For two days, researchers from the fields of political science, sociology, and anthropology presented and discussed their theoretical, methodological, and teaching approaches to the topic of legitimacy in the context of the European Union (EU). While most researchers were present at Viadrina University in Frankfurt an der Oder, others held their presentations and followed the workshop online via Zoom. Due to this format, a range of international researchers could be hosted despite the ongoing pandemic. The workshop was hosted by the Viadrina Institute for European Studies (IFES). It was supported by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation.

Legitimacy is a phenomenon commonly discussed and researched in sociology and political science, and it is widely considered key to understanding political regimes and the various ways political systems and actors stipulate public support for their policies and actions. However, it is also a subject often addressed from a perspective based on the nation-state model, rendering these kinds of approaches insufficient to apply to the case of the European Union. The cross-disciplinary approach of the workshop aimed at rethinking common legitimacy models and concepts. The anthropological viewpoint, in particular, can contribute new perspectives to the study of legitimacy through a focus on, among other things, identity, emotions, and the micro-level. This was specified by renowned JAN KUBIK (New Brunswick/London) in his keynote, which will be summarized further below.

In his introductory remarks, PAWEŁ LEWICKI (Frankfurt an der Oder) pointed out that the workshop’s central question was how to analyse the discontinuity of meanings produced by the EU institutions and the EU public. Reflecting on the differing approaches of anthropology and political science as well as the characteristics of the main inter-disciplinary approaches within the two fields - Political Anthropology by Kubik and Aronoff and Anthropology of Policy by Shore and Wright – Lewicki argued that inter-disciplinary research on legitimacy still lacks an understanding concerning the EU due to the latter’s complexity evoked, for example, by the diversity of political processes, their levels as well as languages and national cultures.

The first session, devoted to contributions from political science, was opened by CHRISTIANE BARNICKEL (Berlin). She presented her approach to overcoming the often-criticized divide between normative and empirical conceptions of legitimacy in political science research. With her framework, she analysed how normative perspectives are part of empirical research on legitimacy, despite the upheld dichotomy. Barnickel argued that the normative dimension needs to be made more explicit in empirical research about EU legitimacy.

Instead of analysing legitimacy as a more or less stable condition, AMELIE KUTTER (Frankfurt an der Oder) presented her process-oriented approach of studying the act of legitimation. She argued that the usual notions of legitimacy being associated with the modern nation-state would lead to deficit analyses when applied to the EU. Therefore, she proposed a relational-discursive perspective, combining the inter-disciplinary Critical Discourse Analysis with Bourdieu’s theory of symbolic power and the political field, to analyse how national actors construct political authority and political association while legitimising the EU during the discourse around the EU constitution 2004/2005.

Going back to the more “classical” concepts and theories of legitimacy, ANDREA ZELLER (Koblenz-Landau) presented her approach to measuring democratic legitimacy in multi-level governance (MLG). Her framework builds on theoretical reflections about the requirements of democratic legitimacy in MLG, such as that low-level and high-level interventions from an international organisation would require smaller or greater democratic legitimacy. According to Zeller, the measurements could be the basis for further research. For example, an analysis could focus on which dimension of democratic legitimacy is targeted by actors criticizing a particular form of MLG.

The second session, focusing more on anthropological approaches, began with BERND KASPAREK’s (Berlin) research surrounding the EU agency FRONTEX. He focused on explaining how the agency was legitimized historically to understand the puzzle of the current politicization and accusation that delegitimise the agency. He combined a genealogical approach to analysing the rationalisation of governance with ethnographic observations of the agency’s current practices in the field, concluding that the original legitimized purpose of the agency is no longer in line with its enlarged competences.

Another puzzle surrounding a threat to the legitimacy of the EU was addressed by TOM WIDGER (Durham). Using a historical approach and theoretical reflections on the naturalist ontology (referring to Descola and Strathern), he explained how the glyphosate controversy became a threat to EU legitimacy. According to him, poison becomes a test of EU legitimacy because it transgresses bureaucratic borders, political bodies, and biological bodies.

The following session focusing on EU institutions started with MASCHA GUGGANIG’s (Ottawa) research on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Based on participant observation, expert interviews as well as analyses of policy papers, Gugganig retraced how EU actors try to legitimize policy imaginaries of sustainable agriculture. She found that actors try to combine convergent practices, mainly organic farming, and digitization, as a result of considering multiple concepts from different stakeholders in light of decreasing legitimacy of the EU. This EU level discourse, however, could be shown to differ widely from the expectations of farmers – the object of CAP.

Subsequently, DIDIER GEORGAKAKIS (Paris) presented his historical and political sociologist approach to explaining the paradoxical situation where, in the case of the EU, charismatic legitimacy is desired and suppressed at the same time. Mainly based on Bourdieu’s theory of the bureaucratic field and his own research, he showed that EU leaders struggle with closing the gap between the EU’s bureaucratic design, where the only charisma desired would be the one of office, and its increasing politicization, rendering more charismatic political figures necessary to gain legitimacy.

