superiority of Western civilization in comparison to other civilizations. In the analysis, common superior values, selective references of historical lexicalizations are encountered especially on European People’s Party (EPP) which has the biggest number of seats in EP and categorized as the conservative right party consists of large number of French and German elites. They have published a text called “Union of Values” emphasizing distinguishing traits of Europeanness notion.

101

BerlinDeclaration (2007). Declaration on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the signature of the Treaties of Rome. G. P. 2007. Berlin, http://europa.eu/50/docs/berlin_declaration_en.pdf

- 45 -

“Europe's people … preserved their shared cultural heritage - rooted in Hebrew prophecy, Greek philosophy and Roman law, as they have been harmonized by the Christian message and Judeo-Christian values. It has remained intact throughout each phase of cultural development: the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment. With the nation state, we have equipped ourselves with a form of political the sense of belonging together is nurtured by shared experience of the past … (Emphasis added)” 102

The statement uncovers EPP’s position on the basic values of Europeanness that constitute criteria for the inclusion of similar and exclusion of different identities. Thus, they are assessing themselves as possessing better values that are specific to ‘Europe’s people’. In this sense, selective use of historical phenomena legitimizes their position of having hierarchal relationship with other identity categorizations. Note that, mentioned features are inherent characteristics that “us” should have by birth, originally, naturally in its roots. In other words, you either posses it or not and ingroup and outgroups are mutually exclusive. Turning back to the example of African Muslim immigrant, these people do not have a place in ‘Europe’s people’ definition, even they live in Europe, since their history does not possess these stages which means ‘Europe’s people’ ingroup is exclusive to different other. In this sense, it implies the exclusive identity construction. The sequential logic of text also further emphasizes the exclusive traits attributed to Europeanness: “… common cultural values and convictions which extend far beyond a commitment to human rights and democracy. The more these values and convictions resemble each other, the greater the sense of a common identity. (Emphasis added)”103

Implied conclusion of following sentence is that even if the candidate countries reform themselves in line with acquired characteristics like human rights and democracy they are condemned to be outside to common identity due to lack of inherent traits. Sentence downgrades the Copenhagen criteria of acquired characteristics and upgrades the inherent traits. Denoting particular emphasis on inherent characteristics which implicitly locates Turkey as outsider is also powerful strategy of hegemonic exclusive European elite’ discourses: “a political union needs something like we-feeling. This we-feeling is something more than a commitment to democracy and human rights. It has to do with a centuries-old shared history: Greek antiquity, Roman Law ,… the reformation, the enlightenment, all these that give Europe its specific character. (Emphasis added)”104 (Friedbert Pflüger, CDU, 2004)

102

EPP (2001). "A Union of Values". European People's Party. Berlin, http://www.eppgroup.eu/group/en/unionofvalues-final.asp 103 Ibid. 104 Pflüger, F. (16 December 2004). ‘plenary debate on Turkey–EU relations’. Deutscher Bundestag, www.bundestag.de.

- 46 -

“No one doubts that they significantly shape our life, our society. I wonder, can we maintain the formative aspects of Christianity for dayto-day politics if the political sphere does not stand by them? (Emphasis added)”105 (Angela Merkel CDU& EPP, Chancellor of Germany, 2007)

Above discursive statements particularly constructed within the context of enlargement and Turkey’s candidacy. It implicitly infers that a country like majority of Muslim population does not possess the ingroup Judeo-Christian values and shared past, hence Turkey is other to European identity. Upgrading of positive inherent traits delegitimizes again any assertion that upgrades acquired characteristics and inclusive identity construction. Use of referential historical points like Greek antiquity, Roman Law, the reformation, the enlightenment and classifying them under “European civilization” is a common strategy to strengthen persuasiveness. It is also indication that analysis found Europeanness upgraded by selective use of positive adjectives, like tolerant, respectful, rational, liberal, developed and having high culture. It is obvious that positive connotations are not fully-meaningful, unless they are used in a particular context like further enlargement or the symbolic contrast of other. Discursive points can have better convincing power when they are used with their antonym. Analysis confirmed that mostly self-identity and ingroup favoritism occurred within the context of enlargement in the discourses by binary taxonomy to other identity: “The rash policy of giving Turkey candidate status also overlooks the fact that Europeans have had broad-based shared identity for centuries. This extends to the arts and culture, to religion, literature, music, architecture and painting, and also to the political culture that emerged from the political development of Europe since the end of the Middle Ages and through the Enlightenment. (Emphasis added)”106 (Micheal Glos, CSU, Minister of Economy, 2001)

Categorization occurs via the referential points carried by category that are particular to the members of this culture. Above paragraph delegitimizes the ingroup differences and heterogeneity and builds a so-called European collective identity which posses certain positive traits whereas other Turkey does not. Besides, the location of other to the homogenous collective identity is an important device to identify ingroup qualifications possessed by Europeanness. The role of Turkey’s otherness is then substantial in identity construction of European elites: “The question of Turkey's candidacy to the European Union is a fascinating subject because it inexorably leads us to ask ourselves about 105

Merkel, A. (2007). ‘Merkel wants EU Charter to make reference to Christianity’. Deutsche Welle News Agency, 21 January 2007. , http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2320266,00.html. 106

Glos, M. (2001). "'Is Turkey Ready for Europe?'" Transatlantic Nationale Politik 2(1): .

- 47 -

ourselves and the Europe that we want to draw. “If I had to start again, I start with the culture,” said Jean Monnet … This is not the big market which gives us our identity, our history and our cultural heritage…. In both French and Europeans, we must define who we are, who we want to stop and where our borders. (Emphasis added)” 107 (M. Jérôme Rivière, centre-right UMP, 1999)

