Theorizing European Integration

Dimitris N. Chryssochoou

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2008
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• eBook ISBN:
  9781134073740
• Subtopic: European Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Fully revised and updated throughout, Theorizing European Integration 2nd edition provides a comprehensive introduction to the theoretical study of European integration. Combining perspectives from international relations, comparative politics and social and political theory, Dimitris N. Chryssochoou offers a complete overview of the many competing approaches that have sought to capture and explain the evolving political nature of the European Union (EU) and its qualitative transition from a union of states to a polity in its own right.

Contemporary issues, themes and theories addressed include:

• the different uses and current state of EU theorizing
• statecentric accounts of integration and their critics
• new normative challenges to the study of the EU
• the political dynamics of European treaty reform
• new forms of democracy, citizenship and governance
• the limits and possibilities of EU constitutionalism
• interdisciplinary understandings of EU polityhood
• the introduction of a theory of organized synarchy
• the transformations of state sovereignty in late modern Europe.

1 The state of a discipline

Theory matters

Theory and good social science are mutually reinforcing. For theory generates pluralism, pluralism produces choice, choice creates alternatives, alternatives formulate debate, debate encourages communication, communication increases awareness, awareness minimizes dogmatism and, in this way, there is a propensity to develop a deeper understanding of the phenomenon under scrutiny. This is a book about the theory of European integration, rather than the praxis (and assorted praxeology) of it. Reflecting on a recent paradigm shift in EU studies – ‘from policy to polity’ (see Chapter 4) and also ‘from process to product’ (see Chapter 8) – the book investigates the political ontology of the regional collectivity at different evolutionary stages, rather than the day-to-day running of its working arrangements or the results of collective regulation. In this study, as in any other essentially theoretical project on European integration, engagement in concept-building and in developing normative claims about the current state of play or about the process that might lead to an end condition are taken as promising departures. The wider methodological claim put forward is that good social science is theoretically informed. It thus follows that attempts at new theory creation, theory development and metatheory or ‘second-order theorizing’ (see Chapter 7) should be welcomed.

But perhaps the strongest case to be made for theory in general and against the raw positivism of self-styled ‘social scientists’ that confine the art of theorizing to a narrow set of verifiable (or falsifiable) hypotheses is that the role of theory is to reveal ways of improving the conditions of human governance. The latter can be defined as the art of organizing the production of knowledge about the constitution of social activity. By ‘theorizing’ is meant the systematic study of the conditions, structure and evolution of that constitution, by explicating, interpreting, understanding and, where possible, predicting individual, small- or large-scale social activity. Although some theories tend to direct their conceptual and analytical tools on one or more or even all of the above categories, what they all share in common is a firm commitment to the search for reliable answers. But theories entail different notions of knowledge as well as cognitive resources for developing working conceptions. Accordingly, they employ different approaches to knowledge acquisition, application, evaluation and critique. In short, theories as distinct knowledge domains allow room for a variety of methodologies and lines of social inquiry to be pursued, the biases and particularistic concerns of the researcher notwithstanding.

According to Mjøset, there exist four different understandings of theory in the social sciences: law-oriented, idealizing, constructivist and critical. The first, law-oriented, by avoiding the search for truly universal laws – as in experimental natural science, where ‘theory is compact knowledge’ – but without rejecting social scientific claims to generalization, focuses on ‘regularities that apply only within specific contexts’: in this light, theory takes the form of ‘a collection of “lawlike regularities” or “quasilaws”’. The second, idealizing, accepts that social science ‘laws’ are ‘ideal types’, focuses ‘on the conditions which establish the ideal situation’: theory, in this sense, is capable of yielding predictions in an idealized (or model) world and, to that end, ‘perfect knowledge must be assumed’. The third, constructivist, questions ‘any foundation for the social sciences’, implying that ‘no alternative ethical foundations can be found’: ‘Social science theory is not in principle different from everyday knowledge … [thus] social processes define (construct) certain realms of knowledge as science’ – with theory itself taking the form not of axiomatic models, ‘but of contextual understanding of interacting motives’. The fourth, critical, rests on an ‘internal linkage between theoretical and ethical reflection’, with social science being defined ‘by its commitment to universal ethical principles’: this notion of theory focuses ‘more on ethical foundations and less on concrete paradigms involved in the explanatory efforts of applied social sciences’.¹ In sum, the first notion focuses on ‘theory testing, the second on modelling, the third on theory formation and the fourth on ethical reflection’.²