CHRISTOPHER JAMES LORD’s (Oslo) keynote opened the second day of the workshop. He presented his approach to rethinking the indirect legitimation of the EU by its member state democracies. Moving away from the common argument of consent, he introduced the notion of obligation. Drawing on the economic concept of externalities, he argued that democratic states need a specific form of union to manage negative externalities between them. Only this way would it become possible for democracies to deliver their material as well as immaterial obligations to the public. Lord thereby argued that democracies may only remain democratic due to an institution like the EU.

For the fourth session, TATIANA BAJUK SENČAR (Ljubliana) discussed the method of multi-sited ethnography as a possibility to map and explore interconnections between legitimation processes at the different EU levels. Therefore, she presented her current research on an EU cross-border program at the Slovenian-Hungarian border. She noted that EU legitimacy differs among actors because they interpret it against the backdrop of their own relationship with the nation state they live in.

Since teaching students is also part of the researchers’ tasks, CLASKE VOS (Amsterdam) and JAMAL SHAHIN (Amsterdam) presented their research and experience on teaching the EU and EU legitimacy. They noted, for instance, while students seemed to show a deeper understanding of the views of EU actors after attending their courses, that this did not necessarily lead to greater legitimacy of the EU among them.

The final keynote of the workshop came from JAN KUBIK (New Brunswick/London), who aimed at shedding light on the current challenge to EU legitimacy coming from right-wing populist actors. Based on Weber’s four types of social action, he introduced the concept of neo-traditionalism as a mix of traditional and value-rationalities. Neo-traditionalists are value-rational actors reinvigorating traditions and peddling myths to reinforce their beliefs. This way, neo-traditionalists, meaning right-wing populists, are challenging instrumental-rationalists, meaning liberals and the EU. On this ground, he presented his comparison between right-wing populist legitimacy and democratic legitimacy along five axes (for example, “Nature of relationship between the elite and the people” or “constitution of authority (power)”). Kubik concluded that the principles of right-wing populist legitimacy are pushed because there is a demand for it, especially in the more traditionalist regions of Europe, as they present an escape from reason and instrumental-rationalist principles.

During the concluding remarks, most workshop participants agreed that new perspectives were achieved and that the discussions about the cross-disciplinary approaches to studying EU legitimacy should be continued. Legitimacy was found to constitute a perfect example of how concepts are differently defined and applied by anthropology and political science. The latter would analyse it based on genealogy and as inscribed in institutions, the former would ask how it is practiced, what it means, and how it is multiplied. A discussion also spurred around a differentiation between interdisciplinary methods and interdisciplinary conceptualizations and the question of how to make different sets of data speak to each other. Some researchers considered to work on a joint publication or to host an event on the topic at the next Council for European Studies.

Conference overview:

Session 1: Legitimation, discourses, and policy fields

Chair: Alexandra Schwell (Klagenfurt)

Christiane Barnickel (Berlin): Understandings of EU legitimacy: Bridging the normative vs empirical divide

Amelie Kutter (Frankfurt an der Oder): Legitimation in postnational settings: a discursive political sociology perspective

Andrea Zeller (Koblenz-Landau): Measuring democratic legitimacy in multilevel-governance

Session 2: Anthropology of EU policies

Chair: Estela Schindel (Frankfurt an der Oder)

Bernd Kasparek (Berlin): The legitimacy of European Agencies. The case of Frontex

Tom Widger (Durham): Pesticide regulation, consensus failures, and challenges to EU legitimacy: The glyphosate controversy

Session 3: Approaches to EU institutions

Chair: Jürgen Neyer (Frankfurt an der Oder)

Mascha Gugganig (Ottawa): From organic farming, to agroecology, to digitization: uniting divergent approaches in EU policy imaginaries of sustainable agriculture

Didier Georgakakis (Paris): The ruse of charismatic authority and the paradox of the EU legitimation

Keynote and Discussion: Christopher James Lord (Oslo): From consent to obligation. Rethinking the indirect legitimation of the EU by member state democracies

Chair: Guido Tiemann (Klagenfurt)

Session 4: Encounters with Eurocrats

Chair: Paweł Lewicki (Frankfurt an der Oder)

Tatiana Bajuk Senčar (Ljubljana): Locating processes of legitimation

Claske Vos/Jamal Shahin (Amsterdam): Building bridges to the Brussels Bubble: Student encounters with the complexities of the EU

Keynote and Discussion: Jan Kubik (New Brunswick / London): Remarks on the populist legitimation of power: mythologization run amok

Chair: Timm Beichelt (Frankfurt an der Oder)

Concluding remarks: Paweł Lewicki (Frankfurt an der Oder) / Alexandra Schwell (Klagenfurt)

Final discussion and further plans