Above sentence indicates the constitutive other nature of Turkey in comparison to self identity. The question of Turkey creates an ontological enquiry for collective European identity. In this sense, Turkey’s otherness serves as a unifying factor and homogenous structure to European identity notion. In addition, Rivière’s discourse gains its legitimation by referencing an important figure Monnet as an authority of European project. The investigation of texts has shown that using social actors is an effective tool for justification the elite’s stance and refuting the other opinions. How elites make citations to the sentences of referential social actors feeds their position and legitimize the discourse. He deliberately uses semantic strategy of justifying himself by references of past in order to prepare the grounds for the future policies like enlargement. In addition, the last sentence “in both French and Europeans” constitutes ambivalence in the discourse. It can be interpreted in several ways. It can be possible that due to speech is held, he wanted to stress upon particularly French people. Another interpretation might be that discourse assumes French identity as an extension of European identity and he uses first-plural person pronoun to denote both for French and Europeans. In this sense, rather than one collective identity, he constructs the subject as first nationality and then European collectivity. Apart from this ‘who we want to stop’ and ‘where our borders’ uncovers the mental mapping of the social construction of exclusive European identity that Rivière wants to touch upon. In this sense, he mentions European ‘hard boundaries’ suggested by Eder that separate self from other. To sum up, analysis has certain general outcomes. The positive self in the discourses are presented with semantic strategies of positive adjectives, first-person plural pronoun, historical lexicalizations, references to important figures and expansive discourse strategy. Besides, it is observed that European elite’s discourses on European identity are most frequently used with its negation of outsiders. Specifically, Turkey is a constitutive other for the discourses of exclusivist European identity. However, European-self within the enlargement context is constructed as only different from Turkey with particular emphasis and selective use of better values. In other words, other is not constructed as a danger or threatening entity to European collective identity. Furthermore, analysis has shown that while most of the elites are referencing so-called European cultural heritage they are referring diverse pivotal historical events, though one common point in all discourses is that it is all developmental stages influence Europe in a progressive way. Another ingroup bias observed is the minimization of in-group differences and disregarding for example national differences in terms of culture, history and values.

107

Rivière, M. J. (14 December 1999). Candidature de la Turquie à l’adhésion à l’Union européen. Parliamentary Debate, Assemblée Nationale, www.assemblee-nationale.fr.

- 48 -

4.5.2. Negative Other Presentation; Turkey as outsider: Negative predication of the outgroup Turkey is remarkable among French and German exclusionary European identity discourses. In this sense, this section will detect the words, phrases and paragraphs used for the otherness and negation of Turkey. The words particular for outsider status of Turkey, boundary construction are ‘they’, ‘their’, ‘them’, ‘other’, ‘different’, ‘border’, ‘frontier’ and similar words that is used in the enlargement context and identity. The negation strategies investigated in this section respectively; negation of Turkey by binary taxonomy, blaming strategies, the place of inherent differences in discourses. The opposition discourse against Turkey is mainly constructed as “danger” image and threatening factor for integrity of Europe mostly recognized as the stereotypical image of other. It is also mostly seen that Turkey’s potential membership constructed as the demolition of European ideals and political Europe. It can be said that the discourses against Turkey are to some extent constructed with xenophobic tendencies. “General de Gaulle dreamed of a Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. Are you ready to live the nightmare of a Europe from the Atlantic to the Euphrates? ... we find each day more people … to defend Europe now face this dangerous venture. … If we want Europe to be Europe only merchants … well let Turkey, then why not other countries could also, on behalf of our friendship, claim enter Europe? But if we wish a Europe built on a political project, as determined by common values, a shared history, then we must say no to this project, which would mean the death of a political Europe and social Europe, the death of Europe itself. … Finally recognize that Europe has borders and that would expand excessively, we will empty of all its cultural and historical references, … that make us rich and our identity. (Emphasis added)”108 (M. Philippe Pemezec, centre-right UMP, 1999)

The inferential conclusions of above statement refer to Turkey as threatening entity to the European culture and history. Moreover, supporters of this discourse are presented as the determined people to protect their historical roots and commonness from dangerous other. The systematic legitimation of negative traits on Turkey through the use of certain semantic tools such negative adjectives, statements; implicit conclusions and inferences are also prominent in the discourse. Above statements refer Turkey’s case as ‘dangerous venture’, ‘emptying all historical and cultural references’, ‘nightmare’ and cause of ’death’. Apart from this as group the sequential construction of discourses frequently occurs by active use of binary taxonomy; that is while discourse first starts with the positive traits of Europeanness, the opposition and negation of other Turkey follows the statements. These two categories are presented as mutually exclusive by an absolute boundary. It is also found that while the discourses minimize the intragroup differences and see Europe as homogenous entity, they maximize the intergroup differences as a semantic

108

Pemezec, M. P. Ibid.

- 49 -

strategy. In this sense, Europeanness is presented as homogenous in its contrast image of Turkey. “The process of accession negotiations started with Turkey is a major error. European leaders took in 1999, commitments that they are now unable to keep. They have, at the time, consulted person or their parliaments, or their governments, or public opinion today and discover how the Europeans do not favor this idea... Reading the press and the observation of the parliamentary debates show that the spirit is the same in Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Slovenia, Greece, Cyprus, Denmark and Ireland. (Emphasis added)”109 (Alain Lamassoure, EPP & Secretary General of UMP, 2007)

Above paragraph first delegitimizes the proponents of Turkish accession and uses effective tool of blaming strategy that ‘European leaders’ made a major error. He implies the decision makers are the wrongdoers or the offenders of this major error. The sequential logic upgrades the persuasiveness of his discourse by enumerating the country names and ‘Europeans’ that share the same idea of his discourse. In that way he also presents the ingroup division is only among the European leaders who are for Turkey and the remaining larger amount of people or public. In this sense, he effectively downgrades the legitimacy of the opponent ideas and upgrades his rhetoric by enlarging the same discourse to other countries cognitively. He implicitly leads to comparison of small group of ‘European leaders’ who cause the major error and collective public reasoning of masses regarding Turkey’s outsider topic. The cognitive grounding of the political discourse gains its justification from the powerful masses or the public opinion. It is important to note that outsider status of Turkey in discourses is constructed on its inherent rather than acquired differences. Analysis has shown the discourses predominantly classified referring to inherent differences that is not possible to change, given by birth. These inherent differences are constructed as Muslim, Asian and different kind of political and cultural civilization. “In accepting new candidates we must expect them not only to meet the criteria laid down in Copenhagen, but also to integrate easily into the European cultural context… precisely this capability is in doubt in the case of Turkey, a country which belongs to a different political and cultural sphere.” 110 (Micheal Glos, CSU, Minister of Economy, 2001 )

Above discourse of Glos uses the semantic strategy of diplomatic talk and political politeness111 of not pointing exact referential social actor in the beginning but rather chooses 109

Lamassoure, A. (27 April 2007). La relance de l'Europe, priorité de Nicolas Sarkozy. Euractiv, http://www.euractiv.fr/la-france-et-lue/interview/alain-lamassoure-relance-europe-priorite-nicolas-sarkozy 110 Glos, M. (2001). "'Is Turkey Ready for Europe?'" Transatlantic Nationale Politik 2(1): . 111 Bhatia, A. (2006). "Critical discourse analysis of political press conferences." Discourse Society 17(2): 173203.

