Refine
Document Type
- Article (4)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Report (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (6)
Keywords
- 2030 (1)
- Citizenship (1)
- Cross-cutting topics (1)
- EU citizenship (1)
- Postemocracy or integrated citizenship (1)
- Urbanism (1)
- communication (1)
- interdisciplinary (1)
- legal (1)
- model (1)
- populist activism (1)
- privacy (1)
- social (1)
- solidarity (1)
- technical (1)
This is a brief in the bEUcitizen policy brief series. The bEUcitizen project - funded by the European Union - set out to identify, investigate, discuss, and ameliorate the barriers to the active use of rights (and knowledge of duties, the concomitant to rights, in so far as there are any) by European citizens. The project aimed to provide a comparative overview and classification of the various barriers to the exercise of the rights and obligations of European Union citizens in the member states. Simultaneously, the project analysed whether and how such barriers can be overcome and the future opportunities and challenges the European Union and its member states face to further develop the idea and reality of European Union citizenship.
Drawing on research conducted during the project, this policy brief discusses the problems preventing European Union citizens from becoming active political citizens. European citizenship as active political citizenship has been underdeveloped from the start and is currently under strong pressure. Over time, European Union citizens seem to have lost enthusiasm for the European political process: Voter turnout in European Parliament elections decreased from 61,99% in 1979 to 42,61% in 2014. Attempts to transform elections for the European Parliament into a meaningful decision about the policies and the personnel of European institutions have been ineffective so far in two ways: On the one hand, they did not raise more interest in European affairs; on the other hand, and even more problematically, the "Spitzenkandidaten"-experiment was overshadowed by the power struggle between national leaders and the European Parliament.
Although similar tendencies towards decreasing voter turnout can be observed in national elections, the trend of fading popular support is particularly alarming at the European Union level. It threatens to undermine the legitimacy and functionality of the European Union, thus jeopardizing the entire integration process. Institutions without support cannot last. The European Union provokes a rather negative political reaction among its citizens and populist activism is challenging its policies and the integration process more broadly. The Brexit decision expresses this problem in an ideal-typical form: Europe-friendly citizens do not use their right to vote while anti-European activism brings citizens to the ballot box. Concerned with this passivity as well as with the activism mobilised by anti-European populism, Europe-friendly observers and actors see a major opportunity for the European Union to strengthen the European Parliament as the core institution of a European representative democracy.
Das Private ist politisch! – 68 war der Slogan eine auf Ganze gerichtete Perspektive der Kritik und ein Impuls für die Revolutionierung des Alltagslebens: Es ging bei den Diskussionen und Analysen um die "Weltherrschaft des Kapitals" und den Zusammenhang von Faschismus und Kapitalismus immer zugleich um die Manifestationen von Herrschaft und Unterdrückung in den Kapillaren des Alltäg lichen. In den Blick gerieten dabei nicht zuletzt die Autoritätsstrukturen der bürgerlichen Familie und damit die (im Sinne marxistischer Gesellschaftsanalyse) sogenannte "Nebenwidersprüche" des Privaten: das Verhältnis der Geschlechter, Fragen von Liebe und Sexualität, Kindererziehung, Eigentumsfragen und Besitzdenken. Der Slogan wurde darüber hinaus zum Leitspruch der Frauenbewegung, die vor Augen führt, wie politisch das Private gerade in Fragen von Nachwuchs und Alltagsorganisation ist. ...
Let me start with a reminiscence: a few weeks ago, I was sitting in one of my preferred cafés in Paris, le Café Odéon- Théâtre de l’Europe, a vivid place near the Jardin de Luxembourg in the heart of the university quarter. I realised that the waiter was wearing a shirt with the letters "Defend Paris", which he explained to be a statement against the forces that make Paris an uneasy place to live, a defiance against the powerful and social injustice. With a mixture of rebellion and idealism, he added that he understands himself as part of a "Reclaim Your City" Movement, thus representing what is central for urban citizenship today: a republican defence against forces that make a metropolitan city a trademark to be sold to people who can afford it, but increasingly less a home for ordinary people who want to live in the city. Walking through the streets, passing a small jewelry shop, a place of distinguished understatement showing a picture of Meghan Markle wearing "rose"-earrings displayed in the window, the term "zombie urbanism" came to my mind – a term used by Jonny Aspen, professor at the Institute of Urbanism and Landscape in Oslo (See Bjerkeset and Aspen (forthcoming 2020) and here), to describe a cliché-like way of dealing with urban environment by developers and designers – a "staged urbanism", in which urban features are used as a means for selling, marketing and branding. This kind of city-marketing can prove quite successful: whereas the burning of Notre Dame mobilised hundreds of millions of donations within a short period of time, the burning of the National Museum in Rio de Janeiro soon after, extinguishing 200 years of documentation of cultural memory, mobilised only 225.000 Euros (state 1.4.2019). ...
This article discusses freedom of movement under the lens of shifting boundaries of membership and traces the tension between the political and the economic rationale of European integration. It first reflects on the normativity of free movement and links it to the foundations of modern democratic citizenship. Subsequently, it discusses the role of free movement in the construction of EU citizenship and argues that the genesis in market integration casts a long shadow which hinders EU citizenship's potential to fully display the logic of political and social equality. Under current conditions of huge wealth discrepancies between member states, the prevailing form of horizontal integration necessarily brings about a tension between mobility and solidarity, which in turn creates a barrier for further developing EU citizenship. It is concluded that strengthening an intra‐European dimension of solidarity is needed in order to substantiate the right to move as an equal European citizenship right.
D2.1. provides further elaboration of the original research design and informs about ideas for the final Volume II of bEUcitizen. It is closely connected to task 1 of work package 2: specifying various concrete tasks for the different work packages and formulating overarching questions suitable to provide substantive cohesion and integration of the overall project. The elaboration of 10 crosscutting topics (to become chapters in the “horizontal” book, D2.3.) is a first step towards this goal. Discussing these cross-cutting topics is supposed to feed, infuse and inspire the work done in the different work packages and to build cross-cutting connections between them. Themes 1-10 merge into a valuable overview of the multi-faceted research on (EU) citizenship. They access the main issues of EU-citizenship and citizenship in general from different angles and different disciplines. Taken together these contributions help to identify barriers towards EU citizenship and ways to overcome them. Each Theme formulates questions how it might feed and be fed by further information and findings in the other work packages.
D2.1. is mainly meant for internal use. Its functions are firstly to inform about preliminary ideas, eventual contributions to planned final results and secondly to make out some more of less specific guiding questions that connect the work done by the single researchers in every different work package to the project as a whole. This task implies a normative yardstick, a clear picture of what would be a "good" EU citizenship practice. Elaborating on such a normative yardstick is a meta-topic that cuts across the range of cross-cutting topics presented in this working paper.
In the recent decades, privacy scholarship has made significant progress. Most of it was achieved in monodisciplinary works. However, privacy has a deeply interdisciplinary nature. Most importantly, societies as well as individuals experience privacy as being influenced by legal, technical, and social norms and structures. In this article, we hence attempt to connect insights of different academic disciplines into a joint model, an Interdisciplinary Privacy and Communication Model. The model differentiates four different elements: communication context, protection needs, threat and risk analysis, as well as protection enforcement. On the one hand, with this model, we aim to describe how privacy unfolds. On the other hand, the model also prescribes how privacy can be furnished and regulated. As such, the model contributes to a general understanding of privacy as a theoretical guide and offers a practical basis to address new challenges of the digital age.