In discussing the epistemological under pinnings of social science research, one has to take into account Laski’s assertion that ‘Political Science has not the axiomatic quality of mathematics. In its equations the variables are human beings whose uniqueness prevents their reduction to law in the scientific sense of that much abused word’.³ To borrow from Lieber, ‘we are all forced to acknowledge that water freezes at 32º Fahrenheit’;⁴ yet, how can we accept, least of all axiomatically, that a given social phenomenon or the essence of a given political process can only be subjected to a single pattern of systematic inquiry, resulting in an impersonal form of knowledge driven by the explanatory power of formal rationality? As problems of recognition, classification and definition are still to be solved in the social sciences, theory is not defined by its ability to ‘prove’, but rather by its ability to ‘illustrate’. Moreover, ‘crass positivism’ in the social sciences is also untenable, for the meanings and understandings of the concepts themselves are affected by the cultural context of both the researcher and the subject being studied.⁵

Given the difficulties in relying on a tightly controlled experimental design to study social phenomena and to establish relations among variables that are consistent and generalized across time and space (through the generation and testing of hypotheses), explanation through the employment of vigorous causal mechanisms – i.e., the mechanistic approach – is but one element of the feasible end of social inquiry. More importantly perhaps, it remains highly doubtful whether too much ‘social science’ inspired by rationalist explanations can help to uncover the alleged coherence that underlies the apparent chaos of contemporary life through the operations of deductive logic (as the apparatus of social scientific theory) and modelling (as an expression of empirical observation). As Tilly writes, three styles of explanation generally compete in those portions of social science that seek explanations of social phenomena:

The first expects social life to exhibit empirical regularities that at their highest level take the form of laws … The second accounts for particular features of social life by specifying their connections with putative larger entities: societies, cultures, mentalities, capitalist systems, and the like … The third regards social units as self-directing, whether driven by emotions, motives, interests, rational choices, genes, or something else.⁶

Each style corresponds to a different account of explanation. In the first style, ‘explanation consists of subsuming particular cases under broadly validated empirical generalizations or even universal roles’; in the second, it ‘consists of locating elements within systems’; in the third, it ‘consists of reconstructing the state of the social unit … and plausibly relating its actions to that state’.⁷ Tilly adds a fourth style, whereby ‘explanation consists of identifying in particular social phenomena reliable causal mechanisms [events that alter relations among some sets of elements] and processes of general scope [combinations and sequences of causal mechanisms]’.⁸ The emphasis here is on the nature and range of social mechanisms; explanation being assigned the task of ‘locating robust cognitive, relational, and environmental mechanisms within observed episodes’.⁹

But a useful if more ambitious theoretical enterprise has to incorporate a sense of understanding as a valued claim in unfolding the puzzling features of complex social processes, organizations, episodes or system-steering events, and even to allow for ‘an intuitive organization of perception’.¹⁰ This strategy should be able to identify parallels or suggestive analogies among comparable case studies (even if these have come under the scrutiny of adjacent disciplines); to focus on schemes of understanding the evolutionary nature of political processes as constitutive of wider social phenomena; to trace the broader intellectual environment within which concepts are used to facilitate the production of explanatory patterns – i.e., the genealogical method; and to make advances in the realm of social inquiry itself, by being prepared to take risks – as well as to respond to criticisms from methodologically competing domains – in the making and framing of hypotheses that state the general conditions of the social phenomenon under scrutiny.

All the above suggests that integration scholarship should not exhaust its efforts in finding ways of applying the logic of ‘strict’ science to the study of such an essentially political and profoundly dynamic phenomenon as the European Union (EU). This is not a negation of disciplined social inquiry, nor is it an attack on empirically grounded social research. It is only to make the point that ‘the value of theory is not determined by any rigid criteria’,¹¹ and that narrow training, rationalist rule application and the employment of an overtly ‘scientific’ procedure based on the illusion of ethical neutrality are not the most appropriate methodological blueprints for studying the EU. All the more so if one takes into account the patterns of human behaviour, institutional interaction and societal mobilization integration has produced in such diverse fields as norm-setting, value allocation, demos formation, polity-building, etc. Thus, theorizing integration is not only about explaining the causality of multiple interactions, but also about the meaning and nature of its social and political constitution, and the inevitable normative questions to which its study gives rise. From this angle, one could argue that the highest educational purpose integration theory can serve is to understand the conditions of human association within the larger polity, the forces that shape the range and depth of its evolution, as well as the possibilities of improving the quality of the debate on such self-inquiring questions as ‘where we are now, from where we have come and to where we might go’.¹²