- 50 -

to refer in general ‘new candidates’ which are Croatia, Macedonia and Turkey in the time of this study conducted. However, the sequential logic of discourse continues the debate ‘in the case of Turkey’ justifies the discourse has one direct referential country. Turkey in this sense is unable to be European ingroup due to its inherent differences that goes beyond the Copenhagen criteria of being a European state and respect the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law. Besides, the location of Turkey in membership categorization devices is predicated as different. Category-bound activities characteristic to category and also category-bound predicates, such aims, beliefs and values of Turkey constructed as different and even contradictory to European self categorization. Turkey as identity category is formed “Asian and Muslim membership categorization device” that is collection of categories that several categories tied together under the umbrella category. In other words, in terms of predicates and membership categorization device, Turkey constitutes Asian and Muslim culture, civilization. Although these devices have certain legitimacy, elites’ discourses tend to overgeneralize the rhetoric of this device and have a stereotypical stance that they classify for example immigrant European Muslims and Turkish Muslims as the same. They construct Muslim categorization device as homogenous entity and Turkey as a derivation mostly to stress upon the larger magnitude of danger and legitimize their point of being opposition to protect their integrity. To conclude, French and German discourse on the Turkish otherness is constructed as danger factor among opposition elites. Nevertheless the study did not encounter the negative adjectives that disqualify Turkey in the discourses. However, the xenophobic tendencies uncovered that Turkey is constructed as the threatening entity to European integrity. The inherent differences of history, culture, religion and geography are prominent in the exclusive discourses in comparison to downgrading of the acquired characteristics of Copenhagen criteria. 4.6 Argumentation of EU elites on Turkey and Identity Debates Argumentation of French and German elites reveals the rhetorical creativity and an ‘art of reasoning’ that convert the audience to the preferred line of action. Meaning and construction of the sentences within this particular context leads to desired conclusion that argument touches upon; wrongfulness of future enlargement policy for Turkey. French and German discourses place importance on the topoi strategies that excludes the dangerous other. The implied conclusion of the below topoi are all related with the question of European identity. Moreover they are supportive to conclude the differences and otherness of Turkey. The topoi that will be detected in this section are the differences specified in the theoretical framework of the study. As stated in methodology topoi supporting the otherness of Turkey are the culture, geography, borders, history, religion and Western values and their possible meanings for the arguments. In addition, the extreme case formulation fallacies and counter factual arguments are frequently used in the discourses to strengthen their arguments and convince people.

- 51 -

4.6.1. The Use of Topoi for Turkey’s Otherness: Both countries’ discourses on Turkey’s possible membership are characterized by the frequent use of topoi. A non-exhaustive list of topoi related to the identity and enlargement discourses are: • Topos of culture; ‘Their culture and values are different’ Implied conclusion: they cannot integrate harmoniously to superior values of European identity. They don’t posses common cultural roots; they are outsider. • Topos of geography; ‘It is not a European country’ Implied conclusion: Turkey is an Asian country and they cannot be regarded as a part of European project and European Union The role of the geography as in the case of CEEC is observed as legitimizing factor of positive self and negative other presentation. In the mental mapping of elite discourses whereas Europe is seen as centre or the core, the periphery geographical location of Turkey creates an inferiority situation. Discourses use the geopolitics as inferential conclusion that while Europe is constructed as centre of culture and civilization; geographical distancing from the centre creates its periphery, lower values and inferiority. While Europeanness is created as superior, Muslim and Asian culture renounces symbolic inferiority attached to the different culture and civilization. • Topos of borders; ‘A Europe without borders would be the death of the great idea of political Europe.’ Sharing borders does not mean share the values of a civilization. Implied conclusion: Hard boundaries are physical borders that European identity is confined to be in European continent. It is legitimate to assert Turkey’s otherness in terms of its location and borders to Middle East. • Topos of history They are historically different. (References to division of Roman Empire and invasion of Constantinople by Ottoman Empire) Implied conclusion: Historically East or Ottoman Empire was always ‘enemy’ of Europe and against European unity. • Topos of religion: It is a large Muslim country Implied conclusion: they do not posses Judeo-Christian culture and superior values of Christian history which European identity have roots. • Topos of Western values and compatibility Europe built on a political project, as determined by common values, a shared past. Implied conclusion: even if they posses acquired characteristics democracy, rule of law, respect for human rights etc. they are inherently different and cannot be part of collective identity. The topoi presented in this section are the parts of the identity debate within context of enlargement and potential Turkey’s accession. The implied conclusions are the inferential arguments which legitimize their position of excluding Turkey.

- 52 -

4.6.2. Fallacies on Debates of Turkey: In French and German discourse, analysis has shown that frequent use of the extreme case formulation fallacy among politicians against potential Turkey’s membership and opposition to further enlargement. Indeed, it is observed that it is a very common discursive strategy to enhance persuasiveness and legitimize their position in order to take policy measures or call for policy action. Hegemonic exclusive discourses on Turkey frequently use the striking proposals and exaggeration that make them easier to criticize. Below are the most striking examples of the fallacy to make opponents them more comfortable in supporting their positions: “‘No’ to a Europe [. . .], which would include, in addition to Turkey ‘the Maghreb, the Federation of Russia, tomorrow Israel and why not Senegal?” 112 (François Bayrou, head of UDF, 2002) “… once the integrated Turkey, the debate arises in the same way with Iran, Iraq or Syria, our borders are common.”113 (M. Jérôme Rivière, centre-right UMP, 1999)

All the debates above are constructed within the context of enlargement particularly Turkey case and its impact on the identity discourse. In addition, the context signified the first so-called nature or characteristics of Europeanness and exaggerated the enlargement case. While the arguments refer to the importance of physical borders and hard boundaries that needed to be drawn for Europe, it exaggerates the situation to countries that don’t have intention to apply for membership like Senegal, Iran, Iraq and Syria. The extreme case in the argument gets its persuasiveness by exaggerating the consequences of the wrong policy actions. The fallacies are mostly supplemented by counter factual arguments that are imaginary situations to backup argumentation. Below is the most striking example encountered in the analysis, which is constructed to better predict the negative consequences to persuade the audience for his position: “we have a problem of integration of Muslims that raises the issue of Islam in Europe… if you let one hundred million Turkish Muslims come in, what will come of it?”114 (Nicolas Sarkozy, centre- right UMP & President of French Republic, 2007)

112

Vernet, H. (4 December 2002). François Bayrou 'Europe Giscard joue au prof'. Le Parisien, . 113 Rivière, M. J. (14 December 1999). Candidature de la Turquie à l’adhésion à l’Union européen. Parliamentary Debate, Assemblée Nationale, www.assemblee-nationale.fr. 114 Sarkozy, N. (7 October 2006). ‘As election fever rises, Sarkozy consolidates his Turkey position’. Turkish Daily News, http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=56013.

- 53 -

During the speech of elections Sarkozy uses above statements in the context of Turkey’s accession. It must be also noted context environment is the elections period held approximately a year after Paris ghetto riots which mostly held by Muslim minority that Sarkozy refers. The imaginary situation is also effective due to time and context it is constructed after the riots of minorities. Imaginary situation is first constructed with population exaggeration stating hundred million Turkish; it is also supported by the following fallacies. He classifies immigrant Muslim minority in Europe and Turkish Muslims under the same categorization device; i.e. Muslim. In addition, he constructs a groundless alarm or a danger situation of policy outcome stating inability to integrate ‘millions’ of people. The imaginary situation is that millions of Turkish Muslims might cause the immigration flow. Besides, the more familiar object of immigrant Muslims is presented as the only source of deviation or the problem of integration without any accusation to government. Sequential logic of the statement implies ‘even small numbers of Muslims is problematic and imagine millions of them’. In this sense his position not only sees immigrants as social problem but also Turkish nation in case of membership. Another ‘art of reasoning’ phrase of the discourse is “if you let” which implicitly means politicians who are for Turkey would let to this problematic situation. As a blaming strategy he de-legitimizes other opinions as wrongdoers or offenders and increases the persuasiveness of his position. 4.7 Rhetorical Use of Metaphors in Turkey’s Discourses The metaphors used in French and German discourse to identify Turkey’s otherness are conceptually assisting the understanding of the abstract experience of enlargement and identity. They directly and indirectly carry strong emotional connotations and consequently quite powerful in emphasizing differences between us and other. The most frequently used metaphors in identity discourse and enlargement impact for Turkey are classified as container and personification metaphors. Although there are many metaphors used by discourses like train, bridge, journey, wagon and so on, the section presents the most frequently used metaphors of house, door, family and marriage as mentioned in methodology. To avoid repetition, traits of these metaphor classifications are not identified once again, but rather analysis presented below. • Container Metaphors: Container metaphors are prominent among the discourses to visualize the spatiality of inclusion and exclusion. While the discourses structure Europeanness as closed entity, they locate Turkey outside. Hence, they are quite powerful semantic tools to present their opposition to ‘other’ Turkey. The most frequently used metaphors encountered in discourses are; “house” and “door” metaphors. Now, I shall analyze the house and door metaphors: “Common house of Europe” metaphor which was first coined by Gorbachev after the collapse of Soviet Union is the most used and central metaphor that visualizes the close spatiality of Europeanness. It is also mostly expressed in Turkey’s identity debate to convince people. House metaphor symbolizes ‘us’, who belong to house or the owner, and ‘them’ who does not belong or the stranger. The emotional part that house symbolizes the need of protection from the danger of outsider. Hence, while Turkey’s enlargement case implies

- 54 -

outsider danger to get in, European house symbolizes homogenous, familiar, united entity bounded with Europeanness. Door metaphor is another most frequently used metaphor again visualizing the insider/outsider status. “The door for Turkey to Europe” is constructed to symbolize the inclusion and exclusion as a derivation of house. In this sense it is interrelated with house metaphor, door metaphor symbolizes authority and active control of EU on the door whether to decide to get in or leave Turkey out of the house. In a sense, it gives the message that the inmates of European house have control to decide whether to close or open the door for Turkey. The door metaphor also very well symbolizes the natural outsider status of Turkey ‘in the door of Europe’. • Personification Metaphors: Family and marriage metaphors as human behavior or act are the personification metaphors observed in the discourses. While they construct members of European identity as family with solidarity, unity, homogeneity and belonging notions, sequentially in hegemonic discourses Turkey’s case can be only a marriage an external joining to the family. Family metaphor is counted as the spatiality metaphors since it draws boundaries between insider and outsider. In the discourses, the concept of Europeanness notion constructed mostly as a “European family”. By picturing Europe as a concrete and more familiar object, family symbolizes the descent/origin of Europeanness as inherent meaning that one can be either a family member or not at all. In this sense, it is a rhetorical strategy of referring to inherent characteristics of Europeanness. It is also an exclusive metaphor frequently occurs in the discourses to emphasize Turkey’s not belonging. However, the status of Turkey and the nature of relationship are presented as marriage metaphor which is originally outside family but bounded with contract. The marriage metaphor usually refers to “privileged partnership” formulations suggested to Turkey instead of full-membership. Marriage metaphor is particular for Turkey’s case and it usually symbolizes Turkey’s impossibility of being a family member but rather a relationship that is privileged in comparison to other strangers. It is usually combined with family metaphor, for expressing the differences among the original members that belong by birth and the one that become a part of family by marriage. “The process of accession negotiations started with Turkey is a major error… The break is always difficult. But in such cases, experience shows that it is easier to break a flirt that engagement, breaking an engagement, a marriage, and break a marriage without children, a marriage with children. Nicolas Sarkozy announced during the campaign that upset the negotiations with Turkey if elected. (Emphasis added)”115 (Alain Lamassoure, EPP& Secretary General of UMP)

The statement that visualizes the degree of negotiations as flirt and marriage between EU and Turkey has two important implied outcomes. It symbolizes Turkey’s not belonging to 115

Lamassoure, A. (27 April 2007). La relance de l'Europe, priorité de Nicolas Sarkozy. Euractiv, http://www.euractiv.fr/la-france-et-lue/interview/alain-lamassoure-relance-europe-priorite-nicolas-sarkozy