Nebulous settings

Half a century of uninterrupted theorizing about Europe has produced a situation where one would except that little remains to be said. This is not intended to offer an apology for theoretical inaction or a justification for designing a methodological blueprint inspired by atheoretical observations. Likewise, it should not be seen as an attempt to escape the intellectual challenge to develop an insightful understanding of the multiplicity of forces (and causes) that constantly form and reform the regional system. It is only to state that the study of such a polycemous and elusive ‘polity’ seems to have reached a high plateau in the early twenty-first century. Similarly, this is not to imply that theorists should start looking for new examples of comparable integrative potential. Rather, the new challenges facing the study of European integration do not take place in a theoretical vacuum: they are an extension of previous theorizing, necessitating the striking of a balance between explanation and understanding; or between ‘first-’ and ‘second-order theorizing’. Yet, EU scholarship is still in search of a reliable theory as the basis for the future of Europe and thus of a convincing response to the challenges of its polity development.

Legitimately though, one may wonder whether Puchala’s cynical prophesy that integration theory will amount to ‘a rather long but not very prominent footnote in the intellectual history of twentieth century social science’ will prove as accurate as the author would have us believe.¹³ A first response is that theory matters, whether its conceptual findings and qualifications are to be evenly appreciated by scholars and practitioners alike (the latter being in principle much less interested in theoretical purity than operational reality). For familiarity with theory helps to test our analytical tools and appreciate their relevance in real-life situations. As Taylor puts it: ‘Each theory … leads to unique insights which are valid starting points for the purpose of comparison and evaluation.’¹⁴ Or, in the words of Keohane and Hoffmann: ‘Attempts to avoid theory … not only miss interesting questions but rely on a framework for analysis that remains unexamined precisely because it is implicit.’¹⁵ ‘Therefore’, Church asserts, ‘awareness of theory is a necessary ground-clearing measure’.¹⁶ True, a great deal still remains to be accomplished in the field. But as long as theory-building activities remain at the top of the academic agenda, there are good grounds for thinking that important possibilities are deemed to be explored. Rosamond explains: ‘Theorizing intellectualizes perceptions. It is not that theory just helps us to identify that which is significant.’¹⁷ As Groom asserts: ‘Theory is an intellectual mapping exercise which tells us where we are now, from where we have come and to where we might go.’¹⁸ But more than that, theory is a means of linking ‘the order of ideas’ (as conceptual entities) to ‘the order of events’ (as actual occurrences),¹⁹ without being created merely in response to the latter. Church explains:

Theories have a life of their own related not just to what happens outside but to general intellectual changes, and, especially, to who supports them and why. Political commitment and self interest like academic investment all play a part in keeping theories going in altered circumstances. Hence theories keep re-appearing and debate between them is continuous.²⁰

What might constitute such ‘possibilities’? How are they to be explored? What is the appropriate methodological line to that end? To start with, substantive progress in the field requires the transcendence of purely narrative or descriptive approaches about the form and functions – structure and dynamics – of the regional system, and the settlement of fundamental ontological issues within a discipline that has become subject to diverse interpretation. This requires ‘structured ways of understanding changing patterns of interaction’,²¹ free from the inherently fragmented boundaries of micro-analysis, as well as a macroscopic projection of integration based on systematic conceptual explanation. Church writes: ‘We need to be aware of the conceptions we use since they determine our perception of things.’²² The locus classicus for this contention is found in Allison’s influential Essence of Decision: ‘different conceptual lenses lead analysts to different judgements about what is relevant and important’.²³ After all, Hamlyn reminds us, ‘one cannot get at reality except from within some system of concepts’.²⁴ Groom concurs:

Our conceptualization does … give a context to the activities of practitioners and provides them with an opportunity of learning from the experience of others … And different projections show us different worlds so that we may find what we are looking for in the sense that we impose meaning on ‘facts’ rather than speaking for themselves. There is a sense in which one can be pragmatic, but behind every ‘pragmatic’ approach lies a theory of conceptualization – no matter how inchoate. All social activity requires choice and that choice cannot be exercised without some criteria for judgement – in short, a theory, a conception, a framework.²⁵

This methodological pathway offers...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Abbreviations
• 1 The state of a discipline
• 2 On formative theorizing
• 3 The confederal phase
• 4 Discourses on polityhood
• 5 The consociational analogy
• 6 Theorizing treaty reform
• 7 The normative turn
• 8 Organized synarchy
• Postscript
• Notes
• Bibliography