- 55 -

Europeanness and differences between two partners have such as cultural, religious, civilizational, historical differences. It also implies the existence of social class differences of spouses where Europe belongs to superior class. The second implied outcome is that Europe has decision and control to break this flirt or marriage at any stage. So, Turkey occurs as passive and inferior party of possible relationship. This section analyzed discourse analytical construction of Turkey’s otherness with its relation to European identity. MCA, argumentation and rhetorical devices observed in discourses are presented. The next section presents the EB survey results on enlargement and sense of belonging to Europe for proving European identity is substantially constructed by constitutive other. 4.8 EB Survey Results Analysis This section presents specific EB survey results. Although the quality of EB is ambivalent as a representative of mass public opinion and also the quantitative data do not give in-depth analysis, it is still the most legitimate and wide spread survey data on EU base. The purpose of using the results is to uncover relatively weak collective identity attachments and sense of belonging in European level which proves European identity construction is mainly an elite European project held by EU. In contrast, survey results also prove the relatively high opposition to Turkey’s otherness. This presents weak attachments of togetherness in European level as collectivity and in contrast feeling of togetherness proves to be higher against the constitutive other Turkey. According to EB 2004 (Table 1), which is the last EB on identity notions (at the time of study conducted) assess the collective identity notions as Europeanness. The results reveals that while 44% of EU average identify themselves with their nationality only, 54% of them indicates the “some” European element in their identity. Particularly, for France nationality only is 57% and Germany 50% which means that half of the respondents feel themselves only French and German rather than European. This shows that half of respondents still do not have sense of belonging to Europeanness the other half see it as an extension of their national identity with ‘some’ European element in their identity. Hence, according to results full sense of belonging or attachment as “Europeanness” is relatively weak when compared with national identity. However, since the analysis is the percentages, it does not give answer certain questions. For example, it is skeptical for the study that whether the national and European level identities are contradictory to each other. The following years EB 2005 (Table 2) is the first EB survey specifically asks Turkey’s enlargement. Respondents asked for the future enlargement of Turkey are whether they are for or against, France stated 70% and Germany 74% opposition to Turkey’s case. However, the reasons of opposition might be due to several factors other than the identity and cultural differences. Hence, the results hardly refer to identity differences. But still the outcome of the percentages refers that in the eyes of the people Turkey constitutes the outsider to EU membership. This survey result gives better picture if it is supplemented by the special EB on the attitudes towards EU enlargement survey. The special EB on the attitudes towards EU enlargement in 2006 (Table 3), proven that even ‘if Turkey complies with the all Copenhagen criteria’ more than average of French (54 %) and German (69%) respondents stand opposed to Turkey’s accession. High percentage - 56 -

of opposition even the criteria are complied implies that even Western values or acquired characteristics are fulfilled by Turkey; there is still major opposition depending upon something more than the political identity of Turkey that is reformed by Western acquired characteristics. The question and the high percentage of opposition to Turkey’s integration prove that public believes the differences between two cultures stems from the inherent differences. Hence, not only the opposition discourses as a master frame refer to inherent differences by elites, but also the majority of Europeans assume Turkey as other. Whether it is the success of the master frame hegemonic discourses, or it is the impact of masses on exclusive construction of Europeanness is still ambivalent for the study. However, as it is specified before it is certain that structural bias and prejudices in both sides increase hegemony of exclusive discourses and Turkey is the ‘constitutive other’ of European identity in the current scenario. However, it must also be noted that there is a contradictory situation between the discursive debate and descriptive empirical evidence. That is, while assumed European identity constitutes master frame on Turkish membership by European elite’s discourses, public opinion survey provide limited evidence of feeling of belonging to Europe. It means that when it is asked to a German or French they hardly identify themselves with the feelings of togetherness as ingroup at European level, however when it is asked on Turkey’s accession, European collective identity constitutes a master frame and higher percentage of opposition. To conclude, it shows that ingroup Europeanness is relatively strong when it is identified with the constitutive other outgroup. European identity is constructed mainly by constitutive other in current situation rather than collective identity attachments. 4.9 Conclusion of Turkey’s Analysis The section answered the ongoing discourses on European identity construction and analyzed the outsider status of Turkey. In general, it answered ongoing discourses on European identity and its relation to constitutive other notion. In this sense, the analysis Turkey’s constitutive otherness as a hegemonic discourse among French and German elite’s presented and it is supported by unfavorable public opinion EB results on Turkey’s potential membership. Besides, the identification of Europeanness as homogenous and strong collectivity in discourses and paradox of it in public opinion as weak attachment presented. In Turkey’s case, the picture of European identity differed from CEEC. The analysis of Turkey’s accession case focused on the exclusive hegemonic discourses of European political actors’ that is relatively dominant than the inclusive discourses. The analysis used the three dimensions of discourse analysis to assess the interviews and speeches of European elites on the identity debates. MCA where the positive self presentation of Europeanness as a being member of EU and the negative other presentation of Turkey are analyzed through the discourses. The general findings of the analysis have shown the homogenous European identity construction where intragroup differences minimized within EU and intergroup differences maximized between EU and Turkey. Europeanness perceived or equated to being member in discourses and non-Europeanness of Turkey constructed both mentioning on the inherent and acquired characteristics. However, particular emphasis on the inherent differences was remarkable in discourses. Turkey is pictured in the discourses as being inherently different in terms of Asian, Muslim culture, history and civilization. The most - 57 -

important finding was the construction of Turkey and its potential membership as a danger to collectivity that causes the feeling of insecurity and need to protect European identity ingroup. Second dimension argumentation strategies are analyzed to get better insight on formation of identity debates. While topoi contributed to the exclusive debates, the frequent use of fallacies was remarkable in Turkey’s case to convince the people and enhance their arguments. Creation of imaginary situations and also the state of war were the most important ones. Fallacies also utilized to present the future scenarios of enlargement decisions and negative consequences of so-called false policy actions. Third dimension analyzed the metaphors used for Europe and outsider status of Turkey. The most prominent metaphors house/door used to visualize the integrity, solidarity, need of protection of close exclusive entity and the control power of EU in relations. In addition, family/marriage metaphors symbolized the inherent differences and impossibility to integrate Turkey as insider inherently but only ‘privileged partner’ rather than full member. In addition, investigated EB survey results revealed the paradox between the political actors hegemonic discourses and feelings of European people. While discourses claim the strong homogenous collective European identity, the personal attachments of the people uncovers low degree of togetherness in European level but as an extension or the derivation of their nationality. However, collective European identity represented the master frame on the public opinion of Turkey’s accession with higher percentage. Unlike CEEC, Turkey is presented as non-European in the discourses with inherent and acquired differences. While CEEC was constructed as the inherently European but need acquired transformation, Turkey’s potential otherness signified by inherent differences in the discourses. Indeed EB results shown that even Turkey comply with the entry criteria there are still majority of people disapproving the accession due to inherent differences.

- 58 -

Chapter V: Conclusion The major goal of the thesis is to explore the change of the discourses that shape the European identity in its relation to other identities and differences. Departing from this point, the study had a discourse analytical approach for two enlargement cases, CEEC membership and Turkey’s accession. These cases are turning mile stones of enlargement that had major impact on identity discourses in terms of their social and political identity differences. However the study also deliberately avoided comparing these two cases which gives priority to cases since the major goal is to explore the change of discourses on European identity. The analysis is operationalized to answer the central concern of thesis; “how is change of discourses of European/ non-European relationship on European identity debate?” This chapter concludes the findings of the analysis part to answer the central question, topics for further research and lastly the implementation outcomes of exclusive approach to the European cultural policy and CFSP. What is the importance of change of discourses found in analysis of CEEC intellectuals as outsider to the European identity construction? First, it has facilitated the enlargement policy and Eastern expansion of EU. Before where European identity was associated mostly with the West its culture and civilization, the discourses enabled the integration of the Eastern and the Western part of Europe. Although it is not the aim of study to assert that solely the identity construction provided the enlargement and reapproachment of both parties, but it is a social fact that it had certain impact on the transformation. In addition, it is hard to claim for study that bipolarization of the European continent as Western and Soviet Bloc was solely the mental construction of the soft boundaries; on the contrary it was hard boundaries that divide the two worlds, ideology, and worldview, social and political life. However, the transformation and the integration after the collapse of Soviet Union are created through first the soft boundaries. The role of the narrative discourses of both intellectuals and political actors cannot be denied in this social process. In addition, the discourses not only changed vision of CEEC but also changed how EU envisions itself in the whole European continent and the world. The moral duty that EU has taken in its shoulders for the transformation of the region and the peace keeping role is attached to the EU and its institutions. Moreover, it would not be wrong to claim that the moral responsibility and feeling of guilty also leaded or ease the internal change that transform EC which is solely economical to EU which has the social and political sphere in 1993. Put differently, the definition of duties and obligations and the structure of EU are influenced by contextual change which is the end of Cold War and assistance to Central European countries. What study claims is in that social process the identity discourses of intellectuals as the ‘cultural politicians’ had been persuasive and powerful for the transformation of Central Europe. What are the significance research findings for Turkey in the change of discourses and shape of European identity notion? Discourse analysis and analysis of EB survey results have found that ‘constitutive other’ nature of Turkey shapes and influences European collective identity notion externally. The contemporary discourses on Turkey’s enlargement constitute a unifying impact on the collectivity on European level. On the other hand, the discourses - 59 -

uncovered the contemporary approach to European identity is exclusive, reductionist and also constructed in narrow self-identification. However, study does not wish to present the exclusive approach as a pathological way or project with negative implications. The main message of the study is the understanding that social construction and ongoing discourses of European identity that is predominant today more exclusion than inclusion, which has an impact on the enlargement decisions and European self vs. non-European other relations. In particular, this perception of European identity in inclusion/exclusion nexus or self/other relation or thin/thick identity notions of the contemporary discourses and public opinion on Turkey is far from favorable for Turkey’s membership, due to differences between two identities as an influential factor among many other factors. However, EU/Turkey relations are still an ongoing social process. It is the inference of the study as well any future scenario that make possible Turkey’s membership depends on both sides in terms of social and political identity. Put differently, while Turkey might need to improve the acquired characteristics, at the same time EU might need to evolve its European identity construction from exclusive and narrow self-identification to the inclusive identity formation. Even though study has taken to investigate identity on inclusion/exclusion nexus, it deliberately avoids making generalizations of concluding findings to all CEEC; neither do the exclusive stance of political leaders. The repercussions on identity and enlargement discourses are complicated and differ for each EU members and for candidates. However, it is a social reality that identity discourses are interrelated with the enlargement policies in the debates of media, press, political actors and public in the candidate countries to different extents and magnitudes. Although the study acknowledges the multiple factors affect the Turkey’s current situation, it also claims that identity concerns have a special influence in EU/Turkey relations. Besides, study does not deny the certain percentage of the inclusivist approaches to Turkey’s potential integration issue; however the study also relies on the fact that inclusivist approaches are relatively weak in comparison to exclusionist stance. Above mentioned limitations and particular scope of the study encourages the possibility of further development of the theory. A further research on the content analysis of policy documents on identity and enlargement of EU can be possible. In addition, particularly it might be investigated on Turkey’s current situation on different selected countries’ media, newspapers, news discourses etc and the framings of European identity on the question of Turkey’s accession. Apart from this, the study might provide a base for the analysis of Bulgarian and Romanian discursive construction of European identity and enlargement. In particular, the implications of the study findings to European policy and governance might be several. Contemporary European identity construction contributes to EU cultural policy internally to EU members and candidates. It encourages the mobility of knowledge like educational EC programs and projects of Erasmus, Socrates to foster European identity issue through cultural and educational exchange. It also aims to contribute to increase European consciousness and Europe’s diversity. Nevertheless the exclusionist stance on European diversity and identity issue is observed in the cultural policy. For example, while it encourages the idea of multilinguism of the union, the multilinguism derives only from the member states official languages. One consequence of this decision is stated by Barbour (1996) that while there are more speakers of Turkish than Danish in EU, Danish is an official

- 60 -

language while Turkish is not116. This presents the direct implementation outcome of the exclusivist European identity and culture construction. It also shows construction of European identity as an extension of national identity rather than the collectivity in European level. In this sense, any policy stemming from the exclusivist understanding accentuates the difference between Europeans and others who live inside European borders and even some which has the citizenship of EU countries. Another implication might be observed in the CFSP and migration policy which is an essential part of acquis communitaire. While membership contributes to the free movement of European citizens and facilitates the creation of multinational networks, on the other side of the coin exclusivist understanding and fear of others derives xenophobic tendencies which accept “what is different is dangerous” triggers feeling of insecurity. It is reflected on policy implementation as tightening of physical border checks and controls, custom restrictions and various types of entrance applications where the free Schengen zone has the borders with ‘others’ or neighboring countries. The security concerns are legitimate to some extent since Schengen border countries receive higher illegal and transitory migrants especially in new Schengen countries in CEEC117. However the use of xenophobia as popular political stance for the restrictive controls is a tool for elections. This fear of danger in the end contributes to the lifting the pressures on the border security for the sake of homeland security. Since xenophobia is regarded as the pathological form of power implementation, there is a need to balance both homeland and border security policies118. These discourses legitimize to act upon protection of the Europe and Europeans from dangerous others and lead to strict regulations on the hard borders. Above examples are some reflections of inclusion/exclusion nexus of identity and culture and creation of hard/soft boundaries on European policy and governance. This study might be a base for the analysis of these policies for research development.

116

Field, H. (1996). (cited in) EU cultural policy and the Creation of a Common European Identity. Stephen Barbour "Language and National Identity in Europe; theoretical and practical problems" in Charlotte Hoffman (ed.)Language Culture and Communication in Contemporary Europe,. Clevedon Multilingual Matters Ltd. : pp.28-45. 117 Wallace, C. (2002). "Opening and closing borders: migration and mobility in East-Central Europe." Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 28(4): 603 - 625. 118 Grabbe, H. (2000). "The Sharp Edges of Europe: Extending Schengen Eastwards." International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) 76(3): 519-536.

- 61 -

References (1997). Treaty Of Amsterdam Amending The Treaty On European Union. The Treaties Establishing The European Communities And Certain Related Acts, , . Bentham, J. (1962). Handbook of Political Fallacies. New York, Harper Torchbooks. BerlinDeclaration (2007). Declaration on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the signature of the Treaties of Rome. G. P. 2007. Berlin, http://europa.eu/50/docs/berlin_declaration_en.pdf Bhatia, A. (2006). "Critical discourse analysis of political press conferences." Discourse Society 17(2): 173-203. Blokker, P. (2008). "Europe `United in Diversity': From a Central European Identity to PostNationality?" European Journal of Social Theory 11(2): 257-274. Delanty, G. (2002). Inventing Europe: Idea,Idenitity, Reality. London, Palgrave Macmillan. Eder, K. (2006). "Europe's Borders: The Narrative Construction of the Boundaries of Europe." European Journal of Social Theory 9(2): 255-271. EPP (2001). "A Union of Values". European People's Party. Berlin, http://www.eppgroup.eu/group/en/unionofvalues-final.asp Field, H. (1996). (cited in) EU cultural policy and the Creation of a Common European Identity. Stephen Barbour "Language and National Identity in Europe; theoretical and practical problems" in Charlotte Hoffman (ed.)Language Culture and Communication in Contemporary Europe,. Clevedon Multilingual Matters Ltd. : pp.28-45. Glos, M. (2001). "'Is Turkey Ready for Europe?'" Transatlantic Nationale Politik 2(1): . Grabbe, H. (2000). "The Sharp Edges of Europe: Extending Schengen Eastwards." International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) 76(3): 519-536. Hagen, J. (2003). "Redrawing the imagined map of Europe: the rise and fall of the "center"." Political Geography 22(5): 489-517. Hall, S. (1992). The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power. Formations of Modernity. S. H. a. B. and Gieben. Oxford. Havel, V. (1994). "“A Call for Sacrifice: The Co-responsibility of the West" " Foreign Affairs 73(2). Housley, W. and R. Fitzgerald (2009). "Membership categorization, culture and norms in action." Discourse Society 20(3): 345-362. Hulsse, R. (2000). Looking beneath the surface- invisible othering in the German discourse about Turkey's possible EU-accession. Ionian Conference. Corfu, Greece. Keyder, C. (2006). "Moving in from the Margins? Turkey in Europe." Diogenes 53(2): 72-81. Kohli, M. (2000). "THE BATTLEGROUNDS OF EUROPEAN IDENTITY." European Societies 2(2): 113-137. Konrád, G. (1991). Antipolitics: An Essay (1984). From Stalinism to Pluralism: A Documentary History of Eastern Europe since 1945. G. Stokes. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 267. Kundera, M. (1984). ""A Kidnapped West or Culture Bows Out" " Granta: Greetings from Prague 11: 95-118. Kuus, M. (2007). "Intellectuals and geopolitics: The [`]cultural politicians' of Central Europe." Geoforum 38(2): 241-251. Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

- 62 -

Lamassoure, A. (27 April 2007). La relance de l'Europe, priorité de Nicolas Sarkozy. Euractiv, http://www.euractiv.fr/la-france-et-lue/interview/alain-lamassoure-relance-europepriorite-nicolas-sarkozy Madeker, E. (2006). Turkey - a part of Europe? The construction of European Identity in the German Enlargement Debate. Third Pan-European Conference on EU Politics. Bilgi University Istanbul. Merkel, A. (2007). ‘Merkel wants EU Charter to make reference to Christianity’. Deutsche Welle News Agency, 21 January 2007. , http://www.dwworld.de/dw/article/0,2144,2320266,00.html. Nelson, N. F. (1951). "Identification as the Basis for a Theory of Motivation." American Sociological Review 16(1): 14-21. Oktar, L. (2001). "The Ideological Organization of Representational Processes in the Presentation of us and them." Discourse Society 12(3): 313-346. Onis, Z. (2004). "Diverse but Converging Paths to European Union Membership: Poland and Turkey in Comparative Perspective." East European Politics and Societies 18(3): 481512. Ossewaarde, M. (2007). "The Dialectic between Romanticism and Classicism in Europe." European Journal of Social Theory 10(4): 523-542. Paasi, A. (2001). "Europe as a Social Process and Discourse: Considerations of Place, Boundaries and Identity." European Urban and Regional Studies 8(1): 7-28. Pemezec, M. P. (14 December 1999). Candidature de la Turquie à l’adhésion à l’Union européen. Parliamentary Debate, Assemblée Nationale, www.assemblee-nationale.fr. Pflüger, F. (16 December 2004). ‘plenary debate on Turkey–EU relations’. Deutscher Bundestag, www.bundestag.de. Phillips, N. and C. Hardy (2002). Discourse Analysis: Investigating Social Processes of Social Construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Plantin, C. (2002). "Argumentation studies and discourse analysis: the French situation and global perspectives." Discourse Studies 4(3): 343-368. Renkema, J. (1993). Discourse Studies: An Introductory Textbook. Amsterdam, Benjamins. Rivière, M. J. (14 December 1999). Candidature de la Turquie à l’adhésion à l’Union européen. Parliamentary Debate, Assemblée Nationale, www.assemblee-nationale.fr. Robertson, A. "Narrative Analysis and Identity Research." Rubington, E. and M. S. Weinberg, Eds. (2003). The Study of Social Problems:Seven Perspectives. Social Constructionism. Newyork, Oxford University Press. Rumelili, B. (2004). "Constructing identity and relating to difference: understanding the EU's mode of differentiation." Review of International Studies 30(01): 27-47. Rupnik, J. (1991). "Central Europe or Mitteleuropa?" Eastern Europe...Central Europe...Europe. S. R. Graubard. Boulder, Westview. Sarkozy, N. (7 October 2006). ‘As election fever rises, Sarkozy consolidates his Turkey position’. Turkish Daily News, http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=56013. Smith, A. (2001). Nationalism. Cambridge, Polity Press. Snow, D. (2001). Collective Identity and Expressive Forms. Center for the Study of Democracy, Irvine. 01: 4. Strath, B. (2002). "A European Identity: To the Historical Limits of a Concept." European Journal of Social Theory 5(4): 387-401. Tekin, A. (2005). "Future of Turkey-EU relations: a civilisational discourse." Futures 37(4): 287-302. Tekin, B. C. (2008). "The construction of Turkey's possible EU membership in French political discourse." Discourse Society 19(6): 727-763.

- 63 -

Van Der Valk, I. (2003). "Right-Wing Parliamentary Discourse on Immigration in France." Discourse Society 14(3): 309-348. Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology. London, Sage. Van Dijk, T. A. (2000). The Reality of Racism. On Analyzing Parlimentary Debates on Immigration. Wiesbaden Germany, Westdeutcher Verlag. van Teeffelen, T. (1994). "Racism and Metaphor: The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict in Popular Literature." Discourse Society 5(3): 381-405. Vernet, H. (4 December 2002). François Bayrou 'Europe Giscard joue au prof'. Le Parisien, . Verney, S. and K. Ifantis, Eds. (2009). Turkey's Road to European Union Membership: National Identity and Political Change. London Routledge. Vidmar-Horvat, K. and G. Delanty (2008). "Mitteleuropa and the European Heritage." European Journal of Social Theory 11(2): 203-218. Wallace, C. (2002). "Opening and closing borders: migration and mobility in East-Central Europe." Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 28(4): 603 - 625. Wetherell, M., S. Taylor, et al. (2001). Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis. Bath, Sage Publications, Bath Press. Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis.Sage University Papers Series on Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks ,CA, Sage.

Investigated Areas Websites: www.euractiv.com European Union Information Website www.u-m-p.org official website of centre-right French political party, Union for a Popular Movement (Union pour un Mouvement Populaire, UMP) www.assemblee-nationale.fr official website of French National Assembly www.bundestag.de official website of German National Parliament www.epp.eu official website of Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats in the European Parliament Policy Documents: Treaty on European Union, Treaty of Maastricht, Official Journal of the European Union, C 191, 29 July 1992; Available from: http://eurlex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/11992M/htm/11992M.html Treaty of Amsterdam, Official Journal of the European Union, C 340, 10 November 1997; Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/11997D/htm/11997D.html

- 64 -

Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, Official Journal of the European Union, C 310/V. 47, 16 December 2004; Available from: http://eurlex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2004:310:SOM:EN:HTML Ankara Agreement, Official Journal of the European Communities, No L 361/1, 12 September 1963; Available from: www.cfcu.gov.tr/files/Ankara_Anlasmasi.doc Parliamentary Debates: Assemblée Nationale (1999) Candidature de la Turquie à l’adhésion à l’Union européen (Parliamentary debate, 14 December 1999). Available from: www.assemblee-nationale.fr Assemblée Nationale (2002) Débat sur l’avenir de l’Europe (Parliamentary debate, 3 December 2002). Available from: www.assemblee-nationale.fr Assemblée Nationale (2003) Elargissement de l’Union Européenne (Parliamentary debate, 25 November 2003). Available from: www.assemblee-nationale.fr Assemblée Nationale (2004) Adhésion de la Turquie a l’Union Européenne (Parliamentary debate, 7 April 2004) Available from: www.assemblee-nationale.fr Deutscher Bundestag (2004) 148. Sitzung (Plenarprotokoll 15/148, 16 December 2004) Available from: www.bundestag.de CEEC Materials: Havel, V. (1985) The Power of the Powerless. Citizens against the State in Central-Eastern Europe, ed. John Keane, Armonk, N.Y. Havel, V. (1994). “A Call for Sacrifice: The Co-responsibility of the West" Foreign Affairs V.73, 2. Kundera, M. (1984) ‘A Kidnapped West or Culture Bows Out’, Granta V.11, pp. 93–122 Kundera, M. (1984) ‘The Central European Tragedy’, The New York Review of Books, V.26 April: 33–8 Konrad, G. (1984) Antipolitics. New York: Holt Rupnik, J. (1990). “Central Europe or Mitteleuropa,” Daedalus. Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences V.119 pp. 23-54, 249-278.

- 65 -

Appendix T able 1: Standard Eurobarometer Spring 2004 61 (Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/standard_en.htm )

Question 38: In the near future do you see yourself as….? Answers: Nationality only/First European then Nationality/ First Nationality then European/European Only/ I don’t know

- 66 -

Table 2: Standard Eurobarometer Spring 2005 63/4 (Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/standard_en.htm )

Question: For each of the following countries, would you be in favor or against it becoming part of the European Union in the future? Turkey Answers: In favor / Against / I don’t know

- 67 -

Table 3: Special Eurobarometer 2006 255/65.2 on “Attitudes Towards European Union Enlargement” (Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb_special_260_240_en.htm )

Question: Once Turkey complies with all the conditions set by the European Union, would you be strongly in favor, fairly in favor, fairly opposed or strongly opposed to the accession of Turkey to the European Union? Answers: Strongly in favor / Fairly in favor / Fairly opposed / Strongly opposed - 68 -